postmenopause

This updated Cochrane review found little evidence that etidronate makes a clinical significant difference in the rate of osteoporotic fractures in post-menopausal women. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Commercial full text (fees may apply)

View

Background: Osteoporosis is an abnormal reduction in bone mass and bone deterioration, leading to increased fracture risk. Etidronate belongs to the bisphosphonate class of drugs which act to inhibit bone resorption by interfering with the activity of osteoclasts - bone cells that break down bone tissue. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2008. For clinical relevance, we investigated etidronate's effects on postmenopausal women stratified by fracture risk (low versus high).

Objectives: To assess the benefits and harms of intermittent/cyclic etidronate in the primary and secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women at lower and higher risk of fracture, respectively.

Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Control Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, two clinical trial registers, the websites of drug approval agencies, and the bibliographies of relevant systematic reviews. We identified eligible trials published between 1966 and February 2023.

Selection criteria: We included randomized controlled trials that assessed the benefits and harms of etidronate in the prevention of fractures for postmenopausal women. Women in the experimental arms must have received at least one year of etidronate, with or without other anti-osteoporotic drugs and concurrent calcium/vitamin D. Eligible comparators were placebo (i.e. no treatment; or calcium, vitamin D, or both) or another anti-osteoporotic drug. Major outcomes were clinical vertebral, non-vertebral, hip, and wrist fractures, withdrawals due to adverse events, and serious adverse events. We classified a study as secondary prevention if its population fulfilled one or more of the following hierarchical criteria: a diagnosis of osteoporosis, a history of vertebral fractures, a low bone mineral density T-score (≤ -2.5), or aged 75 years or older. If none of these criteria were met, we considered the study to be primary prevention.

Data collection and analysis: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The review has three main comparisons: (1) etidronate 400 mg/day versus placebo; (2) etidronate 200 mg/day versus placebo; (3) etidronate at any dosage versus another anti-osteoporotic agent. We stratified the analyses for each comparison into primary and secondary prevention studies. For major outcomes in the placebo-controlled studies of etidronate 400 mg/day, we followed our original review by defining a greater than 15% relative change as clinically important. For all outcomes of interest, we extracted outcome measurements at the longest time point in the study.

Main results: Thirty studies met the review's eligibility criteria. Of these, 26 studies, with a total of 2770 women, reported data that we could extract and quantitatively synthesize. There were nine primary and 17 secondary prevention studies. We had concerns about at least one risk of bias domain in each study. None of the studies described appropriate methods for allocation concealment, although 27% described adequate methods of random sequence generation. We judged that only 8% of the studies avoided performance bias, and provided adequate descriptions of appropriate blinding methods. One-quarter of studies that reported efficacy outcomes were at high risk of attrition bias, whilst 23% of studies reporting safety outcomes were at high risk in this domain. The 30 included studies compared (1) etidronate 400 mg/day to placebo (13 studies: nine primary and four secondary prevention); (2) etidronate 200 mg/day to placebo (three studies, all secondary prevention); or (3) etidronate (both dosing regimens) to another anti-osteoporotic agent (14 studies: one primary and 13 secondary prevention). We discuss only the etidronate 400 mg/day versus placebo comparison here. For primary prevention, we collected moderate- to very low-certainty evidence from nine studies (one to four years in length) including 740 postmenopausal women at lower risk of fractures. Compared to placebo, etidronate 400 mg/day probably results in little to no difference in non-vertebral fractures (risk ratio (RR) 0.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20 to 1.61); absolute risk reduction (ARR) 4.8% fewer, 95% CI 8.9% fewer to 6.1% more) and serious adverse events (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.54; ARR 1.1% fewer, 95% CI 4.9% fewer to 5.3% more), based on moderate-certainty evidence. Etidronate 400 mg/day may result in little to no difference in clinical vertebral fractures (RR 3.03, 95% CI 0.32 to 28.44; ARR 0.02% more, 95% CI 0% fewer to 0% more) and withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 1.41, 95% CI 0.81 to 2.47; ARR 2.3% more, 95% CI 1.1% fewer to 8.4% more), based on low-certainty evidence. We do not know the effect of etidronate on hip fractures because the evidence is very uncertain (RR not estimable based on very low-certainty evidence). Wrist fractures were not reported in the included studies. For secondary prevention, four studies (two to four years in length) including 667 postmenopausal women at higher risk of fractures provided the evidence. Compared to placebo, etidronate 400 mg/day may make little or no difference to non-vertebral fractures (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.58; ARR 0.9% more, 95% CI 3.8% fewer to 8.1% more), based on low-certainty evidence. The evidence is very uncertain about etidronate's effects on hip fractures (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.17 to 5.19; ARR 0.0% fewer, 95% CI 1.2% fewer to 6.3% more), wrist fractures (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.13 to 6.04; ARR 0.0% fewer, 95% CI 2.5% fewer to 15.9% more), withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.18; ARR 0.4% more, 95% CI 1.9% fewer to 4.9% more), and serious adverse events (RR not estimable), compared to placebo. Clinical vertebral fractures were not reported in the included studies.

