4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Controversies about HRT - lessons from monkey models

期刊

MATURITAS
卷 51, 期 1, 页码 64-74

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.maturitas.2005.02.016

关键词

postmenopausal hormone therapy; atherosclerosis primary prevention; reproductive stage; breast cancer risk

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Lessons from monkey models contribute significantly to a better understanding of the controversies in reconciling the differences in postmenopausal hormone treatment outcomes between observational and randomized trial data. Monkey studies brought attention to premenopausal estrogen deficiency with resulting premature coronary artery atherosclerosis. Recently, those monkey studies were confirmed for premenopausal women in the NHLBI-sponsored Women's Ischemia Syndrome Evaluation (WISE) Study. Monkey studies have provided convincing evidence for the primary prevention of coronary artery atherosclerosis when estrogens are administered soon after the development of estrogen deficiency. Equally convincing are the data from monkey studies indicating the total loss of these estrogens beneficial effects if treatment is delayed for a period equal to six postmenopausal years for women. An attempt has been made using the monkey model to identify the hormone treatment regimen most effective in preventing the progression of coronary artery atherosclerosis. By a substantial margin, the most effective approach is that of using estrogen containing oral contraceptive during the perimenopausal transition, followed directly by hormone replacement therapy postmenopausally. Because of similarities between human and nonhuman breast, monkeys have had a major role in clarifying controversies surrounding the breast cancer risk of estrogen only versus estrogen plus progestin therapies. The results of monkey studies suggest little or no effects of estrogen only treatment; whereas, estrogen + progestin clearly increases breast cancer risk. (c) 2005 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

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