Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This review focuses on the question of whether the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) was a test of primary versus secondary cardiovascular benefits of postmenopausal hormone therapy. Evidence is presented to support the conclusion that the WHI was a secondary intervention trial and that primary cardiovascular benefits of hormone therapy are rational, likely, but not yet proven. The review makes clear that hormone therapy is not a 'cardiovascular drug' for the treatment of coronary heart disease; but rather that the public health debate is whether hormone therapy, used for the treatment of menopausal symptoms, provides any cardiovascular benefits that might offset its risk.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mikkola et al. (2004) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: