Manson and Martin review the clinical controversies surrounding hormone-replacement therapy. 1 The findings of the Heart and Estrogen/Progestin Replacement Study (HERS) suggest reasons to be cautious about the use of hormonereplacement therapy in women who are 65 years of age or older. Of 2763 women (mean age, 67 years) with established coronary heart disease, women who were randomly assigned to receive hormone-replacement therapy had an excess risk of one additional blood clot per 64 women and of one additional gallbladder operation per 69 women during a fouryear period.2,3 Hormone-replacement therapy was significantly associated with worsening urinary incontinence. 4 Side effects of hormone-replacement therapy included breast tenderness and uterine bleeding, and only 70 percent of the women remained adherent to therapy by the end of year 3.
2Manson and Martin did not include stroke in their evaluation of benefits and risks. Among 652 women (mean age, 71 years) who had had a transient ischemic attack or nondisabling stroke, women who were randomly assigned to receive oral estradiol did not have lower rates of death or stroke. 5 The risk of fatal stroke was significantly increased (relative risk, 3.86; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.09 to 13.63) with the use of estrogen therapy.
5Before older women begin receiving hormone-replacement therapy, clinicians should inform them of the increased risk of blood clots, gallbladder disease, urinary incontinence, and fatal stroke. Clinicians should correct the misperception that hormone-replacement therapy is cardioprotective, since both the Women's Health Initiative 6 and HERS reported an increased risk of cardiovascular events in the first one to two years of use. Clinicians should alert women that, in 1999, the Food and Drug Administration removed the treatment of osteoporosis as an indication for estrogen therapy because of the lack of evidence from randomized trials of the effect of estrogen on the risk of fracture.