Hormone Replacement Therapy and the Cardiovascular System: Lessons Learned and Unanswered Questions
Pamela Ouyang, MB, BS, FACC; Erin D. Michos, MD; Richard H. Karas, MD, PhD, FACC 

J Am Coll Cardiol.  2006;47(9):1741-1753.  ?2006 Elsevier Science, Inc.
Posted 05/19/2006

Abstract and Introduction

Abstract

Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death among women in the U.S., exceeding breast cancer mortality in women of all ages. Women present with cardiovascular disease a decade after men, and this has been attributed to the protective effect of female ovarian sex hormones that is lost after menopause. Animal and observational studies have shown beneficial effects of hormone therapy when it is initiated early in the perimenopausal period or before the development of significant atherosclerosis. However, randomized, placebo-controlled trials in older women have not shown any benefit in either primary prevention or secondary prevention of cardiovascular events, with a concerning trend toward harm. This review outlines the lessons learned from the basic science, animal, observational, and randomized trials, and then summarizes yet-unanswered questions of hormone therapy and cardiovascular risk.

Introduction

Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death among women in the U.S., accounting for more than 500,000 deaths annually.[1] Mortality attributable to coronary heart disease (CHD) exceeds breast cancer mortality in women at all ages.[2] The vast majority of these cardiovascular events occur in postmenopausal women. Heart disease develops in women on average 10 years later in life compared with men, and this lag has been attributed to the protective effects of female sex hormones, particularly estrogens, before menopause.[3]

Initially, data from animal studies and observational studies such as the Nurses' Health Study[4] strongly supported a protective cardiovascular benefit of hormone therapy (HT) after menopause, an effect not supported by randomized placebo-controlled trials in both secondary prevention[5] and primary prevention,[6] which instead showed a concerning trend toward harm. However, many unanswered questions remain.

This review outlines lessons learned from basic science of estrogen action and animal studies and from observational and randomized trials, followed by a discussion of as-yet-unanswered questions about HT and cardiovascular risk.

Molecular and Cellular Basis of Estrogen in Vascular Biology

Estrogen can have both positive and negative effects on the cardiovascular system[7] (Fig. 1). On the positive side, estrogen has potentially beneficial effects on lipid parameters, such as reducing low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDLC) and increasing high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDLC), facilitating nitric oxide-mediated vasodilation, and inhibiting the response of blood vessels to injury and the development of atherosclerosis.[8] On the negative side, estrogens increase triglycerides[9,10] and inflammatory markers such as C-reactive protein (CRP).[11,12] Estrogen also has many prothrombotic effects, such as increasing circulating levels of prothrombin and decreasing antithrombin III,[13,14] contributing to an increased risk of venous thromboembolic events. Importantly, many of these effects of estrogen are mediated by first-pass effects on the liver, and thus result from oral but not transdermal administration of HT. For example, increased levels of CRP seem to occur only with oral estrogen administration. The extent to which this is associated with an increase in cardiovascular disease risk is uncertain.[15,16] These observations underscore the potential importance of the mode of administration on the overall effects of HT on CHD risk as discussed below.

Figure 1. 

Estrogen: beneficial and thrombogenic effects. CAM = cell adhesion molecule; Cox-2 = cyclooxygenase 2; ER = estrogen receptor; HRT = hormone replacement therapy; LDL = low-density lipoprotein; MCP = monocyte chemoattractant protein; MMP = matrix metalloproteinase; TNF = tumor necrosis factor; VSMC = vascular smooth muscle cell. Reprinted, with permission, from Mendelsohn and Karas.[7]

     

Mechanisms of Estrogen Action

As our understanding of the mechanisms by which estrogens affect the cardiovascular system has increased, it has become clear that the complexity of the biological effects of estrogens are reflective of quite complex mechanisms of action.[7,8] As noted above, estrogens regulate a variety of systemic or circulating factors, including lipids, inflammatory factors, and members of the coagulation/fibrinolytic cascades. Estrogens can also act directly on the heart and the vasculature. The effects of estrogen are mediated by estrogen receptors, of which two are known, ERα and ERß, and both are expressed in cardiovascular cells and tissues.[7,8] Estrogen receptors are classically thought of as ligand-activated transcription factors that reside in the cell nucleus and regulate gene expression in response to hormone binding. This mechanism, often referred to as the genomic pathway, likely underlies the longer-term effects of estrogen, such as those on circulating levels of lipids and coagulation factors. More recently it has become clear that estrogen receptors also transduce the rapid effects of estrogen that occur within minutes[17] and are referred to as non-genomic because they do not depend on changes in gene expression. These rapid effects of estrogen are mediated by a subpopulation of estrogen receptors localized to cell membrane signaling domains called caveolae. The best-studied example of this non-genomic pathway for estrogen action in the cardiovascular system is the activation of endothelial cell nitric oxide synthase that results in arterial vasodilation in response to acute administration of estrogen.

Impact of Disease State on the Cardiovascular Effects of Estrogen

There is growing evidence showing that the effects of estrogen on the vasculature depend in part on the extent to which atherosclerosis has become established. For example, estrogen receptor expression is markedly diminished in atherosclerotic arteries,[18,19] and thus, to the extent that direct, receptor-dependent effects on the vasculature contribute to the potential for anti-atherosclerotic effects, this will be diminished or absent in diseased arteries. In addition, the effects of estrogen on a given pathway may have different consequences depending on the state of health of the underlying vessel. For example, estrogen up-regulates specific members of the matrix metalloproteinase (MMP) family such as MMP-9.[20] The MMPs degrade the extracellular matrix with the arterial wall. Thus, in a non-diseased artery, an estrogen-induced increase in MMP-9 may have little or no consequences, whereas in an atherosclerotic artery, where MMP-9 is expressed in the shoulder region of an atherosclerotic plaque, an increase in MMP-9 activity could conceivably be associated with an increased risk of plaque rupture and thus acute coronary syndromes. The Fitzgerald laboratory has recently shown that estrogen-mediated up-regulation of cyclooxygenase-2 plays an important role in retarding atherosclerosis in a hypercholesterolemic mouse model.[21] This suggests that atherosclerotic arteries with impaired cyclooxygenase-2 responses may also lose this potentially beneficial effect of hormone treatment.

More direct support for the hypothesis that the effects of estrogen on cardiovascular risk depend on the timing of initiation of therapy in relation to the extent of underlying atherosclerosis comes from the Clarkson laboratory. Using a well-established monkey model of atherosclerosis, Clarkson and colleagues have shown that the antiatherosclerotic effects of oral conjugated equine estrogens (CEE) are apparent only in monkeys with minimal underlying atherosclerosis at the time that therapy is initiated, as reviewed in Karas and Clarkson,[20] a finding also supported by rodent and rabbit studies.[22,23]

Cardiovascular Disease and Menopause

Interest in the role estrogen plays in cardiovascular disease was stimulated by the observed increase in cardiovascular events after menopause. In 1976 the Framingham investigators reported a 2.6-fold higher incidence of cardiovascular events in age-matched postmenopausal women compared with premenopausal women.[24] The excess CHD risk associated with surgical menopause was 2.7-fold higher compared with premenopausal women of the same age (p < 0.01)[25] and 2.2-fold higher compared with women with a natural menopause. This excess risk seemed to be prevented by estrogen replacement therapy.[26] Plasma lipoproteins were thought to play a role in the increased CHD risk that menopause confers because total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, and triglyceride levels all increase in women after menopause,[27] and HT seemed to counter these unfavorable effects of lipids, although the cardioprotective HDL cholesterol levels also decreased.[28] In addition, there is an age-associated increase in the incidence of cardiovascular disease for both premenopausal and postmenopausal women independent of the effects of HT. Overall, however, data indicate that withdrawal of estrogen during menopause is associated with an increased risk of heart disease above that seen for premenopausal women. This led to interest in the potential cardiovascular benefit from postmenopausal estrogen replacement therapy.

Animal Studies of Hormone Replacement

In animal studies, estrogens exert vasodilator,[29] anti-inflammatory,[30] and antiatherosclerotic[31] properties, as well as favorably affecting lipid profiles. In a study of randomized ovariectomized hypercholesterolemic rabbits, estradiol significantly reduced atherosclerosis progression compared with levonorgestrel or no hormones.[32] A series of studies have also shown that estradiol significantly lessens the response to vascular injury in mice and further implicate ERα as the specific estrogen receptor that mediates this vasculoprotective effect.[33-36] Similarly in ovariectomized monkeys, 17ß-estradiol or CEE reduced coronary artery atherosclerosis compared with control animals by 50% (p ≤ 0.05)[37] to 72% (p < 0.04).[38] Although the role of estrogen replacement seemed promising in the animal studies, the data regarding progesterone were more conflicting.[39]

Observational Trials of Hormone Replacement

Overall, the animal studies suggested a promising role of estrogen replacement after menopause. Simultaneously, a series of observational and case-control trials also suggested benefit (reviewed in Table 1 ). The majority of the smaller case-control studies[40-45] showed nonsignificant trends toward reduction in CHD events with overall odds ratios ranging from 0.69 to 0.9. However, a large case-control study did show a significant association with HT and reduced incidence of first myocardial infarction (MI).[46] Longer duration of use seemed to confer even more cardiovascular benefit.[47]

In addition to reducing CHD events, cross-sectional data suggested less subclinical atherosclerosis in HT users.[48] In an observational analysis of the Cardiovascular Health Study of women >65 years of age, estrogen users had lower levels of subclinical disease as measured by a variety of surrogate end points.[49] Even more promising, the much larger observational Nurses' Health Study of 70,000 asymptomatic women showed a lower incidence of CHD events and all-cause mortality in HT users compared with nonusers.[4,50,51] It is important to note that most women in the Nurses' Health Study likely started taking HT in the perimenopausal period and were free of known CHD at the start of the study.

Randomized Trials of Hormone Replacement Therapy

The animal and observational studies were followed by a series of randomized, placebo-controlled trials of HT in both primary and secondary prevention, and with both surrogate and cardiovascular event outcomes, which failed to confirm cardiovascular benefit (reviewed in Table 2 ). Although two smaller randomized trials using the surrogate end points of carotid intima-medial thickness (IMT)[52] and brachial reactivity[53] favored estrogen, three other randomized trials looking at atherosclerotic progression by coronary angiography showed no benefit.[54-56] In women who already had coronary disease[57] or increased subclinical atherosclerosis on carotid IMT assessment,[58,59] HT had no impact on disease progression. Also in a study of postmenopausal women presenting with unstable angina, acute HT started in the hospital setting had no effect on reducing further ischemic events evaluated by ambulatory electrocardiographic monitoring.[60] Similarly, HT given to women with recent acute stroke did not reduce subsequent stroke or mortality.[61]

The Heart and Estrogen/Progestin Replacement Study (HERS) was the first published secondary prevention trial in 2,763 women with known CHD followed up for the primary outcome of the cardiovascular events of nonfatal MI or CHD death. At a mean of 4.1 years, there was no significant difference in the HT arm versus the placebo arm (hazard ratio of 0.99, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.80 to 1.22).[5] There seemed to be a trend toward benefit at longer durations of therapy, but this was not supported with the longer follow-up period of seven years (hazard ratio of 0.99, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.22).[62]

The largest randomized clinical trial is the Women's Health Initiative (WHI), which included 16,608 women with an intact uterus randomized to CEE and medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) or placebo with a 5.6-year mean follow-up.[6] This was stopped early because of an increase in breast cancer among HT users with no cardiovascular benefit. An additional 10,739 women with hysterectomy were randomized to CEE alone or placebo, and that trial also showed no cardiovascular benefit.[63] The findings for the combined CEE-MPA arm suggested that for 10,000 person-years there would be seven more CHD events, eight more strokes, eight more pulmonary embolisms, and eight more invasive breast cancers. For the CEE alone group, there would be an absolute excess of 12 strokes per 10,000 people despite a risk reduction of 6 fewer hip fractures. The WISDOM trial,[64] based in the United Kingdom with a design similar to the WHI trial, was discontinued in 2002 after the results of the WHI trial were published.

Randomized placebo-controlled trials reduce many of the biases inherent in observational studies but have other limitations. The WHI trial is a very important study that has changed the national view of HT. Although primarily a primary prevention trial, a small number of patients did have established disease, including a history of MI (1.6%), history of angina (2.8%), history of coronary bypass surgery/percutaneous coronary intervention (1.1%), history of stroke (0.7%), and/or CHD risk factors of diabetes (4.4%), hypertension on therapy (35.7%), and hyperlipidemia on therapy (12.5%). The mean age of 63 years puts the majority of these women at least 10 years after menopause at the time of initiation of HT. There was also significant crossover between the two arms. Of consideration, only one drug regimen, CEE 0.625/MPA 2.5 mg orally per day, was tested, so these findings may or may not apply to lower dosages of these drugs, other formulations, or other routes of delivery.

Questions to be Answered

Given the findings of the HERS and of WHI trials, is the HT discussion ended for good? Hardly. The conflicting results from animal/observational studies compared with the randomized controlled trials raise many unanswered questions. These include whether some of the discrepancy is related to the age of the women in the studies, the timing of initiation (perimenopausal or postmenopausal), the amount of atherosclerosis at the time of initiation (primary vs. secondary prevention), the dosage, and the preparation form (transdermal, oral, or intravenous with or without progesterone), and whether there are genetic aspects to benefit or harm from HT.

Recently, Prentice et al.[65] reanalyzed the data from the observational trials adjusting for time from estrogen-plus-progestin initiation and confounding variables, and found that the readjusted hazard ratio estimates between the observational and experimental trials became much more similar for outcomes of CHD and thromboembolism, although less so for stroke.[65] These analyses suggest that the apparent discrepancies between clinical trial and observational study findings may be substantially explained by classical confounding and differences in distributions of time of initiation.

