D espite great strides in hormone therapy (HT) research, clinical trial data on the benefit-to-risk profile of different formulations, doses, and routes administration of HT remain lacking. Most of the large-scale clinical trials 1-3 have tested oral conjugated equine estrogens with or without medroxyprogesterone acetate, and data on nonoral routes and different types and doses of estrogens and progestogens have been limited. The evidence is mounting that route of delivery and possibly type and dose of HT are important factors, particularly for venous thromboembolism (VTE). Results of clinical trials 4,5 and observational studies 6 have been concordant in demonstrating an increased risk of VTE with oral exogenous HT. Recent studies suggest that VTE risk may be lower with transdermal than oral estrogen 7 and with estrogen alone than with combined therapy. 4 However, in the absence of rigorous evidence from large-scale clinical trials on differential effects by hormone formulation or route of delivery, should these findings influence clinical practice?
Article p 840The Estrogen and Thromboembolism Risk (ESTHER) study, 7 published in the current issue of Circulation, adds important, relevant data to bolster the case that HT type and route of delivery do indeed make a difference. This welldesigned, French, multicenter case-control study of VTE enrolled 271 consecutive cases of VTE in women (age, 45 to 70 years) and matched them to hospital and community controls. Current HT use was present in 46% of the VTE cases compared with 37% of controls. Oral HT users had 4-fold-increased odds of VTE; however, there was no increased risk among transdermal hormone users (odds ratio, 0.9). Previous randomized trials have suggested that the risk of VTE may be higher with combined oral estrogen and progestogen therapy than with estrogen alone. 4,5 In ESTHER, type of progestogen also appeared to influence risk of VTE. Neither micronized progesterone nor pregnane derivatives (including medroxyprogesterone acetate) were associated with VTE, whereas norpregnane derivatives were associated with a 4-fold increase in odds of VTE.The present study has several important strengths, including a large number of carefully adjudicated cases, a population with a large percent of transdermal estrogen users, and a wide variety of progestogen types. Similar data on the relationship of clinical end points to route of estrogen and type of progestogen would not be readily obtainable in the United States, where transdermal preparations and alternate types of progestogens constitute a relatively small proportion of total HT use. Because of small numbers, cases and controls using nortestosterone derivatives were excluded from the main analyses, although a significantly increased risk also was observed in this group.As for any observational or case-control study, selection and confounding biases must be considered. Reasons for choosing a particular progestogen in this population are unknown, so it is possible that clinical factors could have contributed t...