Nicholas L Smith1, Marc Blondon2, Kerri L Wiggins3, Laura B Harrington4, Astrid van Hylckama Vlieg5, James S Floyd3, Melody Hwang4, Joshua C Bis3, Barbara McKnight6, Kenneth M Rice6, Thomas Lumley7, Frits R Rosendaal8, Susan R Heckbert9, Bruce M Psaty10. 1. Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington, Seattle2Group Health Research Institute, Group Health Cooperative, Seattle, Washington3Seattle Epidemiologic Research and Information Center, Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Research and Devel. 2. Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington, Seattle4Department of Medicine, University Hospitals of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland. 3. Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle. 4. Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington, Seattle. 5. Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands. 6. Department of Biostatistics, University of Washington, Seattle. 7. Department of Biostatistics, University of Washington, Seattle8Department of Statistics, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand. 8. Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands9Department of Thrombosis and Hemostasis, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands. 9. Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington, Seattle2Group Health Research Institute, Group Health Cooperative, Seattle, Washington. 10. Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington, Seattle2Group Health Research Institute, Group Health Cooperative, Seattle, Washington5Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle10Department of Health Services, University of Washington.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Little is known about the comparative cardiovascular safety of oral hormone therapy products, which impedes women from making informed safety decisions about hormone therapy to treat menopausal symptoms. OBJECTIVE: To compare the relative clinical cardiovascular safety of 2 commonly used oral estrogen drugs-conjugated equine estrogens (CEEs) and estradiol. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Population-based, case-control study from January 1, 2003, to December 31, 2009, comparing cardiovascular event risk associated with current CEEs and estradiol use in a large health maintenance organization in which the preferred formulary estrogen changed from CEEs to estradiol during the course of data collection. Participants were 384 postmenopausal women aged 30 to 79 years using oral hormone therapy. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Incident venous thrombosis was the primary clinical outcome, and incident myocardial infarction and ischemic stroke were secondary outcomes. As validation, an intermediate clotting phenotype, the endogenous thrombin potential-based normalized activated protein C sensitivity ratio, was measured in plasma of controls. RESULTS: We studied 68 venous thrombosis, 67 myocardial infarction, and 48 ischemic stroke cases, with 201 matched controls; all participants were current users of oral CEEs or estradiol. In adjusted analyses, current oral CEEs use compared with current oral estradiol use was associated with an increased venous thrombosis risk (odds ratio, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.02-4.27; P = .045) and an increased myocardial infarction risk that did not reach statistical significance (odds ratio, 1.87; 95% CI, 0.91-3.84; P = .09) and was not associated with ischemic stroke risk (odds ratio, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.55-2.31; P = .74). Among 140 controls, CEEs users compared with estradiol users had higher endogenous thrombin potential-based normalized activated protein C sensitivity ratios (P < .001), indicating a stronger clotting propensity. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In an observational study of oral hormone therapy users, CEEs use was associated with a higher risk of incident venous thrombosis and possibly myocardial infarction than estradiol use. This risk differential was supported by biologic data. These findings need replication and suggest that various oral estrogen drugs may be associated with different levels of cardiovascular risk.
IMPORTANCE: Little is known about the comparative cardiovascular safety of oral hormone therapy products, which impedes women from making informed safety decisions about hormone therapy to treat menopausal symptoms. OBJECTIVE: To compare the relative clinical cardiovascular safety of 2 commonly used oral estrogen drugs-conjugated equine estrogens (CEEs) and estradiol. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Population-based, case-control study from January 1, 2003, to December 31, 2009, comparing cardiovascular event risk associated with current CEEs and estradiol use in a large health maintenance organization in which the preferred formulary estrogen changed from CEEs to estradiol during the course of data collection. Participants were 384 postmenopausal women aged 30 to 79 years using oral hormone therapy. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Incident venous thrombosis was the primary clinical outcome, and incident myocardial infarction and ischemic stroke were secondary outcomes. As validation, an intermediate clotting phenotype, the endogenous thrombin potential-based normalized activated protein C sensitivity ratio, was measured in plasma of controls. RESULTS: We studied 68 venous thrombosis, 67 myocardial infarction, and 48 ischemic stroke cases, with 201 matched controls; all participants were current users of oral CEEs or estradiol. In adjusted analyses, current oral CEEs use compared with current oral estradiol use was associated with an increased venous thrombosis risk (odds ratio, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.02-4.27; P = .045) and an increased myocardial infarction risk that did not reach statistical significance (odds ratio, 1.87; 95% CI, 0.91-3.84; P = .09) and was not associated with ischemic stroke risk (odds ratio, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.55-2.31; P = .74). Among 140 controls, CEEs users compared with estradiol users had higher endogenous thrombin potential-based normalized activated protein C sensitivity ratios (P < .001), indicating a stronger clotting propensity. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In an observational study of oral hormone therapy users, CEEs use was associated with a higher risk of incident venous thrombosis and possibly myocardial infarction than estradiol use. This risk differential was supported by biologic data. These findings need replication and suggest that various oral estrogen drugs may be associated with different levels of cardiovascular risk.
Authors: J Rosing; S Middeldorp; J Curvers; M Christella; L G Thomassen; G A Nicolaes; J C Meijers; B N Bouma; H R Büller; M H Prins; G Tans Journal: Lancet Date: 1999-12-11 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Rozenn N Lemaitre; Susan R Heckbert; Bruce M Psaty; Nicholas L Smith; Robert C Kaplan; W T Longstreth Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2002-09-23
Authors: Guido Tans; Astrid van Hylckama Vlieg; M Christella L G D Thomassen; Joyce Curvers; Rogier M Bertina; Jan Rosing; Frits R Rosendaal Journal: Br J Haematol Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 6.998
Authors: Jacques E Rossouw; Garnet L Anderson; Ross L Prentice; Andrea Z LaCroix; Charles Kooperberg; Marcia L Stefanick; Rebecca D Jackson; Shirley A A Beresford; Barbara V Howard; Karen C Johnson; Jane Morley Kotchen; Judith Ockene Journal: JAMA Date: 2002-07-17 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: R E J Roach; W M Lijfering; F M Helmerhorst; S C Cannegieter; F R Rosendaal; A van Hylckama Vlieg Journal: J Thromb Haemost Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 5.824
Authors: S Sweetland; V Beral; A Balkwill; B Liu; V S Benson; M Canonico; J Green; G K Reeves Journal: J Thromb Haemost Date: 2012-11 Impact factor: 5.824
Authors: Laura B Harrington; Noel S Weiss; Kerri L Wiggins; Susan R Heckbert; Barbara McKnight; Marc Blondon; Nancy F Woods; Andrea Z LaCroix; Bruce M Psaty; Nicholas L Smith Journal: Menopause Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: L B Harrington; B T Marck; K L Wiggins; B McKnight; S R Heckbert; N F Woods; A Z LaCroix; M Blondon; B M Psaty; F R Rosendaal; A M Matsumoto; N L Smith Journal: J Thromb Haemost Date: 2017-01-08 Impact factor: 5.824
Authors: M Blondon; A van Hylckama Vlieg; K L Wiggins; L B Harrington; B McKnight; K M Rice; F R Rosendaal; S R Heckbert; B M Psaty; N L Smith Journal: J Thromb Haemost Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 5.824