Kaiser Permanente Southern California, 393 E Walnut Street, Pasadena, CA 91188, USA. E-mail: diana.b.petitti{at}kp.org
In 1991, Stampfer and Colditz,1 reviewing epidemiological studies of the effect of postmenopausal oestrogen on coronary heart disease concluded that: ... the bulk of evidence strongly supports a protective effect of estrogens that is unlikely to be explained by confounding factors ...
Their best estimate of the relative risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) in postmenopausal oestrogen users was calculated using meta-analytical techniques applied to the epidemiological studies they deemed to be of high quality based on their designsprospective studies with internal controls and angiographic studies. This estimate was 0.50. The CI was narrow 0.43 to 0.56.
The Stampfer and Colditz paper was cited widely. It became a shorthand citation for the contention that the epidemiologic evidence showing that hormone replacement therapy prevents coronary heart disease is overwhelming.
In 1998, the results of the first large randomized, placebo-controlled trial of the effect of combined oestrogen/progestin hormone replacement therapy on coronary eventsthe Heart Progestin/Estrogen Replacement study (HERS)reported no beneficial effect of combined therapy on morbidity or mortality from CHD in women with established coronary disease.2 In 2002, the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) reported that combined oestrogen/progestin hormone replacement therapy did not prevent the development of CHD in women.3 Further follow-up of women in HERS,4 other randomized trials of the effect of oestrogen alone or combined oestrogen/progestin therapy on CHD endpoints or on measures of subclinical atherosclerosis,510 and a meta-analysis of small randomized trials of hormone replacement that provided data on cardiovascular endpoints11 all reported no overall benefit of either oestrogen alone or oestrogen plus progestin on any cardiovascular endpoint. In March 2004, the oestrogen only arm of the WHI was terminated early after showing no effect of oestrogen alone in increasing or decreasing the risk of CHD.12
What can epidemiologists learn by rereading Stampfer and Colditz in the harsh light of the experimental studies?
![]() |
Lesson one: do not turn a blind eye to contradiction |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
In the Coronary Drug Project, there was no benefit of either dose of conjugated equine oestrogen in preventing recurrent CHD events.13,14 The relative risk of non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI) or CHD death was 1.47 in high oestrogen-dose group14 and 1.00 in the low oestrogen-dose group.15
The oestrogen used in HERS and the Coronary Drug Project was the same. The eligibility criteria and endpoints in HERS and the Coronary Drug Project were virtually identical. In addition to differing in enrolment solely of men or solely of women, the two studies differed in the doses of oestrogen they used. The dose of oestrogen in HERS was lower (0.625 mg) than both doses of oestrogen used in the Coronary Drug Project.
If the epidemiological studies were true and oestrogen decreased the risk of CHD in women, it would mean that the effect of the oestrogen is crossed by sex or by dose. That is, it would mean that oestrogen increases (or does not affect) the risk of CHD in men (Coronary Drug Project) but it decreases risk in women (epidemiological studies) or that oestrogen use increases (or does not affect the risk) of CHD at a high dose (Coronary Drug Project) but it decreases risk at a low dose (epidemiological studies).
There are no examples where the effects of either exogenous or endogenous factors on CHD are crossedthe factor increases the risk of CHD in people of one sex and decreases risk in those of the opposite sex. There are no examples where the effect of exogenous administration of a drug on CHD is different between high and low doses of the drug.
HERS but not the Coronary Drug Project involved administration of a progestin. That is, HERS was a study of combined oestrogen/progestin therapy. What else was known in 1991 about combined hormone therapy and coronary disease in women?
Soon after they were first marketed in the early 1960s, there were isolated case reports of coronary thrombosis in young women using combination oestrogen/progestin oral contraceptives. By the mid-1970s, the increase in the risk of MI in young women using oral contraceptives was established.16
The oestrogen used in combination oestrogen/progestin oral contraceptives differs from that used for hormone replacement therapy. Combination oestrogen/progestin oral contraceptives contain the oestrogen, ethinyl oestradiol. The oestrogen administered as hormone replacement therapy is generally either conjugated equine oestrogen, 17-beta-oestradiol, or oestradiol valerate.
The progestins in combination oestrogen/progestin oral contraceptives and those used for combined oestrogen/progestin hormone replacement therapy also are generally different, although there is overlap. In the US, the progestin in most combined oestrogen/progestin hormone replacement regimens is medroxyprogesterone acetate; in Europe, norethindrone (norethisterone) is also widely used. There are at least 12 different progestins in currently marketed combination oestrogen/progestin oral contraceptives, but only some of these (e.g. norethindrone/norethisterone and norethindrone acetate/norethisterone acetate) are marketed for use as hormone replacement therapy.
However, the oestrogens and progestins are more similar than different. Oral contraceptives can be used to alleviate menopausal symptoms. An oestrogen/progestin oral contraceptive product containing medroxyprogesterone acetate was marketed in the past and was effective as a contraceptive. It is technically feasible to formulate a combination oestrogen/progestin oral contraceptive containing conjugated oestrogen or 17-beta-oestradiol.
