Trends in menopausal hormone therapy use of US office-based physicians, 2000-2009

Program on Prevention Outcomes, Stanford Prevention Research Center, Stanford School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305-5411, USA.
Menopause (New York, N.Y.) (Impact Factor: 2.81). 11/2010; 18(4):385-92. DOI: 10.1097/gme.0b013e3181f43404
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The aim of this study was to evaluate recent trends and the adoption of practice recommendations for menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) use from 2001 to 2009 by formulation, dose, woman's age, and characteristics of physicians reporting MHT visits.
The IMS Health (Plymouth Meeting PA) National Disease and Therapeutic Index physician survey data from 2001 to 2009 were analyzed for visits in which MHT use was reported by US office-based physicians. Estimated national volume of visits for which MHT use was reported.
MHT use declined each year since 2002. Systemic MHT use fell from 16.3 million (M) visits in 2001 to 6.1 M visits in 2009. Declines were greatest for women 60 years or older (64%) but were also substantial for women younger than 50 years (59%) and women 50 to 59 years old (60%). Women 60 years or older accounted for 37% of MHT use. Lower dose product use increased modestly, from 0.7 M (2001) to 1.3 M (2009), as did vaginal MHT use, from 1.8 M (2001) to 2.4 M (2009). Declines in continuing systemic MHT use (65%) were greater than for newly initiated MHT use (51%). Compared with other physicians, obstetrician/gynecologists changed their practices less, thereby increasing their overall share of total MHT visits from 72% (2001) to 82% (2009).
Total MHT use has steadily declined. Increased use of lower dose and vaginal products reflects clinical recommendations. Uptake of these products, however, has been modest, and substantial use of MHT continues in older women.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Context The use of systemic estrogens for the treatment of menopausal symptoms has declined by approximately 80% following the initial publication of the Women's Health Initiative in 2002. Current attention focuses on vaginal estrogen as a local therapeutic means to achieve control of symptoms due to vulvovaginal atrophy without increasing plasma estradiol levels. A key issue is whether or not vaginally administered estrogens are absorbed and produce systemic effects. Evidence acquisition Medline and PubMed were searched for relevant English-language articles using pertinent key words. The bibliographies of the pertinent articles were then read to identify further relevant articles. Evidence synthesis Several confounding factors influenced the data analysis including: (1) estradiol assay sensitivity and specificity; (2) acute versus chronic absorption; (3) delivery systems, doses, timing, and formulation; and (4) effect of atrophic versus mature vaginal mucosa on absorption. Each preparation was associated with acute estradiol absorption with peaks at approximately 8 h and return to baseline at 12 h. Low-dose vaginal estrogen, arbitrarily defined as the 7.5-μg vaginal ring and 10-μg tablet, increased plasma estradiol levels during chronic administration but not above the normal range of ≤ 20 pg/ml. Surprisingly, these increments were associated with systemic effects to lower plasma levels of low density lipoprotein cholesterol and bone resorption rates. Intermediate doses (i.e. 25 μg estradiol or 0.3 mg conjugated equine estrogen) resulted in plasma estradiol levels approaching or exceeding 20 pg/ml. The higher doses (50-2000 μg estradiol or 0.625-2.5 mg conjugated equine estrogen) resulted in premenopausal levels of estrogen. Conclusions Low-dose vaginal estrogen appears to be an effective strategy for managing women whose symptoms result from vulvovaginal atrophy. These regimens limit but do not completely eliminate systemic absorption. Low-doses regimens should be preferred clinically to intermediate- or high-dose methods.
    Climacteric 10/2014; 18(2):1-14. DOI:10.3109/13697137.2014.947254 · 2.24 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) has conducted two randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials to evaluate the influence of menopausal hormone therapy on chronic disease risk. Estrogen plus progestin was evaluated in 16,608 postmenopausal women without prior hysterectomy during 5.6 years’ intervention. In that setting, combined hormone therapy use significantly increased breast cancer incidence and interfered with breast cancer detection. The breast cancers were not limited to estrogen receptor positive, favorable prognosis cancers and were identified at more advanced stage. As a result, deaths from breast cancer were significantly increased by estrogen plus progestin use. While the absolute breast cancer risk for relatively short term (2-4 years) use of combined hormone therapy is small, on a population basis a therapy which nearly doubles deaths from breast cancer requires cautious use. Estrogen alone was evaluated in 10,739 postmenopausal women with prior hysterectomy during 7.1 years’ intervention. There was an overall reduction of breast cancer incidence seen with estrogen alone use and a suggestion that the effect on risk was more pronounced in women initiating hormone therapy further from menopause. Nonetheless, women with prior hysterectomy can be assured that short duration estrogen alone use for climacteric symptom management is relatively safe. Neither estrogen plus progestin nor estrogen alone should be used for chronic disease risk reduction. The safety of duration of use on chronic disease risk longer than in the WHI clinical trials is not defined.
    04/2015; 6(2). DOI:10.1177/2042098614568300
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) observational study, current use of estrogen plus progestin therapy (EPT) and estrogen therapy showed an association with reduced risk of coronary heart disease (CHD). However, after taking into account the early increase in risk, the observational study and clinical trial hazard ratios did not differ significantly and showed no benefit for CHD. These findings were confirmed in novel reanalyses for EPT use in the Nurses' Health Study which for the first time included early events and yielded results similar to those of the WHI trial in showing no CHD benefit. The underestimation of CHD risk in observational studies of menopausal hormone therapy appears to lie in their inefficiency at capturing the early increase in risk in current users; by contrast clinical trials are very efficient at capturing early risk. Observational study data mostly reflects long-term use in women who survive the early increase, while trials mainly reflect short-term use. Confounding plays a role, but biologic differences in study populations are unlikely to explain the different risk estimates.
    Seminars in Reproductive Medicine 11/2014; 32(6):426-432. DOI:10.1055/s-0034-1384625 · 3.00 Impact Factor


Available from