Biomarkers, menopausal hormone therapy and risk of venous thrombosis: The Women's Health Initiative.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Oral menopausal hormone therapy causes venous thrombosis but whether biomarkers of thrombosis risk can identify women at risk is unknown.Methods
We completed a nested case control study in the two Women's Health Initiative hormone trials; 27 347 women aged 50-79 were randomized to hormone therapy (conjugated equine estrogen with or without medroxyprogesterone acetate) or placebo. With 4 years follow-up, biomarkers were measured using stored baseline samples prior to starting treatment, and one-year later, in 215 women who developed thrombosis and 867 controls.Results
Overall, lower protein C and free protein S, and higher D-dimer, prothrombin fragment 1.2 and plasmin-antiplasmin complex were associated with risk of future thrombosis with odds ratios ranging from 1.9 to 3.2. Compared to women with normal biomarkers assigned to placebo, the risk of thrombosis with hormone therapy was increased among women with abnormal biomarkers, especially elevated D-dimer, elevated plasmin-antiplasmin, and low free protein S; the largest association was for D-dimer: odds ratio 6.0 (95% CI 3.6-9.8). Differences in associations by hormone use were not significant on the multiplicative scale. Considering a multi-marker score of eight biomarkers, women with three or more abnormal biomarkers had 15.5-fold increased odds of VT (95% CI 6.8-35.1). One-year changes in biomarkers were not robustly associated with subsequent thrombosis risk.Conclusion
Abnormal levels of biomarkers of thrombosis risk identified women at increased risk of future venous thrombosis with oral menopausal hormone therapy. Findings support the potential for clinical use of D-dimer testing in advance of hormone therapy prescription.
SUBMITTER: Cushman M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5974918 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:We re-evaluate the Women's Health Initiative findings and their implications for clinical practice. Menopausal hormone therapy (HT) was effective for relief of vasomotor symptoms, and the risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) tended to be reduced in women close to menopause compared with the increased risk in women more distant from menopause. In recently menopausal women, short-term absolute risks of stroke and venous thromboembolism were small. Estrogen plus progestin therapy, but not estrogen therapy, increased the risk of breast cancer with a suggestion of greater risk when initiated close to the menopause. Menopausal HT increased the risk of CHD in women more than 20 years distant from menopause, particularly in women with vasomotor symptoms. It remains unknown whether the suggestive benefit for CHD in younger women will translate into benefits or harms if menopausal HT is continued into older ages. Based on Women's Health Initiative data, the use of menopausal HT for fewer than 5 years is a reasonable option for the relief of moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms. The risks seen with estrogen plus progestin therapy suggest careful periodic reassessment of the ongoing therapy needs for women taking estrogen plus progestin therapy. The more favorable profile of estrogen therapy allows for individualized management with respect to duration of use when symptoms persist. For both estrogen therapy and estrogen plus progestin therapy, the baseline risk profile of the individual woman needs to be taken into account. Menopausal HT is not suitable for long-term prevention of CHD given risks of stroke, venous thromboembolism, and breast cancer (for estrogen plus progestin therapy) found in both clinical trials and in observational studies.
| S-EPMC3547645 | biostudies-other
Project description:ObjectiveThe menopausal transition results in a progressive decrease in circulating estrogen levels. Experimental evidence in rodents has indicated that estrogen depletion leads to a reduction of energy expenditure and physical activity. It is unclear whether treatment with estrogen therapy increases physical activity level in postmenopausal women.MethodsA total of 27,327 postmenopausal women aged 50-79 years enrolled in the Women's Health Initiative randomized double-blind trials of menopausal hormone therapy. Self-reported leisure-time physical activity at baseline, and years 1, 3, and 6 was quantified as metabolic equivalents (MET)-h/wk. In each trial, comparison between intervention and placebo groups of changes in physical activity levels from baseline to follow-up assessment was examined using linear regression models.ResultsIn the CEE-alone trial, the increase in MET-h/wk was greater in the placebo group compared with the intervention group at years 3 ( P = 0.002) and 6 ( P < 0.001). Similar results were observed when analyses were restricted to women who maintained an adherence rate ≥80% during the trial or who were physically active at baseline. In the CEE + MPA trial, the primary analyses did not show significant differences between groups, but the increase of MET-h/wk was greater in the placebo group compared with the intervention group at year 3 ( P = 0.004) among women with an adherence rate ≥80%.ConclusionsThe results from this clinical trial do not support the hypothesis that estrogen treatment increases physical activity among postmenopausal women.
