0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Original Investigation |

Short-term Menopausal Hormone Therapy for Symptom Relief:  An Updated Decision Model FREE

Nananda F. Col, MD, MPP, MPH; Griffin Weber, MD, PhD; Anne Stiggelbout, PhD; John Chuo, MD; Ralph D'Agostino, PhD; Phaedra Corso, PhD
[+] Author Affiliations

From the Division of General Internal Medicine, Rhode Island Hospital, Brown Medical School, Providence (Dr Col); Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass (Dr Weber); Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands (Dr Stiggelbout); Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston (Dr Chuo); Boston University, Boston (Dr D'Agostino); and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Ga (Dr Corso). The authors have no relevant financial interest in this article.


Arch Intern Med. 2004;164(15):1634-1640. doi:10.1001/archinte.164.15.1634.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Background  Hormone therapy (HT) provides the most effective relief of menopausal symptoms. This therapy is associated with a decreased risk of osteoporosis and colorectal cancer but increased risks of cardiovascular disease (CVD), venous thrombosis, and breast cancer. Our objective was to identify which women should benefit from short-term HT by exploring the trade-off between symptom relief and risks of inducing disease.

Methods  A Markov model simulates the effect of short-term (2 years) estrogen and progestin HT on life expectancy and quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALE) among 50-year-old menopausal women with intact uteri, using findings from the Women's Health Initiative. Quality-of-life (QOL) utility scores were derived from the literature. We assumed HT-affected QOL only during perimenopause, when it reduced symptoms by 80%.

Results  Among asymptomatic women, short-term HT was associated with net losses in life expectancy and QALE of 1 to 3 months, depending on CVD risk. Women with mild or severe menopausal symptoms gained 3 to 4 months or 7 to 8 months of QALE, respectively. Among women at low risk for CVD, HT extended QALE if menopausal symptoms lowered QOL by as little as 4%. Among women at elevated CVD risk, HT extended QALE only if symptoms lowered QOL by at least 12%.

Conclusions  Hormone therapy is associated with losses in survival but gains in QALE for women with menopausal symptoms. Women expected to benefit from short-term HT can be identified by the severity of their menopausal symptoms and CVD risk.

Figures in this Article

Decisions concerning menopausal hormone therapy (HT) remain difficult. Although the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) trial has elucidated the impact of HT on many clinical outcomes, the complexity of balancing HT's many risks and benefits has increased because more clinical end points must be considered. Although HT is the most effective treatment for menopausal symptoms1 and decreases risks of osteoporosis and colorectal cancer, HT increases risks of coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke, pulmonary embolism (PE), and breast cancer.2

For most women, the net risks of HT appear to outweigh its benefits, although the average difference is modest. For 10 000 women in the WHI, 1 year of HT is expected to lead to 7 additional CHD events, 8 more strokes, 8 more PEs, and 8 more breast cancers, and 6 fewer colorectal cancers and 5 fewer hip fractures. A global index based on these end points suggested net harm for HT use.2 Although the absolute risk to healthy participants was low, the benefit-risk profile was considered inappropriate for primary prevention of chronic disease. However, the balance of benefits and risks will vary according to baseline risk and may vary when HT's impact on menopausal symptoms and quality of life (QOL) is taken into account.

Because the treatment-associated risks for CHD, stroke, PE, and breast cancer increase with duration of HT, short-term HT (<5 years) is being considered for menopausal symptoms (eg, by The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the North American Menopause Society). However, since HT increased the risks of CHD, stroke, and PE within the first 1 to 2 years, even short-term use is not without potential danger. Considerations for QOL take on paramount importance in decisions about HT. Symptoms usually persist for more than 1 year3 but abate within 2 to 3 years,4,5 substantially lowering QOL, with substantial improvement after HT.6,7

This study, by exploring the trade-off between short-term symptomatic relief and risks of chronic disease, sought to determine which women might benefit from HT.

THE DECISION MODEL

We developed a Web-based Markov simulation model based on published modeling techniques.8,9The model simulates the impact of short-term HT (vs no HT) on estrogen deficiency symptoms as well as on life expectancy, quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALE), and clinical end points affected by HT. We modeled the impact of combination estrogen and progestin HT among a healthy cohort of 50-year-old white menopausal women with intact uteri. In the base-case scenario, we assumed persistence of perimenopause for 2 years and HT use for 2 years. In sensitivity analyses, we considered other durations of symptoms and treatment. Baseline results assume a 0 discount rate. MARKOV MODEL The model simulates lifetime incidence of breast, colorectal, ovarian, and endometrial cancer, CHD, stroke, hip fracture, and PE and considers women without evidence of these diseases at baseline. With each year, cohort members can develop any one or a combination of these diseases or die of other causes, as in the general population.10

DISEASE INCIDENCE

We linked individual risk factors to future disease incidence for breast cancer,11 CHD,12 and stroke.13 Breast cancer risk was based on the model by Gail et al,11 adjusting baseline incidence rates according to the more representative Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) data.14 Stroke and CHD risks were calculated from equations from the Framingham Study.12,13

No composite risk models link risk factors to future risk levels for endometrial, colorectal, and ovarian cancer, hip fracture, and PE. These risks were based on age, sex, and race-adjusted incidence rates.10

RISK STRATIFICATION

We stratified analyses by factors with the greatest impact on outcomes: cardiovascular disease (CVD) (both CHD and stroke) and severity of menopausal symptoms. Low CVD risk was defined as the absence of any risk factors: systolic blood pressure of 120 mm Hg, total serum cholesterol level of 180 mg/dL (4.7 mmol/L), and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol level of 65 mg/dL (1.7 mmol/L). High risk was defined as the presence of 3 risk factors15,16: hypertension (systolic blood pressure of 150 mm Hg), hypercholesterolemia (total cholesterol level of 260 mg/dL [6.7 mmol/L] and high-density lipoprotein level of 35 mg/dL [0.9 mmol/L]), and smoking. Average women were defined as having population averages for each CVD and breast cancer risk factor for women in the Framingham Study12 and the model by Gail et al.11

