Hormone Replacement Therapy

What Is Breast Density and How Common Are Dense Breasts?
Breast density refers to the amount of dense tissue (like glands and fibrous tissue) you have compared to fatty tissue in your breasts. Dense breasts are very common. About half of all women have them.

Why Does Breast Density Matter?
Dense breast tissue makes it harder for doctors to see cancer on a mammogram because both appear white on the image. Even with dense breasts, mammograms are still the best screening tool for most women and can find most breast cancers. Having dense breasts also slightly increases your chance of getting breast cancer, but not enough on its own to put you in the high-risk category.

How Do I Know If I Am at High Risk for Breast Cancer?
Doctors look at your overall risk—not just breast density—to decide if you are at high risk. Some other important risk factors, beyond breast density, include:

Age: Most breast cancers happen in women older than 50 years.

Family history: Having a close relative (like a parent, sibling, or child) with breast or ovarian cancer—especially if they were diagnosed before 50 years of age—raises your risk.

Certain inherited genes: Some gene variations, like in BRCA1 or BRCA2, raise risk considerably.

Past breast biopsies: Some biopsy results, such as atypical cells, can increase your risk.

Hormone use: Using hormone replacement therapy may slightly raise your risk.

Doctors use special tools (called risk calculators) to estimate how likely you are to develop a disease. They give you a score, like a percentage. If your chance of getting breast cancer in your lifetime is 20% or more, you might be called high risk. Every woman should get a breast cancer risk assessment. It helps you and your doctor decide if you may benefit from extra screening tests.

What Should I Do If I Have Dense Breasts?
Talk to your doctor about all of your personal risk factors—not just breast density. Most women with dense breasts do not need extra tests beyond regular mammograms. If you are at high risk, your doctor may recommend extra screening tests, such as MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) or ultrasonography (this test can be used if MRI is not available, but it is not as accurate). Extra screening tests may lead to more false alarms (finding something that is not cancer), finding cancers that will not cause any problems (this is called overdiagnosis), more tests or treatments that you do not really need, higher costs that might not be paid by insurance, and more worry or stress.

Dense breasts are common and not usually something to worry about. Mammograms are the best way to screen for breast cancer. Extra tests are only needed if you have other risk factors that put you at higher risk. It is important to think about the pros and cons of extra screening based on your personal risk and values. Your doctor can help guide this decision.

Author/s:

Hannah S. Milch, Joann G. Elmore

Risk for Serious Infection With Low-Dose Glucocorticoids in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis

Brian Desmarais — Tue, 29 Sep 2020 13:45:07 +0000

Date Added:

September 29, 2020

Journal/Publication:

Annals of Internal Medicine

Publication Date:

September 22, 2020

URL:

Risk for Serious Infection With Low-Dose Glucocorticoids in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis

Type:

Clinical Research Results

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.7326/M20-1594

Keywords

Arthritis, Rheumatoid

MeSH

Antirheumatic Agents

glucocorticoids

Hormone Replacement Therapy

behavior therapy

Infections

In this 1-year cohort study, patients with rheumatoid arthritis who, in addition to DMARDS, took an oral corticosteroid were more likely to be hospitalized with a serious infection even if the dose of CS was very low (5mg a day of prednisone). One has to wonder if the same is true in patients without RA. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Commercial full text (fees may apply)

View

Abstract

Background: Low-dose glucocorticoids are frequently used for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and other chronic conditions, but the safety of long-term use remains uncertain.

Objective: To quantify the risk for hospitalized infection with long-term use of low-dose glucocorticoids in patients with RA receiving stable disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) therapy.

Design: Retrospective cohort study.

Setting: Medicare claims data and Optum's deidentified Clinformatics Data Mart database from 2006 to 2015.

Patients: Adults with RA receiving a stable DMARD regimen for more than 6 months.

Measurements: Associations between glucocorticoid dose (none, ≤5 mg/d, >5 to 10 mg/d, and >10 mg/d) and hospitalized infection were evaluated using inverse probability-weighted analyses, with 1-year cumulative incidence predicted from weighted models.

