Why the study?
Does tibolone compared to hormone therapy improve markers of cardiovascular disease in postmenopausal women?
Does tibolone compared to hormone therapy improve markers of cardiovascular disease in postmenopausal women?
Tibolone improves endothelial function similarly to conventional hormone therapy but with a potentially more favorable inflammatory and hemostatic profile, despite lowering HDL cholesterol.
Tibolone matches hormone therapy on endothelial function with a more favorable inflammatory and hemostatic profile; supports its consideration as an alternative and extends surrogate marker data for outcome trials.
OBJECTIVE: The objective was to compare the effects of tibolone and hormone therapy (HT) on lipid profile, vasodilation, and factors associated with inflammation and hemostasis. METHODS AND RESULTS: Fifty-three women received micronized progesterone (MP, 100 mg) with conjugated equine estrogen (CEE, 0.625 mg) or tibolone (2.5 mg) daily for 2 months, with a 2-month washout period. Compared with HT, tibolone significantly reduced total cholesterol (P<0.001), triglyceride (P<0.001), and HDL cholesterol (P<0.001) levels as well as triglyceride/HDL cholesterol ratios (P<0.001) but not LDL cholesterol levels. Tibolone significantly improved flow-mediated brachial artery dilator response to hyperemia from baseline values (P<0.001) by a magnitude similar to that found with HT (P=0.628). Compared with tibolone, which showed no changes, HT significantly increased high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP, P=0.030) and reduced antithrombin III (P<0.001). HT and tibolone significantly increased prothrombin fragment 1+2 (F1+2) from baseline values (P<0.001 and P=0.004, respectively). The effects of HT and tibolone on hsCRP, antithrombin III, and F1+2 were significantly different. HT and tibolone significantly reduced plasma levels of plasminogen activator inhibitor type 1 antigen from baseline levels (P=0.006 and P=0.005, respectively) to a similar degree (P=0.988). CONCLUSIONS: Tibolone significantly improved flow-mediated brachial artery dilator response by a magnitude similar to that found with CEE+MP; however, tibolone did not significantly change hsCRP and antithrombin III, and tibolone increased F1+2 less than did CEE+MP.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Koh et al. (2003) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: