scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

Norman L. Lasser

Bio: Norman L. Lasser is an academic researcher from University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey. The author has contributed to research in topics: Women's Health Initiative & Breast cancer. The author has an hindex of 15, co-authored 18 publications receiving 6445 citations. Previous affiliations of Norman L. Lasser include Stanford University & Rutgers University.

Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
14 Apr 2004-JAMA
TL;DR: The use of conjugated equine estrogen (CEE) increases the risk of stroke, decreases therisk of hip fracture, and does not affect CHD incidence in postmenopausal women with prior hysterectomy over an average of 6.8 years, indicating no overall benefit.
Abstract: Author(s): Anderson, Garnet L; Limacher, Marian; Assaf, Annlouise R; Bassford, Tamsen; Beresford, Shirley AA; Black, Henry; Bonds, Denise; Brunner, Robert; Brzyski, Robert; Caan, Bette; Chlebowski, Rowan; Curb, David; Gass, Margery; Hays, Jennifer; Heiss, Gerardo; Hendrix, Susan; Howard, Barbara V; Hsia, Judith; Hubbell, Allan; Jackson, Rebecca; Johnson, Karen C; Judd, Howard; Kotchen, Jane Morley; Kuller, Lewis; LaCroix, Andrea Z; Lane, Dorothy; Langer, Robert D; Lasser, Norman; Lewis, Cora E; Manson, JoAnn; Margolis, Karen; Ockene, Judith; O'Sullivan, Mary Jo; Phillips, Lawrence; Prentice, Ross L; Ritenbaugh, Cheryl; Robbins, John; Rossouw, Jacques E; Sarto, Gloria; Stefanick, Marcia L; Van Horn, Linda; Wactawski-Wende, Jean; Wallace, Robert; Wassertheil-Smoller, Sylvia; Women's Health Initiative Steering Committee | Abstract: Despite decades of use and considerable research, the role of estrogen alone in preventing chronic diseases in postmenopausal women remains uncertain.To assess the effects on major disease incidence rates of the most commonly used postmenopausal hormone therapy in the United States.A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled disease prevention trial (the estrogen-alone component of the Women's Health Initiative [WHI]) conducted in 40 US clinical centers beginning in 1993. Enrolled were 10 739 postmenopausal women, aged 50-79 years, with prior hysterectomy, including 23% of minority race/ethnicity.Women were randomly assigned to receive either 0.625 mg/d of conjugated equine estrogen (CEE) or placebo.The primary outcome was coronary heart disease (CHD) incidence (nonfatal myocardial infarction or CHD death). Invasive breast cancer incidence was the primary safety outcome. A global index of risks and benefits, including these primary outcomes plus stroke, pulmonary embolism (PE), colorectal cancer, hip fracture, and deaths from other causes, was used for summarizing overall effects.In February 2004, after reviewing data through November 30, 2003, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) decided to end the intervention phase of the trial early. Estimated hazard ratios (HRs) (95% confidence intervals [CIs]) for CEE vs placebo for the major clinical outcomes available through February 29, 2004 (average follow-up 6.8 years), were: CHD, 0.91 (0.75-1.12) with 376 cases; breast cancer, 0.77 (0.59-1.01) with 218 cases; stroke, 1.39 (1.10-1.77) with 276 cases; PE, 1.34 (0.87-2.06) with 85 cases; colorectal cancer, 1.08 (0.75-1.55) with 119 cases; and hip fracture, 0.61 (0.41-0.91) with 102 cases. Corresponding results for composite outcomes were: total cardiovascular disease, 1.12 (1.01-1.24); total cancer, 0.93 (0.81-1.07); total fractures, 0.70 (0.63-0.79); total mortality, 1.04 (0.88-1.22), and the global index, 1.01 (0.91-1.12). For the outcomes significantly affected by CEE, there was an absolute excess risk of 12 additional strokes per 10 000 person-years and an absolute risk reduction of 6 fewer hip fractures per 10 000 person-years. The estimated excess risk for all monitored events in the global index was a nonsignificant 2 events per 10 000 person-years.The use of CEE increases the risk of stroke, decreases the risk of hip fracture, and does not affect CHD incidence in postmenopausal women with prior hysterectomy over an average of 6.8 years. A possible reduction in breast cancer risk requires further investigation. The burden of incident disease events was equivalent in the CEE and placebo groups, indicating no overall benefit. Thus, CEE should not be recommended for chronic disease prevention in postmenopausal women.