IMPACT OF HT

Effects of HT on chronic disease end points were based on data from the WHI (Table 1),2 using time-dependent risk functions reflecting 5.2 years of follow-up. In sensitivity analyses, we applied estimates from 2 meta-analyses.17,18 Hormone therapy appeared to decrease the risk of breast cancer during the first 2 years19; likely reflecting a masking by HT of its early detection (among HT users, detected breast cancers were larger and more likely to be node positive). We therefore assumed a linear risk function, interpolating from the final relative risk. In sensitivity analyses, we assumed 4% higher breast cancer mortality rates among those who developed breast cancer while receiving HT.2023 We assumed that HT had no impact on endometrial or ovarian cancer. Because several observational trials reported that HT increased the risk of ovarian cancer,24,25 in sensitivity analyses we applied the relative risk of 1.51.26

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Impact of Current HT Use on Clinical Events
MORTALITY ESTIMATES

For each disease, we modeled short-term (first year) and long-term (after the first year) disease-specific mortality. We calculated cancer mortality rates according to age and time since diagnosis from SEER survival data (Table 2), using cancer-attributed deaths,14 and drew hip fracture mortality from a large population database.27 The mortality rates among patients surviving the first year after hip fracture approach those of age-matched individuals without hip fracture.2830 We based CHD mortality on data from the Minnesota Heart Study31 and stroke mortality on data from the Framingham Study.32 We assumed 9% higher CVD mortality rates for black women compared with white women after adjusting for differences in income.33 All-cause mortality rates were based on recent age- and race-specific life tables for women, subtracting mortality from diseases explicitly modeled to avoid double counting.34

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Mortality Rates (Annual Probabilities)14
QUALITY OF LIFE

Quality adjustment of life expectancy considers not only length of life but the QOL of the extended period and is expressed in quality-adjusted life years. We derived QOL estimates from utility scores for the chronic diseases affected by HT through a literature search, using utilities reported for affected persons in the base-case scenario and estimates from unaffected persons for sensitivity analyses (Table 3). When QOL estimates were available only according to disease stages, we based weighted averages on the prevalence of each stage. Scores from a time trade-off (TTO) assessment of patient subjects were preferred to other techniques. Utility scores from visual analog scales (VASs) were converted to TTO.49 Findings are also presented in VASs because these utilities are simpler to elicit in clinical practice. We assumed utilities to be independent, using a multiplicative model. Utilities were applied for the duration of the person's affliction.

MENOPAUSAL QOL

Hormone therapy can potentially improve QOL by relieving hot flashes (80%-90% reduction in severity and frequency50,51), vaginal dryness, and insomnia. However, HT is associated with vaginal discharge, genital irritation, uterine bleeding, and breast symptoms, although more commonly among elderly women.52 We therefore assumed that HT resulted in an 80% improvement in symptoms. The present model assumes that HT affects QOL only during perimenopause. One study found that the QOL associated with mild or severe menopausal symptoms was 0.73 and 0.52, respectively,7 similar to utilities in a smaller study (0.86 and 0.58, respectively).6 Users of HT are more likely than nonusers to have abnormal mammograms (8.8% vs 5.9%, respectively).19 Recall for further mammographic investigation may induce anxiety that may5355 or may not56,57 persist following a clear result. We weighted the VAS values associated with true- and false-positive mammograms (0.80 and 0.75, respectively)58 according to prevalence, assumed 3.7% true-positives mamograms,59 and transformed the VAS to TTO, resulting in an average QOL loss of 0.026 for HT users that was applied for the duration of HT use.

Short-term HT shortens life expectancy but increases QALE among women who experience mild or severe menopausal symptoms that are responsive to HT. The gains in QALE depend on severity and duration of symptoms, efficacy of HT in relieving symptoms, and the woman's CVD risk.

IMPACT OF HT ON LIFE EXPECTANCY

When HT's impact on QOL is not considered, an average 50-year-old woman using HT for 2 years will experience a small net loss in life expectancy (12 days). Losses are larger for women at high CVD risk (37.5 days) and smaller for those at low risk (6 days).

Incorporating QOL adjustments for perimenopause and for conditions affected by HT substantially alters these findings. Women with mild menopausal symptoms gain 4.3 months of QALE from HT if at low CVD risk and 3.3 months if at high risk (Figure 1). Those with severe symptoms gain 8.3 or 6.9 months, respectively. The higher the CVD risks, the lower the expected QALE gains. In comparison, asymptomatic women who use HT experience net losses in QALE of 25 days to 2.9 months, depending on CVD risk.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 1.

Impact of menopausal hormone therapy (HT) on quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALE) according to cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk and severity of menopausal symptoms.

Graphic Jump Location

These results are based on estimates of the utility associated with menopausal symptoms from 2 studies that may not be representative of utilities assigned by individual women to their symptoms. In threshold analyses, we explored the minimum severity of symptoms warranting HT, using any gain in QALE to define a benefit. Women at low CVD risk would benefit if symptom distress lowered their QOL during perimenopause to 0.96 or less (compared with perfect health, assigned a utility of 1.0). Among women at high CVD risk, menopausal QOL would need to be 0.88 or less on a TTO scale (Figure 2). The greater the severity of symptoms, the greater the gains in QALE from HT, although gains are smaller for women at higher CVD risk.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 2.

Change in quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALE) from hormone therapy according to menopausal quality of life (QOL) and risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD).

Graphic Jump Location

The impact of 2 years of HT on various chronic disease outcomes after 25 years of follow-up was relatively small, even among women at high CVD or breast cancer risk; cumulative risk of CHD increased by 0.008.

The longer HT is used, the larger the expected gains in QALE if HT relieves symptoms during the entire treatment period (although incremental gains diminish each year). For example, among women at high CVD risk with severe symptoms that would have persisted the entire treatment period, increasing HT from 2 to 5 years increases the gains in QALE from 6.9 months to 16.9 months. If symptoms would have been severe during the first 2 years but mild for the next 3 years, the gain in QALE from 5 years of HT is 11.1 months.

SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

Results were relatively insensitive to whether the utilities for the chronic conditions in the model represented those of persons affected or unaffected by the condition itself (QALE differences of <1 day) and insensitive to changing short- and long-term mortality rates for both CHD and stroke by 20% (gains in QALE of <3 days).

Substituting the WHI's estimates of HT's impact on clinical outcomes with those from the Beral et al17 or Nelson et al18 meta-analyses changed the threshold utility of menopausal symptoms from 0.88 to 0.93 or 0.97, respectively, for women at high CVD risk.

Applying a 4% higher breast cancer mortality rate to HT users resulted in differences of less than 0.1 day. The model was relatively insensitive to changes in baseline risk for PE, breast cancer, hip fracture, and colorectal cancer and to whether HT increased risk of ovarian cancer by 50%.

IMPACT OF HT ON BLACK WOMEN

We explored the impact of HT on black women, accounting for racial differences in incidence and mortality rates. We assumed that the relationship between risk factors and disease incidence mirrors that occurring in white women. The gains in QALE from HT were consistently smaller than those for white women, but differences were inconsequential (<1 day).

IMPACT OF DISCOUNTING

The higher the discounting of future years, the smaller the amount of symptom distress associated with gains from HT (eg, among women at high CVD risk, increasing the discount rate from 0 to 0.05 to 0.2 changed the TTO threshold for symptom distress from 0.88 to 0.92 to 0.95).

Whether short-term HT is beneficial or harmful depends primarily on a woman's treatment goals, the severity of her estrogen-responsive symptoms, and her CVD risk. If the goal is to maximize longevity, HT is not advisable, since it is associated with small losses in life expectancy. However, if the goal is to maximize QALE, HT can be beneficial, especially among women at low CVD risk, among whom HT is associated with gains in QALE even when menopausal symptoms are mild. Women at high CVD risk can benefit from HT if their symptom burden is high enough to justify the risks of treatment (corresponding to a 12% loss in QOL during perimenopause). Population-based studies measuring the loss in QOL associated with menopausal symptoms found substantial decrements whether symptoms were characterized as mild or severe.

The decision whether to use HT amounts to a toss-up among women with low CVD risk and mild symptoms, with personal preferences driving the decision. However, less than 15% of US women are at low CVD risk.60 Short-term HT carries greater risks among most women with elevated CVD risk. Because the impact of short-term HT on breast cancer is uncertain, caution is warranted, especially among women at high risk for breast cancer.19

Incorporating women's values into the HT decision may improve its quality. Women more concerned about the risks of cancer may be more likely to forego HT compared with women who place greater value on the benefits of symptom relief.61 The importance of eliciting patient values and concerns increases when we consider that HT may mask the diagnosis of breast cancer during the first few years.19 The benefits of HT outweigh its risks only when menopausal symptom distress is sufficient. The present analyses help women balance these risks and benefits.

A 12% loss in TTO during a 2-year perimenopause corresponds to a woman's willingness to give up 2.9 months (12% of 2 years) of perfect health to avoid 24 months of menopausal symptoms. More practical would be the use of a VAS for which a transformation function to TTO has been proposed49:

(1) TTO = 1 − (1 − VAS)1.61

or

(2) VAS = 1 − (1 − TTO)0.62.

A practical approach to assessing symptom severity with VAS is to have women rate current health status on a scale of 0 (dead) to 100 (perfect health). A rating of less than 100 due completely to menopausal symptoms is divided by 100 to yield menopausal QOL. If she reports other conditions, she should rate her present health and her health just before menopause. The QOL due to menopausal symptoms is the complement (1 minus) of the difference between these scores, divided by 100 (this retrospective assessment of health status involves a response shift bias). For those at low CVD risk and high CVD risk, HT is appropriate if the VAS score is less than 0.86 and less than 0.74, respectively.

The value women place on current vs subsequent years (the discount rate) may affect the HT decision. We conservatively assumed a discount rate of 0, biasing against HT. Women with a higher discount rate (who value current more than future years) benefit more than those with a lower discount rate from HT, but differences are small.

Some of our findings are based on methodological weak studies in which perimenopause was incorrectly treated as a chronic condition.7,62 One study asked women to recall symptoms before HT.7 Such retrospective ratings in respondents with improved QOL may be biased downwards owing to response shift (a scale recalibration phenomenon).63 Additionally, the terms characterizing symptoms in these studies are subjective. Nonetheless, their results were in accordance with VAS utilities elicited, strengthening confidence in their utilities.

The model does not include dementia because data concerning HT's adverse impact on this outcome pertain to women who initiated HT after age 64 years.64 It also does not consider any anxiety persisting after HT discontinuation. Findings pertaining to nonwhite women are less robust because of limited data; reported differences may be attributable to socioeconomic differences.

The decision regarding HT also depends on its efficacy in alleviating menopausal symptoms. Not all symptoms during perimenopause are due to declining estrogen levels or are responsive to HT. Some studies report that HT has a deleterious effect on QOL.65 Additionally, the placebo effect in the treatment of menopausal symptoms is large.66

In clinical trials examining the impact of HT on menopausal symptoms, women responding to HT did so within 2 to 5 weeks,67 suggesting that a 1-month trial period would be sufficient to determine response to HT. If response is unsatisfactory, HT should be withdrawn and other approaches to symptom relief explored, including lifestyle changes and administration of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. Since HT is associated with gains in QALE only when used for symptom relief, we recommend an annual drug holiday to assess the continued presence of menopausal symptoms.

Individual risk levels for osteoporosis, breast cancer, and colorectal cancer had little effect on our analyses, reflecting their low prevalence among the cohort examined, the small relative risk of HT on these outcomes, and the short duration of HT. These analyses reinforce that prevention of colorectal cancer or hip fracture is not an appropriate indication for HT. Effective treatments with fewer serious adverse effects than HT are available for preventing and treating osteoporosis, including bisphosphonates and parathyroid hormone. The limited sensitivity of our findings to the utilities used for chronic disease end points affected by HT suggests that further attention to determining utilities for these outcomes may not be warranted.

