Dataset Information

Biomarkers, menopausal hormone therapy and risk of venous thrombosis: The Women's Health Initiative.

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

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.

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.

Project description:ObjectiveThe Women's Health Initiative hormone trials identified a 44% increase in ischemic stroke risk with combination estrogen plus progestin and a 39% increase with estrogen alone. We undertook a case-control biomarker study to elucidate underlying mechanisms, and to potentially identify women who would be at lower or higher risk for stroke with postmenopausal hormone therapy (HT).DesignThe hormone trials were randomized, double-blind, and placebo controlled.SettingThe Women's Health Initiative trials were conducted at 40 clinical centers in the United States.ParticipantsThe trials enrolled 27,347 postmenopausal women, aged 50-79 y.InterventionsWe randomized 16,608 women with intact uterus to conjugated estrogens 0.625 mg with medroxyprogesterone acetate 2.5 mg daily or placebo, and 10,739 women with prior hysterectomy to conjugated estrogens 0.625 mg daily or placebo.Outcome measuresStroke was ascertained during 5.6 y of follow-up in the estrogen plus progestin trial and 6.8 y of follow-up in the estrogen alone trial.ResultsNo baseline clinical characteristics, including gene polymorphisms, identified women for whom the stroke risk from HT was higher. Paradoxically, women with higher baseline levels of some stroke-associated biomarkers had a lower risk of stroke when assigned to estrogen plus progestin compared to placebo. For example, those with higher IL-6 were not at increased stroke risk when assigned to estrogen plus progestin (odds ratio 1.28) but were when assigned to placebo (odds ratio 3.47; p for difference = 0.02). Similar findings occurred for high baseline PAP, leukocyte count, and D-dimer. However, only an interaction of D-dimer during follow-up interaction with HT and stroke was marginally significant (p = 0.03).ConclusionsBiomarkers did not identify women at higher stroke risk with postmenopausal HT. Some biomarkers appeared to identify women at lower stroke risk with estrogen plus progestin, but these findings may be due to chance.

Project description:Importance:Health 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. Objective:To 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 Participants:Observational 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. Interventions:Conjugated 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 Measures:All-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. Results:Among 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 Relevance:Among 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 Registration:clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00000611.

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.

Project description:Menopausal hormone therapy continues in clinical use but questions remain regarding its risks and benefits for chronic disease prevention.To report a comprehensive, integrated overview of findings from the 2 Women's Health Initiative (WHI) hormone therapy trials with extended postintervention follow-up.A total of 27,347 postmenopausal women aged 50 to 79 years were enrolled at 40 US centers.Women with an intact uterus received conjugated equine estrogens (CEE; 0.625 mg/d) plus medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA; 2.5 mg/d) (n?=?8506) or placebo (n?=?8102). Women with prior hysterectomy received CEE alone (0.625 mg/d) (n?=?5310) or placebo (n?=?5429). The intervention lasted a median of 5.6 years in CEE plus MPA trial and 7.2 years in CEE alone trial with 13 years of cumulative follow-up until September 30, 2010.Primary efficacy and safety outcomes were coronary heart disease (CHD) and invasive breast cancer, respectively. A global index also included stroke, pulmonary embolism, colorectal cancer, endometrial cancer, hip fracture, and death.During the CEE plus MPA intervention phase, the numbers of CHD cases were 196 for CEE plus MPA vs 159 for placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 1.18; 95% CI, 0.95-1.45) and 206 vs 155, respectively, for invasive breast cancer (HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.01-1.53). Other risks included increased stroke, pulmonary embolism, dementia (in women aged ?65 years), gallbladder disease, and urinary incontinence; benefits included decreased hip fractures, diabetes, and vasomotor symptoms. Most risks and benefits dissipated postintervention, although some elevation in breast cancer risk persisted during cumulative follow-up (434 cases for CEE plus MPA vs 323 for placebo; HR, 1.28 [95% CI, 1.11-1.48]). The risks and benefits were more balanced during the CEE alone intervention with 204 CHD cases for CEE alone vs 222 cases for placebo (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.78-1.14) and 104 vs 135, respectively, for invasive breast cancer (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.61-1.02); cumulatively, there were 168 vs 216, respectively, cases of breast cancer diagnosed (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.65-0.97). Results for other outcomes were similar to CEE plus MPA. Neither regimen affected all-cause mortality. For CEE alone, younger women (aged 50-59 years) had more favorable results for all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and the global index (nominal P?<?.05 for trend by age). Absolute risks of adverse events (measured by the global index) per 10,000 women annually taking CEE plus MPA ranged from 12 excess cases for ages of 50-59 years to 38 for ages of 70-79 years; for women taking CEE alone, from 19 fewer cases for ages of 50-59 years to 51 excess cases for ages of 70-79 years. Quality-of-life outcomes had mixed results in both trials.Menopausal hormone therapy has a complex pattern of risks and benefits. Findings from the intervention and extended postintervention follow-up of the 2 WHI hormone therapy trials do not support use of this therapy for chronic disease prevention, although it is appropriate for symptom management in some women.clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00000611.