Timing of Initiation

Because atherosclerosis accelerates after estrogen deficiency, it would seem logical that estrogen replacement would have the most benefit when starting early in perimenopausal women. Most women in the observational trials such as the Nurses' Health Study, which suggested a protective effect of estrogen, started HT during the perimenopausal transition,[66] whereas the WHI trial contained too few women in the perimenopausal period to evaluate whether any cardiac protection was seen. In the WHI trial the average age was 10 years after menopause, an age at which subclinical atherosclerosis has developed in many women.[67]

In support of the notion that timing of initiation is critical, animal studies also showed no benefit of estrogen in animals that already had artery damage, either from balloon injury or from atherosclerotic diet, before initiation of HT.[68] These animal studies are consistent with the findings of the secondary prevention (i.e., HERS) trials. In postmenopausal women in the Cardiovascular Health Study, estrogen replacement only caused vasodilation of the brachial artery in younger women without clinical or subclinical cardiovascular disease, suggesting that the favorable effects of estrogen may be limited to only those in whom atherosclerotic vascular disease has not yet developed.[69]

The Kronos Early Estrogen Prevention Study (KEEPS) is a multicenter randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial that will evaluate the effectiveness of 0.45 mg CEE or 50 ?g transdermal estradiol (in combination with 200 mg progesterone) in preventing the progression of carotid IMT or coronary calcium in women who are within 36 months of their final menstrual period.[70] It is hoped that the KEEPS trial will provide some answers to the important question of whether HT will have a beneficial role if started early, although a relatively small sample size and the use of a surrogate end point represent limitations of this study. Hodis et al.[71] have recently launched the Early vs. Late Intervention Trial with Estrogen (ELITE), which is also focused on examining the potential importance of time since menopause on the cardiovascular effects of HT. In the ELITE study, the effects of oral 17ß-estradiol on carotid IMT will be compared directly in perimenopausal women versus those >6 years after menopause.

Dose

Although 0.625 mg CEE clearly showed no cardiovascular benefit in the HERS and WHI trials, the observational Nurses' Health Study found the protective effect of CEE only in the lower doses of 0.3 mg and 0.625 mg, whereas 1.25 mg and higher doses were not protective. In a small randomized, double-blind crossover trial by Koh et al.[13] of 57 postmenopausal women on progesterone, lower-dose CEE 0.3 mg compared with 0.625 mg had similar favorable effects on HDL, triglycerides, and brachial reactivity, but had fewer prothrombotic effects and a smaller increase in CRP. In postmenopausal diabetic women without a recent MI among the Kaiser Permanente database, low-dose or medium-dose estrogen (<0.625 mg) decreased the risk of MI, which was not seen with a higher dose.[72] Whether a lower dose of estrogen such as 0.3 mg CEE would provide cardioprotection without increasing thromboembolism remains to be seen.

Route of Delivery

The formulation of estrogen used in the large clinical trials and in the majority of the smaller studies was CEE with or without MPA. There are extremely limited randomized trial data for other preparations of HT. Transdermal estrogen delivery provides sustained release of estrogens and more constant blood levels than oral administration. When estrogen is given orally, it has first-pass effects on the liver. Transdermal preparations avoid the first-pass effects on the liver and have less effect on the lipoprotein profile.[73] Estradiol-to-estrone conversion is slower in parental administration, but transdermal delivery more commonly facilitates an estradiol-estrone ratio of about 1, which is similar to the physiological ratio in the pre-menopausal state.

Other differences that favor the transdermal approach include a neutral effect on CRP, a decrease in factor VII and fibrinogen, and a reduction in blood pressure.[74] Because the first pass through the liver is avoided, there may be less induction of a prothrombotic state with the transdermal preparation. The Estrogen and Thromboembolism Risk study Group (ESTHER) case-controlled trial found that oral estrogen but not a transdermal formulation increased the risk of venothromboembolism in postmenopausal women on HT compared with control subjects.[75]

In a case-controlled study, transdermal users seemed to have similar level of cardioprotective effects as those receiving oral preparations.[46] These effects are not significant, but this may be attributable to small sample size. However, an animal study using transdermal estradiol did not find inhibition of aortic atherosclerosis.[76]

Overall, the benefits of a transdermal estrogen preparation over an oral one seem encouraging, but further randomized trials are warranted.[77] It is hoped that the KEEPS trial,[70] which will randomize healthy perimenopausal women to oral versus transdermal hormone replacement, will provide information on this important question.

Genetics

It is possible that genetically determined subgroups of women may benefit by or be harmed from HT. Studies have shown that the cardiovascular effects of HT differ in individuals with specific genetic variants of certain genes such as apolipoprotein E4 (-) and myeloperoxidase.[78,79] Recent work has also shown that genetic variation in the estrogen receptor itself may modulate the cardiovascular effects of HT, and also alter the underlying risk of CHD. The Herrington laboratory recently showed that a specific genetic variant of ERα is associated with an enhanced HDL-increasing effect of HT.[80] Quite surprisingly, this same genetic variant of ERα was also recently shown to be associated with an approximately three-fold increased risk of MI in men in the Framingham heart study.[81]

Statin Use

Perhaps concomitant statin use may attenuate the negative cardiovascular effects of HT. Subgroup analysis of the HERS trial showed that the increased cardiovascular risks of HT in this population of women with established CHD did not occur in women taking statin therapy; however, there was no incremental risk reduction for cardiovascular events in women on both statin and HT compared with statin alone.[82]

Summary

In conclusion, the HT controversy has not yet been laid to rest. Current randomized clinical trial data support the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines that HT should not be prescribed for prevention of cardiovascular disease.[83,84] However, it remains possible that some formulations and doses of HT may have favorable cardiovascular benefits when initiated earlier in the pre-menopausal or perimenopausal period in women without pre-existing atherosclerotic disease. We await the KEEPS and ELITE trial results, among others, to further answer this important issue.

