This story provides a brief overview of the results of the Estrogen-Alone study, which was a large, randomized, blinded trial and part of the Women’s Health Initiative study of hormone replacement therapy (HRT). The story accurately notes that estrogen-alone therapy is only for postmenopausal women who have had a hysterectomy.
The story provides some balance on the risks and benefits of taking estrogen alone to relieve symptoms of menopause, and there is caution that it is not right for certain women. There is discussion of some of the established benefits of HRT, such as relieving hot flashes and helping to prevent osteoporosis. However, there is no quantitative data from the study on how great a benefit HRT would provide. For example, in the estrogen alone study, there were only 6 fewer hip fractures (11 cases in estrogen alone and 17 cases in placebo group) out of tens of thousands of women enrolled. There is no discussion of other medications which are effectively used to prevent osteoporosis and have fewer health risks.
The most erroneous portion of the story is the claim that “women can take this form of HRT with worrying about breast cancer.” It is true that there were fewer cases of breast cancer in the estrogen alone group: 28 per 10,000 in the estrogen group vs. 34 per 10,000 in the placebo group, and the difference was not statistically significant. However, there were more abnormal mammograms that required follow-up and 33% more breast biopsies in the estrogen alone group (747 vs. 549), which does not necessarily mean more breast cancer, but can signal changes in breast cells and tissue. Also, women at a higher risk of developing breast cancer in the estrogen-alone group had larger tumors that spread to the lymph nodes, which can mean a poorer prognosis and more breast cancer treatment.
Lastly, there is no discussion that menopause is a natural part of aging and not a condition which necessitates medical intervention. Unless symptoms are very bothersome, many women do not need to take hormone therapy medications to ease symptoms common in menopause such as hot flashes, cold sweats and vaginal dryness and discomfort. The report does not talk about less invasive alternative treatments for relieving symptoms of menopause such as exercise, vaginal creams, and wearing loose, cool clothing to prevent discomfort from hot flashes and cold sweats.
The story doesn’t mention the cost of taking estrogen alone. There is also no discussion of the additional cost of screening for breast cancer via mammograms and breast biopsies, or follow-up visits that might be required for women at higher risk of developing breast cancer from taking estrogen-alone HRT.
The story mentions some of the established benefits of HRT, such as relieving hot flashes and helping to prevent osteoporosis. However, there is no quantitative data from the study on how great a benefit. There is also no comparison between the two groups regarding the relative or absolute risk reduction of experiencing hot flashes or developing osteoporosis due to taking estrogen alone. In the estrogen alone study there were only 6 fewer hip fractures (11 cases in those on estrogen alone and 17 cases in those on placebo). For a woman considering this therapy, these are important distinctions.
Mentions some harms of treatment such as an increased risk of blood clots and strokes, but the interpretation of increased breast cancer risk for a subgroup of the study in omitted and misinterpreted. Also, there is no mention that the study found a slight increased risk of dementia in the estrogen-alone group. There were about 12 extra cases of dementia in every 10,000 women using estrogen alone each year. This increased risk was not statistically significant. Estrogen therapy is also associated with an increased risk of symptomatic gallstones.
No quantitative evidence presented from estrogen-alone study of the Women’s Health Initiative. The claim that “women can take this form of HRT with worrying about breast cancer is not correct. Breast cancer was diagnosed in 28 per 10,000 in the estrogen group and 34 per 10,000 in the placebo group; however, this was not statistically significant. Additionally, there were more abnormal mammograms and breast biopsies in the estrogen group than in the placebo group. Women at a higher risk of developing breast cancer in the estrogen therapy group had larger tumors that spread to the lymph nodes. This is critically important information for women and their physicians as they consider estrogen therapy.
There is no discussion here that menopause is a natural part of aging and not a condition which necessitates medical intervention. Unless symptoms are very bothersome, many women do not need to take hormone therapy medications to ease symptoms common in menopause such as hot flashes, cold sweats and vaginal dryness and discomfort.
No attempt to interview other sources, but we realize this is a TV story providing a brief overview of the results of the estrogen-alone portion of the Women’s Health Initiative HRT trial. There is discussion of the risks and benefits of taking estrogen alone and that it should be tailored to an individual woman’s health and familial risks. There is some caution about taking estrogen-alone hormone therapy.
The story does not talk about alternative treatments for relieving symptoms of menopause such as exercise, vaginal creams, and wearing loose, cool clothing to prevent discomfort from hot flashes and cold sweats. Also, there is no talk of other (less risky) medications which are used to prevent osteoporosis.
It is fairly clear from this story that this is not a new therapy – this treatment is available to women from a primary care provider or gynecologist.
Mentions hormone replacement therapy (HRT) as part Women’s Health Initiative estrogen-alone study for women who have had hysterectomies. The story does not present HRT as a new treatment for bothersome menopausal symptoms such as hot flashes and vaginal discomfort. It is clear that HRT is not proven to prevent heart disease or cancer.
There is no attempt to discuss the finding of the WHI with researchers in women’s health not affiliated with the study. However, this is a time-limited science report on the evening news. There is an explanation of the results of the WHI and caution about taking estrogen-alone hormone therapy. This appears to be a somewhat balanced report and not taken from press release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
The tale of two “negative” studies. Or, how spin is applied to make research findings look more impressive. A must read. https://johnmandrola.substack.com/p/the-tale-of-two-negative-studies
The @nytimes chose to interview one of the editors of the @AnnalsofIM (publisher of this paper) who "gushed with extraordinary glee: It’s huge! There are very few things that reduce your mortality by 30%."
Turns out coffee is not one of those few things despite all that glee. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1533202075928215558
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like