Small gains or losses in QALE at the population level can be important at the individual level. The low prevalence of CVD, PE, and breast cancer among women in this age group dilutes the overall impact of HT on life expectancy or QALE. However, in individuals who develop these adverse events, the impact on personal QALE will be substantial.

The potential increase in QALE due to HT is related linearly to the value a woman assigns to perimenopausal QOL. While these gains can be substantial, they need to be balanced with HT's unfavorable impact on overall survival. Informed decision making requires patients to understand that any gains in QALE reflect subjective gains in QOL accrued during the early years of perimenopause but at the risk of incurring complications such as CHD, stroke, PE, and breast cancer.

Correspondence: Nananda Col, MD, MPP, MPH, Rhode Island Hospital, Division of General Internal Medicine—MPB 1, 593 Eddy St, Providence, RI 02903 (ncol@lifespan.org).

Accepted for publication April 9, 2004

This work was supported in part by grant RO1 HS01332901 from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, Md; the American Cancer Society Breast Cancer Prevention Forum, Atlanta, Ga; and Generalist Physician Faculty Scholars Award No. 033958 from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Princeton, NJ.

Portions of this work were presented at the 25th Annual Meeting of the Society for Medical Decision Making, October 20, 2003, Chicago, Ill (1 poster and 1 oral presentation). The presentation of the underlying software application was awarded the 2003 Lee B. Lusted Award.

We thank the following individuals for their contributions to this manuscript: Beverly Rockhill, PhD; Stephen Pauker, MD, MACP; Lisa Sullivan, PhD; John Wong, MD; Frank Sonnenberg, MD; Stephen Thacker, MD, MSc, Epidemiology Program Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Herbert Peterson, MD, World Health Organization; and Jennifer Fortin, MPH.

