A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: Development and validation☆

Systematic review and meta-analysis

Context Despite decades of accumulated observational evidence, the balance of risks and benefits for hormone use in healthy postmenopausal women remains uncertain Objective To assess the major health benefits and risks of the most commonly used combined hormone preparation in the United States Design Estrogen plus progestin component of the Women's Health Initiative, a randomized controlled primary prevention trial (planned duration, 85 years) in which 16608 postmenopausal women aged 50-79 years with an intact uterus at baseline were recruited by 40 US clinical centers in 1993-1998 Interventions Participants received conjugated equine estrogens, 0625 mg/d, plus medroxyprogesterone acetate, 25 mg/d, in 1 tablet (n = 8506) or placebo (n = 8102) Main outcomes measures The primary outcome was coronary heart disease (CHD) (nonfatal myocardial infarction and CHD death), with invasive breast cancer as the primary adverse outcome A global index summarizing the balance of risks and benefits included the 2 primary outcomes plus stroke, pulmonary embolism (PE), endometrial cancer, colorectal cancer, hip fracture, and death due to other causes Results On May 31, 2002, after a mean of 52 years of follow-up, the data and safety monitoring board recommended stopping the trial of estrogen plus progestin vs placebo because the test statistic for invasive breast cancer exceeded the stopping boundary for this adverse effect and the global index statistic supported risks exceeding benefits This report includes data on the major clinical outcomes through April 30, 2002 Estimated hazard ratios (HRs) (nominal 95% confidence intervals [CIs]) were as follows: CHD, 129 (102-163) with 286 cases; breast cancer, 126 (100-159) with 290 cases; stroke, 141 (107-185) with 212 cases; PE, 213 (139-325) with 101 cases; colorectal cancer, 063 (043-092) with 112 cases; endometrial cancer, 083 (047-147) with 47 cases; hip fracture, 066 (045-098) with 106 cases; and death due to other causes, 092 (074-114) with 331 cases Corresponding HRs (nominal 95% CIs) for composite outcomes were 122 (109-136) for total cardiovascular disease (arterial and venous disease), 103 (090-117) for total cancer, 076 (069-085) for combined fractures, 098 (082-118) for total mortality, and 115 (103-128) for the global index Absolute excess risks per 10 000 person-years attributable to estrogen plus progestin were 7 more CHD events, 8 more strokes, 8 more PEs, and 8 more invasive breast cancers, while absolute risk reductions per 10 000 person-years were 6 fewer colorectal cancers and 5 fewer hip fractures The absolute excess risk of events included in the global index was 19 per 10 000 person-years Conclusions Overall health risks exceeded benefits from use of combined estrogen plus progestin for an average 52-year follow-up among healthy postmenopausal US women All-cause mortality was not affected during the trial The risk-benefit profile found in this trial is not consistent with the requirements for a viable intervention for primary prevention of chronic diseases, and the results indicate that this regimen should not be initiated or continued for primary prevention of CHD

/pdf/risks-and-benefits-of-estrogen-plus-progestin-in-healthy-4glim99n2t.pdf

Risks and benefits of estrogen plus progestin in healthy postmenopausal women: Principal results from the Women's Health Initiative randomized controlled trial

Viral hepatitis in all its forms is a major public health problem throughout the world, affecting several hundreds of millions of people. Viral hepatitis is a cause of considerable morbidity and mortality both from acute infection and chronic sequelae which include, in the case of hepatitis B, C and D, chronic active hepatitis and cirrhosis. Hepatocellular carcinoma, which is one of the 10 commonest cancers worldwide, is closely associated with hepatitis B and, at least in some regions of the world, with hepatitis C virus. This timely monograph is a distillation of knowledge of hepatitis B, C and D, based on a review of 1000 studies by a small group of scientists. (It is interesting to note in passing that some 5000 papers on viral hepatitis are published annually in the world literature.) The epidemiological, clinical and experimental data on the association between infection with hepatitis B virus and primary liver cancer in humans are reviewed in a readable and succinct format. The available information on hepatitis C and progression to chronic infection is also evaluated and it is concluded (perhaps a little prematurely) that hepatitis C virus is carcinogenic. However, it is concluded that hepatitis D virus, an unusual virus with a number of similarities to certain plant viral satellites and viroids, cannot be classified as a human carcinogen. There are some minor criticisms: there are few illustrations and some complex tabulations (for example, Table 6) and no subject index. A cumulative cross index to IARC Monographs is of little value and occupies nearly 30 pages. This small volume is a useful addition to the overwhelming literature on viral hepatitis, and the presentation is similar to the excellent World Health Organisation Technical Reports series on the subject published in the past. It is strongly recommended as a readable up-to-date summary of a complex subject; and at a cost of 65 Sw.fr (approximately £34) is excellent value. A J ZUCKERMAN

https://jcp.bmj.com/content/jclinpath/48/7/691.1.full.pdf

IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans

Background Patients with congestive heart failure have a high mortality rate and are also hospitalized frequently. We studied the effect of an angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor, enalapril, on mortality and hospitalization in patients with chronic heart failure and ejection fractions less than or equal to 0.35. Methods Patients receiving conventional treatment for heart failure were randomly assigned to receive either placebo (n = 1284) or enalapril (n = 1285) at doses of 2.5 to 20 mg per day in a double-bind trial. Approximately 90 percent of the patients were in New York Heart Association functional classes II and III. The follow-up averaged 41.4 months. Results There were 510 deaths in the placebo group (39.7 percent), as compared with 452 in the enalapril group (35.2 percent) (reduction in risk, 16 percent; 95 percent confidence interval, 5 to 26 percent; P = 0.0036). Although reductions in mortality were observed in several categories of cardiac deaths, the largest reduction occurred among the deaths attributed to progressive heart failure (251 in the placebo group vs. 209 in the enalapril group; reduction in risk, 22 percent; 95 percent confidence interval, 6 to 35 percent). There was little apparent effect of treatment on deaths classified as due to arrhythmia without pump failure. Fewer patients died or were hospitalized for worsening heart failure (736 in the placebo group and 613 in the enalapril group; risk reduction, 26 percent; 95 percent confidence interval, 18 to 34 percent; P less than 0.0001). Conclusions The addition of enalapril to conventional therapy significantly reduced mortality and hospitalizations for heart failure in patients with chronic congestive heart failure and reduced ejection fractions.

Effect of enalapril on survival in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fractions and congestive heart failure.

Part I of this report appeared in the previous issue (Br. J. Cancer (1976) 34,585), and discussed the design of randomized clinical trials. Part II now describes efficient methods of analysis of randomized clinical trials in which we wish to compare the duration of survival (or the time until some other untoward event first occurs) among different groups of patients. It is intended to enable physicians without statistical training either to analyse such data themselves using life tables, the logrank test and retrospective stratification, or, when such analyses are presented, to appreciate them more critically, but the discussion may also be of interest to statisticians who have not yet specialized in clinical trial analyses.

Design and analysis of randomized clinical trials requiring prolonged observation of each patient. II. analysis and examples.

The Medical Research Council has for some years encouraged collaborative clinical trials in leukaemia and other cancers, reporting the results in the medical literature. One unreported result which deserves such publication is the development of the expertise to design and analyse such trials. This report was prepared by a group of British and American statisticians, but it is intended for people without any statistical expertise. Part I, which appears in this issue, discusses the design of such trials; Part II, which will appear separately in the January 1977 issue of the Journal, gives full instructions for the statistical analysis of such trials by means of life tables and the logrank test, including a worked example, and discusses the interpretation of trial results, including brief reports of 2 particular trials. Both parts of this report are relevant to all clinical trials which study time to death, and wound be equally relevant to clinical trials which study time to other particular classes of untoward event: first stroke, perhaps, or first relapse, metastasis, disease recurrence, thrombosis, transplant rejection, or death from a particular cause. Part I, in this issue, collects together ideas that have mostly already appeared in the medical literature, but Part II, next month, is the first simple account yet published for non-statistical physicians of how to analyse efficiently data from clinical trials of survival duration. Such trials include the majority of all clinical trials of cancer therapy; in cancer trials,however, it may be preferable to use these statistical methods to study time to local recurrence of tumour, or to study time to detectable metastatic spread, in addition to studying total survival. Solid tumours can be staged at diagnosis; if this, or any other available information in some other disease is an important determinant of outcome, it can be used to make the overall logrank test for the whole heterogeneous trial population more sensitive, and more intuitively satisfactory, for it will then only be necessary to compare like with like, and not, by chance, Stage I with Stage III.

Design and analysis of randomized clinical trials requiring prolonged observation of each patient. I. Introduction and design.