Authors' conclusions: This update echoes the key findings of our previous review that etidronate probably makes or may make little to no difference to vertebral and non-vertebral fractures for both primary and secondary prevention.

Hormone therapy for sexual function in perimenopausal and postmenopausal women

Rowan Hutchins — Mon, 02 Oct 2023 05:00:00 +0000

Date Added:

October 2, 2023

Publisher:

Cochrane Library

Publication Date:

August 24, 2023

URL:

Hormone therapy for sexual function in perimenopausal and postmenopausal women

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009672.pub3

Keywords

perimenopause

postmenopause

Progestins

PMID (1):

37619252

MeSH

Estrogens / therapeutic use

Selective Estrogen Receptor Modulators

Estrogen replacement therapy appears to reduce discomfort and improve sexual enjoyment in early post -menopausal women. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Free full text

View

We included 36 studies (23,299 women; 12,225 intervention group; 11,074 control group), of which 35 evaluated postmenopausal women; only one study evaluated perimenopausal women. The 'symptomatic or early postmenopausal women' subgroup included 10 studies, which included women experiencing menopausal symptoms (symptoms such as hot flushes, night sweats, sleep disturbance, vaginal atrophy, and dyspareunia) or early postmenopausal women (within five years after menopause). The 'unselected postmenopausal women’ subgroup included 26 studies, which included women regardless of menopausal symptoms and women whose last menstrual period was more than five years earlier. No study included only women with sexual dysfunction and only seven studies evaluated sexual function as a primary outcome. We deemed 20 studies at high risk of bias, two studies at low risk, and the other 14 studies at unclear risk of bias. Nineteen studies received commercial funding.

Estrogen alone versus control probably slightly improves the sexual function composite score in symptomatic or early postmenopausal women (SMD 0.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.04 to 0.96; I² = 88%; 3 studies, 699 women; moderate‐quality evidence), and probably makes little or no difference to the sexual function composite score in unselected postmenopausal women (SMD 0.64, 95% CI −0.12 to 1.41; I² = 94%; 6 studies, 608 women; moderate‐quality evidence). The pooled result suggests that estrogen alone versus placebo or no intervention probably slightly improves sexual function composite score (SMD 0.60, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.04; I² = 92%; 9 studies, 1307 women, moderate‐quality evidence).

We are uncertain of the effect of estrogen combined with progestogens versus placebo or no intervention on the sexual function composite score in unselected postmenopausal women (MD 0.08 95% CI −1.52 to 1.68; 1 study, 104 women; very low‐quality evidence).

We are uncertain of the effect of synthetic steroids versus control on the sexual function composite score in symptomatic or early postmenopausal women (SMD 1.32, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.47; 1 study, 883 women; very low‐quality evidence) and of their effect in unselected postmenopausal women (SMD 0.46, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.85; 1 study, 105 women; very low‐quality evidence).