Table 1. Observational and Case-Controlled Studies of Hormone Therapy


Investigator/Year Type of Study Population Hormone Preparation Primary End Point Results Conclusions
Rosenberg et al. (40)/1993 Case-controlled 858 women age 45?60 yrs with first MI compared with 858 age-matched control subjects. Estrogen (E) alone: 21% of both cases and control subjects used E; most using CEE. First MI OR of 0.9 (0.7?1.2) with history of E use. For >5 yrs of use OR of 0.6 (p = 0.08). Nonsignificant trend toward reduced first MI in E users, longer-term use was stronger than recent use (p < 0.05) and compared with past use (p = 0.08).
Mann et al. (41)/1994 Case-controlled Database within British National Health Service. Women age 45?64 yrs (n = 567,096), with 1,521 cases of MI matched with 6,084 control subjects. Any E or E+ progestin (P): 117 cases and 562 control subjects used HT. Approximately 2/3 on E+P and 1/3 on E. First MI (fatal or nonfatal) OR 0.83 (0.66?1.03), p = 0.089 with HT use. Nonsmokers on HT, OR 0.70 (0.49?1), smokers on HT, OR 1.05 (0.71?1.53). Nonsignificant trend toward reduced first MI with any form of HT. However, protective effect seems to be confined to nonsmokers.
Psaty et al. (42)/1994 Case-controlled Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound, WA. Postmenopausal women, 502 cases of MI and 1,193 control subjects. Any E or E+P. Among cases, HT use was E (n = 45) and E+P (n = 16); among control subjects use was E (n = 157) and E+P (n = 74). Majority used cyclical 0.625 CEE and 10 mg MPA. First MI (fatal or nonfatal) OR 0.69 (0.47?1.02) with E alone. OR 0.68 (0.38?1.22) with E+P. Nonsignificant trend toward reduced risk of MI.
Jonas et al. (48)/1996 Cross-sectional, nonrandomized 2,962 women in the Cardiovascular Health Study. E formulation not specified. Past users (n = 787), current E alone (n = 280), current E+P (n = 73). Carotid IMT
Carotid stenosis		 IMT was 0.22 mm less in E (p = 0.003) and 0.09 mm less in E+P (p = 0.05) vs. in nonusers. Adjusted OR for carotid stenosis of 0.61 (0.36?1.01) for E and OR 0.91 (0.67?1.25) for E+P. Both E+P and E alone were associated with decreased measures of carotid atherosclerosis.
Grodstein et al. (4)/1996 Prospective observational 59,337 women from Nurses? Health Study ages 30?55 yrs at baseline. 770 cases of MI/CHD death and 572 cases of stroke over 16-yr follow-up. Past users (n = 12,503), current E alone (n = 7,776), and E+P (n = 6,224). MI or CHD death For MI/CHD events, RR 0.39 (0.19?0.78) in E+P, 0.60 (0.43?0.83) in E alone. For stroke, RR 1.09 (0.66?1.8) in E+P and 1.27 (0.95?1.69) for E alone. These data support a reduced risk of hard CHD events in women on HT that is not attenuated by the addition of progestin. However, there was a nonsignificant trend toward increased strokes.
Grodstein et al. (50)/1997 Prospective observational Postmenopausal women of Nurses? Health Study. 3,637 cases and 34,625 control subjects over 18-yr follow-up. Any hormone replacement. Mortality RR 0.63 (0.56?0.70) in current HT users, decreasing after 10 years of use (RR 0.80, 0.67?0.96). Benefit seen in HT users with CHD risk factors (RR 0.51, 0.45?0.57), not in those at low risk (RR 0.89, 0.62?1.28). Mortality is lower among current HT users; however, survival benefit diminishes over time and is lower for women at low risk for CHD.
Heckbert et al. (47)/1997 Case-controlled Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound, WA enrollees. Postmenopausal women; 850 cases with MI and 1,974 control subjects. E alone or E+P. 229 cases and 700 control subjects used HT, most commonly CEE with or without MPA. Fatal or nonfatal MI For categories of duration of E use, OR 1.0 for never (ref), 0.91 for <1.8 yrs, 0.70 for 1.8?4.2 yrs, 0.64 for 4.2?8.2 yrs, and 0.55 for >8.2 yrs. p = 0.05 for the trend. A longer duration of HT among current users was associated with a reduced risk of first MI.
Sidney et al. (43)/1997 Case-controlled Kaiser database. Postmenopausal women age 45?74 yrs; 438 cases with MI and 438 age-matched control subjects. E or E+P. In women s/p hysterectomy 51% used E, 1.2% used E+P. In women with a uterus 18.4% used E+P, 3% used E. MI OR 0.96 (0.66?1.49) in current HT users compared with nonusers, OR 1.07 (0.72?1.58) in past users. No statistically significant decrease in OR for MI in current or past users of HT.
Petitti et al. (44)/2000 Case-controlled Same population of Kaiser database as above. As above. MI OR 0.9 (0.5?1.6) in current HT users without CHD risk factors, 0.8 (0.5?1.8) with 1 risk factor and 1.1 (0.5?2.2) with 2 risk factors. No decrease in risk of MI in current users of HT who had 0, 1, 2, or 3 major CHD risk factors.
Grodstein et al. (45)/1999 Case-controlled Sweden. Postmenopausal women with 213 cases of MI and 289 strokes matched to control subjects. Medium-potency compared with low-potency or short-term E or E+P use. MI and stroke For MI, OR 0.75 (0.56?0.99) for medium-potency compared with low-potency E and OR 0.69 (0.45?0.90) for combined E+P. For stroke, OR 0.91 (0.71?1.17) for medium-potency E and 0.81 (0.61?1.10) for E+P. Decreased risk of MI for medium potency E or E+P. No effect was seen on stroke risk.
Grodstein et al. (51)/2000 Prospective, observational Nurses? Health Study. 70,533 postmenopausal women with 1,258 fatal/nonfatal MI and 767 strokes over 20-yr follow-up. Any HT including CEE 0.3 mg, 0.625 mg, and >1.25 mg either alone or in combination with progestin. Fatal or nonfatal MI and stroke CHD events: RR in current E users of 0.61 (0.52?0.71); 0.54 (0.44?0.67) with CEE 0.625 mg and 0.58 (0.37?0.92) with CEE 0.3 mg. Stroke: RR 1.35 (1.08?1.68) with CEE 0.625 mg, 1.63 (1.18?2.26) for >1.25 mg, and 1.45 (1.10?1.92) for E+P. CEE seemed to decrease the risk of CHD events with similar reduction for 0.3 mg and 0.625 mg CEE. However, CEE ≥0.625 mg or in combination with progestin may increase risk of stroke.
Varas-Lorenzo et al. (46)/2000 Case-controlled General Practice Research Database (n = 164,769), with 1,242 cases of first MI and 5,000 age-matched control subjects. Any HT including oral (79%) and transdermal (21%) formulations. MI Current HT users had OR 0.72 (0.59?0.89), OR 0.52 (0.35?0.78) for E, and OR 0.79 (0.59?1.08) for E+P. Data showed an association between HT and reduced incidence of acute MI. This was similar in users of oral and transdermal formulations.
Ferrara et al. (72)/2003 Observational Kaiser database. Diabetic women age >50 yrs (mean age 65 yrs, n = 25,000). Low-, medium-, or high-dose E alone or combined E+P. There were 2,526 (10%) women on E alone and 2,088 (9%) on E+P. 3-yr MI risk In those without a recent MI, RH for MI for combined HT was 0.77 (0.61?0.97); unopposed estrogen was 0.88 (0.73?1.05). In those with a recent MI, RH was 1.78 (1.06?2.98). In diabetic women without a recent MI, use of HT was associated with decreased risk of MI in women on <0.625 mg CEE but not a higher dose. However, HT was associated with an increased risk of MI in women with a history of recent MI, especially for HT use <1 yr.