4,298 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
08 Feb 2006-JAMA
TL;DR: Among postmenopausal women, a low-fat dietary pattern did not result in a statistically significant reduction in invasive breast cancer risk over an 8.1-year average follow-up period, and the nonsignificant trends observed indicate that longer, planned, nonintervention follow- up may yield a more definitive comparison.
Abstract: ContextThe hypothesis that a low-fat dietary pattern can reduce breast cancer risk has existed for decades but has never been tested in a controlled intervention trial.ObjectiveTo assess the effects of undertaking a low-fat dietary pattern on breast cancer incidence.Design and SettingA randomized, controlled, primary prevention trial conducted at 40 US clinical centers from 1993 to 2005.ParticipantsA total of 48 835 postmenopausal women, aged 50 to 79 years, without prior breast cancer, including 18.6% of minority race/ethnicity, were enrolled.InterventionsWomen were randomly assigned to the dietary modification intervention group (40% [n = 19 541]) or the comparison group (60% [n = 29 294]). The intervention was designed to promote dietary change with the goals of reducing intake of total fat to 20% of energy and increasing consumption of vegetables and fruit to at least 5 servings daily and grains to at least 6 servings daily. Comparison group participants were not asked to make dietary changes.Main Outcome MeasureInvasive breast cancer incidence.ResultsDietary fat intake was significantly lower in the dietary modification intervention group compared with the comparison group. The difference between groups in change from baseline for percentage of energy from fat varied from 10.7% at year 1 to 8.1% at year 6. Vegetable and fruit consumption was higher in the intervention group by at least 1 serving per day and a smaller, more transient difference was found for grain consumption. The number of women who developed invasive breast cancer (annualized incidence rate) over the 8.1-year average follow-up period was 655 (0.42%) in the intervention group and 1072 (0.45%) in the comparison group (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.83-1.01 for the comparison between the 2 groups). Secondary analyses suggest a lower hazard ratio among adherent women, provide greater evidence of risk reduction among women having a high-fat diet at baseline, and suggest a dietary effect that varies by hormone receptor characteristics of the tumor.ConclusionsAmong postmenopausal women, a low-fat dietary pattern did not result in a statistically significant reduction in invasive breast cancer risk over an 8.1-year average follow-up period. However, the nonsignificant trends observed suggesting reduced risk associated with a low-fat dietary pattern indicate that longer, planned, nonintervention follow-up may yield a more definitive comparison.Clinical Trials RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00000611

740 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Among postmenopausal women, a low-fat dietary pattern did not result in a statistically significant reduction in invasive breast cancer risk over an 8.1-year average follow-up period, and the nonsignificant trends observed indicate that longer, planned, nonintervention follow- up may yield a more definitive comparison.
Abstract: Despite a longstanding belief that a low-fat diet can reduce the risk of breast cancer, no controlled intervention trials have been reported. This randomized, controlled, primary prevention trial, based on the Women's Health Initiative cohort, enrolled 48,835 postmenopausal women 50 to 79 years of age at 40 U.S. clinical centers in the years 1993-2005. Forty percent of participants received a diet designed to lower the intake of total fat to 20% of energy, provide at least 5 servings daily of fruit and vegetables, and include at least 6 daily servings of grains. There was no explicit weight loss goal. The remaining 60% of women continued on their usual diets. The intervention group took part in an intensive behavioral modification program administered by a specially trained nutritionist. Participants received an individualized goal of total fat grams based on height and were trained to monitor their dietary intake. The comparison women were given informational materials, including dietary guidelines. At baseline, dietary and other variables, including body weight, were nearly identical in the intervention and control groups. Women in the diet group had a small decrease in energy consumption. The difference between groups in change from baseline in the percentage of energy from fat ranged from 10.7% after 12 months to 8.1% at year 6. The intervention group ate more fruits and vegetables, but there was less difference in grain consumption. The annualized incidence rate of invasive breast cancer during an average follow up of 8.1 years was 0.42% in the intervention group and 0.45% in the comparison group. The hazard ratio was 0.91% with a 95% confidence interval of 0.83 to 1.01. Rates of total cancer (excluding non-melanoma skin cancer), breast cancer mortality, and total mortality all were slightly lower for the intervention group, but the differences were not significant at the 0.05 level. Women who actively participated in the dietary intervention program and those consuming a high-fat diet at baseline had lower hazard ratios. The breast cancer risk also was lower in women with a relatively high baseline percentage of energy from fat. Tumor grade and size, lymph node status, and stage of breast cancers all were similar in the intervention and comparison groups. A lower hazard ratio was noted for progesterone receptor-negative tumors, but there was no apparent association with estrogen receptor status. A low-fat diet failed to lessen the risk of invasive breast cancer in this large trial of postmenopausal women during a follow up averaging approximately 8 years. Nevertheless, the trends observed, although not statistically significant, warrant longer-term studies. Any beneficial effects of reduced fat intake might take years to fully emerge.