We are uncertain of the effect of SERMs versus control on the sexual function composite score in symptomatic or early postmenopausal women (MD −1.00, 95% CI −2.00 to ‐0.00; 1 study, 215 women; very low‐quality evidence) and of their effect in unselected postmenopausal women (MD 2.24, 95% 1.37 to 3.11 2 studies, 1525 women, I² = 1%, low‐quality evidence).

We are uncertain of the effect of SERMs combined with estrogen versus control on the sexual function composite score in symptomatic or early postmenopausal women (SMD 0.22, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.43; 1 study, 542 women; very low‐quality evidence) and of their effect in unselected postmenopausal women (SMD 2.79, 95% CI 2.41 to 3.18; 1 study, 272 women; very low‐quality evidence).

The observed heterogeneity in many analyses may be caused by variations in the interventions and doses used, and by different tools used for assessment.

Author/s:

Lara, Lucia A, Cartagena-Ramos, Denisse, Figueiredo, Jaqueline Bp

Pelvic organ prolapse

Rowan Hutchins — Tue, 26 Sep 2023 05:00:00 +0000

Date Added:

September 26, 2023

Journal/Publication:

CMAJ

Publisher:

CMA

Publication Date:

August 8, 2023

Issue:

Volume:

195

URL:

Pelvic organ prolapse

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.230089

Keywords

pelvic organ

female

postmenopause

PMID (1):

37553149

MeSH

Pelvic Organ Prolapse* / surgery

A concise summary of the symptoms, consequences, and management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Free full text

View

Prolapse is found in 41%–50% of adult females, with symptoms of pelvic pressure and vaginal bulge sensation reported by 3%–6% of adult females. Prolapse is diagnosed and staged with physical examination based on the maximum descent of vaginal tissue (anterior, posterior or apex) on Valsalva manoeuvre. Symptoms commonly begin when the bulge reaches within 0.5 cm of the vaginal opening. Imaging is not routinely needed. Risk factors include increasing age, parity, a history of vaginal delivery, obesity, constipation, postmenopausal status and connective tissue disorders.

Author/s:

Lee, Patricia E., Mcleod, Laura

Hormone Therapy in Postmenopausal Persons: Primary Prevention of Chronic Conditions

Aubrey Delammermore — Sun, 06 Nov 2022 05:00:00 +0000

Date Added:

November 6, 2022

Journal/Publication:

JAMA

Publisher:

American Medical Association

Publication Date:

November 1, 2022

Issue:

Volume:

328

Pages:

1740-1746

URL:

Hormone Therapy in Postmenopausal Persons: Primary Prevention of Chronic Conditions

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.1001/jama.2022.18625

Keywords

Retrospective Studies

postmenopause

Chronic Disease

hormone therapy

Recommendation Statement

PMID (1):

36318127

MeSH

The USPSTF recommends against using estrogen, progesterone, or combinations of the two in postmenopausal women in an attempt to prevent the development of chronic health problems. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Free full text

View

Importance: Menopause is defined as the cessation of a person's menstrual cycle. It is defined retrospectively, 12 months after the final menstrual period. Perimenopause, or the menopausal transition, is the few-year time period preceding a person's final menstrual period and is characterized by increasing menstrual cycle length variability and periods of amenorrhea, and often symptoms such as vasomotor dysfunction. The prevalence and incidence of most chronic diseases (eg, cardiovascular disease, cancer, osteoporosis, and fracture) increase with age, and US persons who reach menopause are expected on average to live more than another 30 years.

Objective: To update its 2017 recommendation, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a systematic review to evaluate the benefits and harms of systemic (ie, oral or transdermal) hormone therapy for the prevention of chronic conditions in postmenopausal persons and whether outcomes vary by age or by timing of intervention after menopause.

Population: Asymptomatic postmenopausal persons who are considering hormone therapy for the primary prevention of chronic medical conditions.