| S-EPMC10527163 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In a combined analysis of 25,389 postmenopausal women aged 50-79 years, enrolled in the two Women's Health Initiative hormone therapy trials, menopausal hormone therapy vs. placebo reduced the risk of fracture regardless of baseline FRAX fracture probability and falls history.IntroductionThe aim of this study was to determine if the anti-fracture efficacy of menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) differed by baseline falls history or fracture risk probability as estimated by FRAX, in a combined analysis of the two Women's Health Initiative (WHI) hormone therapy trials.MethodsA total of 25,389 postmenopausal women aged 50-79 years were randomized to receive MHT (n = 12,739) or matching placebo (n = 12,650). At baseline, questionnaires were used to collect information on falls history, within the last 12 months, and clinical risk factors. FRAX 10-year probability of major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) was calculated without BMD. Incident clinical fractures were verified using medical records. An extension of Poisson regression was used to investigate the relationship between treatment and fractures in (1) the whole cohort; (2) those with prior falls; and (3) those without prior falls. The effect of baseline FRAX probability on efficacy was investigated in the whole cohort.ResultsOver 4.3 ± 2.1 years (mean ± SD), MHT (vs. placebo) significantly reduced the risk of any clinical fracture (hazard ratio [HR] 0.72 [95% CI, 0.65-0.78]), MOF (HR 0.60 [95% CI, 0.53-0.69]), and hip fracture (0.66 [95% CI, 0.45-0.96]). Treatment was effective in reducing the risk of any clinical fracture, MOF, and hip fracture in women regardless of baseline FRAX MOF probability, with no evidence of an interaction between MHT and FRAX (p > 0.30). Similarly, there was no interaction (p > 0.30) between MHT and prior falls.ConclusionIn the combined WHI trials, compared to placebo, MHT reduces fracture risk regardless of FRAX probability and falls history in postmenopausal women.
| S-EPMC9568435 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To better understand how to educate patients and providers about study findings relevant to treatment guidelines, we assessed pre- versus post-Women's Health Initiative (WHI) differences in menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) initiation and continuation and their correlates, and in women's reasons for initiation and discontinuation. METHODS:We analyzed survey data from up to 14 approximately annual visits over 17 years (1996-2013) from 3,018 participants in the Study of Women's Health Across the Nation, a prospective cohort study. We used logistic regression to compare pre- versus post-WHI associations of covariates with MHT initiation and continuation, and to compare pre- versus post-WHI reasons for initiation and continuation. RESULTS:MHT initiation dropped from 8.6% pre-WHI to 2.8% post-WHI (P?<?0.0001), and the corresponding decrease in MHT continuation was 84.0% to 62.0% (P?<?0.0001). Decreases in MHT initiation and continuation occurred across a range of participant subgroups, consistent with wide dissemination of post-WHI recommendations. However, contrary to current guidelines, we found large declines in MHT use in subgroups for whom MHT is often recommended, that is, younger women and those with more vasomotor symptoms. Post-WHI, women's reasons for MHT initiation and discontinuation reflected concerns highlighted by WHI results. The largest declines in initiation reasons were for reducing risks of osteoporosis and heart disease, whereas the largest increases in discontinuation reasons were for media reports and provider advice. CONCLUSIONS:Immediate post-WHI recommendations for MHT use were widely adopted. MHT risks documented in older women, however, may have led younger symptomatic women to forgo MHT for symptom relief.
