| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
ORIGINAL RESEARCH |
From the Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomic Research Unit Research Centre, Centre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal-Hotel-Dieu, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Address reprint requests to: Jacques LeLorier, MD, PhD Centre Hospitalier de l’Universite de Montreal Hotel-Dieu, Research Centre Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomic Research Unit 3850, St-Urbain Street Montreal, Quebec H2W 1T8 Canada E-mail: jacques.le.lorier{at}umontreal.ca
Objective: To evaluate the persistence rate for estrogen therapy and to identify its determinants.
Methods: From the Quebec health insurance database we chose a cohort of 4527 women 35 years and older who received social assistance and were new users of estrogen between January 1989 and December 1997. Incident use was defined by the absence of any dispensed prescription of estrogen in the 3 years before the index date (date of first dispensed prescription). We estimated the cumulative persistence rate of treatment by Kaplan–Meier failure time analysis and identified its determinants with the Cox proportional hazards model.
Results: From the initial cohort, 3395 women (75%) renewed their first dispensed prescription and 905 (20%) continued treatment after 4 years. The determinants measured at the index date and significantly associated with a better persistence rate (relative risk [RR]) were younger than 60 years (RR 1.15, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01, 1.30), low dosage (RR 1.49, 95% CI 1.32, 1.70), continuous progestin combination (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.27, 1.54), and a gynecologist as the first prescribing physician (RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.03, 1.21). Also, coronary heart disease or at least one risk factor for it in the year before the index date was associated with a better persistence rate for estrogen replacement therapy (RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.05, 1.22).
Conclusions: The persistence rate for estrogen therapy is poor, implying that few women take it long enough to benefit from it.
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  R. T. Chlebowski, J. Wactawski-Wende, C. Ritenbaugh, F. A. Hubbell, J. Ascensao, R. J. Rodabough, C. A. Rosenberg, V. M. Taylor, R. Harris, C. Chen, et al. Estrogen plus Progestin and Colorectal Cancer in Postmenopausal Women N. Engl. J. Med., March 4, 2004; 350(10): 991 - 1004. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C. Atkinson, J. E Compston, N. E Day, M. Dowsett, and S. A Bingham The effects of phytoestrogen isoflavones on bone density in women: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial Am. J. Clinical Nutrition, February 1, 2004; 79(2): 326 - 333. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. E. Manson, J. Hsia, K. C. Johnson, J. E. Rossouw, A. R. Assaf, N. L. Lasser, M. Trevisan, H. R. Black, S. R. Heckbert, R. Detrano, et al. Estrogen plus Progestin and the Risk of Coronary Heart Disease N. Engl. J. Med., August 7, 2003; 349(6): 523 - 534. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R. T. Chlebowski, S. L. Hendrix, R. D. Langer, M. L. Stefanick, M. Gass, D. Lane, R. J. Rodabough, M. A. Gilligan, M. G. Cyr, C. A. Thomson, et al. Influence of Estrogen Plus Progestin on Breast Cancer and Mammography in Healthy Postmenopausal Women: The Women's Health Initiative Randomized Trial JAMA, June 25, 2003; 289(24): 3243 - 3253. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Writing Group for the Women's Health Initiative In Risks and Benefits of Estrogen Plus Progestin in Healthy Postmenopausal Women: Principal Results From the Women's Health Initiative Randomized Controlled Trial JAMA, July 17, 2002; 288(3): 321 - 333. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. ANTHONY, J. K. WILLIAMS, and B. K. DUNN What Would Be the Properties of an Ideal SERM? Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci., December 1, 2001; 949(1): 261 - 278. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
