CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 6,216Menopause: Health Impacts and TreatmentsEstrogen and related hormone effectsLipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 50 of the 50 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Randomized Trial of Estrogen Plus Progestin for Secondary Prevention of Coronary Heart Disease in Postmenopausal Women

Hulley, Stephen·1998·JAMA
DOI 10.1001/jama.280.7.605
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

CONTEXT: Observational studies have found lower rates of coronary heart disease (CHD) in postmenopausal women who take estrogen than in women who do not, but this potential benefit has not been confirmed in clinical trials. OBJECTIVE: To determine if estrogen plus progestin therapy alters the risk for CHD events in postmenopausal women with established coronary disease. DESIGN: Randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled secondary prevention trial. SETTING: Outpatient and community settings at 20 US clinical centers. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 2763 women with coronary disease, younger than 80 years, and postmenopausal with an intact uterus. Mean age was 66.7 years. INTERVENTION: Either 0.625 mg of conjugated equine estrogens plus 2.5 mg of medroxyprogesterone acetate in 1 tablet daily (n = 1380) or a placebo of identical appearance (n = 1383). Follow-up averaged 4.1 years; 82% of those assigned to hormone treatment were taking it at the end of 1 year, and 75% at the end of 3 years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the occurrence of nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI) or CHD death. Secondary cardiovascular outcomes included coronary revascularization, unstable angina, congestive heart failure, resuscitated cardiac arrest, stroke or transient ischemic attack, and peripheral arterial disease. All-cause mortality was also considered. RESULTS: Overall, there were no significant differences between groups in the primary outcome or in any of the secondary cardiovascular outcomes: 172 women in the hormone group and 176 women in the placebo group had MI or CHD death (relative hazard [RH], 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80-1.22). The lack of an overall effect occurred despite a net 11% lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level and 10% higher high-density lipoprotein cholesterol level in the hormone group compared with the placebo group (each P<.001). Within the overall null effect, there was a statistically significant time trend, with more CHD events in the hormone group than in the placebo group in year 1 and fewer in years 4 and 5. More women in the hormone group than in the placebo group experienced venous thromboembolic events (34 vs 12; RH, 2.89; 95% CI, 1.50-5.58) and gallbladder disease (84 vs 62; RH, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.00-1.92). There were no significant differences in several other end points for which power was limited, including fracture, cancer, and total mortality (131 vs 123 deaths; RH, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.84-1.38). CONCLUSIONS: During an average follow-up of 4.1 years, treatment with oral conjugated equine estrogen plus medroxyprogesterone acetate did not reduce the overall rate of CHD events in postmenopausal women with established coronary disease. The treatment did increase the rate of thromboembolic events and gallbladder disease. Based on the finding of no overall cardiovascular benefit and a pattern of early increase in risk of CHD events, we do not recommend starting this treatment for the purpose of secondary prevention of CHD. However, given the favorable pattern of CHD events after several years of therapy, it could be appropriate for women already receiving this treatment to continue.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.280.7.605

Cites

50 of 50 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 50 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 1,001–1,024 of 1,024

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Hulley, S.
Affiliations
University of California, San Francisco (US)
Corresponding author
Hulley, Stephen
Venue
JAMA
Publisher
American Medical Association (AMA)
Published
1998-08-19
Volume
280
Issue
7
Pages
605
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
DOI
10.1001/jama.280.7.605
OpenAlex
W2113264115
Cited by
6,216
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 47 · 2025: 54 · 2024: 61 · 2023: 61 · 2022: 76 · 2021: 85 · 2020: 75 · 2019: 91 · 2018: 96 · 2017: 95 · 2016: 113 · 2015: 107 · 2014: 137 · 2013: 175 · 2012: 188
FWCI
276.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • JAMA (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Menopause: Health Impacts and Treatments
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Endocrinology › Estrogen and related hormone effects
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Lipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
Keywords
estrogen-progestin therapy, postmenopausal women, coronary artery disease, secondary prevention, conjugated equine estrogens, medroxyprogesterone acetate, myocardial infarction, venous thromboembolism, stroke, cardiovascular outcomes, serum lipids, hormone replacement therapy, coronary revascularization, congestive heart failure, all-cause mortality
MeSH terms
Aged, Coronary Disease, Double-Blind Method, Drug Combinations, Estrogens, Conjugated (USP), Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Lipoproteins, Middle Aged, Risk, Estrogen Replacement Therapy, Proportional Hazards Models, Survival Analysis, Medroxyprogesterone Acetate, Postmenopause, Progesterone Congeners

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review