| S-EPMC6538484 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCase-control studies have reported that exogenous estrogen use is associated with increased risk of skin cancer. The effects of menopausal hormone therapy on incidence of nonmelanoma skin cancer and melanoma were evaluated in post hoc analyses of the Women's Health Initiative randomized placebo-controlled hormone therapy trials of combined estrogen plus progestin (E + P) and estrogen only (E-alone).MethodsPostmenopausal women aged 50-79 years were randomly assigned to conjugated equine estrogen (0.625 mg/d) plus medroxyprogesterone acetate (2.5 mg/d) or placebo in the E + P trial if they had an intact uterus (N = 16,608) or to conjugated equine estrogen alone or placebo in the E-alone trial if they had a hysterectomy (N = 10,739); the mean follow-up was 5.6 and 7.1 years, respectively. Incident nonmelanoma skin cancers (n = 980 [E + P trial]; n = 820 [E-alone trial]) and melanomas (n = 57 [E + P trial]; n =38 [E-alone trial]) were ascertained by self-report. Incident cases of cutaneous malignant melanoma were confirmed by physician review of medical records. Incidences of nonmelanoma skin cancer and melanoma were compared between the two randomization groups within each trial using hazard ratios (HRs), with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and Wald statistic P values from Cox proportional hazards models. All statistical tests were two-sided.ResultsRates of incident nonmelanoma skin cancer and melanoma were similar between the active hormone (combined analysis of E + P and E-alone) and placebo groups (nonmelanoma skin cancer: HR = 0.98, 95% CI = 0.89 to 1.07; melanoma: HR = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.61 to 1.37). Results were similar for the E + P and E-alone trials when analyzed individually.ConclusionsMenopausal hormone therapy did not affect overall incidence of nonmelanoma skin cancer or melanoma. These findings do not support a role of menopausal estrogen, with or without progestin, in the development of skin cancer in postmenopausal women.
| S-EPMC3186783 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere remains uncertainty about the impact of menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) on women's health. A systematic, comprehensive assessment of the effects on multiple outcomes is lacking. We conducted an umbrella review to comprehensively summarize evidence on the benefits and harms of MHT across diverse health outcomes.Methods and findingsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and 10 other databases from inception to November 26, 2017, updated on December 17, 2020, to identify systematic reviews or meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies investigating effects of MHT, including estrogen-alone therapy (ET) and estrogen plus progestin therapy (EPT), in perimenopausal or postmenopausal women in all countries and settings. All health outcomes in previous systematic reviews were included, including menopausal symptoms, surrogate endpoints, biomarkers, various morbidity outcomes, and mortality. Two investigators independently extracted data and assessed methodological quality of systematic reviews using the updated 16-item AMSTAR 2 instrument. Random-effects robust variance estimation was used to combine effect estimates, and 95% prediction intervals (PIs) were calculated whenever possible. We used the term MHT to encompass ET and EPT, and results are presented for MHT for each outcome, unless otherwise indicated. Sixty systematic reviews were included, involving 102 meta-analyses of RCTs and 38 of observational studies, with 102 unique outcomes. The overall quality of included systematic reviews was moderate to poor. In meta-analyses of RCTs, MHT was beneficial for vasomotor symptoms (frequency: 9 trials, 1,104 women, risk ratio [RR] 0.43, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.57, p < 0.001; severity: 7 trials, 503 women, RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.50, p = 0.002) and all fracture (30 trials, 43,188 women, RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.84, p = 0.002, 95% PI 0.58 to 0.87), as well as vaginal atrophy (intravaginal ET), sexual function, vertebral and nonvertebral fracture, diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular mortality (ET), and colorectal cancer (EPT), but harmful for stroke (17 trials, 37,272 women, RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.29, p = 0.027) and venous thromboembolism (23 trials, 42,292 women, RR 1.60, 95% CI 0.99 to 2.58, p = 0.052, 95% PI 1.03 to 2.99), as well as cardiovascular disease incidence and recurrence, cerebrovascular disease, nonfatal stroke, deep vein thrombosis, gallbladder disease requiring surgery, and lung cancer mortality (EPT). In meta-analyses of observational studies, MHT was associated with decreased risks of cataract, glioma, and esophageal, gastric, and colorectal cancer, but increased risks of pulmonary embolism, cholelithiasis, asthma, meningioma, and thyroid, breast, and ovarian cancer. ET and EPT had opposite effects for endometrial cancer, endometrial hyperplasia, and Alzheimer disease. The major limitations include the inability to address the varying effects of MHT by type, dose, formulation, duration of use, route of administration, and age of initiation and to take into account the quality of individual studies included in the systematic reviews. The study protocol is publicly available on PROSPERO (CRD42017083412).ConclusionsMHT has a complex balance of benefits and harms on multiple health outcomes. Some effects differ qualitatively between ET and EPT. The quality of available evidence is only moderate to poor.
| S-EPMC8366967 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The purpose of this study is to estimate the effect of education and income on incident heart failure (HF) hospitalization among post-menopausal women.Investigations of socioeconomic status have focused on outcomes after HF diagnosis, not associations with incident HF. We used data from the Women's Health Initiative Hormone Trials to examine the association between socioeconomic status levels and incident HF hospitalization.We included 26,160 healthy, post-menopausal women. Education and income were self-reported. Analysis of variance, chi-square tests, and proportional hazards models were used for statistical analysis, with adjustment for demographics, comorbid conditions, behavioral factors, and hormone and dietary modification assignments.Women with household incomes <$20,000 a year had higher HF hospitalization incidence (57.3/10,000 person-years) than women with household incomes >$50,000 a year (16.7/10,000 person-years; p < 0.01). Women with less than a high school education had higher HF hospitalization incidence (51.2/10,000 person-years) than college graduates and above (25.5/10,000 person-years; p < 0.01). In multivariable analyses, women with the lowest income levels had 56% higher risk (hazard ratio: 1.56, 95% confidence interval: 1.19 to 2.04) than the highest income women; women with the least amount of education had 21% higher risk for incident HF hospitalization (hazard ratio: 1.21, 95% confidence interval: 0.90 to 1.62) than the most educated women.Lower income is associated with an increased incidence of HF hospitalization among healthy, post-menopausal women, whereas multivariable adjustment attenuated the association of education with incident HF.
| S-EPMC3635103 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundEven after the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) found that the risks of menopausal hormone therapy (hormone therapy) outweighed benefit for asymptomatic women, about half of gynecologists in the United States continued to believe that hormones benefited women's health. The pharmaceutical industry has supported publication of articles in medical journals for marketing purposes. It is unknown whether author relationships with industry affect promotional tone in articles on hormone therapy. The goal of this study was to determine whether promotional tone could be identified in narrative review articles regarding menopausal hormone therapy and whether articles identified as promotional were more likely to have been authored by those with conflicts of interest with manufacturers of menopausal hormone therapy.Methods and findingsWe analyzed tone in opinion pieces on hormone therapy published in the four years after the estrogen-progestin arm of the WHI was stopped. First, we identified the ten authors with four or more MEDLINE-indexed reviews, editorials, comments, or letters on hormone replacement therapy or menopausal hormone therapy published between July 2002 and June 2006. Next, we conducted an additional search using the names of these authors to identify other relevant articles. Finally, after author names and affiliations were removed, 50 articles were evaluated by three readers for scientific accuracy and for tone. Scientific accuracy was assessed based on whether or not the findings of the WHI were accurately reported using two criteria: (1) Acknowledgment or lack of denial of the risk of breast cancer diagnosis associated with hormone therapy, and (2) acknowledgment that hormone therapy did not benefit cardiovascular disease endpoints. Determination of promotional tone was based on the assessment by each reader of whether the article appeared to promote hormone therapy. Analysis of inter-rater consistency found moderate agreement for scientific accuracy (κ=0.57) and substantial agreement for promotional tone (κ=0.65). After discussion, readers found 86% of the articles to be scientifically accurate and 64% to be promotional in tone. Themes that were common in articles considered promotional included attacks on the methodology of the WHI, arguments that clinical trial results should not guide treatment for individuals, and arguments that observational studies are as good as or better than randomized clinical trials for guiding clinical decisions. The promotional articles we identified also implied that the risks associated with hormone therapy have been exaggerated and that the benefits of hormone therapy have been or will be proven. Of the ten authors studied, eight were found to have declared payment for speaking or consulting on behalf of menopausal hormone manufacturers or for research support (seven of these eight were speakers or consultants). Thirty of 32 articles (90%) evaluated as promoting hormone therapy were authored by those with potential financial conflicts of interest, compared to 11 of 18 articles (61%) by those without such conflicts (p=0.0025). Articles promoting the use of menopausal hormone therapy were 2.41 times (95% confidence interval 1.49-4.93) as likely to have been authored by authors with conflicts of interest as by authors without conflicts of interest. In articles from three authors with conflicts of interest some of the same text was repeated word-for-word in different articles.ConclusionThere may be a connection between receiving industry funding for speaking, consulting, or research and the publication of promotional opinion pieces on menopausal hormone therapy.
