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 .
Blinding decreased recruitment in a prevention trial of postmenopausal hormone therapy.
PURPOSE To compare the effect of blind design ( active drug and placebo ) and nonblind design ( active drug and no treatment ) on recruitment . SETTING A primary prevention trial with postmenopausal hormone therapy in Estonia . METHODS Women who were eligible and willing to participate on the basis of the question naire survey were r and omized into blind and nonblind groups . Recruitment rates are based on record keeping , and reasons for participating were requested in the first-year follow-up . RESULTS The recruitment was 30 % higher in the nonblind group : of the 4,295 women invited , 37 % ( 95 % confidence interval CI=35 - 39 % ) in the blind group and 48 % ( 95 % CI=46 - 49 % ) in the nonblind group were recruited . In both groups , once r and omized , most of the losses were women who did not attend the first clinical examination : 49 % ( blind ; 95 % CI=47 - 51 % ) and 40 % ( nonblind ; 95 % CI=38 - 42 % ) . The rest were found ineligible or lost their interest during clinical examinations . The reasons for joining the trial were relatively similar in the two groups . CONCLUSIONS Blinding decreased women 's interest in joining a long-term preventive trial . Women 's reasons for joining the trial were not influenced by blinding
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 .