CEE = conjugated equine estrogens; CHD = coronary heart disease; E = estrogen; E+P = estrogen plus progestins; HR = hazard ratio; HT = hormone therapy; IMT = intimal-medial thickness; IV = intravenous; MI = myocardial infarction; MPA = medroxyprogesterone; OR = odds ratio (95% confidence interval); PE = pulmonary embolism; PO = per os (oral); RF = risk factors; RR = relative risk; TIA = transient ischemic attack.

 

Table 2. Summary of the Randomized Trials of Hormone Therapy


Investigator/Year Study Design Subjects Intervention Median Follow-Up End Point Results Conclusions
Herrington et al. (54)/2000 (ERA) Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled secondary prevention trial 309 postmenopausal women with coronary stenosis >30%, mean age 65.8 yrs CEE 0.625 mg only (n = 100), CEE 0.625+MPA 2.5 mg daily (n = 104), or placebo (n = 100) 3.2 yrs Quantitative coronary angiography: adjusted change in mean luminal diameter ?0.09 ? 0.02 mm for E, ?0.12 ? 0.02 for combined E+P, and ?0.09 ? 0.02 for placebo, p = 0.38 Neither E alone nor E+P affected the progression of coronary atherosclerosis.
Waters et al. (55)/2002 (WAVE) Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled secondary prevention trial 423 postmenopausal women with at least 1 coronary stenosis 15% to 75%, mean age 65 yrs CEE 0.625 mg ? MPA 2.5 mg daily (n = 210) vs. placebo (n = 213), and vitamins vs. placebo 2.8 yrs Quantitative coronary angiography: annualized mean change in minimum lumen diameter Coronary progression worsened with HT by 0.047 (0.15) mm/yr and by 0.024 (0.015) in control subjects, p = 0.17. Death, nonfatal MI, or stroke HR was 1.9 (95% CI 0.97?3.6) in HT compared with control subjects. No significant change in progression of atherosclerosis. Neither HT (nor antioxidant supplements) provided CV benefit. Instead a potential for harm was suggested.
Hodis et al. (56)/2003 (WELL-HART) Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled 226 postmenopausal women with CHD, mean age 63.5 yrs Oral 17 ß-estradiol (1 mg/day) alone (n = 76), +5 mg MPA (n = 74), or placebo (n = 76) 3.3 yrs Quantitative coronary angiography: average per-participant change in percent stenosis Mean change in stenosis was 1.89 ? 0.78 in placebo, 2.18 ? 0.76 in E, 1.24 ? 0.80 in E+P; p = 0.66 for comparison Estrogen alone or with progesterone had no significant effect on the progression of atherosclerosis.
de Kleijn et al. (53)/2001 Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled primary prevention trial 105 healthy postmenopausal women Tibolone (n = 35), CEE+MPA (n = 35), or placebo (n = 35) 3 months Brachial reactivity: % flow-mediated lumen diameter change after 3 months CEE+MPA vs. placebo had 2.5% change (0.3?4.6). Tibolone vs. placebo was 0.6% (?1.6?2.8). HT with CEE+MPA (but not tibolone) increases endothelium-dependent flow-mediated dilation.
Angerer et al. (59)/2001(PHOREA) Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, secondary prevention 321 healthy postmenopausal women with increased carotid IMT 17 ß-estradiol 1 mg + 0.025 mg gestodone for 12 days/months vs. every 3 months (low-progestin) vs. no HT 48 weeks IMT: maximum carotid IMT thickness HT did not slow carotid IMT progression 1 yr of HT did not slow progression of subclinical atherosclerosis in postmenopausal women at increased risk.
Hodis et al. (52)/2001 (EPAT) Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, primary prevention trial 222 healthy postmenopausal women without CHD Unopposed 17 ß-estradiol (1 mg) (n = 111) or placebo (n = 111) 2 yrs IMT: rate of change in carotid artery IMT every 6 mo ?0.0017 mm/yr in E arm vs. 0.0036 mm/yr, placebo-estradiol difference in progression was 0.0053 mm/yr (0.0001?0.0105 mm/yr, p = 0.046) Progression of subclinical atherosclerosis was slower in healthy postmenopausal women taking unopposed E, compared with placebo.
Byingtoni et al. (58)/2002 (HERS B-Mode substudy) Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled secondary prevention trial 362 postmenopausal women with CHD (subset of HERS trial) CEE 0.625 + MPA 2.5 mg (n = 177) or placebo (n = 185) Mean 3.8 yrs IMT: temporal change in mean of 8 maximum IMT measurements IMT progressed 26 ?m/yr (18?34) in CEE+MPA group and 31 ?m/yr (21?40) in placebo group, p = 0.44 IMT progressed in both groups without significant difference.
Schulman et al. (60)/2001 Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial 293 postmenopausal women presenting with unstable angina enrolled within 24 h of symptom onset IV 1.25 mg bolus then oral CEE 1.25 mg + MPA 2.5 mg ?21 days vs. IV bolus then oral CEE 1.25 mg + placebo vs. IV then oral placebo 48 h ECG evidence of ischemia by continuous ambulatory monitoring (first 48 h) and repeated after 21 days of study drug ECG ischemia did not differ among the three groups Acute HT does not reduce ischemia in postmenopausal women with unstable angina when added to standard anti-ischemia therapy.
Viscoli et al. (61)/2001 (Women?s Estrogen for Stroke Trial) Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled secondary prevention trial 664 postmenopausal women (mean age 71 yrs) with recent stroke or TIA 17 ß-estradiol 1 mg Mean 2.8 yrs CV events: recurrent stroke or death Combined events: RR 1.1 (0.8?1.4) in E vs. placebo. Death alone RR 1.2 (0.8?1.8). Nonfatal stroke RR 1.0 (0.7?1.4). Fatal stroke RR 2.0, (0.9?9.0) in E users. Nonfatal strokes had slightly worse neurologic outcome in E users. Estradiol does not reduce mortality or recurrent stroke in postmenopausal women with cerebrovascular disease.
Hulley et al. (5)/1998 (HERS) Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled secondary prevention trial 2,763 postmenopausal women with CHD, mean age 66.7 yrs CEE 0.625 + MPA 2.5 mg (n = 1,380) or placebo (n = 1,383) Mean 4.1 yrs CV events: occurrence of nonfatal MI or CHD death RR of 0.99 (0.80?1.22). Trend to increased events in first year with fewer events at years 4?5. No overall CV benefit. Possible divergence at 4?5 yrs. HT increased the rate of thromboembolic disease.
Grady et al. (62)/2002 (HERS II) As above As above As above Mean 6.8 yrs CV events: as above Unadjusted RR of 0.99 (0.81?1.22), adjusted 0.99 (0.84?1.17) Lower rates of CHD events at 4?5 yrs among women on HT in HERS did n ot persist during additional years of follow-up.
Clarke et al. (57)/2002 (PHASE) Randomized, prospective secondary prevention trial 255 postmenopausal women with ≥1 coronary stenosis >50%, mean age 66.5 yrs Transdermal E+P (n = 134) vs. placebo (n = 121) 30.8 mo CV events: MI, cardiac death, or admission to hospital with unstable angina Event ratio 1.29 (0.84?1.95, p = 0.24) HT group had a not statistically significantly higher event rate compared with control subjects.
Roussouw et al. (6)/2002 (WHI CEE and MPA) Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled primary prevention trial 16,608 postmenopausal women CEE 0.625 mg + MPA 2.5 mg (n = 8,506) vs. placebo (n = 8,102) 5.2 yrs (planned 8.5 yrs) CV events: primary CHD outcome of nonfatal MI, and CHD death; adverse risk score included invasive breast cancer HR: CHD 1.29 (1.02?1.63), breast cancer 1.26 (1.0?1.59), stroke 1.41 (1.07?1.85), PE 2.13 (1.39?3.25), colon cancer 0.63 (0.43 ?0.92), endometrial cancer 0.83 (0.47?1.47), hip fracture 0.66 (0.45?0.98), total mortality 0.98 (0.82?1.18) Stopped early for absolute excess risks. For 10,000 person-years attributed to HRT were 7 more CHD events, 8 more PEs, 8 more asive breast cancers; whereas 6 fewer colon cancers and 5 fewer hip fractures were seen.
Anderson et al. (63)/2004 (WHI-CEE alone) Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial primary prevention 10,379 postmenopausal women with prior hysterectomy CEE 0.625 alone (n = 5,310) vs. placebo (n = 5,429) 6.8 yrs CV events: as above HR for CHD events 0.91 (0.75?1.12), breast cancer 0.77 (0.59?1.01), stroke 1.39 (1.10?1.77), PE 1.34 (0.87?2.06), colorectal cancer 1.08 (0.75?1.55), hip fracture 0.61 (0.41?0.91), total mortality 1.04 (0.88?1.22) The use of CEE increases the risk of stroke, decreases the risk of hip fracture, and does not affect CHD incidence.

