|Title||Langer Paper - Dr Currie's Statement|
|Date||13 March 2017|
|Full Story||Publication of results of the WHI study in 2002 with emphasis on risks of HRT led to worldwide concern about the use of HRT, with a subsequent massive drop in HRT prescribing. Over recent years, reanalysis of the data and consideration of further research has led to better understanding of risk and the overall recognition that for most women who commence HRT under the age of 60, or within ten years of the menopause, HRT provides more benefits than risks. Benefits include symptom control, as well as improved urogenital, bone and cardiovascular health.
To add further evidence to support this view, Robert Langer describes the process that led to the WHI publication in JAMA in July 2002, and explains the true findings of WHI. He reveals that the study did not show any statistically significant increased risk of breast cancer or heart disease in women using HRT, yet the highly publicised conclusions emphasised these risks. Furthermore, the study was designed to test the effects of HRT in older women only, yet the conclusions applied the exaggerated risks to all women.
Published online in Climacteric, this important revelation must surely put the incorrect perception of risks of HRT from WHI to rest and must also call into question the publication process.
Not every woman requires HRT but all should have access to accurate information about consequences of menopause and treatment options and the reassurance that HRT remains a low risk, beneficial treatment for most women.
See the International Menopause Society (IMS) Press Release here
See The Langer Paper here - The evidence base for HRT: what can we believe?
< Go Back
<< News Index