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 .
Effect of progestin therapy on cortical and trabecular bone: comparison with estrogen.
PURPOSE To determine the effect of progestin therapy on bone mineral density in postmenopausal women and to compare its effects to those of estrogen . SUBJECTS AND METHODS A prospect i ve , r and omized clinical trial was performed in 81 postmenopausal women aged 51.7 + /- 4.4 years ( mean + /- SD ) . They were assigned to one of four groups : Provera 20 mg , Premarin 0.6 mg , Premarin 0.3 mg plus Provera 10 mg , and a placebo . In addition , all women received calcium supplementation , if necessary , to a calcium intake of 1,000 mg/day . We used single- and dual-photon absorpiometry , metacarpal radiogrammetry , and computed axial tomography to measure bone mineral density in the total skeleton , spine , radius , and metacarpal . RESULTS Women receiving placebo  lost bone at all sites ( p less than 0.01 ) . The Provera-treated group showed no change in total body calcium , but there were decreases in radial density ( p less than 0.01 ) , metacarpal cortex ( p less than 0.01 ) , and spine density ( p less than 0.01 ) . The Premarin-treated group had an increase in spine density and total body density ( p less than 0.05 ) , but a decrease in radial density ( p less than 0.05 ) . The Premarin-plus-Provera group showed no change in spine density , total body calcium , or radial density but had a decrease in metacarpal cortex ( p less than 0.01 ) . CONCLUSIONS Compared to placebo , Provera reduced the rate of loss in cortical areas of the skeleton , but not in the spine , which contains more trabecular bone . In contrast , Premarin reduced the rate of loss in both cortical and trabecular areas of the skeleton . The low-dose combination of Premarin plus Provera was similar in its effect on bone to that of Premarin alone , suggesting that there may be a synergistic effect of this hormone combination on bone . Serum cholesterol levels decreased with Provera , Premarin , and the combination of both , whereas levels of serum triglycerides increased with Premarin treatment , decreased with the Provera regimen , and were unchanged with the combination therapy . Provera does not adversely affect the lipid profile
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 .