help button home button Endocrine Society JCEM
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a related Letter to the Editor
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Request Copyright Permission
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Naessen, T.
Right arrow Articles by Lithell, H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Naessen, T.
Right arrow Articles by Lithell, H.
The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism Vol. 86, No. 6 2757-2762
Copyright © 2001 by The Endocrine Society


Other Original Studies

Serum Lipid Profile Improved by Ultra-Low Doses of 17ß-Estradiol in Elderly Women1

Tord Naessen, Kenny Rodriguez-Macias and Hans Lithell

Department of Women’s and Children’s Health, Section for Obstetrics and Gynecology (T.N., K.R.-M.), and Department of Geriatrics (H.L.), University Hospital, SE-751 85 Uppsala, Sweden

Address all correspondence and requests for reprints to: Tord Naessen, M.D., Ph.D., Section for Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital, SE-751 85 Uppsala, Sweden. E-mail: Tord.Naessen{at}kbh.uu.se

Abstract

To determine whether ultra-low doses of estradiol (E2) affect the serum lipid profile in elderly women, we analyzed changes in serum lipids and lipoproteins in 70 healthy women, 60 yr and older, randomly assigned to parenteral E2 (7.5 µg per 24 h) delivered by a vaginal ring (Estring; Pharmacia-Upjohn, Malmö, Sweden) or no treatment for 12 months. Baseline serum estrone sulfate (E1S), but not E2 or serum FSH, was negatively associated with serum total cholesterol (P = 0.026), low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol (P = 0.053), and apolipoprotein B levels (P = 0.023). Compared with no treatment, Estring treatment yielded nonsignificant increases within the normal postmenopausal range in serum E1S (+16%) and E2 (+13%), but significantly reduced serum LDL cholesterol by 7.6% (-0.32 mmol/L; 95% confidence interval, -0.58, -0.07; P = 0.014) and LDL to high-density lipoprotein (HDL) ratio by 7.3% (-0.19 mmol/L; 95% confidence interval, -0.44, -0.06; P = 0.030). In Estring users values were significantly reduced in total cholesterol (by 4%), LDL cholesterol (by 7%), LDL to HDL ratio (by 7%), and apolipoprotein B (by 4%), and significantly increased in serum HDL triglyceride (by 25%) but not triglycerides. No significant changes were found in the untreated group. There was a significant interaction between age and both baseline serum E2/sex hormone-binding globulin (P = 0.006) and sex hormone-binding globulin (P = 0.009) and a marginal interaction between age and E1S (P = 0.083) with regard to effects on changes in LDL cholesterol levels during Estring treatment. We conclude that ultra-low doses of E2, which previously were considered to have only local effects, may improve serum lipid profile in elderly women with a pattern and magnitude similar to that reported after conventional estrogen doses or first-generation lipid-lowering agents. The reduction in LDL cholesterol tended to be greater with a combination of high age and low baseline levels of biologically active estrogens.

THE LOW RISK of cardiovascular diseases in women before menopause and the increased risk thereafter, approaching that in men (1), has been attributed to effects of endogenous estrogens (2). Menopause is associated with changes toward a more atherogenic serum lipid profile (2), but menopausal estrogen or estrogen/progestin therapy restores the profile to one similar to that in premenopausal women (3, 4). In epidemiological studies estrogen therapy has been associated with a 40–70% reduction in the incidence of and mortality from coronary heart disease (CHD) events (5, 6, 7, 8). Estrogen therapy lowers the low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol level by 10–15% (4, 9). Each percent reduction of serum LDL cholesterol is associated with a 2% reduction of the risk of CHD (6, 10). Thus, about 30% of the decrease produced by estrogen therapy in the risk of CHD has been attributed to the improved serum lipid profile (5). The mechanism of the remaining cardioprotective effect is probably multifactorial, including direct effects on the vessel wall structures (11) and effects on atherosclerotic accumulation independently of changes in serum lipids (12), and on endothelium-dependent vasodilation (13).

