BACKGROUND: Patients on hormone replacement therapy (HRT) for osteoporosis prevention rather than menopausal symptom control may be asymptomatic, despite inadequate replacement and low serum oestradiol (E2) levels. In the primary health care setting, therapeutic monitoring of HRT is not carried out routinely so that patients with serum E2 levels inadequate to protect bone may be missed. AIM: To determine the proportion of women on transdermal E2 preparations with serum E2 levels insufficient to protect bone and to assess the value of a questionnaire-derived menopausal symptom score (MSS) for detecting these patients. METHOD: A cross-sectional analysis of 45 patients aged 35-70 years using transdermal E2 preparations obtained from a computer register of 14500 patients in a suburban practice. One blood sample was obtained from each patient at the time the MSS questionnaire was completed. Serum E2 concentration was measured using a fluoroimmunoassay and compared with the MSS. Levels below 150 pmol/l were considered to be insufficient to protect bone. The diagnostic accuracy of the MSS in screening for levels below 150 pmol/l was determined using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. RESULTS: The median (95% CI) serum E2 was 147 pmol/l (126-198 pmol/l) and levels were below 150 pmol/l in 24 out of 45 patients. There was no difference in the MSS (median, 95% CI) between those with serum E2 < 150 pmol/l (8.5, 5.0-17) and > or = 150 pmol/l (9.0, 5.0-14; P = 0.477). The degree of association between the serum E2 and the MSS, using the Spearman rank correlation coefficient, rs (95% CI) was small and not significant (-0.04, -0.34 to 0.26; P = 0.398). ROC curve analysis revealed an area under the curve (95% CI) of 0.51 (0.33-0.68). CONCLUSIONS: More than half the women were inadequately replaced to protect against osteoporosis. Furthermore, the MSS was of no value in screening for those with low serum E2 levels. Serum E2 levels should be monitored in women on HRT for osteoporosis prevention and the E2 dosage adjusted accordingly.
BACKGROUND:Patients on hormone replacement therapy (HRT) for osteoporosis prevention rather than menopausal symptom control may be asymptomatic, despite inadequate replacement and low serum oestradiol (E2) levels. In the primary health care setting, therapeutic monitoring of HRT is not carried out routinely so that patients with serum E2 levels inadequate to protect bone may be missed. AIM: To determine the proportion of women on transdermal E2 preparations with serum E2 levels insufficient to protect bone and to assess the value of a questionnaire-derived menopausal symptom score (MSS) for detecting these patients. METHOD: A cross-sectional analysis of 45 patients aged 35-70 years using transdermal E2 preparations obtained from a computer register of 14500 patients in a suburban practice. One blood sample was obtained from each patient at the time the MSS questionnaire was completed. Serum E2 concentration was measured using a fluoroimmunoassay and compared with the MSS. Levels below 150 pmol/l were considered to be insufficient to protect bone. The diagnostic accuracy of the MSS in screening for levels below 150 pmol/l was determined using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. RESULTS: The median (95% CI) serum E2 was 147 pmol/l (126-198 pmol/l) and levels were below 150 pmol/l in 24 out of 45 patients. There was no difference in the MSS (median, 95% CI) between those with serum E2 < 150 pmol/l (8.5, 5.0-17) and > or = 150 pmol/l (9.0, 5.0-14; P = 0.477). The degree of association between the serum E2 and the MSS, using the Spearman rank correlation coefficient, rs (95% CI) was small and not significant (-0.04, -0.34 to 0.26; P = 0.398). ROC curve analysis revealed an area under the curve (95% CI) of 0.51 (0.33-0.68). CONCLUSIONS: More than half the women were inadequately replaced to protect against osteoporosis. Furthermore, the MSS was of no value in screening for those with low serum E2 levels. Serum E2 levels should be monitored in women on HRT for osteoporosis prevention and the E2 dosage adjusted accordingly.
Authors: K A Steingold; L Laufer; R J Chetkowski; J D DeFazio; D W Matt; D R Meldrum; H L Judd Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 1985-10 Impact factor: 5.958