Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2019 Sep 17;171(6):406-414.
doi: 10.7326/M19-0274. Epub 2019 Sep 10.

Menopausal Estrogen-Alone Therapy and Health Outcomes in Women With and Without Bilateral Oophorectomy: A Randomized Trial

Collaborators, Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Menopausal Estrogen-Alone Therapy and Health Outcomes in Women With and Without Bilateral Oophorectomy: A Randomized Trial

JoAnn E Manson et al. Ann Intern Med. .

Abstract

Background: Whether health outcomes of menopausal estrogen therapy differ between women with and without bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO) is unknown.

Objective: To examine estrogen therapy outcomes by BSO status, with additional stratification by 10-year age groups.

Design: Subgroup analyses of the randomized Women's Health Initiative Estrogen-Alone Trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00000611).

Setting: 40 U.S. clinical centers.

Participants: 9939 women aged 50 to 79 years with prior hysterectomy and known oophorectomy status.

Intervention: Conjugated equine estrogens (CEE) (0.625 mg/d) or placebo for a median of 7.2 years.

Measurements: Incidence of coronary heart disease and invasive breast cancer (the trial's 2 primary end points), all-cause mortality, and a "global index" (these end points plus stroke, pulmonary embolism, colorectal cancer, and hip fracture) during the intervention phase and 18-year cumulative follow-up.

Results: The effects of CEE alone did not differ significantly according to BSO status. However, age modified the effect of CEE in women with prior BSO. During the intervention phase, CEE was significantly associated with a net adverse effect (hazard ratio for global index, 1.42 [95% CI, 1.09 to 1.86]) in older women (aged ≥70 years), but the global index was not elevated in younger women (P trend by age = 0.016). During cumulative follow-up, women aged 50 to 59 years with BSO had a treatment-associated reduction in all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.68 [CI, 0.48 to 0.96]), whereas older women with BSO had no reduction (P trend by age = 0.034). There was no significant association between CEE and outcomes among women with conserved ovaries, regardless of age.

Limitations: The timing of CEE in relation to BSO varied; several comparisons were made without adjustment for multiple testing.

Conclusion: The effects of CEE did not differ by BSO status in the overall cohort, but some findings varied by age. Among women with prior BSO, in those aged 70 years or older, CEE led to adverse effects during the treatment period, whereas women randomly assigned to CEE before age 60 seemed to derive mortality benefit over the long term.

Primary funding source: The WHI program is funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; National Institutes of Health; and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Wyeth Ayerst donated the study drugs.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: All authors will complete and submit the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Flow of participants in the Women’s Health Initiative trial of estrogen-alone therapy vs placebo through extended follow-up.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Number of events (annualized rates, %), difference in estimated absolute risks, and hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) for select health outcomes in the overall study population of women aged 50 to 79 in the Women’s Health Initiative conjugated equine estrogens (CEE)-Alone Trial, according to oophorectomy status during the intervention phase and cumulative follow-up.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Number of events (annualized rates, %), difference in estimated absolute risks, and hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) for select health outcomes in the overall study population of women aged 50 to 79 in the Women’s Health Initiative CEE-Alone Trial, according to oophorectomy status and 10-year age group during the intervention phase and cumulative follow-up.
Figure 4.
Figure 4.
Select health outcomes during cumulative follow-up stratified by BSO status and prior menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) use among women aged 50–59 years

