We found high quality evidence that hormone therapy in both primary and secondary prevention conferred no protective effects for all-cause mortality , cardiovascular death , non-fatal myocardial infa rct ion , angina , or revascularisation .
There was no strong evidence of effect on risk of stroke in this group .
Our review findings provide strong evidence that treatment with hormone therapy in post-menopausal women overall , for either primary or secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease events has little if any benefit and causes an increase in the risk of stroke and venous thromboembolic events
BACKGROUND Evidence from systematic review s of observational studies suggests that hormone therapy may have beneficial effects in reducing the incidence of cardiovascular disease events in post-menopausal women , however the results of r and omised controlled trials ( RCTs ) have had mixed results .
This is an up date d version of a Cochrane review published in 2013 .
OBJECTIVES To assess the effects of hormone therapy for the prevention of cardiovascular disease in post-menopausal women , and whether there are differential effects between use in primary or secondary prevention .
Secondary aims were to undertake exploratory analyses to ( i ) assess the impact of time since menopause that treatment was commenced ( ≥ 10 years versus < 10 years ) , and where these data were not available , use age of trial participants at baseline as a proxy ( ≥ 60 years of age versus < 60 years of age ) ; and ( ii ) assess the effects of length of time on treatment .
Randomized trial of estrogen plus progestin for secondary prevention of coronary heart disease in postmenopausal women. Heart and Estrogen/progestin Replacement Study (HERS) Research Group.
CONTEXT Observational studies have found lower rates of coronary heart disease ( CHD ) in postmenopausal women who take estrogen than in women who do not , but this potential benefit has not been confirmed in clinical trials . OBJECTIVE To determine if estrogen plus progestin therapy alters the risk for CHD events in postmenopausal women with established coronary disease . DESIGN R and omized , blinded , placebo-controlled secondary prevention trial . SETTING Outpatient and community setting s at 20 US clinical centers . PARTICIPANTS A total of 2763 women with coronary disease , younger than 80 years , and postmenopausal with an intact uterus . Mean age was 66.7 years . INTERVENTION Either 0.625 mg of conjugated equine estrogens plus 2.5 mg of medroxyprogesterone acetate in 1 tablet daily ( n = 1380 ) or a placebo of identical appearance ( n = 1383 ) . Follow-up averaged 4.1 years ; 82 % of those assigned to hormone treatment were taking it at the end of 1 year , and 75 % at the end of 3 years . MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary outcome was the occurrence of nonfatal myocardial infa rct ion ( MI ) or CHD death . Secondary cardiovascular outcomes included coronary revascularization , unstable angina , congestive heart failure , resuscitated cardiac arrest , stroke or transient ischemic attack , and peripheral arterial disease . All-cause mortality was also considered . RESULTS Overall , there were no significant differences between groups in the primary outcome or in any of the secondary cardiovascular outcomes : 172 women in the hormone group and 176 women in the placebo group had MI or CHD death ( relative hazard [ RH ] , 0.99 ; 95 % confidence interval [ CI ] , 0.80 - 1.22 ) . The lack of an overall effect occurred despite a net 11 % lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level and 10 % higher high-density lipoprotein cholesterol level in the hormone group compared with the placebo group ( each P<.001 ) . Within the overall null effect , there was a statistically significant time trend , with more CHD events in the hormone group than in the placebo group in year 1 and fewer in years 4 and 5 . More women in the hormone group than in the placebo group experienced venous thromboembolic events ( 34 vs 12 ; RH , 2.89 ; 95 % CI , 1.50 - 5.58 ) and gallbladder disease ( 84 vs 62 ; RH , 1.38 ; 95 % CI , 1.00 - 1.92 ) . There were no significant differences in several other end points for which power was limited , including fracture , cancer , and total mortality ( 131 vs 123 deaths ; RH , 1.08 ; 95 % CI , 0.84 - 1.38 ) . CONCLUSIONS During an average follow-up of 4.1 years , treatment with oral conjugated equine estrogen plus medroxyprogesterone acetate did not reduce the overall rate of CHD events in postmenopausal women with established coronary disease . The treatment did increase the rate of thromboembolic events and gallbladder disease . Based on the finding of no overall cardiovascular benefit and a pattern of early increase in risk of CHD events , we do not recommend starting this treatment for the purpose of secondary prevention of CHD . However , given the favorable pattern of CHD events after several years of therapy , it could be appropriate for women already receiving this treatment to continue
We found high quality evidence that hormone therapy in both primary and secondary prevention conferred no protective effects for all-cause mortality , cardiovascular death , non-fatal myocardial infa rct ion , angina , or revascularisation .
There was no strong evidence of effect on risk of stroke in this group .
Our review findings provide strong evidence that treatment with hormone therapy in post-menopausal women overall , for either primary or secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease events has little if any benefit and causes an increase in the risk of stroke and venous thromboembolic events
BACKGROUND Evidence from systematic review s of observational studies suggests that hormone therapy may have beneficial effects in reducing the incidence of cardiovascular disease events in post-menopausal women , however the results of r and omised controlled trials ( RCTs ) have had mixed results .
This is an up date d version of a Cochrane review published in 2013 .
OBJECTIVES To assess the effects of hormone therapy for the prevention of cardiovascular disease in post-menopausal women , and whether there are differential effects between use in primary or secondary prevention .
Secondary aims were to undertake exploratory analyses to ( i ) assess the impact of time since menopause that treatment was commenced ( ≥ 10 years versus < 10 years ) , and where these data were not available , use age of trial participants at baseline as a proxy ( ≥ 60 years of age versus < 60 years of age ) ; and ( ii ) assess the effects of length of time on treatment .