| S-EPMC3058057 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceHealth outcomes from the Women's Health Initiative Estrogen Plus Progestin and Estrogen-Alone Trials have been reported, but previous publications have generally not focused on all-cause and cause-specific mortality.ObjectiveTo examine total and cause-specific cumulative mortality, including during the intervention and extended postintervention follow-up, of the 2 Women's Health Initiative hormone therapy trials.Design, setting, and participantsObservational follow-up of US multiethnic postmenopausal women aged 50 to 79 years enrolled in 2 randomized clinical trials between 1993 and 1998 and followed up through December 31, 2014.InterventionsConjugated equine estrogens (CEE, 0.625 mg/d) plus medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA, 2.5 mg/d) (n = 8506) vs placebo (n = 8102) for 5.6 years (median) or CEE alone (n = 5310) vs placebo (n = 5429) for 7.2 years (median).Main outcomes and measuresAll-cause mortality (primary outcome) and cause-specific mortality (cardiovascular disease mortality, cancer mortality, and other major causes of mortality) in the 2 trials pooled and in each trial individually, with prespecified analyses by 10-year age group based on age at time of randomization.ResultsAmong 27 347 women who were randomized (baseline mean [SD] age, 63.4 [7.2] years; 80.6% white), mortality follow-up was available for more than 98%. During the cumulative 18-year follow-up, 7489 deaths occurred (1088 deaths during the intervention phase and 6401 deaths during postintervention follow-up). All-cause mortality was 27.1% in the hormone therapy group vs 27.6% in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.99 [95% CI, 0.94-1.03]) in the overall pooled cohort; with CEE plus MPA, the HR was 1.02 (95% CI, 0.96-1.08); and with CEE alone, the HR was 0.94 (95% CI, 0.88-1.01). In the pooled cohort for cardiovascular mortality, the HR was 1.00 (95% CI, 0.92-1.08 [8.9 % with hormone therapy vs 9.0% with placebo]); for total cancer mortality, the HR was 1.03 (95% CI, 0.95-1.12 [8.2 % with hormone therapy vs 8.0% with placebo]); and for other causes, the HR was 0.95 (95% CI, 0.88-1.02 [10.0% with hormone therapy vs 10.7% with placebo]), and results did not differ significantly between trials. When examined by 10-year age groups comparing younger women (aged 50-59 years) to older women (aged 70-79 years) in the pooled cohort, the ratio of nominal HRs for all-cause mortality was 0.61 (95% CI, 0.43-0.87) during the intervention phase and the ratio was 0.87 (95% CI, 0.76-1.00) during cumulative 18-year follow-up, without significant heterogeneity between trials.Conclusions and relevanceAmong postmenopausal women, hormone therapy with CEE plus MPA for a median of 5.6 years or with CEE alone for a median of 7.2 years was not associated with risk of all-cause, cardiovascular, or cancer mortality during a cumulative follow-up of 18 years.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00000611.
| S-EPMC5728370 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In the Women's Health Initiative Hormone Trials (WHI-HT), breast cancer risk was increased with estrogen plus progestin (E+P) but not with unopposed estrogen (E-alone). We hypothesized that E+P would preferentially metabolize to 16?-hydroxyestrone (16?-OHE1) rather than 2-hydroxyestrone (2-OHE1), and that breast cancer risk would be associated with baseline and 1 year changes in estrogen metabolites: positively for 16?-OHE1 levels and negatively for levels of 2-OHE-1 and the 2:16 ratio.In a prospective case-control study nested in the WHI-HT, 845 confirmed breast cancer cases were matched to 1,690 controls by age and ethnicity. Using stored serum, 2-OHE1 and 16?-OHE1 levels were measured by enzyme immunoassay at baseline, and for those randomized to active treatment (n = 1,259), at 1 year.The 1-year increase in 16?-OHE1 was greater with E+P than E-alone (median 55.5 pg/mL vs. 43.5 pg/mL, P < 0.001), but both increased 2-OHE1 by ?300 pg/mL. Breast cancer risk was modestly associated with higher baseline levels of 2-OHE1 and the 2:16 ratio, and for estrogen receptor+/progesterone+ cases only, higher baseline 16?-OHE1 levels. For those randomized to active treatment, breast cancer risk was associated with greater increase in 2-OHE-1 and the 2:16 ratio, but associations were not significant.Although E+P modestly increased 16?-OHE1 more than E-alone, increase in 16?-OHE1 was not associated with breast cancer.Study results do not explain differences between the WHI E+P and WHI E-alone breast cancer results but metabolism of oral HT, which may explain smaller than expected increase in breast cancer compared with endogenous estrogens.
| S-EPMC3493689 | biostudies-literature