Dataset Information

Dual-Outcome Intention-to-Treat Analyses in the Women's Health Initiative Randomized Controlled Hormone Therapy Trials.

ABSTRACT: Dual-outcome intention-to-treat hazard rate analyses have potential to complement single-outcome analyses for the evaluation of treatments or exposures in relation to multivariate time-to-response outcomes. Here we consider pairs formed from important clinical outcomes to obtain further insight into influences of menopausal hormone therapy on chronic disease. As part of the Women's Health Initiative, randomized, placebo-controlled hormone therapy trials of conjugated equine estrogens (CEE) among posthysterectomy participants and of these same estrogens plus medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) among participants with an intact uterus were carried out at 40 US clinical centers (1993-2016). These data provide the context for analyses covering the trial intervention periods and a nearly 20-year (median) cumulative duration of follow-up. The rates of multiple outcome pairs were significantly influenced by hormone therapy, especially over cumulative follow-up, providing potential clinical and mechanistic insights. For example, among women randomized to either regimen, hazard ratios for pairs defined by fracture during intervention followed by death from any cause were reduced and hazard ratios for pairs defined by gallbladder disease followed by death were increased, though these findings may primarily reflect single-outcome associations. In comparison, hazard ratios for diabetes followed by death were reduced with CEE but not with CEE + MPA, and those for hypertension followed by death were increased with CEE + MPA but not with CEE.

SUBMITTER: Prentice RL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7443766 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Dual-Outcome Intention-to-Treat Analyses in the Women's Health Initiative Randomized Controlled Hormone Therapy Trials.

Prentice Ross L RL Aragaki Aaron K AK Chlebowski Rowan T RT Zhao Shanshan S Anderson Garnet L GL Rossouw Jacques E JE Wallace Robert R Banack Hailey H Shadyab Aladdin H AH Qi Lihong L Snively Beverly M BM Gass Margery M Manson JoAnn E JE

American journal of epidemiology 20200901 9

Dual-outcome intention-to-treat hazard rate analyses have potential to complement single-outcome analyses for the evaluation of treatments or exposures in relation to multivariate time-to-response outcomes. Here we consider pairs formed from important clinical outcomes to obtain further insight into influences of menopausal hormone therapy on chronic disease. As part of the Women's Health Initiative, randomized, placebo-controlled hormone therapy trials of conjugated equine estrogens (CEE) among ...[more]

PMID: 32314781

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo determine the incidence and characteristics of randomised controlled trials that report using the modified intention to treat approach, and how the approach is described.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesPubMed, Embase, Cochrane central register of controlled trials, ISI Web of Knowledge, Ovid, HighWire Press, Science-Direct, Ingenta, Medscape, BioMed Central, Springer, and Wiley, from inception to December 2006.Main outcome measuresIncidence of trials in which use of modified intention to treat was reported, and how the approach was described (classified according to the type and number of deviations from the intention to treat approach).Results475 randomised controlled trials reported use of a modified intention to treat analysis. Of these, 76 (16%) were published in five highly cited general medical journals. The incidence of all trials that reported use of modified intention to treat published in journals indexed in Medline increased from 0.006% in 1982-6 to 0.5% in 2002-6 (P<0.001 for linear trend). When the description of the modified intention to treat was examined in each trial, 192 (40%) reported one type of deviation from the intention to treat approach, 261 (55%) reported two or more types, and 22 (5%) did not describe any type. In 266 (56%) of the trials the deviation was related to the treatment received, in 196 (41%) to a post baseline assessment, in 118 (25%) to a baseline assessment, in 108 (23%) to a target condition, and in 23 (5%) to follow-up. Post-randomisation exclusions occurred in 380 (80%) trials. The results reported by 270 of the 352 (77%) superiority trials favoured the drug under investigation. All of the 123 trials using equivalence or non-inferiority methods to investigate interventions reported results that favoured their assumptions.ConclusionsRandomised controlled trials that report using a modified intention to treat are increasingly being published in the medical literature. The descriptions of such an approach were ambiguous, and may cover any type of descriptions for exclusion, such as missing data and deviation from protocol. Explicit statements about post-randomisation exclusions should replace the ambiguous terminology of modified intention to treat.

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: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.

Dataset Information

Dual-Outcome Intention-to-Treat Analyses in the Women's Health Initiative Randomized Controlled Hormone Therapy Trials.

Publications

Dual-Outcome Intention-to-Treat Analyses in the Women's Health Initiative Randomized Controlled Hormone Therapy Trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets