Hormone replacement therapy and acute coronary outcomes: methodological issues between randomized and observational studies.

Abstract

A large number of observational studies, supported by animal and basic research studies, have shown a protective effect of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) on acute coronary outcomes. The recent large randomized Women's Health Initiative (WHI) study reported the opposite result, i.e. a small risk increase of 29% for acute coronary outcomes under estrogen-progestin treatment. Possible methodological reasons for these discrepancies are discussed. Despite randomization, the reported small increase in risk in the WHI study could be spurious because of differential unblinding of HRT users, which could have resulted in higher detection rates of otherwise clinically unrecognized acute myocardial infarction in these women. We show that altering diagnostic patterns because of unblinding could lower the crude rate ratio of 1.28 to 1.02. In the observational studies, the protective effect may have been exaggerated due to a healthy user bias and to the inappropriate choice of the reference group. Using an alternative reference group, the combined rate ratio of 0.67 was increased to 0.82. The diametrical effects of HRT on acute coronary outcomes found between the observational studies and the WHI Study may be a result not only of bias in the observational studies, but also of bias in the WHI Study.