Evidence assessment: The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that the use of combined estrogen and progestin for the primary prevention of chronic conditions in postmenopausal persons with an intact uterus has no net benefit. The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that the use of estrogen alone for the primary prevention of chronic conditions in postmenopausal persons who have had a hysterectomy has no net benefit.

Recommendation: The USPSTF recommends against the use of combined estrogen and progestin for the primary prevention of chronic conditions in postmenopausal persons. (D recommendation) The USPSTF recommends against the use of estrogen alone for the primary prevention of chronic conditions in postmenopausal persons who have had a hysterectomy. (D recommendation).

Author/s:

US Preventative Services task Force, Mangione, C. M., Barry, M. J., Nicholson, W. K., Cabana, M., Caughey, A. B., Chelmow, D., Coker, T. R., Davis, E. M., Donahue, K. E., Jaén, C. R., Kubik, M., Li, L., Ogedegbe, G., Pbert, L., Ruiz, J. M., Stevermer, J., Wong, J. B.

Type and timing of menopausal hormone therapy and breast cancer risk: individual participant meta-analysis of the worldwide epidemiological evidence

John Bayhi — Sat, 31 Aug 2019 15:40:18 +0000

Date Added:

August 31, 2019

Journal/Publication:

The Lancet

Publisher:

Elsevier Ltd.

Publication Date:

August 29, 2019

URL:

Type and timing of menopausal hormone therapy and breast cancer risk: individual participant meta-analysis of the worldwide epidemiological evidence

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31709-X

Keywords

MeSH

The relevant information for advising individual patients is covered in the Summary Interpretation section and the last two paragraphs of the Discussion (end of paper).

Free full text

View

Summary

Background

Published findings on breast cancer risk associated with different types of menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) are inconsistent, with limited information on long-term effects. We bring together the epidemiological evidence, published and unpublished, on these associations, and review the relevant randomised evidence.

Methods

Principal analyses used individual participant data from all eligible prospective studies that had sought information on the type and timing of MHT use; the main analyses are of individuals with complete information on this. Studies were identified by searching many formal and informal sources regularly from Jan 1, 1992, to Jan 1, 2018. Current users were included up to 5 years (mean 1·4 years) after last-reported MHT use. Logistic regression yielded adjusted risk ratios (RRs) comparing particular groups of MHT users versus never users.

Findings

During prospective follow-up, 108 647 postmenopausal women developed breast cancer at mean age 65 years (SD 7); 55 575 (51%) had used MHT. Among women with complete information, mean MHT duration was 10 years (SD 6) in current users and 7 years (SD 6) in past users, and mean age was 50 years (SD 5) at menopause and 50 years (SD 6) at starting MHT. Every MHT type, except vaginal oestrogens, was associated with excess breast cancer risks, which increased steadily with duration of use and were greater for oestrogen-progestagen than oestrogen-only preparations. Among current users, these excess risks were definite even during years 1–4 (oestrogen-progestagen RR 1·60, 95% CI 1·52–1·69; oestrogen-only RR 1·17, 1·10–1·26), and were twice as great during years 5–14 (oestrogen-progestagen RR 2·08, 2·02–2·15; oestrogen-only RR 1·33, 1·28–1·37). The oestrogen-progestagen risks during years 5–14 were greater with daily than with less frequent progestagen use (RR 2·30, 2·21–2·40 vs 1·93, 1·84–2·01; heterogeneity p<0·0001). For a given preparation, the RRs during years 5–14 of current use were much greater for oestrogen-receptor-positive tumours than for oestrogen-receptor-negative tumours, were similar for women starting MHT at ages 40–44, 45–49, 50–54, and 55–59 years, and were attenuated by starting after age 60 years or by adiposity (with little risk from oestrogen-only MHT in women who were obese). After ceasing MHT, some excess risk persisted for more than 10 years; its magnitude depended on the duration of previous use, with little excess following less than 1 year of MHT use.

