Trends in menopausal hormone therapy use of US office-based physicians, 2000–2009 [Abstract]

Program on Prevention Outcomes, Stanford Prevention Research Center, Stanford School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305-5411, USA.
Menopause (New York, N.Y.) (Impact Factor: 3.36). 11/2010; 18(4):385-92. DOI: 10.1097/gme.0b013e3181f43404
Source: PubMed


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.

Full-text preview

Available from:
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The putative effects of postmenopausal hormone therapy on the association between particulate matter (PM) air pollution and venous thromboembolism (VTE) have not been assessed in a randomized trial of hormone therapy, despite its widespread use among postmenopausal women. In this study, we examined whether hormone therapy modifies the association of PM with VTE risk. Postmenopausal women 50-79 years of age (n = 26,450) who did not have a history of VTE and who were not taking anticoagulants were enrolled in the Women's Health Initiative Hormone Therapy trials at 40 geographically diverse U.S. clinical centers. The women were randomized to treatment with estrogen versus placebo (E trial) or to estrogen plus progestin versus placebo (E + P trial). We used age-stratified Cox proportional hazard models to examine the association between time to incident, centrally adjudicated VTE, and daily mean PM concentrations spatially interpolated at geocoded addresses of the participants and averaged over 1, 7, 30, and 365 days. During the follow-up period (mean, 7.7 years), 508 participants (2.0%) had VTEs at a rate of 2.6 events per 1,000 person-years. Unadjusted and covariate-adjusted VTE risk was not associated with concentrations of PM < 2.5 µm (PM(2.5)) or < 10 µm (PM(10))] in aerodynamic diameter and PM × active treatment interactions were not statistically significant (p > 0.05) regardless of PM averaging period, either before or after combining data from both trials [e.g., combined trial-adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) per 10 µg/m(3) increase in annual mean PM(2.5) and PM(10), were 0.93 (0.54-1.60) and 1.05 (0.72-1.53), respectively]. Findings were insensitive to alternative exposure metrics, outcome definitions, time scales, analytic methods, and censoring dates. In contrast to prior research, our findings provide little evidence of an association between short-term or long-term PM exposure and VTE, or clinically important modification by randomized exposure to exogenous estrogens among postmenopausal women.
    Environmental Health Perspectives 10/2010; 119(3):326-31. DOI:10.1289/ehp.1002256 · 7.98 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Case-control studies have reported that exogenous estrogen use is associated with increased risk of skin cancer. The effects of menopausal hormone therapy on incidence of nonmelanoma skin cancer and melanoma were evaluated in post hoc analyses of the Women's Health Initiative randomized placebo-controlled hormone therapy trials of combined estrogen plus progestin (E + P) and estrogen only (E-alone). Postmenopausal women aged 50-79 years were randomly assigned to conjugated equine estrogen (0.625 mg/d) plus medroxyprogesterone acetate (2.5 mg/d) or placebo in the E + P trial if they had an intact uterus (N = 16,608) or to conjugated equine estrogen alone or placebo in the E-alone trial if they had a hysterectomy (N = 10,739); the mean follow-up was 5.6 and 7.1 years, respectively. Incident nonmelanoma skin cancers (n = 980 [E + P trial]; n = 820 [E-alone trial]) and melanomas (n = 57 [E + P trial]; n =38 [E-alone trial]) were ascertained by self-report. Incident cases of cutaneous malignant melanoma were confirmed by physician review of medical records. Incidences of nonmelanoma skin cancer and melanoma were compared between the two randomization groups within each trial using hazard ratios (HRs), with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and Wald statistic P values from Cox proportional hazards models. All statistical tests were two-sided. Rates of incident nonmelanoma skin cancer and melanoma were similar between the active hormone (combined analysis of E + P and E-alone) and placebo groups (nonmelanoma skin cancer: HR = 0.98, 95% CI = 0.89 to 1.07; melanoma: HR = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.61 to 1.37). Results were similar for the E + P and E-alone trials when analyzed individually. Menopausal hormone therapy did not affect overall incidence of nonmelanoma skin cancer or melanoma. These findings do not support a role of menopausal estrogen, with or without progestin, in the development of skin cancer in postmenopausal women.
    Journal of the National Cancer Institute 08/2011; 103(19):1469-75. DOI:10.1093/jnci/djr333 · 12.58 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The two oestrogen receptor subtypes α and β are hormone-regulated modulators of intracellular signalling and gene expression. Regulation of oestrogen receptor activity is crucial not only for development and homeostasis but also for the treatment of various diseases and symptoms. Classical selective oestrogen receptor modulators are well established in the treatment of breast cancer and osteoporosis, but emerging data suggest that the development of subtype-selective ligands that specifically target either oestrogen receptor-α or oestrogen receptor-β could be a more optimal approach for the treatment of cancer, cardiovascular disease, multiple sclerosis and Alzheimer's disease.
    Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 09/2011; 10(10):778-92. DOI:10.1038/nrd3551 · 41.91 Impact Factor
Show more