National guidelines for both primary and secondary prevention of CHD events focus mainly on the reduction of LDL cholesterol (14). Modern generations of lipid-lowering agents reduce LDL cholesterol by about 20–30% (15, 16, 17), but their beneficial effect on the risk of cardiovascular disease perhaps levels off at about 20% reduction or at a LDL cholesterol level of 3.2 mmol/L (16, 17). A lipid-lowering diet may reduce LDL cholesterol by up to 15% under optimal conditions (18), an effect similar to or greater than that after intervention with oral estradiol (E2) therapy (19, 20) or with the first generation of lipid-lowering agents (21).

Estrogen therapy with standard doses at higher ages has poor long-term adherence. The lowest dose of estrogens needed to substantially improve the serum lipid profile in elderly women is not known. One aim of the present study was to determine whether ultra-low doses of parenteral E2 improve the serum lipid and lipoprotein profiles, especially the LDL cholesterol level, in elderly women.

Subjects and Methods

Subjects

Seventy women, 60 yr of age and above, recruited by advertisement in the local media, were randomly assigned either to treatment with a vaginal ring (Estring) releasing 7.5 µg per 24 h of E2, or to no treatment, for 12 months, with 35 women in each group. The randomization procedure was carried out by computer-based assignment, within blocks, of numbered sealed envelopes that were opened consecutively after inclusion of each subject. Women with diseases or medications known to affect bone or lipid metabolism were excluded, as were women who had used E2 or estriol vaginal pessaries in the past 6 months. In the control group, a placebo vaginal ring was not used, because of the risk of vaginal ulceration in women without estrogen therapy.

During the 12-month study period, 7 women dropped out; 6 of 35 in the Estring group and 1 of 35 in the control group, 5 during the first 6 months and another 2 during the last 6 months. The reasons given were: sweatings (4 women), lack of time (one), had entered another clinical study (one), and desire for active treatment (one). The baseline characteristics of the dropout group were similar to and did not differ significantly from those in the remaining participants. The study followed the Good Clinical Practice recommendations, and each subject gave written informed consent. The study was approved by the local ethics committee of the Faculty of Medicine, Uppsala University (Uppsala, Sweden).

An ultra-low dose of E2, registered for local treatment of urogenital estrogen deficiency symptoms, was administered in the form of a vaginal ring (Estring), which was replaced every third month. After an initial surge in the delivery of E2 to the circulation during the first 24 h, the mean rate of delivery is about 7.5 µg per 24 h, with minor or no increase in the serum level of E2 but an increase in serum estrone sulfate (E1S) (22, 23, 24).

Methods

Duplicate serum samples were drawn some days apart between 0700 and 1000 h after an overnight fast, at baseline, and after 6 and 12 months before the E2 vaginal ring was changed. Serum samples were assayed consecutively for their cholesterol and triglyceride (TG) concentrations by enzymatic techniques (Instrumentation Laboratory SpA, Milano, Italy) in a Monarch 2000 centrifugal analyzer (Instrumentation Laboratories, Lexington, MA), with an interassay coefficient of variation (CV) of 4%. Serum high-density lipoprotein (HDL) was separated after precipitation of lipoproteins with magnesium chloride/phosphotungstate. LDL cholesterol was calculated using Friedewald’s formula (25). Serum apolipoproteins (Apo) A1 and B were assayed with use of monospecific polyclonal antibodies (Orion Diagnostica, Espoo, Finland), with an interassay CV of less than 3%. Serum Apo (a) was measured by an Elisa-kit (Mercodia, Uppsala, Sweden).

Additional biochemical parameters were assessed in single samples of serum frozen at -70 C until analyzed in batch. Serum E2 was measured by RIA, using a commercial kit (Estradiol Double Antibody; Diagnostic Products, Los Angeles, CA) with one crucial modification; instead of direct analysis of untreated serum, the serum samples were extracted with diethyl ether, the ether phase was evaporated and the dry extract was dissolved in zero calibrator. The dissolved extracts were then analyzed according to the manufacturer’s specifications. This modification was undertaken to minimize effects of differences in nonspecifically bound radioactivity between calibrators and serum samples (26). The detection limit was 6 pmol/L and the intraassay CV was 6% (26). Serum E1S was measured by RIA after enzymatic hydrolysis with Helix pomatia sulfatase-glucuronidase preparation and extraction with diethyl ether as described by Carlström and Skoldefors (27), with minor modifications. The detection limit was 0.3 nmol/L, and the intraassay CV was 7%. Serum FSH was assessed by Auto-Delfia human FSH, and sex hormone-binding globulin (SHBG) by Auto-Delfia (Pharmacia-Wallac, Inc., Turku, Finland), with intraassay CV of 2 and 4%, respectively.

Statistical methods

Baseline descriptions of the two randomized groups are presented as mean ± SD and main differences in changes in percentage (%). The intraindividual variation in serum LDL cholesterol levels was estimated as CV% from the duplicate measurements according to the following formula: CV% = 100 (SD/x) and SD = {surd} {Sigma}d2/2n, where x = mean of all measurements, d = difference between duplicate measurement values, and n = number of duplicate determinations. Means of duplicate samples were used in the analysis to further reduce the variability. Fisher’s exact test was used for comparing distributions of categorical parameters. Within-group changes were analyzed by paired Student’s t test for normally distributed variables and by Wilcoxon signed-ranks test for those not normally distributed; between-group differences in changes were analyzed by Student’s t test for independent samples or the Mann-Whitney U test, respectively. Between-groups differences in changes (%) were calculated as the difference between the within-group percentage changes in the two groups. We also tested the interaction between age and baseline sex hormone levels, with regard to effects on changes in serum lipid levels during Estring treatment. Associations between variables were assessed by Spearman’s rank correlation test. All statistical analyses were performed with the statistical program package JMP or Statistical Analysis System (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC).

Results

The two study groups were similar regarding a number of descriptive variables at baseline (Table 1Go), but baseline serum levels of cholesterol, LDL cholestrol and TG were higher in the untreated group (P < 0.02) (Table 2Go). With the sensitive methods used, estrogen therapy (Estring) for 12 months, yielded minor increases in serum E1S (+0.27 nmol/L; P = 0.004) and E2 (+1.93 pmol/L; P = 0.027), both within the normal postmenopausal range (Fig. 1Go), and not significantly different from changes in the untreated women (+16%; P = 0.09 and +13%; P = 0.15, respectively) (Table 2Go). The intraindividual variation (CV%) in serum LDL cholesterol between duplicate samples was 6.5%. Means of the duplicate values were used in the analysis to further reduce the variability.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 1. Baseline characteristics of randomized women

 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 2. Baseline values and changes in serum lipid profile and in serum E1S and E2 levels in Estring-treated (n = 29) and untreated (n = 34) women who completed the 12-month study period

 


View larger version (13K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Figure 1. Changes in serum E1S and E2 levels during Estring treatment.

 
Compared with no treatment, this ultra-low dose of estrogen (Estring) administered for 12 months significantly reduced the serum level of LDL cholesterol by 7.6% [-0.32 mmol/L; 95% confidence interval (CI), -0.58, -0.07; P = 0.014] and the LDL to HDL ratio by 7.3% (-0.19 mmol/L; 95% CI, -0.44, -0.06; P = 0.030). The differences in changes in serum total cholesterol (-3%), HDL cholesterol (+2.4%), TG (+13%), HDL-TG (+12%), and Apo B (-3%) were not statistically significant. In the Estring group the serum lipid levels were already changed after 6 months, and at 12 months the serum total cholesterol level had changed by -4% (-0.24 mmol/L; 95% CI, -0.45, -0.04; P = 0.020); HDL cholesterol by +1.2% (+0.02 mmol/L; 95% CI, -0.06,0.11; P = 0.56); LDL cholesterol by -7% (-0.31 mmol/L; 95% CI, -0.48, -0.15; P = 0.0004); the LDL to HDL ratio by -7% (-0.18; 95% CI, -0.33, -0.04; P = 0.017), and Apo B by -4% (-4.1 mg/dL; 95% CI, -7.5, -0.7; P = 0.016). The serum HDL-TG level increased by 25% (+0.04 mmol/L; 95% CI, 0.01, 0.06; P = 0.003), whereas there was no significant increase in serum TG. In the group of untreated women no significant changes were found in any of the variables (Table 2Go).