If there truly were an effect of oestrogen/progestin combinations in decreasing the risk of CHD in postmenopausal women (as hormone replacement therapy), it would mean that the effect of administration of combinations of oestrogen and progestin in women is crossed by age. That is, the drugs are a hazard to the heart in younger women (oral contraception) and a benefit in older women (hormone replacement therapy).
There are no examples of where the effect of a drug on the risk of CHD at one age is the opposite of its effect at another.
Stampfer and Colditz do not discuss either the Coronary Drug Project or the oral contraceptive data but must have known of them.
Crossed effects are contradictions. Contradiction must be identified and explained. There is much to learn from contradiction.
Stampfer and Colditz teaches us not to turn a blind eye to contradiction.
![]() |
Lesson two: do not be seduced by mechanism |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Considering only lipid effects, oestrogen replacement therapy (ERT) and combined progestogen/oestrogen replacement therapy (PERT) increase serum triglyceride levels,17 a lipid effect that would be considered negative. This was known in 1991.
Besides affecting lipids and the interaction of platelets with the endothelium, ERT and PERT affect glucose metabolism, coagulation and fibrinolysis, homocysteine, measures of inflammation, and the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, which also play a role in the development of CHD and in recurrent events and atherosclerosis progression.1824 Some of these effects are individually in the negative direction (would suggest an increase in CHD or coronary atherosclerosis risk). The fact that hormones have complex effects on a number of factors involved in coagulation and atherosclerosis was also known in 1991.
Even if all of the mechanistic data had pointed in the same direction either in 1991 or later, we never know all there is to know of mechanism. Mechanism is complex.
Stampfer and Colditz teaches us not to be seduced by mechanism.
![]() |
Lesson three: suspend belief |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Weed goes on to describe the difficulties with belief: ... it may prevent us from making sincere attempts to test the cause as strenuously as possible and it makes it somewhat easier to conceal error.
In 2003, Humphrey, Chan, and Sox pointed out that a large majority of otherwise well-conducted epidemiological studies of coronary heart disease and postmenopausal hormone use did not take socioeconomic status into account.26 Three epidemiological studies that reported CHD risk in current users of hormone replacement had been published up to the time of their review in 2003 and met their quality criteria. The relative risk estimates were 0.8 (95% CI: 0.4, 1.3),27 0.96 (95% CI: 0.66, 1.40),28 and 1.05 (95% CI: 0.76, 1.46).29
Stampfer and Coldiz do not mention socioeconomic status as a potential uncontrolled confounder. But by 1991, social class, education, and socioeconomic status were well-studied and known to affect coronary heart disease risk.30,31
How can we understand this oversight? Was belief in the primacy of designthat prospective designs overcome confoundingtoo strong? These were the heady days of meta-analysis of epidemiological data. Was belief driven by the misleading narrowness of the confidence interval? Whatever the reason, there is no doubt rereading the 1991 paper that Stampfer and Colditz believed.
And, as Weed would have predicted, belief caused them to be unstrenuous in considering uncontrolled confounding as an explanation for the studies to that date. Worse, as Weed would have predicted, subsequent collective belief in the overwhelming nature of the epidemiological evidence made it easy to conceal the error.
Most of all, Stampfer and Colditz teaches us to suspend belief.
![]() |
Lesson four: maintain scepticism |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
The possibility that some form of oestrogen, some way of administering it, or some group given oestrogen might have a benefit in terms of a reduction in CHD risk is a longshot. Science is full of longshots with big payoffs. Science doors that are closed have a way of reopening.
Stampfer and Coldizt teaches epidemiologists to maintain scepticism, even when there are experiments.
![]() |
References |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
2 Hulley S, Grady D, Bush T et al. Randomized trial of estrogen plus progestin for secondary prevention of coronary heart disease in postmenopausal women. Heart and Estrogen/progestin Replacement Study (HERS) Research Group. JAMA 1998;280:60513.
3 Rossouw JE, Anderson GL, Prentice RL et al. Risks and benefits of estrogen plus progestin in healthy postmenopausal women: principal results From the Women's Health Initiative randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2002;288:32133.
4 Grady D, Herrington D, Bittner V et al. Cardiovascular disease outcomes during 6.8 years of hormone therapy: Heart and Estrogen/progestin Replacement Study follow-up (HERS II). JAMA 2002;288:4957.
5 Herrington DM, Reboussin DM, Brosnihan KB et al. Effects of estrogen replacement on the progression of coronary-artery atherosclerosis. N Engl J Med 2000;343:52229.
6 Angerer P, Stork S, Kothny W et al. Effect of oral postmenopausal hormone replacement on progression of atherosclerosis : a randomized, controlled trial. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 2001;21:26268.
7 Hodis HN, Mack WJ, Lobo RA et al. Estrogen in the prevention of atherosclerosis. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Ann Intern Med 2001;135:93953.