Results: 247 297 observations were identified among 172 041 patients in Medicare and 58 279 observations among 44 118 patients in Optum. After 6 months of stable DMARD use, 47.1% of Medicare patients and 39.5% of Optum patients were receiving glucocorticoids. The 1-year cumulative incidence of hospitalized infection in Medicare patients not receiving glucocorticoids was 8.6% versus 11.0% (95% CI, 10.6% to 11.5%) for glucocorticoid dose of 5 mg or less per day, 14.4% (CI, 13.8% to 15.1%) for greater than 5 to 10 mg/d, and 17.7% (CI, 16.5% to 19.1%) for greater than 10 mg/d (all P < 0.001 vs. no glucocorticoids). The 1-year cumulative incidence of hospitalized infection in Optum patients not receiving glucocorticoids was 4.0% versus 5.2% (CI, 4.7% to 5.8%) for glucocorticoid dose of 5 mg or less per day, 8.1% (CI, 7.0% to 9.3%) for greater than 5 to 10 mg/d, and 10.6% (CI, 8.5% to 13.2%) for greater than 10 mg/d (all P < 0.001 vs. no glucocorticoids).

Limitation: Potential for residual confounding and misclassification of glucocorticoid dose.

Conclusion: In patients with RA receiving stable DMARD therapy, glucocorticoids were associated with a dose-dependent increase in the risk for serious infection, with small but significant risks even at doses of 5 mg or less per day. Clinicians should balance the benefits of low-dose glucocorticoids with this potential risk.

Primary funding source: National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases.

Author/s:

George, Michael D., Bake, Joshua F., Winthrop, Kevin, Hsu, Jesse Y., Wu, Qufei, Chen, Lang

Association of Subclinical Hypothyroidism and Cardiovascular Disease With Mortality

Brian Desmarais — Sun, 09 Feb 2020 19:30:41 +0000

Date Added:

February 9, 2020

Journal/Publication:

Journal of the American Medical Association Network

Publication Date:

February 2, 2020

URL:

Association of Subclinical Hypothyroidism and Cardiovascular Disease With Mortality

Type:

Clinical Research Results

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.20745

Keywords

subclinical hypothyroidism

MeSH

hypothyroidism

hyperthyroidism

Hormone Replacement Therapy

ablation techniques

And the controversies regarding subclinical hypothyroidism continue. James W. Mold, MD, MP

Free full text

View

Importance Subclinical hypothyroidism is a common clinical entity among US adults associated in some studies with an increase in the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and mortality. However, the extent to which CVD mediates the association between elevated serum thyrotropin (TSH) and mortality has not yet been well established or sufficiently quantified.

Objective To elucidate the extent to which subclinical hypothyroidism, elevated serum TSH and normal serum free thyroxine, or high-normal TSH concentrations (ie, upper normative–range TSH concentrations) are associated with mortality through CVD among US adults.

Design, Setting, and Participants This cohort study relied on representative samples of US adults enrolled in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey in 2001 to 2002, 2007 to 2008, 2009 to 2010, and 2011 to 2012 and their mortality data through 2015. Data were analyzed from January to August 2019.

Main Outcomes and Measures Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to investigate associations between the TSH concentration category (subclinical hypothyroidism or tertiles of serum TSH concentrations within the reference range; low-normal TSH, 0.34-1.19 mIU/L; middle-normal TSH, 1.20-1.95 mIU/L; and high-normal TSH, 1.96-5.60 mIU/L) and all-cause mortality. Mediation analysis was used within the counterfactual framework to estimate natural direct associations (not through CVD) and indirect associations (through CVD).

Results Of 9020 participants, 4658 (51.6%) were men; the mean (SD) age was 49.4 (17.8) years. Throughout follow-up (median [interquartile range], 7.3 [5.4-8.3] years), serum thyroid function test results consistent with subclinical hypothyroidism and high-normal TSH concentrations were both associated with increased all-cause mortality (subclinical hypothyroidism: hazard ratio, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.14-3.19; high-normal TSH: hazard ratio, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.07-1.73) compared with the middle-normal TSH group. Cardiovascular disease mediated 14.3% and 5.9% of the associations of subclinical hypothyroidism and high-normal TSH with all-cause mortality, respectively, with the CVD mediation being most pronounced in women (7.5%-13.7% of the association) and participants aged 60 years and older (6.0%-14.8% of the association).

Conclusions and Relevance In this study, CVD mediated the associations of subclinical hypothyroidism and high-normal TSH concentrations with all-cause mortality in the US general population. Further studies are needed to examine the clinical benefit of thyroid hormone replacement therapy targeted to a middle-normal TSH concentration or active CVD screening for people with elevated TSH concentrations.

Author/s:

Inoue, K., Ritz, B., Brent, G.A.