| |
Clin
Endocrinol (Oxf). 2003 Aug;59(2):145-55.
Recent concerns surrounding HRT.
Armitage M, Nooney J, Evans S.
Royal Bournemouth Hospital, Bournemouth
and Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency and London
School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Millions of women are treated with
hormone replacement therapy (HRT) for relief of menopausal symptoms,
including vasomotor flushes and sweats for which oestrogen is uniquely
and highly effective. Others may continue longer-term treatment in the
hope that HRT will help to prevent chronic disease. The preservation of
bone mass with continuing oestrogen therapy and reduction of subsequent
risk of fracture is well established. Observational studies of the
metabolic and vascular effects of oestrogens have suggested a potential
benefit in reducing the risk of vascular disease, but recently published
randomized controlled trials demonstrate no evidence of benefit in women
with established vascular disease or in apparently healthy women. The
increased risks of breast cancer and thromboembolic disease have been
confirmed in these trials, with evidence of increased risk of stroke.
Observational data suggest there may be a small increased risk of
ovarian cancer associated with longer-term use of HRT. The premature
termination of one arm of the Women's Health Initiative randomized
controlled trial caused concern among patients, doctors and
pharmaceutical companies. There are difficulties in extrapolating the
results from trials using a specific HRT product to advise women on the
wide range of other hormone products, doses, combinations and routes of
administration. However, in the absence of evidence that other products
are safer, the data suggest that for many women the risks associated
with long-term use of HRT outweigh the benefits. There are nonhormonal
strategies for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis. HRT is not,
and has never been, licensed in the UK for the prevention or treatment
of vascular disease, and the data suggesting potential benefit should
now be regarded as biased. The absolute incidence of an adverse event is
low, and the risk in an individual woman in a single year is very small,
but the risks are cumulative over time with long-term use. The
risk-benefit balance of each woman needs regular reappraisal with
continued use.
|
|