Article

Transdermal and oral hormone replacement therapy and the risk of stroke: a nested case-control study

McGill Pharmacoepidemiology Research Unit, Center for clinical epidemiology, Jewish General Hospital, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McGill University, Montreal, Canada H3T 1E2.
BMJ (online) (Impact Factor: 16.38). 06/2010; 340:c2519. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.c2519
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To determine the risk of stroke associated with oral and transdermal routes of administration of hormone replacement therapy.
Population based nested case-control study. Setting About 400 general practices in the United Kingdom contributing to the General Practice Research Database. Participants Cohort of all women in the database aged 50-79 years between 1 January 1987 and 31 October 2006 who were members of a practice that fulfilled predefined quality criteria and without a diagnosis of stroke before cohort entry. For each case of stroke occurring during follow-up, up to four controls were selected from among the cohort members in the risk sets defined by the case. Exposure to hormone replacement therapy (HRT) was categorised into oestrogens only, oestrogens plus progestogen, progestogen only, and tibolone. Oestrogens were further subdivided according to the route of administration (oral v transdermal) and dose (high v low). Main outcome measures Rate ratio of stroke associated with current use of oral and transdermal HRT compared with no use. Current use was considered as a prescription whose duration included the index date.
There were 15,710 cases of stroke matched to 59 958 controls. The rate of stroke in the cohort was 2.85 per 1000 per year. The adjusted rate ratio of stroke associated with current use of transdermal HRT was 0.95 (95% CI 0.75 to 1.20) relative to no use. The risk of stroke was not increased with use of low oestrogen dose patches (rate ratio 0.81(0.62 to 1.05)) compared with no use, whereas the risk was increased with high dose patches (rate ratio 1.89 (1.15 to 3.11)). Current users of oral HRT had a higher rate of stroke than non-users (rate ratio 1.28 (1.15 to 1.42)) with both low dose and high dose.
The use of transdermal HRT containing low doses of oestrogen does not seem to increase the risk of stroke. The presence of residual confounding, however, cannot be entirely excluded in the interpretation of this finding.

0 Followers
 · 
72 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Studies have reported current hormonal contraceptive use is associated with adverse cardiovascular outcomes, including high blood pressure. The aim of this study was to determine the association between past hormonal contraception use and high blood pressure in Australian postmenopausal women.Methods Women were recruited from the 45 and Up Study, an observational cross-sectional study, conducted from February 2006 to December 2009, NSW Australia. All of the variables used in this study were derived from self-reported data. These women reported being postmenopausal, having an intact uterus, and had given birth to one or more children. Odds ratios and 99% confidence intervals for the association between past hormonal contraceptive use and current treatment for high blood pressure, stratified by current age (<58 yrs, 58¿66 yrs, and ¿67 yrs) were estimated using logistic regression, adjusted for income, country of origin, BMI, smoking, alcohol, exercise, family history of high blood pressure, menopausal hormone therapy use, number of children, whether they breastfed, and age of menopause.ResultsA total of 34,289 women were included in the study. No association between past hormonal contraception use and odds of having high blood pressure were seen in any of the age groups (<58 yrs: odds ratio (OR) 1.1, 99% confidence interval (CI) 0.8 to 1.5, p¿=¿0.36; 58¿66 yrs: OR 0.9, 99% CI 0.7 to 1.1, p¿=¿0.11; and ¿67 yrs: OR 0.9, 99% CI 0.8 to 1.0. p¿=¿0.06). In women with a history of hormonal contraception use, no association between duration of hormonal contraception use and high blood pressure was observed.Conclusions Past hormonal contraception use and duration of use is not associated with high blood pressure in postmenopausal women.
    BMC Public Health 01/2015; 15(1):54. DOI:10.1186/s12889-015-1392-3 · 2.32 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Vascular disease is the leading cause of death in women. One-third of acute events affect women below age 60, when the prevalence of menopausal symptoms is high. This raises the question if hormone replacement therapy (HRT) may be an appropriate treatment for individual women although vascular disease is generally considered a contraindication.
    Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics 10/2014; DOI:10.1007/s00404-014-3485-0 · 1.28 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Depression is more common in women, occurring at times of hormonal fluctuations as premenstrual depression, postnatal depression and perimenopausal depression. These are all related to changes in hormone levels and constitute the diagnosis of reproductive depression. There is a risk that severe premenstrual depression can be misdiagnosed as bipolar disorder and that women will be started on inappropriate antidepressants or mood-stabilizing therapy. The most effective treatment for severe premenstrual syndrome is by suppression of ovulation and suppression of the cyclical hormonal changes by transdermal estrogens or by GnRH analogs. Postnatal depression is more common in women with a history of premenstrual depression and also responds to transdermal estrogens. Transdermal testosterone gel can be also used in women who suffer loss of energy and loss of libido which may be due to the inappropriate prescription of antidepressants. There is also a role for the Mirena IUS and laparoscopic hysterectomy and oophorectomy in women who are progestogen-intolerant. The hormonal causation of certain common types of depression in women and the successful treatment by estrogens should be understood by psychiatrists and gynecologists.
    Climacteric 07/2014; 18(1). DOI:10.3109/13697137.2014.918595 · 2.24 Impact Factor