344 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
10 May 1995-JAMA
TL;DR: The dietary intervention achieved modest lowering of LDL-C levels over 3 years while maintaining adequate growth, iron stores, nutritional adequacy, and psychological well-being during the critical growth period of adolescence.
Abstract: Objective. —To assess the efficacy and safety of lowering dietary intake of total fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol to decrease low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels in children. Design. —Six-center randomized controlled clinical trial. Participants. —Prepubertal boys (n=362) and girls (n=301) aged 8 to 10 years with LDL-C levels greater than or equal to the 80th and less than the 98th percentiles for age and sex were randomized into an intervention group (n=334) and a usual care group (n=329). Intervention. —Behavioral intervention to promote adherence to a diet providing 28% of energy from total fat, less than 8% from saturated fat, up to 9% from polyunsaturated fat, and less than 75 mg/4200 kJ (1000 kcal) per day of cholesterol (not to exceed 150 mg/d). Main Outcome Measures. —The primary efficacy measure was the mean LDL-C level at 3 years. Primary safety measures were mean height and serum ferritin levels at 3 years. Secondary efficacy outcomes were mean LDL-C levels at 1 year and mean total cholesterol levels at 1 and 3 years. Secondary safety outcomes included red blood cell folate values; serum zinc, retinol, and albumin levels; serum high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) values, LDL-C:HDL-C ratio, and total triglyceride levels; sexual maturation; and psychosocial health. Results. —At 3 years, dietary total fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol levels decreased significantly in the intervention group compared with the usual care group (allP .05) or other safety outcomes. Conclusions. —The dietary intervention achieved modest lowering of LDL-C levels over 3 years while maintaining adequate growth, iron stores, nutritional adequacy, and psychological well-being during the critical growth period of adolescence. (JAMA. 1995;273:1429-1435)

261 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In conclusion, hypertension in older women is not being treated aggressively enough because a large proportion, especially those most at risk for stroke and heart disease by virtue of age, does not have sufficient blood pressure control.
Abstract: Little is known about the patterns of treatment and adequacy of blood pressure control in older women. The Women's Health Initiative, a 40-center national study of risk factors and prevention of heart disease, breast and colorectal cancer, and osteoporosis in postmenopausal women, provides a unique opportunity to examine these issues in the largest, multiethnic, best-characterized such cohort. Baseline data from the initial 98 705 women, aged 50 to 79 years, enrolled were analyzed to relate prevalence, treatment, and control of hypertension to demographic, clinical, and risk-factor covariates, and logistic regression analyses were performed to estimate odds ratios after adjusting for multiple potential confounders. Overall, 37.8% of the women had hypertension, which is defined as systolic blood pressure >/=140 mm Hg and/or diastolic blood pressure >/=90 mm Hg or being on medication for high blood pressure; 64.3% were treated with drugs, and blood pressure was controlled in only 36.1% of the hypertensive women, with lower rates of control in the oldest group. After adjustment for multiple covariates, current hormone users had higher prevalence than did nonusers (odds ratio 1.25). Hypertensive women had more comorbid conditions than did nonhypertensive women, and women with comorbidities were more likely to be treated pharmacologically. Diuretics were used by 44.3% of hypertensives either as monotherapy or in combination with other drug classes. As monotherapy, calcium channel blockers were used in 16%, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors in 14%, beta-blockers in 9%, and diuretics in 14% of the hypertensive women. Diuretics as monotherapy were associated with better blood pressure control than any of the other drug classes as monotherapy. In conclusion, hypertension in older women is not being treated aggressively enough because a large proportion, especially those most at risk for stroke and heart disease by virtue of age, does not have sufficient blood pressure control.

