The Time Has Come to Stop Letting the HERS Tale Wag the Dogma
2001; Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; Volume: 104; Issue: 19 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1161/circ.104.19.2256
ISSN1524-4539
AutoresMichael E. Mendelsohn, Richard H. Karas,
Tópico(s)Sex and Gender in Healthcare
ResumoHomeCirculationVol. 104, No. 19The Time Has Come to Stop Letting the HERS Tale Wag the Dogma Free AccessEditorialPDF/EPUBAboutView PDFView EPUBSections ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload citationsTrack citationsPermissions ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InMendeleyReddit Jump toFree AccessEditorialPDF/EPUBThe Time Has Come to Stop Letting the HERS Tale Wag the Dogma Michael E. Mendelsohn, MD and Richard H. Karas, MD PhD Michael E. MendelsohnMichael E. Mendelsohn From the Molecular Cardiology Research Institute, the Department of Medicine, and the Division of Cardiology, New England Medical Center Hospitals and Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Mass. and Richard H. KarasRichard H. Karas From the Molecular Cardiology Research Institute, the Department of Medicine, and the Division of Cardiology, New England Medical Center Hospitals and Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Mass. Originally published6 Nov 2001https://doi.org/10.1161/circ.104.19.2256Circulation. 2001;104:2256–2259The premise of this commentary is simple. We believe there has been enormous overinterpretation and misinterpretation of recent clinical data (the HERS tale1) with regard to the efficacy of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) in preventing or diminishing the risk of heart disease (the dogma). Both the medical and lay press have focused on obtaining a single yes-or-no answer to the question, "Does postmenopausal HRT reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD)?" This oversimplified approach has led to unjustified generalizations with regard to the question and to the summary judgment in some circles that HRT is not beneficial for the prevention of heart disease.See p 2300A brief review of the literature in this area reveals the source of much of the controversy and confusion. In 1992, an elegant meta-analysis by Grady and colleagues2 concluded that "there is extensive and consistent observational evidence that estrogen use reduces risks for CHD [coronary heart disease] about 35%." This conclusion has since been supported by additional observational studies that together include several hundred thousand woman-years of follow-up. As one example, a recent update from the Nurse's Health Study (>400 000 woman-years of follow-up) again confirmed a 40% to 60% reduction in cardiovascular events in women taking HRT.3,4 In contrast to this large body of observational data, the recent prospective Heart Estrogen/progestin Replacement Study (HERS) proved negative. HERS, the first prospective, randomized trial of HRT assessing cardiovascular end points, demonstrated that combined HRT (0.625 mg/d conjugated equine estrogens [CEE] and 2.5 mg/d of medroxyprogesterone acetate [MPA]) had no effect on fatal or nonfatal cardiac events.1 The study included 2763 women with established coronary artery disease followed up for an average of 4.1 years. It is largely the discrepancy between the results of HERS and the many prior observational studies that has led to the current lack of consensus about the cardiovascular effects of HRT.On July 24, 2001, the American Heart Association released a consensus statement addressing the use of HRT in women with heart disease.5 This statement attempted, among other things, to introduce a quite specific caution (Table 1, point 1), crafted largely in response to the data from the HERS trial. Unfortunately, these recommendations were subject to almost immediate misinterpretation that began with the press release from the AHA itself the same day6: Table 1099735. Summary Recommendations for HRT* and CVD From the AHA Statement of July 24th, 20015*The majority of data available to make clinical recommendations are based on standard doses of oral CEE/MPA. Evidence is insufficient to determine whether different preparations, routes of delivery, doses, or progestins have a more favorable or more adverse effect on clinical CVD end points.Secondary Prevention (1) HRT should not be initiated for the secondary prevention of CVD. (2) The decision to continue or stop HRT in women with CVD who have been undergoing long-term HRT should be