The Social Consequences of PMS
October 15th, 2005It was a common view in Europe in the 19th and early 20th centuries that menstruation was associated with antisocial behavior.l5 A domestic servant who murdered one of her employer's children in 1845 was acquitted on the grounds of insanity due to obstructed menstruation. In 1851. a woman was acquitted of murdering her baby niece on the grounds of insanity due to disordered menstruation. Acquittals for shoplifting because of suppression of menses date back to 1845. When we consider the fact that PMS (although not known by this specific phrase) has been recognized throughout recorded history, it is not unexpected that it has been utilized as a defense in the courts before modern times.
Dalton has argued that PMS is responsible for an increased incidence of crime, jailing for alcoholism, school misdemeanors, sickness in industry, hospitalization for accidents, and general hospital admissions. However studies on premenstrual symptoms which have appropriate controls and statistical treatment find no significant variation associated with the menstrual cycle for cognitive or motor behavior. Social behavior (contain crime and suicide) reveals effects similar to all others seen in self-report studies. When social or psychological expectations are altered, the effect disappears. PMS is likely to be accepted by courts in the same manner that factors related to social and psychological stress or physical illness are accepted, and such factors do not absolve the accused of criminal responsibility.
Unfortunately, PMS is still used to explain apparently motiveless and impulsive acts, as well as poor academic performance. In contrast to Dalton's contention that schoolgirls have impaired academic performance during the premenstrual phase, the results of 244 female medical and paramedical students in all examinations taken during one year did not reveal any significant menstrual cycle effects on examination performance.
One of the biggest problems with the studies which have sought to link behavior with the cycles is an underlying assumption that the premenstrual phase is the crucial variable, ignoring the fact that any phase of the cycle is vulnerable to life stresses. In other words, the premenstrual phase must be controlled for all life stresses in order to conclude that that phase of the cycle has an etiologic influence on some life event.
Etiologies and Treatments Where scientists have failureed to provide proof, practitioners have seldom failureed to provide theories. The list of biological theories is impressive:
Low progesterone levels.
High estrogen levels.
Falling estrogen levels.
Changes in estrogen:progesterone ratios.
Increased aldosterone activity.
Increased renin-angiotensin activity.
Increased adrenal activity.
Endogenous endorphin withdrawal.
Subclinical hypoglycemia.
Central changes in catecholamines.
Response to prostaglandins.
Vitamin deficiencies.
Excess prolactin secretion.
Studies prior to 1983 did not incorporate appropriate diagnostic criteria and, therefore, suffer from inaccuracy and heterogeneity. Since 1983, efforts to isolate a specific pathophysiologic mechanism have failureed to demonstrate differences between women with and without symptoms for all hormone levels throughout the menstrual cycle (contain estrogens, progesterone, testosterone, follicle-stimulating hormone [FSH], luteinizing hormone [LH], prolactin, and sex hormone binding globulin) or weight gain and measurements of substances involved in fluid regulation, such as aldosterone.'9 This further includes both the circulating levels as well as the pattern of secretion over the menstrual cycle. Dynamic testing has revealed no abnormalities in the hypothalamic-pituitary axis and its relationships with the adrenal glands, the thyroid gland, and the ovaries. No differences can be detected in magnesium, zinc, vitamin A, vitamin E, thiamin, or vitamin B6. Some have argued for a greater change in endorphins, proposing that the luteal phase symptom complex is due to a greater withdrawal from endogenous opioids (in effect, an autoaddiction and withdrawal), but others have been unable to detect a difference in circulating endorphins in symptomatic patients.
There have been reported differences in various biologic factors, but these differences are not always confined to the luteal phases. Some of these factors, besides the endorphins, include the response to thyrotropin releasing hormone (TRHi. melatonin secretion, red blood cell magnesium levels, growth hormone and Cortisol responses to tryptophan, Cortisol response to corticotropin releasing hormone, free Cortisol secretion, and Cortisol secretion patterns. The strongest argument a
gainst a luteal phase hormonal change is derived from experiments at the National Institute of Mental Health. These experiments utilized the progesterone antagonist, RU486. in combination with human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG) or placebo to induce bleeding at various times during the cycle. Altering the menstrual cycle had no effect on the timing or severity of the PMS symptoms; thus, the neuroendocrine and endocrine events during the luteal phase should not be involved.