Barrett-Connor  EHendrix  SEttinger  B Women's Health and Menopause: A Comprehensive Approach.  Bethesda, Md National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute2002;
Writing Group for the Women's Health Initiative I, Risks and benefits of estrogen plus progestin in healthy postmenopausal women: principal results From the Women's Health Initiative randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2002;288321- 333
PubMed Link to Article
McKinlay  SMJefferys  M The menopausal syndrome. Br J Prev Soc Med. 1974;28108- 115
PubMed
Kronenberg  F Hot flashes: epidemiology and physiology. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1990;59252- 86
PubMed Link to Article
Speroff  LSymons  JKempfert  NRowan  J ; femhrt Study Investigators. The effect of varying low-dose combinations of norethindrone acetate and ethinyl estradiol (femhrt) on the frequency and intensity of vasomotor symptoms. Menopause. 2000;7383- 390
PubMed Link to Article
Daly  EGray  ABarlow  DMcPherson  KRoche  MVessey  M Measuring the impact of menopausal symptoms on quality of life. BMJ. 1993;307836- 840
PubMed Link to Article
Zethraeus  NJohannesson  MHenriksson  PStrand  RT The impact of hormone replacement therapy on quality of life and willingness to pay. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1997;1041191- 1195
PubMed Link to Article
Col  NFEckman  MHKaras  RH  et al.  Patient-specific decisions about hormone-replacement therapy in postmenopausal women. JAMA. 1997;2771140- 1147
PubMed Link to Article
Col  NFPauker  SGGoldberg  RJ  et al.  Individualizing therapy to prevent long-term consequences of estrogen deficiency in postmenopausal women. Arch Intern Med. 1999;1591458- 1466
PubMed Link to Article
National Center for Health Statistics, Vital Statistics of the United States, 1999: Volume 2, Mortality, Part B.  Hyattsville, Md National Center for Health Statistics2001;
Gail  MKBrinton  LAByar  DP  et al.  Projecting individualized probabilities of developing breast cancer for white females who are being examined annually. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1989;811879- 1886
PubMed Link to Article
D'Agostino  RBRussell  MWHuse  DM  et al.  Primary and subsequent coronary risk appraisal: new results from the Framingham Study [published correction appears in Am Heart J. 2002;143:21]. Am Heart J.2000;139272- 281
PubMed
D'Agostino  RBWolf  PABelanger  AJKannel  WB Stroke risk profile: adjustment for antihypertensive medication: The Framingham Study. Stroke. 1994;2540- 43
PubMed Link to Article
Ries  LAGEisner  MPKosary  CL  et al.  SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1973-1999.  Bethesda, Md National Cancer Institute2002;
Wilson  PWD'Agostino  RBLevy  DBelanger  AMSilbershatz  HKannel  WB Prediction of coronary heart disease using risk factor categories. Circulation. 1998;971837- 1847
PubMed Link to Article
Not Available, Expert Panel on Detection E, Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in A. 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;2852486- 2497
PubMed Link to Article
Beral  VBanks  EReeves  G Evidence from randomised trials on the long-term effects of hormone replacement therapy. Lancet. 2002;360942- 944
PubMed Link to Article
Nelson  HDHumphrey  LLNygren  PTeutsch  SMAllan  JD Postmenopausal hormone replacement therapy: scientific review. JAMA. 2002;288872- 881
PubMed Link to Article
Chlebowski  RTHendrix  SLLanger  RD  et al.  Influence of estrogen plus progestin on breast cancer and mammography in healthy postmenopausal women: the Women's Health Initiative Randomized Trial. JAMA. 2003;2893243- 3253
PubMed Link to Article
Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group, Tamoxifen for early breast cancer: an overview of the randomised trials. Lancet. 1998;3511451- 1467
PubMed Link to Article
Ravdin  PMSiminoff  LADavis  GJ  et al.  Computer program to assist in making decisions about adjuvant therapy for women with early breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19980- 991
PubMed
Ravdin  PM A computer program to assist in making breast cancer adjuvant therapy decisions. Semin Oncol. 1996;23 ((1, suppl 2)) 43- 50
PubMed
McCready  DRChapman  JAHanna  WM  et al.  Factors affecting distant disease-free survival for primary invasive breast cancer: use of a log-normal survival model. Ann Surg Oncol. 2000;7416- 426
PubMed Link to Article
Negri  ETzonou  ABeral  V  et al.  Hormonal therapy for menopause and ovarian cancer in a collaborative re-analysis of European studies. Int J Cancer. 1999;80848- 851
PubMed Link to Article
Riman  TDickman  PWNilsson  S  et al.  Risk factors for invasive epithelial ovarian cancer: results from a Swedish case-control study. Am J Epidemiol. 2002;156363- 373
PubMed Link to Article
Rodriguez  CPatel  AVCalle  EEJacob  EJThun  MJ Estrogen replacement therapy and ovarian cancer mortality in a large prospective study of US women. JAMA. 2001;2851460- 1465
PubMed Link to Article
Jacobsen  SJGoldberg  JMiles  TPBrody  JAStiers  WRimm  AA Race and sex differences in mortality following fracture of the hip. Am J Pub Health. 1992;821147- 1150
PubMed Link to Article
Reno  JBurlington  H Fractures of the hip: mortality survey. Am J Surg. 1958;95581- 592
PubMed Link to Article
Egol  KAKoval  KJZuckerman  JD Functional recovery following hip fracture in the elderly. J Orthop Trauma. 1997;11594- 599
PubMed Link to Article
Zuckerman  JD Hip fracture. N Engl J Med. 1996;3341519- 1525
PubMed Link to Article
McGovern  PGJacobs  DR  JrShahar  E  et al.  Trends in acute coronary heart disease mortality, morbidity, and medical care from 1985 through 1997: the Minnesota heart survey. Circulation. 2001;10419- 24
PubMed Link to Article
Gresham  GEKelly-Hayes  MWolf  PABeiser  ASKase  CSD'Agostino  RB Survival and functional status 20 or more years after first stroke: the Framingham Study. Stroke. 1998;29793- 797
PubMed Link to Article
Davey Smith  GNeaton  JDWentworth  DStamler  RStamler  J Mortality differences between black and white men in the USA: contribution of income and other risk factors among men screened for the MRFIT: MRFIT Research Group: Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial. Lancet. 1998;351934- 939
PubMed Link to Article
Kuntz  KMWeinstein  MC Life expectancy biases in clinical decision modeling. Med Decis Making. 1995;15158- 169
PubMed Link to Article
Sarasin  FPEckman  MH Management and prevention of thromboembolic events in patients with cancer-related hypercoagulable states: a risky business. J Gen Intern Med. 1993;8476- 486