Abbreviations as in Table 1.

 



References

  1. American Heart Association Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics?2003 Update. Dallas, TX: American Heart Association; 2002.
  2. Wingo PA, Calle EE, McTiernan A. How does breast cancer mortality compare with that of other cancers and selected cardiovascular diseases at different ages in U.S women? J Womens Health Gend Based Med 2000;9:999-1006.
  3. Kannel WB, Wilson PW. Risk factors that attenuate the female coronary disease advantage Arch Intern Med 1995;155:57-61.
  4. Grodstein F, Stampfer MJ, Manson JE, et al. Postmenopausal estrogen and progestin use and the risk of cardiovascular disease N Engl J Med 1996;335:453-461.
  5. Hulley S, Grady D, Bush T, et al. Heart and Estrogen/progestin Replacement Study (HERS) Research Group Randomized trial of estrogen plus progestin for secondary prevention of coronary heart disease in postmenopausal women JAMA 1998;280:605-613.
  6. Rossouw JE, Anderson GL, Prentice RL, et al. Risks and benefits of estrogen plus progestin in healthy postmenopausal womenprincipal results from the Women's Health Initiative randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2002;288:321-333.
  7. Mendelsohn ME, Karas RH. Molecular and cellular basis of cardiovascular gender differences Science 2005;308:1583-1587.
  8. Mendelsohn ME, Karas RH. The protective effects of estrogen on the cardiovascular system N Engl J Med 1999;340:1801-1811.
  9. Walsh BW, Schiff I, Rosner B, Greenberg L, Ravnikar V, Sacks FM. Effects of postmenopausal estrogen replacement on the concentrations and metabolism of plasma lipoproteins N Engl J Med 1991;325:1196-1204.
  10. Writing Group for the PEPI Trial Effects of estrogen or estrogen/progestin regimens on heart disease risk factors in postmenopausal women. The Postmenopausal Estrogen/Progestin Interventions (PEPI) trial JAMA 1995;273:199-208.
  11. Gol M, Akan P, Dogan E, Karas C, Saygili U, Posaci C. Effects of estrogen, raloxifene, and hormone replacement therapy on serum C-reactive protein and homocysteine levels Maturitas 2006;53:252-259.
  12. Hu P, Greendale GA, Palla SL, et al. The effects of hormone therapy on the markers of inflammation and endothelial function and plasma matrix metalloproteinase-9 level in postmenopausal womenthe Postmenopausal Estrogen Progestin Intervention (PEPI) trial. Atherosclerosis 2006;185:347-352.
  13. Koh KK, Shin MS, Sakuma I, et al. Effects of conventional or lower doses of hormone replacement therapy in postmenopausal women Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 2004;24:1516-1521.
  14. Mosca L. The role of hormone replacement therapy in the prevention of postmenopausal heart disease Arch Intern Med 2000;160:2263-2272.
  15. Langer RD, Pradhan AD, Lewis CE, et al. Baseline associations between postmenopausal hormone therapy and inflammatory, haemostatic, and lipid biomarkers of coronary heart disease. The Women's Health Initiative Observational Study Thromb Haemost 2005;93:1108-1116.
  16. Pradhan AD, Manson JE, Rossouw JE, et al. Inflammatory biomarkers, hormone replacement therapy, and incident coronary heart diseaseprospective analysis from the Women's Health Initiative observational study. JAMA 2002;288:980-987.
  17. Mendelsohn ME. Nongenomic, ER-mediated activation of endothelial nitric oxide synthasehow does it work? What does it mean?. Circ Res 2000;87:956-960.
  18. Losordo DW, Kearney M, Kim EA, Jekanowski J, Isner JM. Variable expression of the estrogen receptor in normal and atherosclerotic coronary arteries of premenopausal women Circulation 1994;89:1501-1510.
  19. Post WS, Goldschmidt-Clermont PJ, Wilhide CC, et al. Methylation of the estrogen receptor gene is associated with aging and atherosclerosis in the cardiovascular system Cardiovasc Res 1999;43:985-991.
  20. Karas R, Clarkson TB. Considerations in interpreting the cardiovascular effects of hormone replacement therapy observed in the WHItiming is everything. Menopausal Medicine 2003;10:8-12.
  21. Egan KM, Lawson JA, Fries S, et al. COX-2-derived prostacyclin confers atheroprotection on female mice Science 2004;306:1954-1957.
  22. Hanke H, Kamenz J, Hanke S, et al. Effect of 17-beta estradiol on pre-existing atherosclerotic lesionsrole of the endothelium. Atherosclerosis 1999;147:123-132.
  23. Rosenfeld ME, Kauser K, Martin-McNulty B, Polinsky P, Schwartz SM, Rubanyi GM. Estrogen inhibits the initiation of fatty streaks throughout the vasculature but does not inhibit intra-plaque hemorrhage and the progression of established lesions in apolipoprotein E deficient mice Atherosclerosis 2002;164:251-259.
  24. Kannel WB, Hjortland MC, McNamara PM, Gordon T. Menopause and risk of cardiovascular diseasethe Framingham study. Ann Intern Med 1976;85:447-452.
  25. Gordon T, Kannel WB, Hjortland MC, McNamara PM. Menopause and coronary heart disease. The Framingham Study Ann Intern Med 1978;89:157-161.
  26. Colditz GA, Willett WC, Stampfer MJ, Rosner B, Speizer FE, Hennekens CH. Menopause and the risk of coronary heart disease in women N Engl J Med 1987;316:1105-1110.
  27. Stevenson JC, Crook D, Godsland IF. Influence of age and menopause on serum lipids and lipoproteins in healthy women Atherosclerosis 1993;98:83-90.
  28. Whitcroft SI, Crook D, Marsh MS, Ellerington MC, Whitehead MI, Stevenson JC. Long-term effects of oral and transdermal hormone replacement therapies on serum lipid and lipoprotein concentrations Obstet Gynecol 1994;84:222-226.
  29. Williams JK, Honore EK, Adams MR. Contrasting effects of conjugated estrogens and tamoxifen on dilator responses of atherosclerotic epicardial coronary arteries in nonhuman primates Circulation 1997;96:1970-1975.
  30. Register TC, Cann JA, Kaplan JR, et al. Effects of soy isoflavones and conjugated equine estrogens on inflammatory markers in atherosclerotic, ovariectomized monkeys J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2005;90:1734-1740.