There was a significant interaction between age and baseline serum E2/SHBG (P = 0.006) or SHBG (P = 0.009) and a marginal interaction between age and E1S level (P = 0.083), indicating a change toward a greater reduction in LDL cholesterol levels in association with high age combined with low baseline levels of unbound estrogens.

The baseline serum E1S level was negatively associated with the serum level of total cholesterol (r = -0.27; P = 0.026), LDL cholesterol (r = -0.24; P = 0.053), and Apo B (r = -0.27; P = 0.023). Serum SHBG was positively associated with the serum HDL cholesterol (r = 0.31; P = 0.009) and Apo A1 (r = 0.28; P = 0.018) and negatively associated with TG (r = -0.25; P = 0.040). In contrast, baseline serum E2 and FSH were not significantly associated with baseline serum lipid and lipoprotein levels or their changes over time.

Body mass index (BMI) did not differ significantly between groups at baseline, and changes in BMI within and between study groups over the study period were not significant. No significant associations were found between changes in BMI and changes in serum lipid fractions.

Discussion

To our knowledge, this is the first report to indicate that ultra-low doses of parenteral estrogens, intended for local treatment of vaginal atrophy and yielding serum estrogen levels within the normal postmenopausal ranges, have systemic effects and improve the serum lipid profile in elderly women. In the E2 group, the serum total, the LDL cholesterol levels, the LDL to HDL ratio, and the Apo B level were significantly reduced and serum HDL-TG (but not serum TG) significantly increased, compared with baseline. When compared with the values in the untreated women, the LDL cholesterol level and LDL to HDL ratio still showed significant reductions. Moreover, data indicated a greater reduction in LDL cholesterol in association with high age combined with low baseline levels of unbound estrogens. Changes in BMI did not seem to explain the changes in serum lipid levels.

The magnitudes and pattern of the changes in serum lipid levels were similar to those observed after conventional doses of parenteral estrogens (patches) in early menopausal women (4, 9) or of the first-generation lipid-lowering agents (21). Compared with the postmenopausal estrogen/progestin interventions (PEPI) data (oral conjugated equine estrogens 0.625 mg/day for 3 yr) (3) and adjusted for changes in the placebo groups, the change in total cholesterol was similar in the present study (-3.2% vs. -3.5%), the change in LDL cholesterol also similar (-7.6% vs. -10%), the increase in HDL cholesterol was smaller (+2.4% vs. 8.8%), and the TG level showed a smaller absolute increase (0.16 vs. 0.19 mmol/L) but a larger percentage change (+13% vs. 5.9%). The participants in the PEPI trial were younger than those in the present study and had lower baseline mean levels of serum lipids except for a higher mean level of TG. Compared with changes after 9 weeks of oral E2 (1 mg daily), in women on average 8 yr after menopause (20), the decrease in the total cholesterol level in our study was smaller (-3.2% vs. -5%), the decrease in LDL cholesterol was similar (-7.6% vs. -10%), the increase in HDL cholesterol was smaller (+2.4% vs. +8%), and the change in total TG was similar (+13% vs. +14%). The increase in HDL TG was similar to that induced by E2 patches (+12% vs. 10%) but lower than that resulting from oral 0.625 mg conjugated equine estrogens daily (+12% vs. 26%) (Table 3Go).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 3. Comparison with ordinary estrogen doses and regimens

 
The higher baseline level of total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, and TGs in the untreated group could not have spuriously affected the magnitude or strength of the noted effects of estrogen therapy in the present study. The effect of regression toward the mean would only make it more difficult to show an effect of Estring treatment and underestimate its magnitude (28). The study was prospective and randomized, and the pattern and magnitudes of the changes in the serum lipid profile were those expected from systemic estrogen therapy. The nonoral form of administration may explain the lack of significant effects on HDL cholesterol (4) and thereby on Apo A1 (9), and also the nonsignificant change in Apo (a) (29). The small sample number may also have contributed to nonsignificant findings.

Baseline serum E1S, but not E2 or FSH, was negatively associated with the serum total and LDL cholesterol and Apo B levels. This observation support the view that E1S is quantitatively an important estrogen in elderly menopausal women and that it may be a good indicator of the total estrogen status in menopausal women (26, 30). Our findings of minor increases in the serum E1S and E2 levels, totally within the normal postmenopausal range, are consistent with previous reports on this low-dose regimen (22, 23).

