  The Women's Health Initiative randomized clinical trial of hormone therapy
found no benefit of hormones in preventive cardiovascular disease, a finding in
striking contrast with a large body of observational research. Understanding
whether better methodology and/or statistical adjustment might have prevented
the erroneous conclusions of observational research is important. This is a
re-analysis of data from a case-control study examining the relationship of
postmenopausal hormone therapy and the risks of myocardial infarction (MI) and
ischemic stroke in which we reported no overall increase or decrease in the
risk of either event. Variables measuring health behavior/lifestyle that are
not likely to be causally with the risks of MI and stroke (e.g., sunscreen use)
were included in multivariate analysis along with traditional confounders (age,
hypertension, diabetes, smoking, body mass index, ethnicity, education, prior
coronary heart disease for MI and prior stroke/TIA for stroke) to determine
whether adjustment for the health behavior/lifestyle variables could reproduce
or bring the results closer to the findings in a large and definitive
randomized clinical trial of hormone therapy, the Women's Health Initiative.
For both MI and stroke, measures of health behavior/lifestyle were associated
with odds ratios (ORs) less than 1.0. Adjustment for traditional cardiovascular
disease confounders did not alter the magnitude of the ORs for MI or stroke.
Addition of a subset of these variables selected using stepwise regression to
the final MI or stroke models along with the traditional cardiovascular disease
confounders moved the ORs for estrogen and estrogen/progestin use closer to
values observed in the Women Health Initiative clinical trial, but did not
reliably reproduce the clinical trial results for these two endpoints.