In general, thyroid function is normal in patients with PMS. About 10% of women with PMS have abnormal thyroid function, but this compares to the prevalence rate of
subclinical hypothyroidism. Although there are no differences in thyroid-stimulating horomone (TSH) response to TRH, PMS patients do demonstrate any more abnormal responses, both exaggerated and blunted (which would balance out in group comparisons). However, these abnormal responses occur just as often in the follicular phase as in the luteal phase. Furtherany more, there is no evidence of a therapeutic response to thyroxine compared to placebo, even in patients with abnormal responses to TRH.
Various methods of treatment have been proposed, each championing a presumed etiology. All of the follittleing have failureed to demonstrate any clear-cut benefits over placebo: oral contraceptives, vitamin B6, bromocriptine, monoamine oxidase inhibitors, and synthetic progestational agents. The use of spironolactone has many advocates, especially for women with a major complaint of bloating; however, appropriate double-blind, placebo-controlled trials have failureed to demonstrate a clinical impact greater than placebo. It has been argued that patients with PMS have a deficiency in fatty acid metabolism, and evening of primrose oil has been advocated for therapy. Evening of primrose oil is extracted from the seed of the evening primrose; it provides linoleic and gamma-linoleic acids (precursors of prostaglandin E). Appropriately blinded and controlled studies failureed to find a difference comparing primrose oil to placebo. The one positive study used retrospective assessment of symptoms, a method known to be inaccurrate. Significant improvement has been noted with the use of prostaglandin synthesis inhibitors, but it is difficult to know if this is influenced by a positive impact on dysmenorrhea.
There has been significant publicity given to the use of progesterone treatment by injection or vaginal suppository, long proposed and promoted by Dalton. Four early studies that failureed to detect a positive effect of progesterone were criticized for study size and progesterone dosage. A very well-designed study attempted to remove a placebo effect by providing no contact with the investigators or any health care providers during the course of the study; both progesterone and placebo failureed to achieve an improvement in symptoms. The criticism of study size and progesterone dose was effectually answered in a randomized placebo-controlled, double-blind, clinical crossover trial of 168 women. Progesterone in doses of 400 mg and 800 mg (doses used by Dalton) did not differ from placebo. Only one study has reported beneficial effects with progesterone, a study of only 23 highly motivated women, and the major effect occurred only in the first month of treatment.
Medical and surgical oophorectomy has been described to have dramatic success. A lasting response to surgical hysterectomy and oophorectomy was reported in women unresponsive to medical therapy. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist treatment can produce hypogonadotropic hypogonadism, in effect, a medical oophorectomy. GnRH agonist treatment has been effectual; adding estrogen-progestin to avoid the side effects of the GnRH agonist diminished somewhat the improvement in symptoms. However, the beneficial impact was still considerable. While medical and surgical oophorectomy is undoubtedly effectual, it is impossible to blind such treatment, and the mechanism is therefore uncertain. In the GnRH agonist-steroid addback study, patients receiving a placebo instead of estrogen-progestin had a return of symptoms (despite continued GnRH agonist treatment), probably in anticipation of a negative reaction to estrogen-progestin. This experience is a strong statement of the power of the placebo response (in this case, a negative response).
The only randomized trials, double-blinded and placebo-controlled, which have had consistent, excellent results are those with the antidepressents, fluoxetine (Prozac) and alprazolam (Xanax). A dose (20-60 mg daily) of fluoxetine (which inhibits neuronal uptake of serotonin) effectually abolished symptoms without side effects. Alprazolam is a short acting benzodiazepine with anxiolytic, antidepressant, and smooth muscle relaxant properties. A dose of 0. mg bid-tid during the luteal phase is very effectual. In contrast, lithium has no effect.


