Boardman Henry M P, Hartley Louise, Eisinga Anne, Main Caroline, Roqué i Figuls Marta, Bonfill Cosp Xavier, Gabriel Sanchez Rafael, Knight Beatrice
Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Oxford, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK, OX3 9DU.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Mar 10;2015(3):CD002229. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002229.pub4.
Evidence from systematic reviews of observational studies suggests that hormone therapy may have beneficial effects in reducing the incidence of cardiovascular disease events in post-menopausal women, however the results of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have had mixed results. This is an updated version of a Cochrane review published in 2013.
To assess the effects of hormone therapy for the prevention of cardiovascular disease in post-menopausal women, and whether there are differential effects between use in primary or secondary prevention. Secondary aims were to undertake exploratory analyses to (i) assess the impact of time since menopause that treatment was commenced (≥ 10 years versus < 10 years), and where these data were not available, use age of trial participants at baseline as a proxy (≥ 60 years of age versus < 60 years of age); and (ii) assess the effects of length of time on treatment.
We searched the following databases on 25 February 2014: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE and LILACS. We also searched research and trials registers, and conducted reference checking of relevant studies and related systematic reviews to identify additional studies.
RCTs of women comparing orally administered hormone therapy with placebo or a no treatment control, with a minimum of six months follow-up.
Two authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each outcome. We combined results using random effects meta-analyses, and undertook further analyses to assess the effects of treatment as primary or secondary prevention, and whether treatment was commenced more than or less than 10 years after menopause.
We identified six new trials through this update. Therefore the review includes 19 trials with a total of 40,410 post-menopausal women. On the whole, study quality was good and generally at low risk of bias; the findings are dominated by the three largest trials. We found high quality evidence that hormone therapy in both primary and secondary prevention conferred no protective effects for all-cause mortality, cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, angina, or revascularisation. However, there was an increased risk of stroke in those in the hormone therapy arm for combined primary and secondary prevention (RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.41). Venous thromboembolic events were increased (RR 1.92, 95% CI 1.36 to 2.69), as were pulmonary emboli (RR 1.81, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.48) on hormone therapy relative to placebo.The absolute risk increase for stroke was 6 per 1000 women (number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) = 165; mean length of follow-up: 4.21 years (range: 2.0 to 7.1)); for venous thromboembolism 8 per 1000 women (NNTH = 118; mean length of follow-up: 5.95 years (range: 1.0 to 7.1)); and for pulmonary embolism 4 per 1000 (NNTH = 242; mean length of follow-up: 3.13 years (range: 1.0 to 7.1)).We performed subgroup analyses according to when treatment was started in relation to the menopause. Those who started hormone therapy less than 10 years after the menopause had lower mortality (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.95, moderate quality evidence) and coronary heart disease (composite of death from cardiovascular causes and non-fatal myocardial infarction) (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.96; moderate quality evidence), though they were still at increased risk of venous thromboembolism (RR 1.74, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.73, high quality evidence) compared to placebo or no treatment. There was no strong evidence of effect on risk of stroke in this group. In those who started treatment more than 10 years after the menopause there was high quality evidence that it had little effect on death or coronary heart disease between groups but there was an increased risk of stroke (RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.38, high quality evidence) and venous thromboembolism (RR 1.96, 95% CI 1.37 to 2.80, high quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our review findings provide strong evidence that treatment with hormone therapy in post-menopausal women overall, for either primary or secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease events has little if any benefit and causes an increase in the risk of stroke and venous thromboembolic events.
观察性研究的系统评价证据表明,激素疗法可能对降低绝经后女性心血管疾病事件的发生率有有益影响,然而随机对照试验(RCT)的结果却喜忧参半。这是2013年发表的Cochrane系统评价的更新版本。
评估激素疗法对预防绝经后女性心血管疾病的效果,以及在一级预防或二级预防中的使用是否存在差异效应。次要目的是进行探索性分析,以(i)评估开始治疗距绝经的时间影响(≥10年与<10年),若无法获取这些数据,则使用试验参与者基线时的年龄作为替代指标(≥60岁与<60岁);(ii)评估治疗时间长度的影响。
我们于2014年2月25日检索了以下数据库:Cochrane图书馆中的Cochrane对照试验中心注册库(CENTRAL)、MEDLINE、EMBASE和LILACS。我们还检索了研究和试验注册库,并对相关研究及相关系统评价进行参考文献核对以识别其他研究。
将口服激素疗法与安慰剂或无治疗对照进行比较的绝经后女性RCT,随访时间至少为6个月。
两位作者独立评估研究质量并提取数据。我们计算了每个结局的风险比(RRs)及其95%置信区间(CIs)。我们使用随机效应荟萃分析合并结果,并进行进一步分析以评估治疗作为一级预防或二级预防的效果,以及治疗是否在绝经后10年以上或以下开始。
通过此次更新,我们识别出6项新试验。因此,该系统评价纳入了19项试验,共有40410名绝经后女性。总体而言,研究质量良好,一般偏倚风险较低;结果主要由三项最大的试验主导。我们发现高质量证据表明,激素疗法在一级预防和二级预防中对全因死亡率、心血管死亡、非致命性心肌梗死、心绞痛或血运重建均无保护作用。然而,在联合一级和二级预防中,激素治疗组的中风风险增加(RR 1.24,95%CI 1.10至1.41)。与安慰剂相比,激素治疗的静脉血栓栓塞事件增加(RR 1.92,95%CI 1.36至2.69),肺栓塞也增加(RR 1.81,95%CI 1.32至2.48)。中风的绝对风险增加为每1000名女性6例(导致额外有害结局的需治疗人数(NNTH)=165;平均随访时间:4.21年(范围:2.0至7.1年));静脉血栓栓塞为每1000名女性8例(NNTH =118;平均随访时间:5.95年(范围:1.0至7.1年));肺栓塞为每1000名女性4例(NNTH =242;平均随访时间:3.13年(范围:1.0至7.1年))。我们根据治疗开始时间与绝经的关系进行了亚组分析。绝经后不到10年开始激素治疗的女性死亡率较低(RR 0.70,95%CI 0.52至0.95,中等质量证据),冠心病(心血管原因死亡和非致命性心肌梗死的综合)发生率较低(RR 0.52,95%CI 0.29至0.96;中等质量证据),尽管与安慰剂或未治疗相比,她们的静脉血栓栓塞风险仍增加(RR 1.74,95%CI 1.11至2.73,高质量证据)。该组中没有强有力的证据表明对中风风险有影响。在绝经后10年以上开始治疗的女性中,高质量证据表明两组之间对死亡或冠心病影响不大,但中风风险增加(RR 1.21,95%CI 1.06至1.38,高质量证据)和静脉血栓栓塞风险增加(RR 1.96,95%CI 1.37至2.80,高质量证据)。
我们的系统评价结果提供了强有力的证据,表明总体而言,绝经后女性使用激素疗法进行心血管疾病事件的一级或二级预防几乎没有益处,反而会增加中风和静脉血栓栓塞事件的风险。