8 Cherry N, Gilmour K, Hannaford P et al. Oestrogen therapy for prevention of reinfarction in postmenopausal women: a randomised placebo controlled trial. Lancet 2002;360:200108.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
9 Byington RP, Furberg CD, Herrington DM et al. Effect of estrogen plus progestin on progression of carotid atherosclerosis in postmenopausal women with heart disease: HERS B-mode substudy. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 2002;22:169297.
10 Waters DD, Alderman EL, Hsia J et al. Effects of hormone replacement therapy and antioxidant vitamin supplements on coronary atherosclerosis in postmenopausal women: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2002;288:243240.
11 Clarke SC, Kelleher J, Lloyd-Jones H et al. A study of hormone replacement therapy in postmenopausal women with ischaemic heart disease: the Papworth HRT atherosclerosis study. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2002;109:105662.
12 Hemminki E, McPherson K. Impact of postmenopausal hormone therapy on cardiovascular events and cancer: pooled data from clinical trials. BMJ 1997;315:14953.
13 National Institutes of Health News. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. NIH asks participants in Women's Health Initiative Estrogen-alone Study to stop study pills, begin follow-up phase. 2 March 2004. http:///www.nhlbi.nih.gov
14 Coronary Drug Project. The Coronary Drug Project. Initial findings leading to modifications of its research protocol. JAMA 1970;214:130313.[CrossRef][Medline]
15 The Coronary Drug Project Research Group. The Coronary Drug Project. Findings leading to discontinuation of the 2.5-mg day estrogen group. JAMA 1973;226:65257.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
16 Ory HW. Association between oral contraceptives and myocardial infarction. JAMA 1977;237:261922.[Abstract]
17 Barrett-Connor E, Wingard DL, Criqui MH. Postmenopausal estrogen use and heart disease risk factors. JAMA 1989;261:2095110.[Abstract]
18 Caine YG, Bauer KA, Barzegar S et al. Coagulation activation following estrogen administration to postmenopausal women. Thromb Haemost 1992;68:39295.[ISI][Medline]
19 Nabulsi AA, Folsom AR, White A et al. Association of hormone-replacement therapy with various cardiovascular risk factors in postmenopausal women. The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study Investigators. N Engl J Med 1993;328:106975.
20 Manolio TA, Furberg CD, Shemanski L et al. Associations of postmenopausal estrogen use with cardiovascular disease and its risk factors in older women. The CHS Collaborative Research Group. Circulation 1993;88:216371.[Abstract]
21 The Writing Group for the PEPI Trial. Effects of estrogen or estrogen/progestin regimens on heart disease risk factors in postmenopausal women. The Postmenopausal Estrogen/Progestin Interventions (PEPI) Trial. JAMA 1995;273:199208.[Abstract]
22 Koh KK, Mincemoyer R, Bui MN et al. Effects of hormone-replacement therapy on fibrinolysis in postmenopausal women. N Engl J Med 1997;336:68390.
23 Espeland MA, Hogan PE, Fineberg SE et al. Effect of postmenopausal hormone therapy on glucose and insulin concentrations. PEPI Investigators. Postmenopausal Estrogen/Progestin Interventions. Diabetes Care 1998;21:158995.[Abstract]
24 Barnabei VM, Phillips TM, Hsia J. Plasma homocysteine in women taking hormone replacement therapy: the Postmenopausal Estrogen/Progestin Interventions (PEPI) Trial. J Womens Health Gend Based Med 1999;8:116772.[ISI][Medline]
25 Weed DL. Causal criteria and Popperian refutation. In: Rothman KJ (ed.). Causal Inference. Chestnut Hill MA: Epidemiology Resources Inc., 1988, p. 26.
26 Humphrey LL, Chan BK, Sox HC. Postmenopausal hormone replacement therapy and the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Ann Intern Med 2002;137:27384.
27 Rosenberg L, Palmer JR, Shapiro S. A case-control study of myocardial infarction in relation to use of estrogen supplements. Am J Epidemiol 1993;137:5463.[Abstract]
28 Sidney S, Petitti DB, Quesenberry CP Jr. Myocardial infarction and the use of estrogen and estrogen-progestogen in postmenopausal women. Ann Intern Med 1997;127:50108.
29 Sourander L, Rajala T, Raiha I et al. Cardiovascular and cancer morbidity and mortality and sudden cardiac death in postmenopausal women on oestrogen replacement therapy (ERT). Lancet 1998;352:196569.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
30 Marmot MG, Adelstein AM, Robinson N, Rose GA. Changing social-class distribution of heart disease. BMJ 1978;ii:110912.
31 Marmot MG, Kogevinas M, Elston MA. Social/economic status and disease. Ann Rev Public Health 1987;8:11135.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
32 Grodstein F, Clarkson TB, Manson JE. Understanding the divergent data on postmenopausal hormone therapy. N Engl J Med 2002;348:64550.[ISI]
33 Manson JE, Hsia J, Johnson KC et al. Estrogen plus progestin and the risk of coronary heart disease. N Engl J Med 2003;349:52334.