Comment in

Similar articles

Cited by

  • Brazilian Guideline on Menopausal Cardiovascular Health - 2024.
    de Oliveira GMM, de Almeida MCC, Arcelus CMA, Espíndola L, Rivera MAM, da Silva-Filho AL, Marques-Santos C, Fernandes CE, Albuquerque CJDM, Freire CMV, Izar MCO, Costa MENC, de Castro ML, Lemke VMG, de Lucena AJG, Brandão AA, Macedo AVS, Polanczyk CA, Lantieri CJB, Nahas EP, Alexandre ERG, Campana EMG, Bragança ÉOV, Colombo FMC, Barbosa ICQ, Rivera IR, Kulak J, Moura LAZ, Pompei LM, Baccaro LFC, Barbosa MM, Rodrigues MAH, Albernaz MA, de Decoud MSP, Paiva MSMO, Sanchez-Zambrano MB, Campos MDSB, Acevedo M, Ramirez MS, de Souza OF, de Medeiros OO, de Carvalho RCM, Machado RB, da Silva SCTF, Rodrigues TCV, Avila WS, da Costa-Paiva LHS, Wender MCO. de Oliveira GMM, et al. Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2024 Oct 15;46:e-rbgo100. doi: 10.61622/rbgo/2024rbgo100. eCollection 2024. Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2024. PMID: 39530071 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
  • Brazilian Guideline on Menopausal Cardiovascular Health - 2024.
    Oliveira GMM, Almeida MCC, Arcelus CMA, Neto Espíndola L, Rivera MAM, Silva-Filho ALD, Marques-Santos C, Fernandes CE, Albuquerque CJDM, Freire CMV, Izar MCO, Costa MENC, Castro ML, Lemke VMG, Lucena AJG, Brandão AA, Macedo AVS, Polanczyk CA, Lantieri CJB, Nahas EP, Alexandre ERG, Campana EMG, Bragança ÉOV, Colombo FMC, Barbosa ICQ, Rivera IR, Kulak J, Moura LAZ, Pompei LM, Baccaro LFC, Barbosa MM, Rodrigues MAH, Albernaz MA, Decoud MSP, Paiva MSMO, Sanchez-Zambrano MB, Campos MDSB, Acevedo M, Ramirez MS, Souza OF, Medeiros OO, Carvalho RCM, Machado RB, Silva SCTFD, Rodrigues TCV, Avila WS, Costa-Paiva LHSD, Wender MCO. Oliveira GMM, et al. Arq Bras Cardiol. 2024 Aug 16;121(7):e20240478. doi: 10.36660/abc.20240478. Arq Bras Cardiol. 2024. PMID: 39166619 Free PMC article. English, Portuguese. No abstract available.
  • Role of sex steroids in colorectal cancer: pathomechanisms and medical applications.
    Wu J, Bai Y, Lu Y, Yu Z, Zhang S, Yu B, Chen L, Li J. Wu J, et al. Am J Cancer Res. 2024 Jul 15;14(7):3200-3221. doi: 10.62347/OEBS6893. eCollection 2024. Am J Cancer Res. 2024. PMID: 39113870 Free PMC article. Review.
  • Hormones and Aging: An Endocrine Society Scientific Statement.
    Cappola AR, Auchus RJ, El-Hajj Fuleihan G, Handelsman DJ, Kalyani RR, McClung M, Stuenkel CA, Thorner MO, Verbalis JG. Cappola AR, et al. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2023 Jul 14;108(8):1835-1874. doi: 10.1210/clinem/dgad225. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2023. PMID: 37326526 Free PMC article.
  • Anti-Müllerian hormone for the diagnosis and prediction of menopause: a systematic review.
    Nelson SM, Davis SR, Kalantaridou S, Lumsden MA, Panay N, Anderson RA. Nelson SM, et al. Hum Reprod Update. 2023 May 2;29(3):327-346. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmac045. Hum Reprod Update. 2023. PMID: 36651193 Free PMC article.

References

    1. Einarsson J Are hysterectomy volumes in the US really falling? Contemporary OB/GYN 2017. September 1. Available at https://www.contemporaryobgyn.net/gynecology/are-hysterectomy-volumes-us.... Accessed June 12, 2019.
    1. Temkin SM, Minasian L, Noone AM. The end of the hysterectomy epidemic and endometrial cancer incidence: what are the unintended consequences of declining hysterectomy rates? Front Oncol 2016; 6:89. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Doll KM, Dusetzina SB, Robinson W. Trends in inpatient and outpatient hysterectomy and oophorectomy rates among commercially insured women in the United States, 2000–2014. JAMA Surg 2016; 151:876–877 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Adelman MR, Sharp HT. Ovarian conservation vs removal at the time of benign hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2018; 218:269–279 - PubMed
    1. Parker WH, Feskanich D, Broder MS, Chang E, Shoupe D, Farquhar CM, et al. Long-term mortality associated with oophorectomy compared with ovarian conservation in the Nurses’ Health Study. Obstet Gynecol 2013; 121:709–716 - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

Substances

Associated data