PubMed Link to Article
Fryback  DGDasbach  EJKlein  R  et al.  The Beaver Dam Health Outcomes Study: initial catalog of health-state quality factors. Med Decis Making. 1993;1389- 102
PubMed Link to Article
Read  JLQuinn  RJBerwick  DMFineberg  HVWeinstein  MC Preferences for health outcomes: comparison of assessment methods. Med Decis Making. 1984;4315- 329
PubMed Link to Article
Hummel  SPiercy  JWright  RDavie  ABagust  AMcMurray  J An economic analysis of the Survival and Ventricular Enlargement (SAVE) Study: application to the United Kingdom. Pharmacoeconomics. 1997;12182- 192
PubMed Link to Article
Tsevat  JGoldman  LLamas  GA  et al.  Functional status versus utilities in survivors of myocardial infarction. Med Care. 1991;291153- 1159
PubMed Link to Article
Post  PStiggelbout  AWakker  P The utility of health states after stroke: a systematic review of the literature. Stroke. 2001;321425- 1429
PubMed Link to Article
Jansen  SJStiggelbout  AMWakker  PPNooij  MANoordijk  EMKievit  J Unstable preferences: a shift in valuation or an effect of the elicitation procedure? Med Decis Making. 2000;2062- 71
PubMed Link to Article
McLachlan  SAPintilie  MTannock  IF Third line chemotherapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer: an evaluation of quality of life and cost. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1999;54213- 223
PubMed Link to Article
Ashby  JO'Hanlon  MBuxton  MJ The time trade-off technique: how do the valuations of breast cancer patients compare to those of other groups? Qual Life Res. 1994;3257- 265
PubMed Link to Article
Norum  JVonen  BOlsen  JARevhaug  A Adjuvant chemotherapy (5-fluorouracil and levamisole) in Dukes' B and C colorectal carcinoma: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Oncol. 1997;865- 70
PubMed Link to Article
Stiggelbout  AMKiebert  GMKievit  JLeer  JWHabbema  JDDe  Haes JC The "utility" of the Time Trade-Off method in cancer patients: feasibility and proportional Trade-Off. J Clin Epidemiol. 1995;481207- 1214
PubMed Link to Article
Gatta  GCapocaccia  RSant  M  et al.  Understanding variations in survival for colorectal cancer in Europe: a EUROCARE high resolution study. Gut. 2000;47533- 538
PubMed Link to Article
Ness  RMHolmes  AMKlein  RDittus  R Utility valuations for outcome states of colorectal cancer. Am J Gastroenterol. 1999;941650- 1657
PubMed Link to Article
Gabriel  SEKneeland  TSMelton III  LJMoncur  MMEttinger  BTosteson  AN Health-related quality of life in economic evaluations for osteoporosis: whose values should we use? Med Decis Making. 1999;19141- 148
PubMed Link to Article
Torrance  GW Social Preferences for Health States: an empirical evaluation of three measurement techniques. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences. 1976;10129- 136
Link to Article
MacLennan  ALester  SMoore  V Oral estrogen replacement therapy versus placebo for hot flushes: a systematic review. Climacteric. 2001;458- 74
PubMed Link to Article
Hunt  K Perceived value of treatment among a group of long-term users of hormone replacement therapy. J R Coll Gen Pract. 1988;38398- 401
PubMed
Barnabei  VMGrady  DStovall  DW  et al.  Menopausal symptoms in older women and the effects of treatment with hormone therapy. Obstet Gynecol. 2002;1001209- 1218
PubMed Link to Article
Lerman  CTrock  BRimer  BKBoyce  AJepson  CEngstrom  PF Psychological and behavioral implications of abnormal mammograms. Ann Intern Med. 1991;114657- 661
PubMed Link to Article
Brett  JAustoker  J Women who are recalled for further investigation for breast screening: psychological consequences 3 years after recall and factors affecting re-attendance. J Public Health Med. 2001;23292- 300
PubMed Link to Article
Gram  ITLund  ESlenker  SE Quality of life following a false positive mammogram. Br J Cancer. 1990;621018- 1022
PubMed Link to Article
Gilbert  FJCordiner  CMAffleck  IRHood  DBMathieson  DWalker  LG Breast screening: the psychological sequelae of false-positive recall in women with and without a family history of breast cancer. Eur J Cancer. 1998;342010- 2014
PubMed Link to Article
Scaf-Klomp  WSanderman  Rvan de Wiel  HBOtter  Rvan den Heuvel  WJ Distressed or relieved? psychological side effects of breast cancer screening in the Netherlands. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1997;51705- 710
PubMed Link to Article
Johnston  KBrown  JGerard  KO'Hanlon  MMorton  A Valuing temporary and chronic health states associated with breast screening. Soc Sci Med. 1998;47213- 222
PubMed Link to Article
Akman  SADoroshow  JHDietrich  MFChlebowski  RTBlock  JS Synergistic cytotoxicity between menadione and dicumarol vs murine leukemia L1210. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1987;240486- 491
PubMed
Stamler  JStamler  RNeaton  JD  et al.  Low risk-factor profile and long-term cardiovascular and noncardiovascular mortality and life expectancy: findings for 5 large cohorts of young adult and middle-aged men and women. JAMA. 1999;2822012- 2018
PubMed Link to Article
O'Connor  AMMulley  AG  JrWennberg  JE Standard consultations are not enough to ensure decision quality regarding preference-sensitive options. J Nat Cancer Inst. 2003;95570- 571
PubMed Link to Article
Jansen  SJStiggelbout  AMWakker  PP  et al.  Patients' utilities for cancer treatments: a study of the chained procedure for the standard gamble and time tradeoff. Med Decis Making. 1998;18391- 399
PubMed Link to Article
Jansen  SJStiggelbout  AMNooij  MANoordijk  EMKievit  J Response shift in quality of life measurement in early-stage breast cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy. Qual Life Res. 2000;9603- 615
PubMed Link to Article
Shumaker  SALegault  CThal  L  et al.  Estrogen plus progestin and the incidence of dementia and mild cognitive impairment in postmenopausal women: the Women's Health Initiative Memory Study: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2003;2892651- 2662
PubMed Link to Article
Mishra  GBrown  WDobson  A Physical and mental health: changes during menopause transition. Qual Life Res. 2003;12405- 413
PubMed Link to Article
Simon  JAStevens  REAyres  SAPhelps  KV Perimenopausal women in estrogen vasomotor trials: contribution to placebo effect and efficacy outcome. Climacteric. 2001;419- 27
PubMed Link to Article
Speroff  LWhitcomb  RWKempfert  NJBoyd  RAPaulissen  JBRowan  JP Efficacy and local tolerance of a low-dose, 7-day matrix estradiol transdermal system in the treatment of menopausal vasomotor symptoms. Obstet Gynecol. 1996;88587- 592
PubMed Link to Article

