Human Reproduction, Vol. 18, No. 11, 2241-2244,
November 2003
© 2003 European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology
Issues to debate on the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) study. Epidemiology or randomized clinical trialstime out for hormone replacement therapy studies?
Juliane Marie Centret, Rigshospitalet, Blegdamsvej 9, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark
1 To whom correspondence should be addressed. e-mail: bent.ottesen{at}rh.dk
Over the last 40 years, there has been increasing epidemiological evidence that post-menopausal treatment with sex steroids in physiological doses may reduce the relative risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). These findings have been supported by biological studies showing favourable changes in cardiovascular risk factors with estrogen supplementation. The impact of the so-called healthy user bias has been eagerly debated, and the results of the first and only randomized long-term clinical trial of HRT for primary prevention have therefore been long awaited. The dramatic decision to halt the Womens Health Initiative (WHI) study before completion came unexpectedly as the consequence of not only an increased risk of breast cancer but also increased occurrence of cardiovascular events with HRT. Due to the superior design of the study, the results from the WHI study have had an enormous impact on the clinical recommendations of HRT to post-menopausal women, concurrent with a degradation of evidence from observational studies. It is not very likely that other long-term randomized clinical trials (RCTs) will be completed and epidemiology has certainly been disreputedso is this time out for HRT studies?
Key words: cardiovascular disease/HRT/Womens Health Initiative Study
![]()
CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
C. Edwards and N. Arden Commentary: Statins and fracture--why the confusion? Int. J. Epidemiol., October 1, 2006; 35(5): 1312 - 1313. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
P Allmark and S Mason Should desperate volunteers be included in randomised controlled trials? J. Med. Ethics, September 1, 2006; 32(9): 548 - 553. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. Dietel, M.A. Lewis, and S. Shapiro Hormone replacement therapy: pathobiological aspects of hormone-sensitive cancers in women relevant to epidemiological studies on HRT: a mini-review Hum. Reprod., August 1, 2005; 20(8): 2052 - 2060. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
Y. T. van der Schouw and D. E. Grobbee Menopausal complaints, oestrogens, and heart disease risk: an explanation for discrepant findings on the benefits of post-menopausal hormone therapy Eur. Heart J., July 2, 2005; 26(14): 1358 - 1361. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||



