4.6 Article

Postmenopausal hormone therapy - Does it cause incontinence?

期刊

OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY
卷 106, 期 5, 页码 940-945

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000180394.08406.15

关键词

-

资金

  1. NICHD NIH HHS [K12 HD001262, K12 HD 01262-02] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIDDK NIH HHS [P50 DK064538] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the effect of hormone therapy on risk of stress and urge urinary incontinence. METHODS: The Heart Estrogen/progestin Replacement Study was a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded trial to evaluate daily oral conjugated estrogen (0.625 mg) plus medroxyprogesterone acetate (2.5 mg) therapy for the prevention of heart disease events in women with established heart disease. The 1,208 participants in Heart Estrogen/progestin Replacement Study who reported no loss of urine in the previous 7 days at baseline are included in this analysis. RESULTS: During 4.2 years of treatment, 64% of women randomly assigned to hormone therapy compared with 49% of those assigned to placebo reported weekly incontinence (P <.001). The higher risk of incontinence in the hormone group was evident at 4 months, persisted throughout the treatment period, and was independent of the age of the women. The odds ratios for weekly incontinence among women on hormone therapy compared with placebo were 1.5 for urge incontinence (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.2-1.8; P <.001) and 1.7 for stress incontinence (95% CI 1.5-2.1; P <.001). Four years of treatment with hormone therapy caused an excess risk of 12% for weekly urge incontinence and 16% for weekly stress incontinence; the corresponding numbers needed to harm were 8.6 (95% CI 5.8-16.6) and 6.2 (95% CI 4.6-9.4). CONCLUSION: Estrogen plus progestin therapy increases risk of urge and stress incontinence within 4 months of beginning treatment. Precis: Estrogen plus progestin therapy increases risk of urge and stress incontinence within 4 months of beginning treatment.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据