based on established noncoronary benefits and risks and patient preference. (3) If a woman develops an acute CVD event or is immobilized while undergoing HRT, it is prudent to consider discontinuance of the HRT or to consider venous thromboembolism prophylaxis while she is hospitalized to minimize risk of venous thromboembolism associated with immobilization. Reinstitution of HRT should be based on established noncoronary benefits and risks, as well as patient preference.Primary Prevention (4) Firm clinical recommendations for primary prevention await the results of ongoing randomized clinical trials. (5) There are insufficient data to suggest that HRT should be initiated for the sole purpose of primary prevention of CVD. (6) Initiation and continuation of HRT should be based on established noncoronary benefits and risks, possible coronary benefits and risks, and patient preference.Dallas, July 24—The American Heart Association today advised physicians against prescribing hormone replacement therapy (HRT) for the sole purpose of preventing heart attacks and strokes in women who already have cardiovascular disease according to recommendations published in today's Circulation: Journal of the American Heart Association. The new position is based on recent scientific studies about the role of HRT in reducing the risk of coronary heart disease in postmenopausal women. For postmenopausal women who have had a heart attack or stroke, the guidelines recommend that HRT not be initiated for secondary prevention. This recommendation is based, in part, on the results of the Heart and Estrogen Replacement Study (HERS), a large-scale study that found no benefit of HRT among women with heart disease.Confusion and misinterpretation immediately followed publication of the guidelines, in part because the short statement in the summary recommendations that "HRT should not be initiated for the secondary prevention of CVD" did not adequately emphasize the word initiated. The statement also was not qualified by including the demographics of the HERS study population (ie, "…in women who are many years past the menopause").5Pandora's jar had been opened.Extrapolations and misinterpretations of the HERS trial arose quickly and led to the widespread assertion that any woman with heart disease who takes HRT is at increased risk for CVD. After release of the AHA guidelines, the lay press flooded us with sweeping and generalized cautions. On July 23, 2001, news media released the following headlines: the Associated Press, "Heart Association Changes Course on Estrogen"7; MSNBC.com, "Estrogen Not Advised for the Heart: AHA Reverses Position on HRT"8; Reuters Health, "Experts Advise Against Hormones for Women's Hearts"9; and United Press International, "Heart Group Warns About Estrogen Risk."10 On July 24, The Seattle Times issued "Hormones Don't Help Heart, Group Now Advises"11; The Philadelphia Inquirer, "Heart Association Switches Its Stance on Use of Estrogen"12; USA Today, "Hormone, Heart Link in Doubt"13 and "Research Casts Doubt on HRT's Heart Benefits"14; and The Washington Post, "Hormones Don't Protect Women From Heart Disease, Study Says."15 More headlines appeared in subsequent weeks: July 25, The Detroit News, "HRT May Not Protect Heart as Thought"16; July 30, The Charlotte Observer, "Hormone Therapy's Bumpy Ride"17; and August 6, US News and World Report, "No Hormones for Sick Hearts."18 Of the major newspapers, only The Chicago Tribune attempted to stem this tide of overinterpretation with the August 1, 2001, article, "A Heart-to-Heart on HRT: Doctors Worry New Advisory Could Lead to Confusion."19What then can we actually learn from the HERS trial? The HERS trial teaches us that women with known coronary artery disease who are ≈20 years past menopause are not protected from a cardiovascular event if they are newly initiated on combined therapy with CEE and MPA.1 A time-trend subanalysis of these data also demonstrated an increased risk for CHD events in the first year of therapy followed by a decreased risk for CVD events in years 4 and 5. Is this an important set of findings? The possibility that a subset of older women with known CVD may be at increased risk for a cardiovascular event if started de novo on a combination of CEE and MPA is, of course, important, and understanding the pathophysiology of this diathesis, if it proves real, likely will provide us valuable insights. The HERS data support only the conclusion that women with known CVD who