Interpretation

If these associations are largely causal, then for women of average weight in developed countries, 5 years of MHT, starting at age 50 years, would increase breast cancer incidence at ages 50–69 years by about one in every 50 users of oestrogen plus daily progestagen preparations; one in every 70 users of oestrogen plus intermittent progestagen preparations; and one in every 200 users of oestrogen-only preparations. The corresponding excesses from 10 years of MHT would be about twice as great.

Funding

Cancer Research UK and the Medical Research Council.

Author/s:

Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer

Long-Term Drug Therapy and Drug Holidays for Osteoporosis Fracture Prevention: A Systematic Review

Brian Desmarais — Thu, 23 May 2019 13:11:29 +0000

Date Added:

May 23, 2019

Journal/Publication:

Annals of Internal Medicine

Publisher:

U.S. Department of Health & Human Services

Publication Date:

April 23, 2019

URL:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Long-Term%20Drug%20Therapy%20and%20Dru…

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

DOI (1):

10.7326/M19-0533.

Keywords

MeSH

Raloxifene Hydrochloride

Databases, Bibliographic

National Institutes of Health (U.S.)

Information Storage and Retrieval

bias

Health Services Research

Femoral Fractures

This is a systematic review of current evidence regarding medications for post-menopausal osteoporosis. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Free full text

View

BACKGROUND:

Optimal long-term osteoporosis drug treatment (ODT) is uncertain.

PURPOSE:

To summarize the effects of long-term ODT and ODT discontinuation and holidays.

DATA SOURCES:

Electronic bibliographic databases (January 1995 to October 2018) and systematic review bibliographies.

STUDY SELECTION:

48 studies that enrolled men or postmenopausal women aged 50 years or older who were being investigated or treated for fracture prevention, compared long-term ODT (>3 years) versus control or ODT continuation versus discontinuation, reported incident fractures (for trials) or harms (for trials and observational studies), and had low or medium risk of bias (ROB).

DATA EXTRACTION:

Two reviewers independently rated ROB and strength of evidence (SOE). One extracted data; another verified accuracy.

DATA SYNTHESIS:

Thirty-five trials (9 unique studies) and 13 observational studies (11 unique studies) had low or medium ROB. In women with osteoporosis, 4 years of alendronate reduced clinical fractures (hazard ratio [HR], 0.64 [95% CI, 0.50 to 0.82]) and radiographic vertebral fractures (both moderate SOE), whereas 4 years of raloxifene reduced vertebral but not nonvertebral fractures. In women with osteopenia or osteoporosis, 6 years of zoledronic acid reduced clinical fractures (HR, 0.73 [CI, 0.60 to 0.90]), including nonvertebral fractures (high SOE) and clinical vertebral fractures (moderate SOE). Long-term bisphosphonates increased risk for 2 rare harms: atypical femoral fractures (low SOE) and osteonecrosis of the jaw (mostly low SOE). In women with unspecified osteoporosis status, 5 to 7 years of hormone therapyreduced clinical fractures (high SOE), including hip fractures (moderate SOE), but increased serious harms. After 3 to 5 years of treatment, bisphosphonate continuation versus discontinuation reduced radiographic vertebral fractures (zoledronic acid; low SOE) and clinical vertebral fractures (alendronate; moderate SOE) but not nonvertebral fractures (low SOE).

LIMITATION:

No trials studied men, clinical fracture data were sparse, methods for estimating harms were heterogeneous, and no trials compared sequential treatments or different durations of drug holidays.

CONCLUSION:

Long-term alendronate and zoledronic acid therapies reduce fracture risk in women with osteoporosis. Long-termbisphosphonate treatment may increase risk for rare adverse events, and continuing treatment beyond 3 to 5 years may reduce risk for vertebral fractures. Long-term hormone therapy reduces hip fracture risks but has serious harms.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE:

National Institutes of Health and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (PROSPERO: CRD42018087006).

Author/s:

Fink, Howard A., MacDonald, Roderick, Forte, Mary L., Rosebush, Christina E., Ensrud, Kristine E., Schousboe, John T., Nelson, Victoria A., Ullman, Kristen, Butler, M., Olson, Carin M., Taylor, Brent C., Brasure, Michelle, Wilt, Timothy J.

