Commentary: the hormone replacement-coronary heart disease conundrum: is this the death of observational epidemiology?
D. Lawlor,G. Davey Smith,S. Ebrahim
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/IJE/DYH124
IF: 9.685
2004-06-01
International Journal of Epidemiology
Abstract:Under its definition for the word ‘hindsight’ the Oxford English Dictionary includes the following statement ‘hindsight is always better than foresight’ (http://dictionary.oed.com/), and the slogan of a private survey and evaluation company, ingeniously called Hindsight, is ‘remember hindsight is always 20/20!’ (http://www. hndsight.com/). We have the benefit of the ‘hindsight’ from randomized controlled trials (RCT) when we comment on this meta-analysis of observational studies, but whether the conflicting results between the trial and observational evidence on the association between hormone replacement therapy (HRT) use and coronary heart disease (CHD) will lead to 20/20 vision remains to be seen. The disparity between findings from observational studies and RCT of the effects of HRT on CHD,1–4 has created considerable debate among researchers, practitioners and postmenopausal women. The authors of the meta-analysis reprinted in this issue of the International Journal of Epidemiology concluded that the pooled estimate of effect from the best quality observational studies (internally controlled prospective and angiographic studies) inferred a relative reduction of 50% with ever use of HRT and stated that ‘overall, the bulk of the evidence strongly supports a protective effect of estrogens that is unlikely to be explained by confounding factors’.4 By contrast, recent randomized trials among both women with established CHD and healthy women have found HRT to be associated with slightly increased risk of CHD or null effects.1,2 For example, the large Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) randomized trial found that the hazards ratio for CHD associated with being allocated to combined HRT was 1.29 (95% CI: 1.02, 1.63), after 5.2 years of follow-up.1 These marked differences between observational findings and trials are important for two reasons. First, and foremost, is the clinical impact. As another commentator on the same subject remarked: ‘Does HRT decrease or increase the risk of heart disease? At least every woman, every gynecologist and every primary care doctor want to know the “correct” answer.’5 Second, is the broader implication for observational epidemiology. Prior to the publication of the WHI it was suggested that well conducted observational studies produced similar estimates of treatment effects as RCT, and that the notion of a hierarchy of evidence with the RCT on top could not be supported.6,7 The differing results between observational studies and RCT in the association between HRT and CHD throw this idea into question and may signify the death of observational epidemiology.8 It is important, therefore, to determine why the results from the trials and observational studies are so different. A number of explanations have been suggested for these disparities. Whilst some have suggested that the results of the trials were biased because of contamination, and in the case of the WHI, early termination of the arm assessing the effect of combined HRT, the consistency across a number of trials of a null effect make these explanations unlikely. More plausible explanations are that women who participated in the trials were importantly different from those who participated in the observational studies, or that the observational study results were confounded.