Dramatic change in prescribing of hormone replacement therapy in The Netherlands after publication of the Million Women Study: a follow-up study.

Groningen University Institute for Drug Exploration, University of Groningen, Department of Social Pharmacy, Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacotherapy, Groningen, The Netherlands.
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology (Impact Factor: 3.69). 01/2006; 60(6):641-7. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2125.2005.02502.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To estimate the diffusion of new safety information concerning postmenopausal hormonal replacement therapy (HRT) into prescribing practice in The Netherlands and to assess the impact of revised guidelines on the long-term treatment of HRT.
Cross-sectional study.
Community pharmacy dispensing data from a population of approximately 450,000 patients in the northern and eastern part of The Netherlands.
Women aged 45-69 years to whom at least one HRT prescription was dispensed between 1 January 2000 and 1 January 2004.
Annual and quarter prevalences of HRT and the proportion of new HRT users, switchers and continuous HRT users per quarter.
The prevalence of HRT prescribing decreased significantly from 107/1000 [95% confidence interval (CI) 104, 110] in 2000 to 87/1000 (95% CI 84, 89) in 2003. The decreasing prevalence was especially evident among the younger age groups and was most pronounced among users of oestrogen/progestagen combinations. The publication of the Women Health Initiative Study (WHI) was followed by a modest decrease in prescribing of HRT, whereas prescribing of HRT declined dramatically after publication of the Million Women Study (MWS) in August 2003. Among the continuous HRT users in the 4th quarter of 2002, 55% used HRT longer than 3 years. This percentage was 53 in the 4th quarter of 2003.
In contrast to the release of the WHI study results, publication of the MWS was followed by a dramatic fall in prescribing of HRT in The Netherlands. Despite the new recommendation that long-term HRT use should be discouraged, the proportion of long-term users did not change after the publication of the MWS.

  • Nature Methods 08/2014; 11(9):890-890. · 25.95 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objectives To assess the patterns of use of reimbursed systemic hormone therapy (HT) and vaginal estrogen preparations among women aged 45 and older in Finland. Study design: Reimbursed purchases of prescribed systemic HT and vaginal estrogen preparations for the years 2003-2012 were obtained from a nationwide prescription registry. Systemic preparations included estrogen patches, gels and tablets, tibolone, continuous combination preparations and sequential combination preparations. Prescribed vaginal estrogens included a vaginal ring and vaginal tablets. Main outcome measures: Annual period prevalence for systemic HT and vaginal estrogen use. Results The total prevalence of prescribed HT use remained relatively constant (at 26% − 27%) throughout the studied period, but the share of women using systemic preparations decreased from 21% to 12%, while the share of women using vaginal estrogens increased from 9% to 19%. Decreases were observed for all classes of systemic preparations, although the decrease was largest for sequential combination preparations (from 4.9% to 1.6%) and estrogen tablets (from 5.2% to 2.9%). Continuous combination preparations remained the most commonly used types of systemic preparation (5.4% − 4.2%). Systemic HT use decreased most among 45 − 49 year old women (9.5% to 4.3%), while the use of vaginal estrogens increased most among those aged 65 and over. Conclusions Based on the register data, the trends in HT use indicate changed prescribing patterns in accordance with clinical guidelines. It is notable that since 2009, vaginal estrogen was more commonly prescribed than systemic HT.
    Maturitas 08/2014; · 2.84 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Progesterone is essential for the proliferation and differentiation of mammary gland epithelium. Studies of breast cancer cells have demonstrated a biphasic progesterone response consisting of an initial proliferative burst followed by sustained growth arrest. However, the transcriptional factors acting with the progesterone receptor (PR) to mediate the effects of progesterone on mammary cell growth and differentiation remain to be determined. Recently, it was demonstrated that signal transducer and activator of transcription 6 (Stat6) is a cell growth suppressor. Similar to progesterone-bound PR, Stat6 acts by inducing the expression of the G1 cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitors p21 and p27. The possible interaction between Stat6 and progesterone pathways in mammary cells was therefore investigated in the present study. ChIP and luciferase were assayed to determine whether Stat6 induces p21 and p27 expression by recruitment at the proximal Sp1-binding sites of the gene promoters. Immunoprecipitation and Western blotting were performed to investigate the interaction between Stat6 and PR-B. The cellular DNA content and cell cycle distribution in breast cancer cells were analyzed by FACS. We found that Stat6 interacts with progesterone-activated PR in T47D cells. Stat6 synergizes with progesterone-bound PR to transactivate the p21 and p27 gene promoters at the proximal Sp1-binding sites. Moreover, Stat6 overexpression and knockdown, respectively, increased or prevented the induction of p21 and p27 gene expression by progesterone. Stat6 knockdown also abolished the inhibitory effects of progesterone on pRB phosphorylation, G1/S cell cycle progression, and cell proliferation. In addition, knockdown of Stat6 expression prevented the induction of breast cell differentiation markers, previously identified as progesterone target genes. Finally, Stat6 gene expression levels increased following progesterone treatment, indicating a positive auto-regulatory loop between PR and Stat6. Taken together, these data identify Stat6 as a coactivator of PR mediating the growth-inhibitory and differentiation effects of progesterone on breast cancer cells.
    BMC Cancer 01/2014; 14(1):10. · 3.32 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 22, 2014