Efficacy of Vaginal Estradiol or Vaginal Moisturizer vs Placebo for Treating Postmenopausal Vulvovaginal Symptoms: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Jeffrey Wilson — Wed, 22 Aug 2018 17:00:33 +0000

Date Added:

November 1, 2018

Journal/Publication:

JAMA Internal Medicine

Publisher:

American Medical Association

Publication Date:

May 1, 2018

Issue:

Volume:

178

Pages:

681-690

URL:

Efficacy of Vaginal Estradiol or Vaginal Moisturizer vs Placebo for Treating Postmenopausal Vulvovaginal Symptoms: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Type:

Clinical Research Results

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.0116

Keywords

postmenopause

estradiol

moisturizing gel

PMID (1):

29554173

MeSH

postmenopause

vaginal creams, foams, and jellies

estradiol

In this RCT, vaginal estradiol was no more effective than moisturizing gel for postmenopausal vaginal symptoms.

Commercial full text (fees may apply)

View

IMPORTANCE:

Nearly half of postmenopausal women report bothersome vulvovaginal symptoms, but few data support the efficacy of 2 commonly recommended treatments.

OBJECTIVE:

To compare the efficacy of a low-dose vaginal estradiol tablet and a vaginal moisturizer, each vs placebo, for treatment of moderate-to-severe postmenopausal vulvovaginal symptoms.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:

This 12-week multicenter randomized clinical trial enrolled postmenopausal women with moderate to severe symptoms of vulvovaginal itching, pain, dryness, irritation, or pain with penetration.

INTERVENTIONS:

Vaginal 10-μg estradiol tablet (daily for 2 weeks, then twice weekly) plus placebo gel (3 times a week) (n = 102) vs placebo tablet plus vaginal moisturizer (n = 100) vs dual placebo (n = 100).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:

The main outcome was decrease in severity (0-3) of most bothersome symptom (MBS) between enrollment and 12 weeks. Additional measures included a composite vaginal symptom score, Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) score (2-36), modified Female Sexual Distress Score-Revised item 1, treatment satisfaction and meaningful benefit, Vaginal Maturation Index, and vaginal pH.

RESULTS:

The 302 women had a mean (SD) age of 61 (4) years and were primarily white (267 [88%]), college educated (200 [66%]), and sexually active (245 [81%]). Most women (294 [97%]) provided data for the primary analysis. The most commonly reported MBS was pain with vaginal penetration (182 [60%]), followed by vulvovaginal dryness (63 [21%]). Mean baseline MBS severity was similar between treatment groups: estradiol, 2.4 (95% CI, 2.3 to 2.6); moisturizer, 2.5 (95% CI, 2.3 to 2.6); placebo, 2.5 (95% CI, 2.4 to 2.6). All treatment groups had similar mean reductions in MBS severity over 12 weeks: estradiol, -1.4 (95% CI, -1.6 to -1.2); moisturizer, -1.2 (95% CI, -1.4 to -1.0); and placebo, -1.3 (95% CI, -1.5 to -1.1). No significant differences were seen between estradiol (P = .25) or moisturizer (P = .31) compared with placebo. Mean total FSFI improvement was similar between estradiol (5.4; 95% CI, 4.0 to 6.9) and placebo (4.5; 95% CI, 2.8 to 6.1) (P = .64), and between moisturizer (3.1; 95% CI, 1.7 to 4.5) and placebo (P = .17).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:

Our results suggest that neither prescribed vaginal estradiol tablet nor over-the-counter vaginal moisturizer provides additional benefit over placebo vaginal tablet and gel in reducing postmenopausal vulvovaginal symptoms.

Author/s:

Mitchell, Caroline M., Reed, Susan D., Diem, Susan, Larson, Joseph C., Newton, Katherine M., Ensrud, Kristine E., LaCroix, Andrea Z., Caan, Bette, Guthrie, Katherine A.