Subtle differences in endogenous serum estrogen levels, within the normal postmenopausal range, may be of clinical relevance. Lower serum E2 levels, compared with higher ones within this range, are associated with lower bone densities (31) and higher fracture rates in elderly women (31, 32). In a previous pilot study serum markers for bone metabolism and bone density were positively affected by ultra-low doses of vaginally administered E2 (24). The longer the period of estrogen deprivation (i.e. time after the menopause), the greater is the capacity of estrogen-sensitive tissues to respond to exogenous estrogens (33). The number of estrogen {alpha}-receptors increases with advancing age (34). Furthermore, estrogen receptor sensitivity is higher in the post- than in the premenopausal period and increases when hypoestrogenism is induced by treatment with GnRH agonists (35). Hence, systemic effects of ultra-low doses of E2 may tentatively be explained by an increase in the number of estrogen {alpha}-receptors (34) and/or by an up-regulation of the estrogen receptor sensitivity after long-standing hypoestrogenism (35).

This low-dose regimen is registered in many countries, including the United States, for the treatment of urogenital atrophy and administered without addition of a progestin. No proliferation of the endometrium, as measured by ultrasonography, was found with this low-dose regimen during 6 months of exposure in two previous studies in 30 women with mean ages of 57 and 60 yr, respectively (23, 36). However, caution with regard to endometrial effects is warranted until the long-term effects on the endometrium are documented in a large number of women.

The doses of estrogen recommended to elderly women have long been similar to those prescribed early after the menopause. Such estrogen doses and regimens are usually associated with breast tenderness and vaginal bleeding, resulting in poor adherence to long-term therapy and to therapy started at a high age (37). Ultra-low doses of estrogen, yielding serum E2 levels within the normal postmenopausal range, may tentatively reduce the otherwise reported initial increase in thromboembolism (38) observed with ordinary doses of both conjugate equine estrogens and E2 (19, 39), have better long-term compliance (23, 40), and still maintain beneficial effects on the bone metabolism (24) and the serum lipid profile.

Acknowledgments

We are indebted to Kiki Synnöve Moen, R.N., for excellent technical assistance, to Associate Professor Kjell Carlström for expert help with the assays of serum E2 and E1S, and to Lars Berglund, B.S.c., for expert statistical advice.

Footnotes

1 This study was supported by the Swedish Society of Medicine (Grant 99-02-0248) and Pharmacia & Upjohn, Inc., Sweden. Back

Received December 5, 2000.

Revised January 30, 2001.

Accepted February 5, 2001.

References

  1. Lloyd-Jones DM, Larson MG, Beiser A, Levy D. 1999 Lifetime risk of developing coronary heart disease. Lancet. 353:89–92.[CrossRef][Medline]
  2. Matthews KA, Meilahn E, Kuller LH, Kelsey SF, Caggiula AW, Wing RR. 1989 Menopause and risk factors for coronary heart disease. N Engl J Med. 321:641–646.[Abstract]
  3. The Writing Group for the PEPI Trial. 1995 PEPI. Effects of estrogen or estrogen/progestin regimens on heart disease risk factors in postmenopausal women. The postmenopausal estrogen/progestin interventions (PEPI) trial. JAMA. 273:199–208.[Abstract]
  4. Walsh BW, Schiff I, Rosner B, Greenberg L, Ravnikar V, Sacks FM. 1991 Effects of postmenopausal estrogen replacement on the concentrations and metabolism of plasma lipoproteins. N Engl J Med. 325:1196–204.[Abstract]
  5. Bush TL, Barrett-Connor E, Cowan LD, et al. 1987 Cardiovascular mortality and noncontraceptive use of estrogen in women: results from the Lipid Research Clinics Program follow-up study. Circulation. 75:1102–1109.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  6. Stampfer MJ, Colditz GA. 1991 Estrogen replacement therapy and coronary heart disease: a quantitative assessment of the epidemiologic evidence. Prev Med. 20:47–63.[CrossRef][Medline]
  7. Grady D, Rubin SM, Petitti DB, Fox CS, Black D, Ettinger B, et al. 1992 Hormone therapy to prevent disease and prolong life in postmenopausal women. Ann Intern Med. 117:1016–1037.
  8. Stampfer MJ, Colditz GA, Willett WC, et al. 1991 Postmenopausal estrogen therapy and cardiovascular disease. Ten-year follow-up from the nurses’ health study. N Engl J Med. 325:756–762.[Abstract]
  9. Lobo RA. 1991 Clinical review 27: effects of hormonal replacement on lipids and lipoproteins in postmenopausal women. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 73:925–930.[Medline]
  10. Grodstein F, Stampfer M. 1995 The epidemiology of coronary heart disease and estrogen replacement in postmenopausal women. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 38:199–210.[CrossRef][Medline]
  11. Baron YM, Brincat M, Galea R. 1997 Carotid artery wall thickness in women treated with hormone replacement therapy. Maturitas. 27:47–53.[CrossRef][Medline]
  12. Adams MR, Kaplan JR, Manuck SB, et al. 1990 Inhibition of coronary artery atherosclerosis by 17-ß estradiol in ovariectomized monkeys. Lack of an effect of added progesterone. Arteriosclerosis. 10:1051–1057.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  13. Tagawa H, Shimokawa H, Tagawa T, Kuroiwa MM, Hirooka Y, Takeshita A. 1997 Short-term estrogen augments both nitric oxide-mediated and non-nitric oxide-mediated endothelium-dependent forearm vasodilation in postmenopausal women. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol. 30:481–488.[CrossRef][Medline]
  14. Ballantyne CM. 1998 Low-density lipoproteins and risk for coronary artery disease. Am J Cardiol. 82:3Q–12Q.
  15. Darling GM, Johns JA, McCloud PI, Davis SR. 1997 Estrogen and progestin compared with simvastatin for hypercholesterolemia in postmenopausal women. N Engl J Med. 337:595–601.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  16. Shepherd J, Cobbe SM, Ford I, et al. 1995 Prevention of coronary heart disease with pravastatin in men with hypercholesterolemia. West of Scotland Coronary Prevention Study Group [see comments]. N Engl J Med. 333:1301–1307.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  17. Sacks FM, Pfeffer MA, Moye LA, et al. 1996 The effect of pravastatin on coronary events after myocardial infarction in patients with average cholesterol levels. Cholesterol and recurrent events trial investigators. N Engl J Med. 335:1001–1009.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  18. Kasim-Karakas SE, Almario RU, Mueller WM, Peerson J. 2000 Changes in plasma lipoproteins during low-fat, high-carbohydrate diets: effects of energy intake. Am J Clin Nutr. 71:1439–1447.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  19. Hulley S, Grady D, Bush T, et al. 1998 Randomized trial of estrogen plus progestin for secondary prevention of coronary heart disease in postmenopausal women. Heart and Estrogen/progestin Replacement Study (HERS) Research Group JAMA. 280:605–613.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  20. Walsh BW, Spiegelman D, Morrissey M, Sacks FM. 1999 Relationship between serum estradiol levels and the increases in high-density lipoprotein levels in postmenopausal women treated with oral estradiol. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 84:985–989.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  21. Anonymous. 1978 Coronary drug project report on clofibrate and niacin. Atherosclerosis. 30:239–240.[CrossRef][Medline]
  22. Holmgren PA, Lindskog M, von Schoultz B. 1989 Vaginal rings for continuous low-dose release of oestradiol in the treatment of urogenital atrophy. Maturitas. 11:55–63.[CrossRef][Medline]