  31. Clarkson TB, Anthony MS, Morgan TM. Inhibition of postmenopausal atherosclerosis progressiona comparison of the effects of conjugated equine estrogens and soy phytoestrogens. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2001;86:41-47.
  32. Haarbo J, Christiansen C. The impact of female sex hormones on secondary prevention of atherosclerosis in ovariectomized cholesterol-fed rabbits Atherosclerosis 1996;123:139-144.
  33. Iafrati MD, Karas RH, Aronovitz M, et al. Estrogen inhibits the vascular injury response in estrogen receptor alpha-deficient mice Nat Med 1997;3:545-548.
  34. Karas RH, Hodgin JB, Kwoun M, et al. Estrogen inhibits the vascular injury response in estrogen receptor beta-deficient female mice Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1999;96:15133-15136.
  35. Karas RH, Schulten H, Pare G, et al. Effects of estrogen on the vascular injury response in estrogen receptor alpha, beta (double) knockout mice Circ Res 2001;89:534-539.
  36. Sullivan Jr. TR, Karas RH, Aronovitz M, et al. Estrogen inhibits the response-to-injury in a mouse carotid artery model J Clin Invest 1995;96:2482-2488.
  37. Adams MR, Kaplan JR, Manuck SB, et al. Inhibition of coronary artery atherosclerosis by 17-beta estradiol in ovariectomized monkeys. Lack of an effect of added progesterone Arteriosclerosis 1990;10:1051-1057.
  38. Adams MR, Register TC, Golden DL, Wagner JD, Williams JK. Medroxyprogesterone acetate antagonizes inhibitory effects of conjugated equine estrogens on coronary artery atherosclerosis Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 1997;17:217-221.
  39. Clarkson TB, Appt SE. MPA and postmenopausal coronary artery atherosclerosis revisited Steroids 2003;68:941-951.
  40. Rosenberg L, Palmer JR, Shapiro S. A case-control study of myocardial infarction in relation to use of estrogen supplements Am J Epidemiol 1993;137:54-63.
  41. Mann RD, Lis Y, Chukwujindu J, Chanter DO. A study of the association between hormone replacement therapy, smoking and the occurrence of myocardial infarction in women J Clin Epidemiol 1994;47:307-312.
  42. Psaty BM, Heckbert SR, Atkins D, et al. The risk of myocardial infarction associated with the combined use of estrogens and progestins in postmenopausal women Arch Intern Med 1994;154:1333-1339.
  43. Sidney S, Petitti DB, Quesenberry Jr CP. Myocardial infarction and the use of estrogen and estrogen-progestogen in postmenopausal women Ann Intern Med 1997;127:501-508.
  44. Petitti DB, Sidney S, Quesenberry Jr CP. Hormone replacement therapy and the risk of myocardial infarction in women with coronary risk factors Epidemiology 2000;11:603-606.
  45. Grodstein F, Stampfer MJ, Falkeborn M, Naessen T, Persson I. Postmenopausal hormone therapy and risk of cardiovascular disease and hip fracture in a cohort of Swedish women Epidemiology 1999;10:476-480.
  46. Varas-Lorenzo C, Garcia-Rodriguez LA, Perez-Gutthann S, Duque-Oliart A. Hormone replacement therapy and incidence of acute myocardial infarction. A population-based nested case-control study Circulation 2000;101:2572-2578.
  47. Heckbert SR, Weiss NS, Koepsell TD, et al. Duration of estrogen replacement therapy in relation to the risk of incident myocardial infarction in postmenopausal women Arch Intern Med 1997;157:1330-1336.
  48. Jonas HA, Kronmal RA, Psaty BM, et al. CHS Collaborative Research Group Current estrogen-progestin and estrogen replacement therapy in elderly women: association with carotid atherosclerosis. Cardiovascular Health Study Ann Epidemiol 1996;6:314-323.
  49. Manolio TA, Furberg CD, Shemanski L, et al. The CHS Collaborative Research Group Associations of postmenopausal estrogen use with cardiovascular disease and its risk factors in older women Circulation 1993;88:2163-2171.
  50. Grodstein F, Stampfer MJ, Colditz GA, et al. Postmenopausal hormone therapy and mortality N Engl J Med 1997;336:1769-1775.
  51. Grodstein F, Manson JE, Colditz GA, Willett WC, Speizer FE, Stampfer MJ. A prospective, observational study of postmenopausal hormone therapy and primary prevention of cardiovascular disease Ann Intern Med 2000;133:933-941.
  52. Hodis HN, Mack WJ, Lobo RA, et al. Estrogen in the prevention of atherosclerosis. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial Ann Intern Med 2001;135:939-953.
  53. de Kleijn MJ, Wilmink HW, Bots ML, et al. Hormone replacement therapy and endothelial function. Results of a randomized controlled trial in healthy postmenopausal women Atherosclerosis 2001;159:357-365.
  54. Herrington DM, Reboussin DM, Brosnihan KB, et al. Effects of estrogen replacement on the progression of coronary-artery atherosclerosis N Engl J Med 2000;343:522-529.
  55. Waters DD, Alderman EL, Hsia J, et al. Effects of hormone replacement therapy and antioxidant vitamin supplements on coronary atherosclerosis in postmenopausal womena randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2002;288:2432-2440.
  56. Hodis HN, Mack WJ, Azen SP, et al. Hormone therapy and the progression of coronary-artery atherosclerosis in postmenopausal women N Engl J Med 2003;349:535-545.
  57. Clarke SC, Kelleher J, Lloyd-Jones H, Slack M, Schofiel PM. A study of hormone replacement therapy in postmenopausal women with ischaemic heart diseasethe Papworth HRT atherosclerosis study. BJOG 2002;109:1056-1062.
  58. Byington RP, Furberg CD, Herrington DM, et al. Effect of estrogen plus progestin on progression of carotid atherosclerosis in postmenopausal women with heart diseaseHERS B-mode substudy. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 2002;22:1692-1697.
  59. Angerer P, Stork S, Kothny W, Schmitt P, vonSchacky C. Effect of oral postmenopausal hormone replacement on progression of atherosclerosisa randomized, controlled trial. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 2001;21:262-268.
  60. Schulman SP, Thiemann DR, Ouyang P, et al. Effects of acute hormone therapy on recurrent ischemia in postmenopausal women with unstable angina J Am Coll Cardiol 2002;39:231-237.
