4.6 Article

Oestrogen replacement improves bone mineral density in oligo-amenorrhoeic athletes: a randomised clinical trial

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE
Volume 53, Issue 4, Pages 229-236

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2018-099723

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01 HD060827, K24 HD071843, UL1TR001102, S10 RR023045]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective Normal-weight oligo-amenorrhoeic athletes (OAA) are at risk for low bone mineral density (BMD). Data are lacking regarding the impact of oestrogen administration on bone outcomes in OAA. Our objective was to determine the effects of transdermal versus oral oestrogen administration on bone in OAA engaged in weight-bearing activity. Methods 121 patients with OAA aged 14-25 years were randomised to receive: (1) a 17 beta-estradiol transdermal patch continuously with cyclic oral micronised progesterone (PATCH), (2) a combined ethinyl estradiol and desogestrel pill (PILL) or (3) no oestrogen/progesterone (NONE). All participants received calcium and vitamin D supplementation. Areal BMD was assessed at the lumbar spine, femoral neck, total hip and total body less head using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry at baseline, 6 and 12 months. Intention-to-treat (ITT) and completers analyses were performed. Results Randomised groups did not differ for age, body mass index or BMD Z-scores at baseline. For ITT analysis, spine and femoral neck BMD Z-scores significantly increased in the PATCH versus PILL (p=0.011 and p=0.021, respectively) and NONE (p=0.021 and p=0.033, respectively) groups, and hip BMD Z-scores significantly increased in the PATCH versus PILL group (p=0.018). Similar findings were noted in completers analysis. Conclusion Transdermal estradiol over 12 months improves BMD in young OAA, particularly compared with an ethinyl estradiol-containing contraceptive pill/oral contraceptive

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available