Dataset Information

Lipoprotein(a), hormone replacement therapy, and risk of future cardiovascular events.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

This study assesses whether the relationship of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] with cardiovascular risk may be modified by concurrent hormone replacement therapy (HT).

Background

Prior studies indicate that HT decreases plasma levels of Lp(a), but few have been powered to assess whether it modifies the relationship of Lp(a) with cardiovascular disease (CVD).

Methods

Lipoprotein(a) at baseline was measured among 27,736 initially healthy women, of whom 12,075 indicated active HT use at the time of blood draw at study initiation and 15,661 did not. The risk of first-ever major cardiovascular event (nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal cerebrovascular event, coronary revascularization, or cardiovascular death) over a 10-year period was assessed with Cox proportional hazard models according to Lp(a) levels and HT status and adjusted for potential confounding variables.

Results

As anticipated, Lp(a) values were lower among women taking HT (median 9.4 mg/dl vs. 11.6 mg/dl, p < 0.0001). In women not taking HT, the hazard ratio of future CVD for the highest Lp(a) quintile compared with the lowest was 1.8 (p trend <0.0001), after adjusting for age, smoking, blood pressure, diabetes, body mass index, total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein, C-reactive protein, and treatment arms of aspirin and vitamin E. In contrast, among women taking HT, there was little evidence of association with CVD (hazard ratio: 1.1, p trend = 0.18; interaction p value = 0.0009 between Lp(a) quintiles and HT on incident CVD).

Conclusions

The relationship of high Lp(a) levels with increased CVD is modified by HT. These data suggest that the predictive utility of Lp(a) is markedly attenuated among women taking HT and may inform clinicians' interpretation of Lp(a) values in such patients. (Women's Health Study [WHS]; NCT00000479).

SUBMITTER: Suk Danik J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2958092 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background Conventional "low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C)" assays measure cholesterol content in both low-density lipoprotein and lipoprotein(a) particles. To clarify the consequences of this methodological limitation for clinical care, our study aimed to compare associations of "LDL-C" and corrected LDL-C with risk of cardiovascular disease and to assess the impact of this correction on the classification of patients into guideline-recommended LDL-C categories. Methods and Results Lipoprotein(a) cholesterol content was estimated as 30% of lipoprotein(a) mass and subtracted from "LDL-C" to obtain corrected LDL-C values (LDL-Ccorr30). Hazard ratios for cardiovascular disease (defined as coronary heart disease, stroke, or coronary revascularization) were quantified by individual-patient-data meta-analysis of 5 statin landmark trials from the Lipoprotein(a) Studies Collaboration (18 043 patients; 5390 events; 4.7 years median follow-up). When comparing top versus bottom quartiles, the multivariable-adjusted hazard ratio for cardiovascular disease was significant for "LDL-C" (1.17; 95% CI, 1.05-1.31; P=0.005) but not for LDL-Ccorr30 (1.07; 95% CI, 0.93-1.22; P=0.362). In a routine laboratory database involving 531 144 patients, reclassification of patients across guideline-recommended LDL-C categories when using LDL-Ccorr30 was assessed. In "LDL-C" categories of 70 to <100, 100 to <130, 130 to <190, and ?190 mg/dL, significant proportions (95% CI) of participants were reassigned to lower LDL-C categories when LDL-Ccorr30 was used: 30.2% (30.0%-30.4%), 35.1% (34.9%-35.4%), 32.9% (32.6%-33.1%), and 41.1% (40.0%-42.2%), respectively. Conclusions "LDL-C" was associated with incident cardiovascular disease only when lipoprotein(a) cholesterol content was included in its measurement. Refinement in techniques to accurately measure LDL-C, particularly in patients with elevated lipoprotein(a) levels, is warranted to assign risk to the responsible lipoproteins.

Project description:Importance:Prophylactic bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy is recommended for BRCA1 mutation carriers to prevent ovarian cancer. Whether or not hormone replacement therapy (HRT) initiated after oophorectomy is associated with an increased risk of breast cancer has not been evaluated in a prospective study. Objective:To determine the association between HRT use and BRCA1-associated breast cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants:A prospective, longitudinal cohort study of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers from 80 participating centers in 17 countries was conducted between 1995 and 2017 with a mean follow-up of 7.6 years. Participants had sought genetic testing for a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation because of a personal or family history of breast and/or ovarian cancer. Carriers of BRCA1 mutation with no personal medical history of cancer who underwent bilateral oophorectomy following enrollment were eligible for the cohort study. Exposures:A follow-up questionnaire was administered every 2 years to obtain detailed information on HRT use. A left-truncated Cox proportional hazard analysis was used to estimate the hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs associated with the initiation of HRT use postoophorectomy. Main Outcomes and Measures:Incident breast cancer. Results:A total of 872 BRCA1 mutation carriers with a mean postoophorectomy follow-up period of 7.6 years (range, 0.4-22.1) were included in this study. Mean (SD) age of participants was 43.4 (8.5) years. Among these, 92 (10.6%) incident breast cancers were diagnosed. Overall, HRT use after oophorectomy was not associated with an increased risk of breast cancer. The HR was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.62-1.52; P = .89) for ever use of any type of HRT vs no use; however, the effects of estrogen alone and combination hormonal therapy were different. After 10 years of follow-up, the cumulative incidence of breast cancer among women who used estrogen-alone HRT was 12% compared with 22% among women who used estrogen plus progesterone HRT (absolute difference, 10%; log rank P = .04). Conclusions and Relevance:These findings suggest that use of estrogen after oophorectomy does not increase the risk of breast cancer among women with a BRCA1 mutation and should reassure BRCA1 mutation carriers considering preventive surgery that HRT is safe. The possible adverse effect of progesterone-containing HRT warrants further study.