Breast cancer and hormonal contraceptives: Further results

The Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer has brought together and reanalysed the worldwide epidemiological evidence on breast cancer risk and use oi hormonal contraceptives. Original data from 54 studies, representing about 90% of the information available on the topic, were collected, checked and analysed centrally. The 54 studies were performed in 26 countries and include a total of 53,297 women with breast cancer and 100,239 women without breast cancer. The studies were varied in their design, setting and timing. Most information came from case-control studies with controls chosen from the general population; most women resided in Europe or North America and most cancers were diagnosed during the 1980s. Overall 41% of the women with breast cancer and 40% of the women without breast cancer had used oral contraceptives at some time: the median age at first use was 26 years, the median duration of use was 3 years, the median year of first use was 1968, the median time since first use was 16 years, and the median time since last use was 9 years. The main findings, summarised elsewhere,I are that there is a small increase in the risk of having breast cancer diagnosed in current users of combined oral contraceptives and in women who had stopped use in the past 10 years but that there is no evidence of an increase in the risk more than 10 years after stopping use. In addition, the cancers diagnosed in women who had used oral contraceptives tended to be less advanced clinically than the cancers diagnosed in women who had not used them. Despite the large number of possibilities investigated, few factors appeared to modify the main findings either in recent or in past users. For recent users who began use before age 20 the relative risks are higher than for recent users who began at older ages. For women whose use of oral contraceptives ceased more than 10 years before there was some suggestion of a reduction in breast cancer risk in certain subgroups, with a deficit of tumors that had spread beyond the breast, especially among women who had used preparations containing the highest doses of oestrogen and progestogen. These findings are unexpected and need to be confirmed. Although these data represent most of the epidemiologi cal evidence on the topic to date, there is still insufficient information to comment reliably about the effects of specific types of oestrogen or of progestogen. What evidence there is suggests, however, no major differences in the effects for specific types of oestrogen or of progestogen and that the pattern of risk associated with use of hormonal contraceptives containing progestogens alone may be similar to that observed for preparations containing both oestrogens and progestogens. On the basis of these results, there is little difference between women who have and have not used combined oral contraceptives in terms of the estimated cumulative number of breast cancers diagnosed during the period from starting use up to 20 rears after stopping. The cancers diagnosed in women who have used oral contraceptives are, however, less advanced clinically than the cancers diag nosed in never users. Further research is needed to establish whether the associations described here are due to earlier diagnosis of breast cancer in women who have used oral contraceptives, to the biological effects of the hormonal contraceptives or to a combination of both. Little information is as yet available about the effects on breast cancer risk of oral contraceptive use that ceased more than 20 years before and as such data accumulate it will be necessary to reexamine the worldwide evidence. RI Ranstam, Jonas/A-4386-2009; Colditz, Graham/A-3963-200

Ezetimibe added to statin therapy after acute coronary syndromes

BACKGROUND: Statin therapy reduces low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels and the risk of cardiovascular events, but whether the addition of ezetimibe, a nonstatin drug that reduces intestinal cholesterol absorption, can reduce the rate of cardiovascular events further is not known. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, randomized trial involving 18,144 patients who had been hospitalized for an acute coronary syndrome within the preceding 10 days and had LDL cholesterol levels of 50 to 100 mg per deciliter (1.3 to 2.6 mmol per liter) if they were receiving lipid-lowering therapy or 50 to 125 mg per deciliter (1.3 to 3.2 mmol per liter) if they were not receiving lipid-lowering therapy. The combination of simvastatin (40 mg) and ezetimibe (10 mg) (simvastatin-ezetimibe) was compared with simvastatin (40 mg) and placebo (simvastatin monotherapy). The primary end point was a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, unstable angina requiring rehospitalization, coronary revascularization ( 6530 days after randomization), or nonfatal stroke. The median follow-up was 6 years. RESULTS: The median time-weighted average LDL cholesterol level during the study was 53.7 mg per deciliter (1.4 mmol per liter) in the simvastatin-ezetimibe group, as compared with 69.5 mg per deciliter (1.8 mmol per liter) in the simvastatin-monotherapy group (P<0.001). The Kaplan-Meier event rate for the primary end point at 7 years was 32.7% in the simvastatin-ezetimibe group, as compared with 34.7% in the simvastatin-monotherapy group (absolute risk difference, 2.0 percentage points; hazard ratio, 0.936; 95% confidence interval, 0.89 to 0.99; P = 0.016). Rates of pre-specified muscle, gallbladder, and hepatic adverse effects and cancer were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: When added to statin therapy, ezetimibe resulted in incremental lowering of LDL cholesterol levels and improved cardiovascular outcomes. Moreover, lowering LDL cholesterol to levels below previous targets provided additional benefit