Dataset Information

Observational studies analyzed like randomized experiments: an application to postmenopausal hormone therapy and coronary heart disease.

ABSTRACT: The Women's Health Initiative randomized trial found greater coronary heart disease (CHD) risk in women assigned to estrogen/progestin therapy than in those assigned to placebo. Observational studies had previously suggested reduced CHD risk in hormone users.Using data from the observational Nurses' Health Study, we emulated the design and intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis of the randomized trial. The observational study was conceptualized as a sequence of "trials," in which eligible women were classified as initiators or noninitiators of estrogen/progestin therapy.The ITT hazard ratios (HRs) (95% confidence intervals) of CHD for initiators versus noninitiators were 1.42 (0.92-2.20) for the first 2 years, and 0.96 (0.78-1.18) for the entire follow-up. The ITT HRs were 0.84 (0.61-1.14) in women within 10 years of menopause, and 1.12 (0.84-1.48) in the others (P value for interaction = 0.08). These ITT estimates are similar to those from the Women's Health Initiative. Because the ITT approach causes severe treatment misclassification, we also estimated adherence-adjusted effects by inverse probability weighting. The HRs were 1.61 (0.97-2.66) for the first 2 years, and 0.98 (0.66-1.49) for the entire follow-up. The HRs were 0.54 (0.19-1.51) in women within 10 years after menopause, and 1.20 (0.78-1.84) in others (P value for interaction = 0.01). We also present comparisons between these estimates and previously reported Nurses' Health Study estimates.Our findings suggest that the discrepancies between the Women's Health Initiative and Nurses' Health Study ITT estimates could be largely explained by differences in the distribution of time since menopause and length of follow-up.

SUBMITTER: Hernan MA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3731075 | biostudies-literature | 2008 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Observational studies analyzed like randomized experiments: an application to postmenopausal hormone therapy and coronary heart disease.

Hernán Miguel A MA Alonso Alvaro A Logan Roger R Grodstein Francine F Michels Karin B KB Willett Walter C WC Manson Joann E JE Robins James M JM

Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.) 20081101 6

<h4>Background</h4>The Women's Health Initiative randomized trial found greater coronary heart disease (CHD) risk in women assigned to estrogen/progestin therapy than in those assigned to placebo. Observational studies had previously suggested reduced CHD risk in hormone users.<h4>Methods</h4>Using data from the observational Nurses' Health Study, we emulated the design and intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis of the randomized trial. The observational study was conceptualized as a sequence of "tri ...[more]

PMID: 18854702

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn the WHI-HT trials (Women's Health Initiative Hormone Therapy), treatment with oral conjugated equine estrogens and medroxyprogesterone acetate (CEE+MPA) resulted in increased risk of coronary heart disease (CHD), whereas oral conjugated equine estrogens (CEE) did not.MethodsFour hundred eighty-one metabolites were measured at baseline and at 1-year in 503 and 431 participants in the WHI CEE and CEE+MPA trials, respectively. The effects of randomized HT on the metabolite profiles at 1-year was evaluated in linear models adjusting for baseline metabolite levels, age, body mass index, race, incident CHD, prevalent hypertension, and diabetes. Metabolites with discordant effects by HT type were evaluated for association with incident CHD in 944 participants (472 CHD cases) in the WHI-OS (Women's Health Initiative Observational Study), with replication in an independent cohort of 980 men and women at high risk for cardiovascular disease.ResultsHT effects on the metabolome were profound; 62% of metabolites significantly changed with randomized CEE and 52% with CEE+MPA (false discovery rate-adjusted P value<0.05) in multivariable models. Concerted increases in abundance were seen within various metabolite classes including triacylglycerols, phosphatidylethanolamines, and phosphatidylcholines; decreases in abundance was observed for acylcarnitines, lysophosphatidylcholines, quaternary amines, and cholesteryl/cholesteryl esters. Twelve metabolites had discordant effects by HT type and were associated with incident CHD in the WHI-OS; a metabolite score estimated in a Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator regression was associated with CHD risk with an odds ratio of 1.47 per SD increase (95% CI, 1.27-1.70, P<10-6). All twelve metabolites were altered in the CHD protective direction by CEE treatment. One metabolite (lysine) was significantly altered in the direction of increased CHD risk by CEE+MPA; the remaining 11 metabolites were not significantly changed by CEE+MPA. The CHD associations of a subset of 4 metabolites including C58:11 triacylglycerol, C54:9 triacylglycerol, C36:1 phosphatidylcholine and sucrose replicated in an independent dataset of 980 participants in the PREDIMED trial (Prevención con Dieta Mediterránea).ConclusionsRandomized treatment with oral HT resulted in large metabolome shifts that generally favored CEE alone over CEE+MPA in term of CHD risk. Discordant metabolite effects between HT regimens may partially mediate the differences in CHD risk between the 2 WHI-HT trials.