232 citations


Cited by
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In those older than age 50, systolic blood pressure of greater than 140 mm Hg is a more important cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factor than diastolic BP, and hypertension will be controlled only if patients are motivated to stay on their treatment plan.
Abstract: The National High Blood Pressure Education Program presents the complete Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure. Like its predecessors, the purpose is to provide an evidence-based approach to the prevention and management of hypertension. The key messages of this report are these: in those older than age 50, systolic blood pressure (BP) of greater than 140 mm Hg is a more important cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factor than diastolic BP; beginning at 115/75 mm Hg, CVD risk doubles for each increment of 20/10 mm Hg; those who are normotensive at 55 years of age will have a 90% lifetime risk of developing hypertension; prehypertensive individuals (systolic BP 120-139 mm Hg or diastolic BP 80-89 mm Hg) require health-promoting lifestyle modifications to prevent the progressive rise in blood pressure and CVD; for uncomplicated hypertension, thiazide diuretic should be used in drug treatment for most, either alone or combined with drugs from other classes; this report delineates specific high-risk conditions that are compelling indications for the use of other antihypertensive drug classes (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin-receptor blockers, beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers); two or more antihypertensive medications will be required to achieve goal BP (<140/90 mm Hg, or <130/80 mm Hg) for patients with diabetes and chronic kidney disease; for patients whose BP is more than 20 mm Hg above the systolic BP goal or more than 10 mm Hg above the diastolic BP goal, initiation of therapy using two agents, one of which usually will be a thiazide diuretic, should be considered; regardless of therapy or care, hypertension will be controlled only if patients are motivated to stay on their treatment plan. Positive experiences, trust in the clinician, and empathy improve patient motivation and satisfaction. This report serves as a guide, and the committee continues to recognize that the responsible physician's judgment remains paramount.

14,975 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The Statistical Update brings together the most up-to-date statistics on heart disease, stroke, other vascular diseases, and their risk factors and presents them in its Heart Disease and Stroke Statistical Update each year.
Abstract: Appendix I: List of Statistical Fact Sheets. URL: http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=2007 We wish to thank Drs Brian Eigel and Michael Wolz for their valuable comments and contributions. We would like to acknowledge Tim Anderson and Tom Schneider for their editorial contributions and Karen Modesitt for her administrative assistance. Disclosures View this table: View this table: View this table: # Summary {#article-title-2} Each year, the American Heart Association, in conjunction with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and other government agencies, brings together the most up-to-date statistics on heart disease, stroke, other vascular diseases, and their risk factors and presents them in its Heart Disease and Stroke Statistical Update. The Statistical Update is a valuable resource for researchers, clinicians, healthcare policy makers, media professionals, the lay public, and many others who seek the best national data available on disease …

6,176 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Author(s): Go, Alan S; Mozaffarian, Dariush; Roger, Veronique L; Benjamin, Emelia J; Berry, Jarett D; Borden, William B; Bravata, Dawn M; Dai, Shifan; Ford, Earl S; Fox, Caroline S; Franco, Sheila; Fullerton, Heather J; Gillespie, Cathleen; Hailpern, Susan M; Heit, John A; Howard, Virginia J; Huff
Abstract: Author(s): Go, Alan S; Mozaffarian, Dariush; Roger, Veronique L; Benjamin, Emelia J; Berry, Jarett D; Borden, William B; Bravata, Dawn M; Dai, Shifan; Ford, Earl S; Fox, Caroline S; Franco, Sheila; Fullerton, Heather J; Gillespie, Cathleen; Hailpern, Susan M; Heit, John A; Howard, Virginia J; Huffman, Mark D; Kissela, Brett M; Kittner, Steven J; Lackland, Daniel T; Lichtman, Judith H; Lisabeth, Lynda D; Magid, David; Marcus, Gregory M; Marelli, Ariane; Matchar, David B; McGuire, Darren K; Mohler, Emile R; Moy, Claudia S; Mussolino, Michael E; Nichol, Graham; Paynter, Nina P; Schreiner, Pamela J; Sorlie, Paul D; Stein, Joel; Turan, Tanya N; Virani, Salim S; Wong, Nathan D; Woo, Daniel; Turner, Melanie B; American Heart Association Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee

5,449 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This chapter describes the most important sources and the types of data the AHA uses from them and other government agencies to derive the annual statistics in this Update.
Abstract: 1. About These Statistics…e70 2. Cardiovascular Diseases…e72 3. Coronary Heart Disease, Acute Coronary Syndrome, and Angina Pectoris…e89 4. Stroke…e99 5. High Blood Pressure…e111 6. Congenital Cardiovascular Defects…e116 7. Heart Failure…e119 8. Other Cardiovascular Diseases…e122 9. Risk Factor: Smoking/Tobacco Use…e128 10. Risk Factor: High Blood Cholesterol and Other Lipids…e132 11. Risk Factor: Physical Inactivity…e136 12. Risk Factor: Overweight and Obesity…e139 13. Risk Factor: Diabetes Mellitus…e143 14. End-Stage Renal Disease and Chronic Kidney Disease…e149 15. Metabolic Syndrome…e151 16. Nutrition…e153 17. Quality of Care…e155 18. Medical Procedures…e159 19. Economic Cost of Cardiovascular Diseases…e162 20. At-a-Glance Summary Tables…e164 21. Glossary and Abbreviation Guide…e168 Writing Group Disclosures…e171 Appendix I: List of Statistical Fact Sheets: http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=2007 We thank Drs Robert Adams, Philip Gorelick, Matt Wilson, and Philip Wolf (members of the Statistics Committee or Stroke Statistics Subcommittee); Brian Eigel; Gregg Fonarow; Kathy Jenkins; Gail Pearson; and Michael Wolz for their valuable comments and contributions. We would like to acknowledge Tim Anderson and Tom Schneider for their editorial contributions and Karen Modesitt for her administrative assistance. # 1. About These Statistics {#article-title-2} The American Heart Association (AHA) works with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics (CDC/NCHS); the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI); the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS); and other government agencies to derive the annual statistics in this Update. This chapter describes the most important sources and the types of data we use from them. For more details and an alphabetical list of abbreviations, see Chapter 21 of this document, the Glossary and Abbreviation Guide. The surveys used are:

5,393 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Dariush Mozaffarian, Michael E. Mussolino, Graham Nichol, Nina P. Paynter, Wayne D. Sorlie, Randall S. Stafford, Tanya N. Turan, Melanie B. Turner, Nathan D. Turner.
Abstract: Rosamond, Paul D. Sorlie, Randall S. Stafford, Tanya N. Turan, Melanie B. Turner, Nathan D. Dariush Mozaffarian, Michael E. Mussolino, Graham Nichol, Nina P. Paynter, Wayne D. Ariane Marelli, David B. Matchar, Mary M. McDermott, James B. Meigs, Claudia S. Moy, Lackland, Judith H. Lichtman, Lynda D. Lisabeth, Diane M. Makuc, Gregory M. Marcus, John A. Heit, P. Michael Ho, Virginia J. Howard, Brett M. Kissela, Steven J. Kittner, Daniel T. Caroline S. Fox, Heather J. Fullerton, Cathleen Gillespie, Kurt J. Greenlund, Susan M. Hailpern, Todd M. Brown, Mercedes R. Carnethon, Shifan Dai, Giovanni de Simone, Earl S. Ford, Véronique L. Roger, Alan S. Go, Donald M. Lloyd-Jones, Robert J. Adams, Jarett D. Berry, Association 2011 Update : A Report From the American Heart −− Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics

5,311 citations