Background Hormone replacement therapy (HRT) given as unopposed estrogen replacement therapy (ERT) gained widespread popularity in the United States in the 1960s and 1970s. Recent prescribing practices have favored combination HRT (CHRT), i.e., adding a progestin to estrogen for the entire monthly cycle (continuous combined replacement therapy [CCRT]) or a part of the cycle (sequential estrogen plus progestin therapy [SEPRT]). Few data exist on the association between CHRT and breast cancer risk. We determined the effects of CHRT on a woman's risk of developing breast cancer in a population-based, case-control study. Methods Case subjects included those with incident breast cancers diagnosed over 4(1/2) years in Los Angeles County, CA, in the late 1980s and 1990s. Control subjects were neighborhood residents who were individually matched to case subjects on age and race. Case subjects and control subjects were interviewed in person to collect information on known breast cancer risk factors as well as on HRT use. Information on 1897 postmenopausal case subjects and on 1637 postmenopausal control subjects aged 55-72 years who had not undergone a simple hysterectomy was analyzed. Breast cancer risks associated with the various types of HRT were estimated as odds ratios (ORs) after adjusting simultaneously for the different forms of HRT and for known risk factors of breast cancer. All P values are two-sided. Results HRT was associated with a 10% higher breast cancer risk for each 5 years of use (OR(5) = 1.10; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.02-1.18). Risk was substantially higher for CHRT use (OR(5) = 1.24; 95% CI = 1.07-1.45) than for ERT use (OR(5) = 1. 06; 95% CI = 0.97-1.15). Risk estimates were higher for SEPRT (OR(5) = 1.38; 95% CI = 1.13-1.68) than for CCRT (OR(5) = 1.09; 95% CI = 0. 88-1.35), but this difference was not statistically significant. Conclusions This study provides strong evidence that the addition of a progestin to HRT enhances markedly the risk of breast cancer relative to estrogen use alone. These findings have important implications for the risk-benefit equation for HRT in women using CHRT.

Effect of Hormone Replacement Therapy on Breast Cancer Risk: Estrogen Versus Estrogen Plus Progestin

Background: Hormone replacement therapy (HRT) given as unopposed estrogen replacement therapy (ERT) gained widespread popularity in the United States in the 1960s and 1970s. Recent prescribing practices have favored combination HRT (CHRT), i.e., adding a progestin to estrogen for the entire monthly cycle (continuous combined replacement therapy [CCRT]) or a part of the cycle (sequential estrogen plus progestin therapy [SEPRT]). Few data exist on the association between CHRT and breast cancer risk. We determined the effects of CHRT on a woman’s risk of developing breast cancer in a population-based, case‐control study. Methods: Case subjects included those with incident breast cancers diagnosed over 4 1 ⁄ 2 years in Los Angeles County, CA, in the late 1980s and 1990s. Control subjects were neighborhood residents who were individually matched to case subjects on age and race. Case subjects and control subjects were interviewed in person to collect information on known breast cancer risk factors as well as on HRT use. Information on 1897 postmenopausal case subjects and on 1637 postmenopausal control subjects aged 55‐72 years who had not undergone a simple hysterectomy was analyzed. Breast cancer risks associated with the various types of HRT were estimated as odds ratios (ORs) after adjusting simultaneously for the different forms of HRT and for known risk factors of breast cancer. All P values are two-sided. Results: HRT was associated with a 10% higher breast cancer risk for each 5 years of use (OR 5 = 1.10; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.02‐1.18). Risk was substantially higher for CHRT use (OR5 = 1.24; 95% CI = 1.07‐1.45) than for ERT use (OR 5 = 1.06; 95% CI = 0.97‐1.15). Risk estimates were higher for SEPRT (OR 5 = 1.38; 95% CI = 1.13‐1.68) than for CCRT (OR5 = 1.09; 95% CI = 0.88‐1.35), but this difference was not statistically significant. Conclusions: This study provides strong evidence that the addition of a progestin to HRT enhances markedly the risk of breast cancer relative to estrogen use alone. These findings have important implications for the risk‐ benefit equation for HRT in women using CHRT. [J Natl Cancer Inst 2000; 92:328‐32]

/pdf/effect-of-hormone-replacement-therapy-on-breast-cancer-risk-1p7z0pfcje.pdf

M.C. Pike

Papers

Design and analysis of randomized clinical trials requiring prolonged observation of each patient. II. analysis and examples.

Design and analysis of randomized clinical trials requiring prolonged observation of each patient. I. Introduction and design.

Effect of Hormone Replacement Therapy on Breast Cancer Risk: Estrogen Versus Estrogen Plus Progestin

Effect of Hormone Replacement Therapy on Breast Cancer Risk: Estrogen Versus Estrogen Plus Progestin

Guidelines for simple, sensitive significance tests for carcinogenic effects in long-term animal experiments.