Monthly Archives: October 2013

Evaluation and Management of the Premenopausal Woman with Low BMD

Posted on by MaryO

Current Osteoporosis Reports, 10/31/2013  Review Article  Clinical Article

bone density machine

bone density machine (Photo credit: x1987x)

Cohen A et al. – Interpretation of bone mineral density (BMD) results in premenopausal women is particularly challenging, since the relationship between BMD and fracture risk is not the same as for postmenopausal women. Assessment of markers of bone turnover and follow–up bone density measurements can help to identify those with an ongoing process of bone loss that may indicate a higher risk for fracture, and possible need for pharmacologic intervention.

  • In most cases, Z scores rather than T scores should be used to define “low BMD” in premenopausal women.
  • The finding of low BMD in a premenopausal woman should prompt thorough evaluation for secondary causes of bone loss.
  • If a secondary cause is found, management should focus on treatment of this condition.
  • In a few cases where the secondary cause cannot be eliminated, treatment with a bone active agent to prevent bone loss should be considered.
  • In women with no fractures and no known secondary cause, low BMD is associated with microarchitectural defects similar to young women with fractures; however, no longitudinal data are available to allow use of BMD to predict fracture risk.
  • BMD is likely to be stable in these women with isolated low BMD, and pharmacologic therapy is rarely necessary.

From MDLinx

Menopausal Hormone Therapy

Posted on by MaryO

PS-main-logo

Menopausal Hormone Therapy and Health Outcomes During the Intervention and Extended Poststopping Phases of the Women’s Health Initiative Randomized Trials

JAMA, 10/02/2013  Evidence Based Medicine  Clinical Article

Manson JE et al. – Menopausal hormone therapy continues in clinical use but questions remain regarding its risks and benefits for chronic disease prevention. To report a comprehensive, integrated overview of findings from the 2 Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) hormone therapy trials with extended postintervention follow–up. Menopausal hormone therapy has a complex pattern of risks and benefits. Findings from the intervention and extended postintervention follow–up of the 2 WHI hormone therapy trials do not support use of this therapy for chronic disease prevention, although it is appropriate for symptom management in some women.

Methods

  • A total of 27 347 postmenopausal women aged 50 to 79 years were enrolled at 40 US centers.
  • Women with an intact uterus received conjugated equine estrogens (CEE; 0.625 mg/d) plus medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA; 2.5 mg/d) (n = 8506) or placebo (n = 8102).
  • Women with prior hysterectomy received CEE alone (0.625 mg/d) (n = 5310) or placebo (n = 5429).
  • The intervention lasted a median of 5.6 years in CEE plus MPA trial and 7.2 years in CEE alone trial with 13 years of cumulative follow–up until September 30, 2010.
  • Primary efficacy and safety outcomes were coronary heart disease (CHD) and invasive breast cancer, respectively.
  • A global index also included stroke, pulmonary embolism, colorectal cancer, endometrial cancer, hip fracture, and death.

Results

  • During the CEE plus MPA intervention phase, the numbers of CHD cases were 196 for CEE plus MPA vs 159 for placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 1.18; 95% CI, 0.95–1.45) and 206 vs 155, respectively, for invasive breast cancer (HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.01–1.53).
  • Other risks included increased stroke, pulmonary embolism, dementia (in women aged >=65 years), gallbladder disease, and urinary incontinence; benefits included decreased hip fractures, diabetes, and vasomotor symptoms.
  • Most risks and benefits dissipated postintervention, although some elevation in breast cancer risk persisted during cumulative follow–up (434 cases for CEE plus MPA vs 323 for placebo; HR, 1.28 [95% CI, 1.11–1.48]).
  • The risks and benefits were more balanced during the CEE alone intervention with 204 CHD cases for CEE alone vs 222 cases for placebo (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.78–1.14) and 104 vs 135, respectively, for invasive breast cancer (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.61–1.02); cumulatively, there were 168 vs 216, respectively, cases of breast cancer diagnosed (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.65–0.97).
  • Results for other outcomes were similar to CEE plus MPA.
  • Neither regimen affected all–cause mortality.
  • For CEE alone, younger women (aged 50–59 years) had more favorable results for all–cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and the global index (nominal P < .05 for trend by age).
  • Absolute risks of adverse events (measured by the global index) per 10 000 women annually taking CEE plus MPA ranged from 12 excess cases for ages of 50–59 years to 38 for ages of 70–79 years; for women taking CEE alone, from 19 fewer cases for ages of 50–59 years to 51 excess cases for ages of 70–79 years.
  • Quality–of–life outcomes had mixed results in both trials.

From http://www.mdlinx.com/internal-medicine/newsl-article.cfm/4870253/ZZ4747461521296427210947/?news_id=466&newsdt=100213&utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=DailyNL&utm_content=General-Article&utm_campaign=Article-Section

Related articles