This version published online on June 21, 2010
Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism , doi:10.1210/jc.2009-2509
Submitted on November 24, 2009
Accepted on April 21, 2010
Postmenopausal Hormone Therapy: An Endocrine Society Scientific Statement
Richard J. Santen*, D. Craig Allred, Stacy P. Ardoin, David F. Archer, Norman Boyd, Glenn D. Braunstein, Henry G. Burger, Graham A. Colditz, Susan R. Davis, Marco Gambacciani, Barbara A. Gower, Victor W. Henderson, Wael N. Jarjour, Richard H. Karas, Michael Kleerekoper, Roger A. Lobo, JoAnn E. Manson, Jo Marsden, Kathryn A. Martin, Lisa Martin, JoAnn V. Pinkerton, David R. Rubinow, Helena Teede, Diane M. Thiboutot, and Wulf H. Utian
Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism (R.J.S.), Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology (J.V.P.), University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia 22908; Tufts University School of Medicine (R.H.K.), Molecular Cardiology Research Institute, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts 02111; Jean Hailes Research Centre (H.T.), School of Public Health, Melbourne, Australia 3168; Prince Henry's Institute of Medical Research (H.G.B.), Monash Medical Centre, Melbourne, Australia 3168; Department of Medicine/Women's Health Program (S.R.D.), Monash University, Melbourne, Australia 3181; Departments of Health Research and Policy (Epidemiology) and of Neurology and Neurological Sciences (V.W.H.), Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305; Departments of Pathology and Immunology (D.C.A.) and Surgery (G.A.C.), Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri 63110; Department of Nutrition Sciences (B.A.G.), University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama 35294; St. Joseph Hospital (M.K.), Internal Medicine, Reichert Health Center, Ypsilanti, Michigan 48197; Division of Immunology and Rheumatology, Ohio State University School of Medicine (W.N.J., S.P.A.), Columbus, Ohio 43219; University of Pisa (M.G.), Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Pisa I-56100, Italy; University of Toronto (N.B., L.M.), Department of Nutritional Sciences, Department of Medicine, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5G 2C1; Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (G.D.B.), Department of Medicine, Los Angeles, California 90048; Columbia University Medical Center (R.A.L.), Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, New York, New York 10037; Eastern Virginia Medical School (D.F.A.), Clinical Research Center, Norfolk, Virginia 23507; North American Menopause Society (W.H.U.), Mayfield Heights, Ohio 44124; Massachusetts General Hospital (K.A.M.), UptoDate, Waltham, Massachusetts 02453; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (D.R.R.), Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27516; Section of Dermatology (D.M.T.), Hershey Medical Center, Pennsylvania State University School of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania 17033; King's Breast Care (J.M.), King's College Hospital, London SE5 9RS, United Kingdom; and Harvard Medical School (J.E.M.), Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts 02215
Objective: Our objective was to provide a scholarly review of
the published literature on menopausal hormonal therapy (MHT),
make scientifically valid assessments of the available data,
and grade the level of evidence available for each clinically
important endpoint.
Participants in Development of Scientific Statement: The 12-member Scientific Statement Task Force of
The Endocrine Society selected the leader of the statement development
group (R.J.S.) and suggested experts with expertise in specific
areas. In conjunction with the Task Force, lead authors (n =
25) and peer reviewers (n = 14) for each specific topic were
selected. All discussions regarding content and grading of evidence
occurred via teleconference or electronic and written correspondence.
No funding was provided to any expert or peer reviewer, and
all participants volunteered their time to prepare this Scientific
Statement.
Evidence: Each expert conducted extensive literature
searches of case control, cohort, and randomized controlled
trials as well as meta-analyses, Cochrane reviews, and Position
Statements from other professional societies in order to compile
and evaluate available evidence. No unpublished data were used
to draw conclusions from the evidence.
Consensus Process: A
consensus was reached after several iterations. Each topic was
considered separately, and a consensus was achieved as to content
to be included and conclusions reached between the primary author
and the peer reviewer specific to that topic. In a separate
iteration, the quality of evidence was judged using the GRADE
(Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation)
system in common use by The Endocrine Society for preparing
clinical guidelines. The final iteration involved responses
to four levels of additional review: 1) general comments offered
by each of the 25 authors; 2) comments of the individual Task
Force members; 3) critiques by the reviewers of the Journal
of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism; and 4) suggestions
offered by the Council and members of The Endocrine Society.
The lead author compiled each individual topic into a coherent
document and finalized the content for the final Statement.
The writing process was analogous to preparation of a multiauthored
textbook with input from individual authors and the textbook
editors.
Conclusions: The major conclusions related to the overall
benefits and risks of MHT expressed as the number of women per
1000 taking MHT for 5 yr who would experience benefit or harm.
Primary areas of benefit included relief of hot flashes and
symptoms of urogenital atrophy and prevention of fractures and
diabetes. Risks included venothrombotic episodes, stroke, and
cholecystitis. In the subgroup of women starting MHT between
ages 50 and 59 or less than 10 yr after onset of menopause,
congruent trends suggested additional benefit including reduction
of overall mortality and coronary artery disease. In this subgroup,
estrogen plus some progestogens increased the risk of breast
cancer, whereas estrogen alone did not. Beneficial effects on
colorectal and endometrial cancer and harmful effects on ovarian
cancer occurred but affected only a small number of women.
Data from the various Women's Health Initiative studies, which involved women of average age 63, cannot be appropriately applied to calculate risks and benefits of MHT in women starting shortly after menopause. At the present time, assessments of benefit
and risk in these younger women are based on lower levels of
evidence.
eLetters:
Read all eLetters
- Statistical Analysis in the Postmenopausal Hormone Therapy
- Joseph W. Goldzieher
- JCEM Online, 17 Aug 2010 [Full text]
"It is to be
hoped that this monumental, desperately needed report will help to
counter the persistent damaging effect of the 2002 WHI publication, and
have an influence that ranges from generators of policy and guidelines
to the most remote doctor/patient interaction...."