  23. Smith P, Heimer G, Lindskog M, Ulmsten U. 1993 Oestradiol-releasing vaginal ring for treatment of postmenopausal urogenital atrophy. Maturitas. 16:145–154.[CrossRef][Medline]
  24. Naessen T, Berglund L, Ulmsten U. 1997 Bone loss in elderly women prevented by ultralow doses of parenteral 17ß-estradiol. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 177:115–119.[CrossRef][Medline]
  25. Friedewald WT, Levy RI, Fredrickson DS. 1972 Estimation of the concentration of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol in plasma, without use of the preparative ultracentrifuge. Clin Chem. 18:499–502.[Abstract]
  26. Carlström K. 1996 Low endogenous estrogen levels: analytical problems and tissue sensitivity. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand Suppl. 163:11–15.[Medline]
  27. Carlström K, Skoldefors H. 1977 Determination of total oestrone in peripheral serum from non pregnant humans. J Steroid Biochem. 8:1127–1128.[CrossRef][Medline]
  28. Hayes RJ. 1988 Methods for assessing whether change depends on initial value. Stat Med. 7:915–927.[Medline]
  29. Farish E, Rolton HA, Barnes JF, et al. 1993 Lipoprotein(a) and postmenopausal oestrogen. Acta Endocrinol (Copenh). 129:225–228.[Medline]
  30. Cauley JA, Gutai JP, Kuller LH, Powell JG. 1991 Reliability and interrelations among serum sex hormones in postmenopausal women. Am J Epidemiol. 133:50–57.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  31. Ettinger B, Pressman A, Sklarin P, Bauer DC, Cauley JA, Cummings SR. 1998 Associations between low levels of serum estradiol, bone density, and fractures among elderly women: the study of osteoporotic fractures. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 83:2239–2243.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  32. Cummings SR, Browner WS, Bauer D, et al. 1998 Endogenous hormones and the risk of hip and vertebral fractures among older women. Study of osteoporotic fractures research group. N Engl J Med. 339:733–738.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  33. Lindsay R, Tohme JF. 1990 Estrogen treatment of patients with established postmenopausal osteoporosis. Obstet Gynecol. 76:290–295.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  34. Ankrom MA, Patterson JA, d’Avis PY, et al. 1998 Age-related changes in human oestrogen receptor {alpha} function and levels in osteoblasts. Biochem J. 333:787–794.
  35. Englund K, Blanck A, Gustavsson I, et al. 1998 Sex steroid receptors in human myometrium and fibroids: changes during the menstrual cycle and gonadotropin-releasing hormone treatment. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 83:4092–4096.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  36. Bakos O, Smith P, Heimer G, Ulmsten U. 1994 Transvaginal sonography of the internal genital organs in postmenopausal women on low-dose estrogen treatment. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 4:326–329.[CrossRef][Medline]
  37. Hammond CB. 1994 Women’s concerns with hormone replacement therapy: compliance issues. Fertil Steril. 62:157S–160S.
  38. Naessen T. 2000 The Heart and Estrogen/Progestin Replacement Study (HERS) in perspective: results not very surprizing. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 79:1037–1041.[CrossRef][Medline]
  39. Hoibraaten E, Abdelnoor M, Sandset PM. 1999 Hormone replacement therapy with estradiol and risk of venous thromboembolism: a population-based case-control study. Thromb Haemost. 82:1218–1221.[Medline]
  40. Ettinger B, Genant HK, Steiger P, Madvig P. 1992 Low-dosage micronized 17 ß-estradiol prevents bone loss in postmenopausal women. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 166:479–488.[Medline]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
NEJMHome page
D. F. Hayes
Follow-up of Patients with Early Breast Cancer
N. Engl. J. Med., June 14, 2007; 356(24): 2505 - 2513.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JNCI J Natl Cancer InstHome page
R. T. Chlebowski and G. L. Anderson
Progestins and Recurrence in Breast Cancer Survivors
J Natl Cancer Inst, April 6, 2005; 97(7): 471 - 472.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J. Gerontol. A Biol. Sci. Med. Sci.Home page
K. M. Prestwood, C. Unson, M. Kulldorff, and M. Cushman
The Effect of Different Doses of Micronized 17{beta}-Estradiol on C-Reactive Protein, Interleukin-6, and Lipids in Older Women
J. Gerontol. A Biol. Sci. Med. Sci., August 1, 2004; 59(8): M827 - M832.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a related Letter to the Editor
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Request Copyright Permission
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Naessen, T.
Right arrow Articles by Lithell, H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Naessen, T.
Right arrow Articles by Lithell, H.


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Endocrinology Endocrine Reviews J. Clin. End. & Metab.
Molecular Endocrinology Recent Prog. Horm. Res. All Endocrine Journals