  61. Viscoli CM, Brass LM, Kernan WN, Sarrel PM, Suissa S, Horwitz RI. A clinical trial of estrogen-replacement therapy after ischemic stroke N Engl J Med 2001;345:1243-1249.
  62. Grady D, Herrington D, Bittner V, et al. Cardiovascular disease outcomes during 6.8 years of hormone therapyHeart and Estrogen/progestin Replacement Study follow-up (HERS II). JAMA 2002;288:49-57.
  63. Anderson GL, Limacher M, Assaf AR, et al. Effects of conjugated equine estrogen in postmenopausal women with hysterectomythe Women's Health Initiative randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2004;291:1701-1712.
  64. Vickers M, Meade T, Darbyshire J. WISDOMhistory and early demise?was it inevitable?. Climacteric 2002;5:317-325.
  65. Prentice RL, Langer R, Stefanick ML, et al. Combined postmenopausal hormone therapy and cardiovascular diseasetoward resolving the discrepancy between observational studies and the Women's Health Initiative clinical trial. Am J Epidemiol 2005;162:404-414.
  66. Grodstein F, Clarkson TB, Manson JE. Understanding the divergent data on postmenopausal hormone therapy N Engl J Med 2003;348:645-650.
  67. Naftolin F, Taylor HS, Karas R, et al. The Women's Health Initiative could not havedetected cardioprotective effects of starting hormone therapy during the menopausal transition Fertil Steril 2004;81:1498-1501.
  68. Wagner JD, Clarkson TB. The applicability of hormonal effects on atherosclerosis in animals to heart disease in postmenopausal women Semin Reprod Med 2005;23:149-156.
  69. Herrington DM, Espeland MA, Crouse 3rd JR, et al. Estrogen replacement and brachial artery flow-mediated vasodilation in older women Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 2001;21:1955-1961.
  70. Harman SM, Brinton EA, Cedars M, et al. KEEPSthe Kronos Early Estrogen Prevention study. Climacteric 2005;8:3-12.
  71. Hodis HN. ELITE trialEarly versus Late Intervention with Estradiol. 2005www.clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT00114517. Accessed October 3.
  72. Ferrara A, Quesenberry CP, Karter AJ, Njoroge CW, Jacobson AS, Selby JV. Current use of unopposed estrogen and estrogen plus progestin and the risk of acute myocardial infarction among women with diabetesthe Northern California Kaiser Permanente Diabetes Registry, 1995-1998. Circulation 2003;107:43-48.
  73. Spencer C, Crook D, Ross D, Cooper A, Whitehead M, Stevenson J. A randomised comparison of the effects of oral versus transdermal 17beta-oestradiol, each combined with sequential oral norethisterone acetate, on serum lipoprotein levels Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1999;106:948-953.
  74. Crook D. The metabolic consequences of treating postmenopausal women with non-oral hormone replacement therapy Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1997;104(Suppl 16):4-13.
  75. Scarabin PY, Oger E, Plu-Bureau G. Differential association of oral and transdermal oestrogen-replacement therapy with venous thromboembolism risk Lancet 2003;362:428-432.
  76. Blumel JE, Castelo-Branco C, Gonzalez P, et al. Transdermal estrogens do not appear to modify the extent of lesional areas of aortic atherosclerosis in oophorectomized rabbits on a cholesterol-rich diet Atherosclerosis 2000;148:303-308.
  77. Crook D. Do we need clinical trials to test the ability of transdermal HRT to prevent coronary heart disease? Curr Control Trials Cardiovasc Med 2001;2:211-214.
  78. Lehtimaki T, Dastidar P, Jokela H, et al. Effect of long-term hormone replacement therapy on atherosclerosis progression in postmenopausal women relates to functional apolipoprotein E genotype J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2002;87:4147-4153.
  79. Makela R, Dastidar P, Jokela H, Saarela M, Punnonen R, Lehtimaki T. Effect of long-term hormone replacement therapy on atherosclerosis progression in postmenopausal women relates to myeloperoxidase promoter polymorphism J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2003;88:3823-3828.
  80. Herrington DM, Howard TD, Hawkins GA, et al. Estrogen-receptor polymorphisms and effects of estrogen replacement on high-density lipoprotein cholesterol in women with coronary disease N Engl J Med 2002;346:967-974.
  81. Shearman AM, Cupples LA, Demissie S, et al. Association between estrogen receptor alpha gene variation and cardiovascular disease JAMA 2003;290:2263-2270.
  82. Herrington DM, Vittinghoff E, Lin F, et al. Statin therapy, cardiovascular events, and total mortality in the Heart and Estrogen/Progestin Replacement Study (HERS) Circulation 2002;105:2962-2967.
  83. Mosca L, Collins P, Herrington DM, et al. Hormone replacement therapy and cardiovascular diseasea statement for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2001;104:499-503.
  84. Mosca L, Appel LJ, Benjamin EJ, et al. Evidence-based guidelines for cardiovascular disease prevention in women Circulation 2004;109:672-693.
Abbreviation Notes

CHD = coronary heart disease; CI = confidence interval; CRP = C-reactive protein; HDLC = high-density lipoprotein cholesterol; HT = hormone therapy; IMT = intima-medial thickness; LDLC = low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; MI = myocardial infarction; MPA = medroxyprogesterone acetate.

Reprint Address

Dr. Pamela Ouyang, Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center, 4940 Eastern Avenue, A1 East, Baltimore, Maryland 21224 (Email: pouyang@jhmi.edu ).


Pamela Ouyang, MB, BS, FACC,* Erin D. Michos, MD,* Richard H. Karas, MD, PhD, FACC?

*Division of Cardiology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland; ?Molecular Cardiology Research Center and the Division of Cardiology, Tufts-New England Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts
Disclosure: Dr. Ouyang was supported by grants M01RR02719 and R01HL074406 from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Karas is an Established Investigator for the American Heart Association.