Literature DB >> 18319414

Health risks and benefits 3 years after stopping randomized treatment with estrogen and progestin.

Gerardo Heiss1, Robert Wallace, Garnet L Anderson, Aaron Aragaki, Shirley A A Beresford, Robert Brzyski, Rowan T Chlebowski, Margery Gass, Andrea LaCroix, JoAnn E Manson, Ross L Prentice, Jacques Rossouw, Marcia L Stefanick.   

Abstract

CONTEXT: The Women's Health Initiative (WHI) trial of estrogen plus progestin vs placebo was stopped early, after a mean 5.6 years of follow-up, because the overall health risks of hormone therapy exceeded its benefits.
OBJECTIVE: To report health outcomes at 3 years (mean 2.4 years of follow-up) after the intervention was stopped. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The intervention phase was a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial of conjugated equine estrogens (CEE) 0.625 mg daily plus medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) 2.5 mg daily, in 16,608 women aged 50 through 79 years, recruited by 40 centers from 1993 to 1998. The postintervention phase commenced July 8, 2002, and included 15 730 women. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Semi-annual monitoring and outcomes ascertainment continued per trial protocol. The primary end points were coronary heart disease and invasive breast cancer. A global index summarizing the balance of risks and benefits included the 2 primary end points plus stroke, pulmonary embolism, endometrial cancer, colorectal cancer, hip fracture, and death due to other causes.
RESULTS: The risk of cardiovascular events after the intervention was comparable by initial randomized assignments, 1.97% (annualized rate) in the CEE plus MPA (343 events) and 1.91% in the placebo group (323 events). A greater risk of malignancies occurred in the CEE plus MPA than in the placebo group (1.56% [n = 281] vs 1.26% [n = 218]; hazard ratio [HR], 1.24; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-1.48). More breast cancers were diagnosed in women who had been randomly assigned to receive CEE plus MPA vs placebo (0.42% [n = 79] vs 0.33% [n = 60]; HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.91-1.78) with a modest trend toward a lower HR during the follow-up after the intervention. All-cause mortality was somewhat higher in the CEE plus MPA than in the placebo group (1.20% [n = 233] vs 1.06% [n = 196]; HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.95-1.39). The global index of risks and benefits was unchanged from randomization through March 31, 2005 (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.03-1.21), indicating that the risks of CEE plus MPA exceed the benefits for chronic disease prevention.
CONCLUSIONS: The increased cardiovascular risks in the women assigned to CEE plus MPA during the intervention period were not observed after the intervention. A greater risk of fatal and nonfatal malignancies occurred after the intervention in the CEE plus MPA group and the global risk index was 12% higher in women randomly assigned to receive CEE plus MPA compared with placebo. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00000611.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18319414     DOI: 10.1001/jama.299.9.1036

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA        ISSN: 0098-7484            Impact factor:   56.272


  102 in total

1.  Breast cancer: Risk and mortality after oestrogen-alone therapy--is it safe?

Authors:  Leslie Bernstein
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2012-04-10       Impact factor: 66.675

2.  Evaluation of benefit-risk.

Authors:  Silvio Garattini
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 4.981

3.  Menopausal hormone therapy for cardiovascular protection--unfulfilled expectations.

Authors:  Nanette K Wenger
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Transl Res       Date:  2009-06-10       Impact factor: 4.132

4.  Estrogens regulate the expression of NHERF1 in normal colon during the reproductive cycle of Wistar rats.

Authors:  F Darío Cuello-Carrión; Mariana Troncoso; Elina Guiñazu; Susana R Valdez; Mariel A Fanelli; Daniel R Ciocca; Erica L Kreimann
Journal:  Histochem Cell Biol       Date:  2010-11-16       Impact factor: 4.304

5.  Menopausal hormone therapy and risks of colorectal adenomas and cancers in the French E3N prospective cohort: true associations or bias?

Authors:  Sophie Morois; Agnès Fournier; Françoise Clavel-Chapelon; Sylvie Mesrine; Marie-Christine Boutron-Ruault
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2012-05-29       Impact factor: 8.082

Review 6.  The Effect of Menopausal Hormone Therapies on Breast Cancer: Avoiding the Risk.

Authors:  Valerie A Flores; Hugh S Taylor
Journal:  Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am       Date:  2015-06-23       Impact factor: 4.741

Review 7.  Growth hormone and insulin-like growth factor-I in the transition from normal mammary development to preneoplastic mammary lesions.

Authors:  David L Kleinberg; Teresa L Wood; Priscilla A Furth; Adrian V Lee
Journal:  Endocr Rev       Date:  2008-12-15       Impact factor: 19.871

Review 8.  Women and lung cancer: what is new?

Authors:  Crystal M North; David C Christiani
Journal:  Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2013

9.  Sex hormone levels and risk of breast cancer with estrogen plus progestin.

Authors:  Ghada N Farhat; Neeta Parimi; Rowan T Chlebowski; Joann E Manson; Garnet Anderson; Alison J Huang; Eric Vittinghoff; Jennifer S Lee; Andrea Z Lacroix; Jane A Cauley; Rebecca Jackson; Deborah Grady; Dorothy S Lane; Lawrence Phillips; Michael S Simon; Steven R Cummings
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2013-09-16       Impact factor: 13.506

10.  Use of oral contraceptives and postmenopausal hormone replacement: evidence on risk of stroke.

Authors:  Patricia H Davis
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Neurol       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 3.598

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.