are ≈20 years past menopause ought not to have HRT therapy added to their regimen. They do not otherwise alter our approach to the management of CVD in older women. In 2001, very few clinicians would consider adding HRT to the regimen of a woman with CVD who is many years past the menopause, and none should. Pundits sometimes respond to this fact with the statement, "But HERS was started at a time when the optimal approach to such patients was not at all clear." Fine, let's acknowledge that this is the case and then state more clearly for both the medical community and the public that HERS, formulated with the best of intentions, has little or no relevance to the way we treat CVD in women at present.While we await additional clinical evidence about CVD and HRT, it is critical that we all emphasize the extensive data that support the beneficial effects of several nonhormonal interventions in women with CVD. For example, as most physicians know, HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors are the cornerstone of preventive therapy in men and women with known heart disease.20 Physicians who wish to provide state-of-the-art therapy for women with known CVD must carefully consider the use of aspirin, β-blockers, angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors,21 and lifestyle interventions in every patient. These proven therapies, however, are still underused in women.22In part because of the HERS results, an unplanned subset analysis of the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) study was undertaken and commented on by the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI) last year.23 The NHLBI statement noted a trend toward an early increase in mortality in WHI subjects in the first year after initiation of HRT. This statement likely was released both as a caution in the context of HERS and as a prelude to prospective WHI substudies aimed at understanding the underlying cause(s) of any true increase in early mortality. This April 3, 2000, NHLBI statement included the comment, "This new information from WHI is considered preliminary. It does not address the larger issue of long-term benefits and risk of HRT and, therefore, it should not influence current medical practice."23 Unfortunately, this advice was lost in the subsequent publicity, and the statement added to the public perception that HRT is generally bad for all women with heart disease.Concerns about the possibility of "early harm" associated with initiating HRT have been furthered by both a recent prospective angiographic study and by retrospective analyses of existing databases. The prospective trial, the Effects of estrogen Replacement on the progression of coronary-artery Atherosclerosis (ERA) study, showed that de novo initiation of HRT does not lead to an alteration in mean minimal coronary-artery diameter measured by coronary angiography.24 The ERA trial has been used by some to reinforce the HERS data and to argue that HRT is detrimental to women with heart disease. However, this study, like HERS, is relevant only to postmenopausal women initiating HRT at an average of ≥20 years after menopause, which cannot be (and is not) standard practice. Furthermore, the ERA study lasted only 3 years, had no specified clinical end points, and had instead an angiographic end point that may not reflect the underlying biology of the coronary artery adequately.25–27A retrospective analysis of the Nurses' Health Study appeared recently, reporting a 25% increase in major coronary heart disease events with short-term use of hormones.28 This publication also has been cited widely in support of the early-harm hypothesis, despite the fact that the confidence limits for this risk estimate did not reach significance (relative risk ranged from a 22% decrease to a 2-fold increase in risk). These findings are in contrast to those of Varas-Lorenzo et al,29 who demonstrated a reduced risk of cardiovascular events even within the first year of HRT in a retrospective case-control study of ≈1200 women with myocardial infarction (MI) compared with 5000 controls.Retrospective studies such as these highlight the very large number of individuals and clinical events that can be examined in observational and population-based clinical studies. This approach has been used carefully and advantageously in the present issue of Circulation by Shlipak and coworkers,30 who have examined for the first time the effect of HRT on survival of postmenopausal women after MI. In