Project description:ImportanceMenopause is associated with biological aging, and hormone therapy (HT) is associated with health outcomes in postmenopausal women.ObjectiveTo evaluate the association between HT use and discrepancies between chronological and biological age in postmenopausal women as well as the potential modifying role of socioeconomic status (SES).Design, setting, and participantsThis population-based, retrospective cohort study included postmenopausal women registered in the UK Biobank. A baseline survey on HT use and biological aging biomarkers was conducted from March 2006 to October 2010. Data analyses were conducted in December 2023.ExposuresInformation regarding HT use, the age at starting HT, and HT duration was collected via a touchscreen questionnaire. SES was evaluated by education, family income, occupation, and the Townsend Deprivation Index.Main outcomes and measuresBiological aging discrepancy was evaluated using validated phenotypic age, which was calculated using chronological age and 9 biomarkers measured at baseline. All-cause and cause-specific mortality were also assessed.ResultsAmong the 117 763 postmenopausal women (mean [SD] age, 60.2 [5.4] years), 47 461 (40.3%) ever used HT. The mean phenotypic age was 52.1 (7.9) years. Ever use of HT was associated with a smaller biological aging discrepancy than never use of HT (β, -0.17 years; 95% CI, -0.23 to -0.10 years). This smaller aging discrepancy was more evident in those who started HT at age 55 years or older (β, -0.32 years; 95% CI, -0.48 to -0.15 years) and in those who used HT for 4 to 8 years (β, -0.25 years; 95% CI, -0.35 to -0.15 years). The association between HT and a smaller aging discrepancy was more evident in women with low SES, with a significant interaction observed for education (higher education: β, -0.08 years [95% CI, -0.17 to 0.01]; other education: β, -0.23 [95% CI, -0.32 to -0.14] years; P for interaction = .02). Phenotypic aging discrepancy mediated 12.7% (95% CI, 6.3% to 23.9%) of the association between HT and all-cause mortality and cause-specific mortality.Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, postmenopausal women with historical HT use were biologically younger than those not receiving HT, with a more evident association observed in those with low SES. The biological aging discrepancy mediated the association between HT and decreased mortality. Promoting HT in postmenopausal women could be important for healthy aging.

Project description:ObjectiveOur objective was to provide a scholarly review of the published literature on menopausal hormonal therapy (MHT), make scientifically valid assessments of the available data, and grade the level of evidence available for each clinically important endpoint. PARTICIPANTS IN DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENTIFIC STATEMENT: The 12-member Scientific Statement Task Force of The Endocrine Society selected the leader of the statement development group (R.J.S.) and suggested experts with expertise in specific areas. In conjunction with the Task Force, lead authors (n = 25) and peer reviewers (n = 14) for each specific topic were selected. All discussions regarding content and grading of evidence occurred via teleconference or electronic and written correspondence. No funding was provided to any expert or peer reviewer, and all participants volunteered their time to prepare this Scientific Statement.EvidenceEach expert conducted extensive literature searches of case control, cohort, and randomized controlled trials as well as meta-analyses, Cochrane reviews, and Position Statements from other professional societies in order to compile and evaluate available evidence. No unpublished data were used to draw conclusions from the evidence.Consensus processA consensus was reached after several iterations. Each topic was considered separately, and a consensus was achieved as to content to be included and conclusions reached between the primary author and the peer reviewer specific to that topic. In a separate iteration, the quality of evidence was judged using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) system in common use by The Endocrine Society for preparing clinical guidelines. The final iteration involved responses to four levels of additional review: 1) general comments offered by each of the 25 authors; 2) comments of the individual Task Force members; 3) critiques by the reviewers of the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism; and 4) suggestions offered by the Council and members of The Endocrine Society. The lead author compiled each individual topic into a coherent document and finalized the content for the final Statement. The writing process was analogous to preparation of a multiauthored textbook with input from individual authors and the textbook editors.ConclusionsThe major conclusions related to the overall benefits and risks of MHT expressed as the number of women per 1000 taking MHT for 5 yr who would experience benefit or harm. Primary areas of benefit included relief of hot flashes and symptoms of urogenital atrophy and prevention of fractures and diabetes. Risks included venothrombotic episodes, stroke, and cholecystitis. In the subgroup of women starting MHT between ages 50 and 59 or less than 10 yr after onset of menopause, congruent trends suggested additional benefit including reduction of overall mortality and coronary artery disease. In this subgroup, estrogen plus some progestogens increased the risk of breast cancer, whereas estrogen alone did not. Beneficial effects on colorectal and endometrial cancer and harmful effects on ovarian cancer occurred but affected only a small number of women. Data from the various Women's Health Initiative studies, which involved women of average age 63, cannot be appropriately applied to calculate risks and benefits of MHT in women starting shortly after menopause. At the present time, assessments of benefit and risk in these younger women are based on lower levels of evidence.

Dataset Information

Observational studies analyzed like randomized experiments: an application to postmenopausal hormone therapy and coronary heart disease.

Publications

Observational studies analyzed like randomized experiments: an application to postmenopausal hormone therapy and coronary heart disease.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets