No information is given on the cost of a typical course of treatment. This study does not aim to quantify the benefits of treatment, rather to show whether there is any difference in risk of death associated with taking hormone therapy for 5 to 7 years. The original Women’s Health Initiative trial was designed to examine whether there was any benefit of hormone therapy for prevention or heart disease, which had been suggested by earlier studies. The story does a good job of outlining the complicated history of findings from hormone replacement studies, and the harms and risks, and uses numbers to explain the risks. There is great nuance in the findings, which can be interpreted differently for women of different ages seeking HRT. Women bring different life risks of cardiovascular disease or breast cancer with them into any discussion of HRT. The conclusion quoted in the story may be less-than-reassuring, but is here: “Hormone therapy has been in and out of favor – first it was good for all menopausal women, then it was dangerous for all women,” McNeil said. “The take-home message now is that for the right patient, hormone therapy is safe and effective.” The story does a good job of describing how the study was done and establishing the high-quality of evidence from a large randomized trial. There was no disease mongering. The story included an independent source and there does not appear any conflicts of interest that should have been disclosed. The story is about alternatives, on its face, about the alternative of taking or not taking hormone replacement therapy. We wish there had been a sentence or two more on how other methods are available to women to ease symptoms. These therapies are widely available and that’s implied in the story. The story makes it clear that this is a new analysis that looks at long-term data on deaths years after use or non-use of hormone therapy. The story includes original reporting and does not rely solely on the news release.
Menopause hormone therapy not linked to premature death