a retrospective, population-based study of the National Registry of Myocardial Infarction 3 (NRMI3), the authors note that HRT is associated with a 35% reduction in mortality for women who suffered MI in this registry. The authors also address the potential limitations of their approach with great care and apply sophisticated statistical methods (propensity scoring) to attempt to adjust for any potential residual biases. They conclude that HRT in postmenopausal women is associated with a marked reduction in mortality after MI. The group also deserves credit for the careful manner in which they qualify their conclusion, acknowledging that the finding could be the result of a therapeutic effect of HRT, selection or adherence biases, or some combination of all.Interestingly, critics of observational data often point out the potential for observational data to be compromised by a selection bias for socioeconomically advantaged women because they are healthier and more likely to use HRT. Women on HRT in the Shlipak et al30 study were healthier on average, but they also were more likely to have a history of tobacco use and hypercholesterolemia, as well as a positive family history of heart disease, than were women not on HRT. This suggests that the aforementioned criticism of selection bias in observational studies may be more complex than has been noted previously. The 35% reduction in mortality for women on HRT who suffered MI in the Shlipak et al30 study is provocatively reminiscent of the 35% reduction in relative risk for heart disease noted in the earlier large meta-analysis of clinical HRT studies.2It is now widely accepted that the heart and blood vessels of women and men express estrogen receptors, as well as the receptors for other steroid hormones.31 We have a number of ways to explore the significance of this fact, ranging from the most basic molecular biology approaches to cell-based and animal models, and from retrospective to prospective clinical studies. Recent data demonstrate unequivocally that both of the known estrogen receptors are important in mediating estrogen's effects on the vascular system.32 How does the loss of circulating estrogens during menopause impact these receptors? Is the loss of estrogens related to the increase in postmenopausal risk for heart disease? Can we design beneficial therapies for heart disease directed at these estrogen receptors in the cardiovascular system? These questions, and several related ones, are complex and will require an enormous effort to answer. However, there are data from many experimental approaches to support the argument that understanding the physiology of cardiovascular estrogen receptors is a promising area of research. At present, selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) are being developed by several pharmaceutical companies. It is likely that SERMs with direct cardiovascular effects soon will appear,33 just as the SERM raloxifene has been developed and released to treat postmenopausal bone loss.So, where are we left at present with regard to HRT and CVD in postmenopausal women? Perhaps the most important current need is greater appreciation of the complexities associated with understanding the cardiovascular effects of steroid hormones. These complexities include carefully noting the different compounds, dosages, patient populations, and study designs that are used in clinical research on hormone replacement as we analyze and report new studies. In addition, the fact that HRT and estrogen are not synonymous needs to better understood because these terms continue to be used interchangeably in most circles. In practice, HRT in fact is closer to being a synonym for CEE plus MPA, although this is not the only form of HRT available at present and is itself in evolution.When Pandora slipped off the cover of that jar she found in Epimetheus' house, many plagues escaped before she could replace the lid, and only Hope remained at the bottom of the jar. The hope that HRT is beneficial for the primary prevention of CVD in women also remains, as it does for new SERM-based therapies directed at cardiovascular estrogen receptors, and no studies to date support otherwise. The statements in Table 2 are offered as an attempt to clarify where we stand at present with regard to HRT and CVD. Table 2099735. General Statements Regarding HRT and CVD in 2001(1) There is an enormous deficit in the public's awareness that heart disease is the primary cause of mortality in women. This needs to be addressed in a major, proactive educational campaign.