Figures

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 1.

Impact of menopausal hormone therapy (HT) on quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALE) according to cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk and severity of menopausal symptoms.

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 2.

Change in quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALE) from hormone therapy according to menopausal quality of life (QOL) and risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD).

Graphic Jump Location

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Impact of Current HT Use on Clinical Events
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Mortality Rates (Annual Probabilities)14

References

Barrett-Connor  EHendrix  SEttinger  B Women's Health and Menopause: A Comprehensive Approach.  Bethesda, Md National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute2002;
Writing Group for the Women's Health Initiative I, Risks and benefits of estrogen plus progestin in healthy postmenopausal women: principal results From the Women's Health Initiative randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2002;288321- 333
PubMed Link to Article
McKinlay  SMJefferys  M The menopausal syndrome. Br J Prev Soc Med. 1974;28108- 115
PubMed
Kronenberg  F Hot flashes: epidemiology and physiology. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1990;59252- 86
PubMed Link to Article
Speroff  LSymons  JKempfert  NRowan  J ; femhrt Study Investigators. The effect of varying low-dose combinations of norethindrone acetate and ethinyl estradiol (femhrt) on the frequency and intensity of vasomotor symptoms. Menopause. 2000;7383- 390
PubMed Link to Article
Daly  EGray  ABarlow  DMcPherson  KRoche  MVessey  M Measuring the impact of menopausal symptoms on quality of life. BMJ. 1993;307836- 840
PubMed Link to Article
Zethraeus  NJohannesson  MHenriksson  PStrand  RT The impact of hormone replacement therapy on quality of life and willingness to pay. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1997;1041191- 1195
PubMed Link to Article
Col  NFEckman  MHKaras  RH  et al.  Patient-specific decisions about hormone-replacement therapy in postmenopausal women. JAMA. 1997;2771140- 1147
PubMed Link to Article
Col  NFPauker  SGGoldberg  RJ  et al.  Individualizing therapy to prevent long-term consequences of estrogen deficiency in postmenopausal women. Arch Intern Med. 1999;1591458- 1466
PubMed Link to Article
National Center for Health Statistics, Vital Statistics of the United States, 1999: Volume 2, Mortality, Part B.  Hyattsville, Md National Center for Health Statistics2001;
Gail  MKBrinton  LAByar  DP  et al.  Projecting individualized probabilities of developing breast cancer for white females who are being examined annually. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1989;811879- 1886
PubMed Link to Article
D'Agostino  RBRussell  MWHuse  DM  et al.  Primary and subsequent coronary risk appraisal: new results from the Framingham Study [published correction appears in Am Heart J. 2002;143:21]. Am Heart J.2000;139272- 281
PubMed
D'Agostino  RBWolf  PABelanger  AJKannel  WB Stroke risk profile: adjustment for antihypertensive medication: The Framingham Study. Stroke. 1994;2540- 43
PubMed Link to Article
Ries  LAGEisner  MPKosary  CL  et al.  SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1973-1999.  Bethesda, Md National Cancer Institute2002;
Wilson  PWD'Agostino  RBLevy  DBelanger  AMSilbershatz  HKannel  WB Prediction of coronary heart disease using risk factor categories. Circulation. 1998;971837- 1847
PubMed Link to Article
Not Available, Expert Panel on Detection E, Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in A. 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;2852486- 2497
PubMed Link to Article
Beral  VBanks  EReeves  G Evidence from randomised trials on the long-term effects of hormone replacement therapy. Lancet. 2002;360942- 944
PubMed Link to Article
Nelson  HDHumphrey  LLNygren  PTeutsch  SMAllan  JD Postmenopausal hormone replacement therapy: scientific review. JAMA. 2002;288872- 881
PubMed Link to Article
Chlebowski  RTHendrix  SLLanger  RD  et al.  Influence of estrogen plus progestin on breast cancer and mammography in healthy postmenopausal women: the Women's Health Initiative Randomized Trial. JAMA. 2003;2893243- 3253
PubMed Link to Article
Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group, Tamoxifen for early breast cancer: an overview of the randomised trials. Lancet. 1998;3511451- 1467
PubMed Link to Article
Ravdin  PMSiminoff  LADavis  GJ  et al.  Computer program to assist in making decisions about adjuvant therapy for women with early breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19980- 991
PubMed
Ravdin  PM A computer program to assist in making breast cancer adjuvant therapy decisions. Semin Oncol. 1996;23 ((1, suppl 2)) 43- 50
PubMed
McCready  DRChapman  JAHanna  WM  et al.  Factors affecting distant disease-free survival for primary invasive breast cancer: use of a log-normal survival model. Ann Surg Oncol. 2000;7416- 426
PubMed Link to Article
Negri  ETzonou  ABeral  V  et al.  Hormonal therapy for menopause and ovarian cancer in a collaborative re-analysis of European studies. Int J Cancer. 1999;80848- 851
PubMed Link to Article
Riman  TDickman  PWNilsson  S  et al.  Risk factors for invasive epithelial ovarian cancer: results from a Swedish case-control study. Am J Epidemiol. 2002;156363- 373
PubMed Link to Article
Rodriguez  CPatel  AVCalle  EEJacob  EJThun  MJ Estrogen replacement therapy and ovarian cancer mortality in a large prospective study of US women. JAMA. 2001;2851460- 1465
PubMed Link to Article
Jacobsen  SJGoldberg  JMiles  TPBrody  JAStiers  WRimm  AA Race and sex differences in mortality following fracture of the hip. Am J Pub Health. 1992;821147- 1150
PubMed Link to Article
Reno  JBurlington  H Fractures of the hip: mortality survey. Am J Surg. 1958;95581- 592
PubMed Link to Article
Egol  KAKoval  KJZuckerman  JD Functional recovery following hip fracture in the elderly. J Orthop Trauma. 1997;11594- 599
PubMed Link to Article
Zuckerman  JD Hip fracture. N Engl J Med. 1996;3341519- 1525
PubMed Link to Article
McGovern  PGJacobs  DR  JrShahar  E  et al.  Trends in acute coronary heart disease mortality, morbidity, and medical care from 1985 through 1997: the Minnesota heart survey. Circulation. 2001;10419- 24
PubMed Link to Article
Gresham  GEKelly-Hayes  MWolf  PABeiser  ASKase  CSD'Agostino  RB Survival and functional status 20 or more years after first stroke: the Framingham Study. Stroke. 1998;29793- 797
PubMed Link to Article
Davey Smith  GNeaton  JDWentworth  DStamler  RStamler  J Mortality differences between black and white men in the USA: contribution of income and other risk factors among men screened for the MRFIT: MRFIT Research Group: Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial. Lancet. 1998;351934- 939
PubMed Link to Article
Kuntz  KMWeinstein  MC Life expectancy biases in clinical decision modeling. Med Decis Making. 1995;15158- 169
PubMed Link to Article
