|
|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2 December 2003 | Volume 139 Issue 11 | Pages 923-929
Differences between observational and randomized studies of the effects of menopausal hormone therapy (HT) on coronary heart disease (CHD) have been attributed to the fact that women who choose to use HT tend to be healthier than those who do not. Although this bias should affect all clinical outcomes with modifiable risk factors, estimates for stroke and pulmonary embolism were unaffected. The authors sought possible explanations for this isolated discrepancy in CHD findings.
Unlike the randomized Women's Health Initiative (WHI) trial, the observational Nurses' Health Study (NHS) did not try to detect silent myocardial infarctions. Many women present with atypical ischemic symptoms. Hormone therapy users who believe that HT reduces CHD risks might not interpret ischemic symptoms as related to CHD, might not seek medical attention, and might present differently to their physicians, all of which could lead to more unrecognized myocardial infarctions among HT users in the NHS. In addition, persons completing death certificates and NHS physicians interpreting death certificates were not blinded to the use of HT. If persons assigning cause of death knew the patient had used HT and believed that HT prevented CHD, they might have been more likely to assign a condition other than CHD as the cause of death. If HT users were 20% less likely to have their infarctions recognized and their deaths attributed to CHD, a true increase in CHD due to HT use would appear to be a reduction in CHD. Combining these reporting biases with socioeconomic differences between users and nonusers could explain discrepancies. Beliefs held by patients, clinicians, and investigators might have affected the ascertainment of CHD outcomes in observational studies.
Author and Article Information
From Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, and Tufts-New England Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.
Acknowledgments: The authors thank Drs. Avrum Bluming, Robert Goldberg, Robert Greenes, Paula Johnson, Anthony Komaroff, JoAnn Manson, and Douglas Rosendale and Ms. Jennifer Fortin for their insightful comments that contributed to the development of the manuscript.
Grant Support: In part by the American Cancer Society Breast Cancer Prevention Forum, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Generalist Physician Faculty Scholars Award (#033958), and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (RO1 HS01332901).
Potential Financial Conflicts of Interest: None disclosed.
Requests for Single Reprints: Nananda F. Col, MD, Department of Medicine, Division of Women's Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital-Harvard Medical School, 1620 Tremont Street, Boston, MA 02120; e-mail, ncol{at}partners.org.
Current Author Addresses: Dr. Col: Department of Medicine, Division of Women's Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital-Harvard Medical School, 1620 Tremont Street, Boston, MA 02120.
Dr. Pauker: Tufts-New England Medical Center, 750 Washington Street, Boston, MA 02111. PERSPECTIVE
The Discrepancy between Observational Studies and Randomized Trials of Menopausal Hormone Therapy: Did Expectations Shape Experience?
![]()
Related articles in Annals:
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
M. E. Falagas, G. C. Makris, D. K. Matthaiou, and P. I. Rafailidis Statins for infection and sepsis: a systematic review of the clinical evidence J. Antimicrob. Chemother., April 1, 2008; 61(4): 774 - 785. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. A. Tice, A. Kanaya, T. Hue, S. Rubin, D. S. M. Buist, A. LaCroix, J. V. Lacey Jr, J. A. Cauley, S. Litwack, L. A. Brinton, et al. Risk Factors for Mortality in Middle-aged Women Arch Intern Med, December 11, 2006; 166(22): 2469 - 2477. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. R Majumdar, F. A McAlister, D. T Eurich, R. S Padwal, and T. J Marrie Statins and outcomes in patients admitted to hospital with community acquired pneumonia: population based prospective cohort study BMJ, November 11, 2006; 333(7576): 999 - 999. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. V. Lacey Jr., L. A. Brinton, J. H. Lubin, M. E. Sherman, A. Schatzkin, and C. Schairer Endometrial Carcinoma Risks among Menopausal Estrogen plus Progestin and Unopposed Estrogen Users in a Cohort of Postmenopausal Women Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., July 1, 2005; 14(7): 1724 - 1731. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
G. Guyatt, H. J. Schunemann, D. Cook, R. Jaeschke, and S. Pauker Applying the Grades of Recommendation for Antithrombotic and Thrombolytic Therapy: The Seventh ACCP Conference on Antithrombotic and Thrombolytic Therapy Chest, September 1, 2004; 126(3_suppl): 179S - 187S. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. Stampfer Commentary: Hormones and heart disease: do trials and observational studies address different questions? Int. J. Epidemiol., June 1, 2004; 33(3): 454 - 455. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
F. Grodstein, J. E. Manson, M. J. Stampfer, and W. C. Willett The Discrepancy between Observational Studies and Randomized Trials of Menopausal Hormone Therapy Ann Intern Med, May 4, 2004; 140(9): 764 - 765. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||