(2) Although we await the results of large, prospective, randomized trials, many observational studies support the conclusion that the use of HRT has cardiovascular benefit in healthy postmenopausal women (primary prevention).(3) The magnitude of cardiovascular benefits from HRT is likely decreased by advancing age, time since menopause, the presence of other cardiovascular risk factors, and especially the presence of known coronary artery disease.(4) In women with known cardiovascular disease who are many years past the menopause, HRT should not be initiated for the treatment of heart disease (HERS).(5) A HMG CoA-reductase inhibitor (statin), not HRT, is the drug of choice for any postmenopausal woman with hypercholesterolemia.(6) In selecting HRT, consideration should be given to the lipid profile because different HRT regimens have different effects on various lipoproteins.(7) The first-line therapies for women with known CVD include risk factor modifications, aspirin, β-blockers, statins, and angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors, just as in men. These therapies are still underused, especially in women.The opinions expressed in this editorial are not necessarily those of the editors or of the American Heart Association.FootnotesCorrespondence to Michael E. Mendelsohn, MD, Tufts University School of Medicine, New England Medical Center, Molecular Cardiology Research Institute, 750 Washington St, Box 80, Boston, MA 02111. E-mail [email protected] References 1 Hulley S, Grady D, Bush T, et al. Randomized trial of estrogen plus progestin for secondary prevention of coronary heart disease in postmenopausal women. JAMA. 1998; 280: 605–613.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar2 Grady D, Rubin SM, Petitti DB, et al. Hormone therapy to prevent disease and prolong life in postmenopausal women. Ann Intern Med. 1992; 117: 1016–1037.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar3 Grodstein F, Stampfer MJ, Manson JE, et al. Postmenopausal estrogen and progestin use and the risk of cardiovascular disease. N Engl J Med. 1996; 335: 453–461.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar4 Grodstein F, Stampfer MJ, Colditz GA, et al. Postmenopausal hormone therapy and mortality. N Engl J Med. 1997; 336: 1769–1776.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar5 Mosca L, Collins P, Herrington DM, et al. Hormone replacement therapy and cardiovascular disease: a statement for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2001; 104: 499–503.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar6 American Heart Association issues cautions on hormone replacement therapy for cardiovascular disease [press release]. Dallas, Tex: American Heart Association; July 24, 2001.Google Scholar7 Slagle M. Heart Association changes course, recommends against estrogen for protecting the heart. Associated Press. July 23, 2001.Google Scholar8 MSNBC Staff. Estrogen not advised for the heart: AHA reverses position on HRT. MSNBC.com. July 23, 2001.Google Scholar9 Reuters Staff. Experts advise against hormones for women's hearts. Reuters Health. July 23, 2001.Google Scholar10 UPI Staff. Heart group warns about estrogen risk. United Press International. July 23, 2001.Google Scholar11 Okie S. Hormones don't help heart, group now advises. The Seattle Times. July 24, 2001.Google Scholar12 Heart Association switches its stance on use of estrogen. The Philadelphia Inquirer. July 24, 2001.Google Scholar13 Rubin R. Hormone, heart link in doubt. USA Today. July 24, 2001; A01.Google Scholar14 Rubin R. Research casts doubt on HRT's heart benefits. USA Today. July 24, 2001; D08.Google Scholar15 Okie S. Hormones don't protect women from heart disease, study says. The Washington Post. July 24, 2001; A1.Google Scholar16 Rubin R. HRT may not protect heart as thought. The Detroit News. July 25, 2001.Google Scholar17 Hormone therapy's bumpy ride. The Charlotte Observer. July 30, 2001.Google Scholar18 Shapiro JP. No hormones for sick hearts. US News and World Report. August 6, 2001.Google Scholar19 A heart-to-heart on HRT: doctors worry new advisory could lead to confusion. The Chicago Tribune. August 1, 2001.Google Scholar20 Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults. Executive summary of the third report of the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) expert panel on detection, evaluation, and treatment of high blood cholesterol in adults (Adult Treatment Panel III). JAMA. 2001; 285: 2486–2497.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar21 The Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation Study Investigators. Effects of an angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor, ramipril, on cardiovascular events in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med. 2000; 342: 145–153.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar22 Sheifer SE, Escarce JJ, Schulman KA. Race and sex differences in the management of coronary artery disease. Am Heart J. 2000; 139: 848–857.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar23 Lenfant C. Statement from Claude Lenfant, MD, NHLBI Director, on Preliminary Trends in the Women's Health Initiative. Washington, DC: National Institutes of Health; April 3, 2000.Google Scholar24 Herrington DM, Reboussin DM, Brosnihan KB, et al. Effects of estrogen replacement on the progression of coronary-artery atherosclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2000; 343: 522–529.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar25 Ludmer PL, Selwyn AP, Shook TL, et al. Paradoxical vasoconstriction induced by acetylcholine in atherosclerotic coronary arteries. N Engl J Med. 1986; 315: 1046–1051.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar26 Treasure CB, Manoukian SV, Klein JL et al. Epicardial coronary artery responses to acetylcholine are impaired in hypertensive patients. Circ Res. 1992; 71: 776–781.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar27 Schachinger V, Britten MB, Elsner M, et al. A positive family history of premature coronary artery disease is associated with impaired endothelium-dependent coronary blood flow regulation. Circulation. 1999; 100: 1502–1508.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar28 Grodstein F, Manson JE, Stampfer MJ. Postmenopausal hormone use and secondary prevention of coronary events in the nurses' health study: a prospective, observational study. Ann Intern Med. 2001; 135: 1–8.CrossrefGoogle Scholar29 Varas-Lorenzo C, Garcia-Rodriguez LA, Perez-Gutthann S, et al. Hormone replacement therapy and incidence of acute myocardial infarction: a population-based nested case-control study. Circulation. 2000; 101: 2572–2578.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar30 Shlipak MG, Angeja B, Go AS, et al. Hormone replacement therapy and in-hospital survival after myocardial infarction in postmenopausal women. 2001; 104: 2300–2304.Google Scholar31 Mendelsohn ME, Karas RH. Mechanisms of disease: the protective effects of estrogen on the cardiovascular system. N Engl J Med. 1999; 340: 1801–1811.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar32 Karas RH, Schulten H, Pare G, et al. Effects of estrogen on the vascular injury response in estrogen receptor alpha, beta (double) knockout mice. Circ Res. 2001; 89: 534–539.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar33 Clarke SC, Schofield PM, Grace AA, et al. Tamoxifen effects on endothelial function and cardiovascular risk factors in men with advanced atherosclerosis. Circulation. 2001; 103: 1497–1502.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar Previous Back to top Next FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited By Clarkson T, Meléndez G and Appt S (2013) Timing hypothesis for postmenopausal hormone therapy, Menopause, 10.1097/gme.0b013e3182843aad, 20:3, (342-353), Online publication date: 1-Mar-2013. Li H, Liu J, Ye X, Zhang X, Wang Z, Chen A, Zhou M and Zhao Q (2013) 17β-Estradiol enhances the recruitment of bone marrow-derived endothelial progenitor cells into infarcted myocardium by inducing CXCR4 expression, International Journal of Cardiology, 10.1016/j.ijcard.2011.05.074, 162:2, (100-106), Online publication date: 1-Jan-2013. Connell B and Saleh T (2011) Differential Neuroprotection of Selective Estrogen Receptor Agonists against Autonomic Dysfunction and Ischemic Cell Death in Permanent versus Reperfusion Injury, Advances in Pharmacological Sciences, 10.1155/2011/976951, 2011, (1-9), . Chakrabarti S, Lekontseva O and Davidge S (2008) Estrogen is a modulator of vascular inflammation, IUBMB Life, 10.1002/iub.48, 60:6, (376-382), Online publication date: 1-Jun-2008. Gardner J, Brower G, Voloshenyuk T and Janicki J (2008) Cardioprotection in female rats subjected to chronic volume overload: synergistic interaction of estrogen and phytoestrogens, American Journal of Physiology-Heart and Circulatory Physiology, 10.1152/ajpheart.00281.2007, 294:1, (H198-H204), Online publication date: 1-Jan-2008. Hodis H and Mack W (2007) Postmenopausal hormone therapy in clinical perspective, Menopause, 10.1097/gme.0b013e31802e8508, 14:5, (944-957), Online publication date: 1-Sep-2007. Rayner K, Chen Y, Hibbert B, White D, Miller H, Postel E and O'Brien E (2007) NM23-H2, an estrogen receptor β-associated protein, shows diminished expression with progression of atherosclerosis, American Journal of Physiology-Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology, 10.1152/ajpregu.00373.2006, 292:2, (R743-R750), Online publication date: 1-Feb-2007. Babiker F, Lips D, Delvaux E, Zandberg P, Janssen B, Prinzen F, van Eys G, Grohé C and Doevendans P (2007) Oestrogen modulates cardiac ischaemic remodelling through oestrogen receptor-specific mechanisms, Acta Physiologica, 10.1111/j.1748-1716.2006.01633.x, 189:1, Online publication date: 1-Jan-2007. HODIS H and MACK W (2007) Randomized Controlled Trials and the Effects of Postmenopausal Hormone Therapy on Cardiovascular Disease: Facts, Hypotheses, and Clinical Perspective Treatment of the Postmenopausal Woman, 10.1016/B978-012369443-0/50047-8, (529-564), . KOH K, YOON B, MERZ C, SAKUMA I and REBAR R (2007) The Effects of Hormone Therapy on Inflammatory, Hemostatic, and Fibrinolytic Markers in Postmenopausal Women Treatment of the Postmenopausal Woman, 10.1016/B978-012369443-0/50042-9, (471-480), . SPEROFF L, BARNHART K and GONZALEZ J (2007) The Menopause: A Signal for the Future Treatment of the Postmenopausal Woman, 10.1016/B978-012369443-0/50002-8, (1-13), . Wintermantel T, Elzer J, Herbison A, Fritzemeier K and Schütz G (2007) Genetic Dissection of Estrogen Receptor Signaling In Vivo Tissue-Specific Estrogen Action, 10.1007/2789_2006_015, (25-44), . Pollard T, Pearce K, Rousham E and Schwartz J (2006) Do blood pressure and heart rate responses to perceived stress vary according to endogenous estrogen level in women?, American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 10.1002/ajpa.20468, 132:1, (151-157), Online publication date: 1-Jan-2007. Schnatz P (2006) Hormonal Therapy: Does It Increase or Decrease Cardiovascular Risk?, Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey, 10.1097/01.ogx.0000238674.98471.bb, 61:10, (673-681), Online publication date: 1-Oct-2006. Babiker F, Lips D, Meyer R, Delvaux E, Zandberg P, Janssen B, van Eys G, Grohé C and Doevendans P (2006) Estrogen Receptor β Protects the Murine Heart Against Left Ventricular Hypertrophy, Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology, 26:7, (1524-1530), Online publication date: 1-Jul-2006. Klaiber E, Vogel W and Rako S (2005) A critique of the Women's Health Initiative hormone therapy study, Fertility and Sterility, 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2005.08.010, 84:6, (1589-1601), Online publication date: 1-Dec-2005. Mendelsohn M and Karas R (2005) Molecular and Cellular Basis of Cardiovascular Gender Differences, Science, 10.1126/science.1112062, 308:5728, (1583-1587), Online publication date: 10-Jun-2005. Hammond C (2005) The Women?s Health Initiative Study: Perspectives and Implications for Clinical Practice, Reviews in Endocrine and Metabolic Disorders, 10.1007/s11154-005-6721-x, 6:2, (93-99), Online publication date: 1-May-2005. Koh K and Sakuma I (2004) Should Progestins Be Blamed for the Failure of Hormone Replacement Therapy to Reduce Cardiovascular Events in Randomized Controlled Trials?, Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology, 24:7, (1171-1179), Online publication date: 1-Jul-2004. Young C, Karas R and Kuvin J (2004) High-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol and Coronary Heart Disease, Cardiology in Review, 10.1097/01.crd.0000097140.29929.8a, 12:2, (107-119), Online publication date: 1-Mar-2004. Maas A, van der Schouw Y, Grobbee D and van der Graaf Y (2004) "Rise and fall" of hormone therapy in postmenopausal women with cardiovascular disease, Menopause, 10.1097/01.GME.0000087980.28957.86, 11:2, (228-235), Online publication date: 1-Mar-2004. Genazzani A, Gambacciani M and Simoncini T (2009) Estrogens and women's health: a scary or a fairy tale?, Gynecological Endocrinology, 10.1080/09513590410001692456, 18:4, (175-178), Online publication date: 1-Jan-2004. Bots M, Evans G, Riley W, Meijer R, McBride K, Paskett E, Helmond F, Grobbee D and for the OPAL Investigators (2003) The Osteoporosis Prevention and Arterial effects of tiboLone (OPAL) study: design and baseline characteristics, Controlled Clinical Trials, 10.1016/S0197-2456(03)00096-5, 24:6, (752-775), Online publication date: 1-Dec-2003. Koch C and Nussmeier N (2003) Gender and cardiac surgery, Anesthesiology Clinics of North America, 10.1016/S0889-8537(03)00048-8, 21:3, (675-689), Online publication date: 1-Sep-2003. Hodis H, Mack W and Lobo R (2003) Randomized Controlled Trial Evidence That Estrogen Replacement Therapy Reduces the Progression of Subclinical Atherosclerosis in Healthy Postmenopausal Women Without Preexisting Cardiovascular Disease, Circulation, 108:1, (e5-e5), Online publication date: 8-Jul-2003. van Eickels M, Patten R, Aronovitz M, Alsheikh-Ali A, Gostyla K, Celestin F, Grohe C, Mendelsohn M and Karas R (2003) 17-Beta-Estradiol increases cardiac remodeling and mortality in mice with myocardial infarction, Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 10.1016/S0735-1097(03)00423-6, 41:11, (2084-2092), Online publication date: 1-Jun-2003. Khan N and Malhotra S (2005) Effect of hormone replacement therapy on cardiovascular disease: current opinion, Expert Opinion on Pharmacotherapy, 10.1517/14656566.4.5.667, 4:5, (667-674), Online publication date: 1-May-2003. Herrington D (2003) Hormone Replacement Therapy and Heart Disease, Circulation, 107:1, (2-4), Online publication date: 7-Jan-2003. Hodis H, Mack W and Lobo R (2003) What is the cardioprotective role of hormone replacement therapy?, Current Atherosclerosis Reports, 10.1007/s11883-003-0069-z, 5:1, (56-66), Online publication date: 1-Jan-2003. Grimes D and Lobo R (2002) Perspectives on the Women's Health Initiative Trial of Hormone Replacement Therapy, Obstetrics & Gynecology, 10.1097/00006250-200212000-00029, 100:6, (1344-1353), Online publication date: 1-Dec-2002. Nussmeier N, Marino M and Vaughn W (2002) Hormone replacement therapy is associated with improved survival in women undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting, The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, 10.1067/mtc.2002.126225, 124:6, (1225-1229), Online publication date: 1-Dec-2002. Lebrun C, van der Schouw Y, Bak A, de Jong F, Pols H, Grobbee D, Lamberts S and Bots M (2002) Arterial stiffness in postmenopausal women, Journal of Hypertension, 10.1097/00004872-200211000-00015, 20:11, (2165-2172), Online publication date: 1-Nov-2002. Chambliss K and Shaul P (2016) Estrogen Modulation of Endothelial Nitric Oxide Synthase, Endocrine Reviews, 10.1210/er.2001-0045, 23:5, (665-686), Online publication date: 1-Oct-2002. Pines A (2002) Hormone therapy and the cardiovascular system, Maturitas, 10.1016/S0378-5122(02)00143-3, 43, (3-10), Online publication date: 1-Aug-2002. Zhuo J (2002) Angiotensin II type 1 receptors and oestrogen status: interaction or dissociation?, Journal of Hypertension, 10.1097/00004872-200207000-00006, 20:7, (1267-1269), Online publication date: 1-Jul-2002. Knopp R (2002) Risk factors for coronary artery disease in women, The American Journal of Cardiology, 10.1016/S0002-9149(02)02409-8, 89:12, (28-34), Online publication date: 1-Jun-2002. Hodis H and Mack W (2002) Atherosclerosis imaging methods: assessing cardiovascular disease and evaluating the role of estrogen in the prevention of atherosclerosis, The American Journal of Cardiology, 10.1016/S0002-9149(02)02407-4, 89:12, (19-27), Online publication date: 1-Jun-2002. Mishell D and Mendelsohn M (2002) Introduction: the role of hormone replacement therapy in prevention and treatment of cardiovascular disease in postmenopausal women, The American Journal of Cardiology, 10.1016/S0002-9149(02)02402-5, 89:12, (1-4), Online publication date: 1-Jun-2002. Benjamin I and Christians E (2002) Exercise, Estrogen, and Ischemic Cardioprotection by Heat Shock Protein 70, Circulation Research, 90:8, (833-835), Online publication date: 3-May-2002. Dayspring T (2002) Seeing the forest through the trees: big trucks—little trucks, Menopause, 10.1097/00042192-200203000-00001, 9:2, (79-81), Online publication date: 1-Mar-2002. Ylikorkala O and Metsä-Heikkilä M (2009) Hormone replacement therapy in women with a history of breast cancer, Gynecological Endocrinology, 10.1080/gye.16.6.469.478, 16:6, (469-478), Online publication date: 1-Jan-2002. November 6, 2001Vol 104, Issue 19 Advertisement Article InformationMetrics https://doi.org/10.1161/circ.104.19.2256PMID: 11696459 Originally publishedNovember 6, 2001 KeywordshormonestrialswomenEditorialsrisk factorsPDF download Advertisement
Referência(s)