Sarasin  FPEckman  MH Management and prevention of thromboembolic events in patients with cancer-related hypercoagulable states: a risky business. J Gen Intern Med. 1993;8476- 486
PubMed Link to Article
Fryback  DGDasbach  EJKlein  R  et al.  The Beaver Dam Health Outcomes Study: initial catalog of health-state quality factors. Med Decis Making. 1993;1389- 102
PubMed Link to Article
Read  JLQuinn  RJBerwick  DMFineberg  HVWeinstein  MC Preferences for health outcomes: comparison of assessment methods. Med Decis Making. 1984;4315- 329
PubMed Link to Article
Hummel  SPiercy  JWright  RDavie  ABagust  AMcMurray  J An economic analysis of the Survival and Ventricular Enlargement (SAVE) Study: application to the United Kingdom. Pharmacoeconomics. 1997;12182- 192
PubMed Link to Article
Tsevat  JGoldman  LLamas  GA  et al.  Functional status versus utilities in survivors of myocardial infarction. Med Care. 1991;291153- 1159
PubMed Link to Article
Post  PStiggelbout  AWakker  P The utility of health states after stroke: a systematic review of the literature. Stroke. 2001;321425- 1429
PubMed Link to Article
Jansen  SJStiggelbout  AMWakker  PPNooij  MANoordijk  EMKievit  J Unstable preferences: a shift in valuation or an effect of the elicitation procedure? Med Decis Making. 2000;2062- 71
PubMed Link to Article
McLachlan  SAPintilie  MTannock  IF Third line chemotherapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer: an evaluation of quality of life and cost. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1999;54213- 223
PubMed Link to Article
Ashby  JO'Hanlon  MBuxton  MJ The time trade-off technique: how do the valuations of breast cancer patients compare to those of other groups? Qual Life Res. 1994;3257- 265
PubMed Link to Article
Norum  JVonen  BOlsen  JARevhaug  A Adjuvant chemotherapy (5-fluorouracil and levamisole) in Dukes' B and C colorectal carcinoma: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Oncol. 1997;865- 70
PubMed Link to Article
Stiggelbout  AMKiebert  GMKievit  JLeer  JWHabbema  JDDe  Haes JC The "utility" of the Time Trade-Off method in cancer patients: feasibility and proportional Trade-Off. J Clin Epidemiol. 1995;481207- 1214
PubMed Link to Article
Gatta  GCapocaccia  RSant  M  et al.  Understanding variations in survival for colorectal cancer in Europe: a EUROCARE high resolution study. Gut. 2000;47533- 538
PubMed Link to Article
Ness  RMHolmes  AMKlein  RDittus  R Utility valuations for outcome states of colorectal cancer. Am J Gastroenterol. 1999;941650- 1657
PubMed Link to Article
Gabriel  SEKneeland  TSMelton III  LJMoncur  MMEttinger  BTosteson  AN Health-related quality of life in economic evaluations for osteoporosis: whose values should we use? Med Decis Making. 1999;19141- 148
PubMed Link to Article
Torrance  GW Social Preferences for Health States: an empirical evaluation of three measurement techniques. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences. 1976;10129- 136
Link to Article
MacLennan  ALester  SMoore  V Oral estrogen replacement therapy versus placebo for hot flushes: a systematic review. Climacteric. 2001;458- 74
PubMed Link to Article
Hunt  K Perceived value of treatment among a group of long-term users of hormone replacement therapy. J R Coll Gen Pract. 1988;38398- 401
PubMed
Barnabei  VMGrady  DStovall  DW  et al.  Menopausal symptoms in older women and the effects of treatment with hormone therapy. Obstet Gynecol. 2002;1001209- 1218
PubMed Link to Article
Lerman  CTrock  BRimer  BKBoyce  AJepson  CEngstrom  PF Psychological and behavioral implications of abnormal mammograms. Ann Intern Med. 1991;114657- 661
PubMed Link to Article
Brett  JAustoker  J Women who are recalled for further investigation for breast screening: psychological consequences 3 years after recall and factors affecting re-attendance. J Public Health Med. 2001;23292- 300
PubMed Link to Article
Gram  ITLund  ESlenker  SE Quality of life following a false positive mammogram. Br J Cancer. 1990;621018- 1022
PubMed Link to Article
Gilbert  FJCordiner  CMAffleck  IRHood  DBMathieson  DWalker  LG Breast screening: the psychological sequelae of false-positive recall in women with and without a family history of breast cancer. Eur J Cancer. 1998;342010- 2014
PubMed Link to Article
Scaf-Klomp  WSanderman  Rvan de Wiel  HBOtter  Rvan den Heuvel  WJ Distressed or relieved? psychological side effects of breast cancer screening in the Netherlands. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1997;51705- 710
PubMed Link to Article
Johnston  KBrown  JGerard  KO'Hanlon  MMorton  A Valuing temporary and chronic health states associated with breast screening. Soc Sci Med. 1998;47213- 222
PubMed Link to Article
Akman  SADoroshow  JHDietrich  MFChlebowski  RTBlock  JS Synergistic cytotoxicity between menadione and dicumarol vs murine leukemia L1210. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1987;240486- 491
PubMed
Stamler  JStamler  RNeaton  JD  et al.  Low risk-factor profile and long-term cardiovascular and noncardiovascular mortality and life expectancy: findings for 5 large cohorts of young adult and middle-aged men and women. JAMA. 1999;2822012- 2018
PubMed Link to Article
O'Connor  AMMulley  AG  JrWennberg  JE Standard consultations are not enough to ensure decision quality regarding preference-sensitive options. J Nat Cancer Inst. 2003;95570- 571
PubMed Link to Article
Jansen  SJStiggelbout  AMWakker  PP  et al.  Patients' utilities for cancer treatments: a study of the chained procedure for the standard gamble and time tradeoff. Med Decis Making. 1998;18391- 399
PubMed Link to Article
Jansen  SJStiggelbout  AMNooij  MANoordijk  EMKievit  J Response shift in quality of life measurement in early-stage breast cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy. Qual Life Res. 2000;9603- 615
PubMed Link to Article
Shumaker  SALegault  CThal  L  et al.  Estrogen plus progestin and the incidence of dementia and mild cognitive impairment in postmenopausal women: the Women's Health Initiative Memory Study: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2003;2892651- 2662
PubMed Link to Article
Mishra  GBrown  WDobson  A Physical and mental health: changes during menopause transition. Qual Life Res. 2003;12405- 413
PubMed Link to Article
Simon  JAStevens  REAyres  SAPhelps  KV Perimenopausal women in estrogen vasomotor trials: contribution to placebo effect and efficacy outcome. Climacteric. 2001;419- 27
PubMed Link to Article
Speroff  LWhitcomb  RWKempfert  NJBoyd  RAPaulissen  JBRowan  JP Efficacy and local tolerance of a low-dose, 7-day matrix estradiol transdermal system in the treatment of menopausal vasomotor symptoms. Obstet Gynecol. 1996;88587- 592
PubMed Link to Article

Correspondence

CME


You need to register in order to view this quiz.
Submit a Comment

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Web of Science® Times Cited: 27

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles
JAMAevidence.com

Users' Guides to the Medical Literature
Table 9.2-3 Refuted Evidence From Observational Studiesa

The Rational Clinical Examination
Make the Diagnosis: Menopause