Menopausal hormone therapy (HT) was widely used in the past, but with the publication of seminal primary and secondary prevention trials that reported an excess cardiovascular risk with combined estrogen-progestin, HT use declined significantly. However, over the past 20 years, much has been learned about the relationship between the timing of HT use with respect to age and time since menopause, HT route of administration, and cardiovascular disease risk. Four leading medical societies recommend HT for the treatment of menopausal women with bothersome menopausal symptoms. In this context, this review, led by the American College of Cardiology Cardiolovascular Disease in Women Committee, along with leading gynecologists, women’s health internists, and endocrinologists, aims to provide guidance on HT use, including the selection of patients and HT formulation with a focus on caring for symptomatic women with cardiovascular disease risk.

The menstrual cycle is a reproductive vital sign and provides insight into hormonal imbalance as well as pregnancy. The significance of estrogen, however, extends beyond fertility and plays a role on tissues and organs throughout the body. Functional hypothalamic amenorrhea is a common form of secondary amenorrhea resulting in estrogen deficiency in young premenopausal women. While reversible, the cause of this disorder is related to psychological stress, excessive exercise, disordered eating, or a combination of these factors resulting in suppression of the hypothalamic–pituitary–ovarian axis. The resulting loss of estrogen has profound effects on many systems throughout the body, including cardiac, skeletal, psychological, and reproductive. Often, these young women are “walking well,” as they do not have bothersome symptoms of low estrogen and are unaware of the consequences of estrogen deficiency. This review focuses on the health consequences of hypothalamic amenorrhea, current research, and available treatment options.

Background: Previous studies have reported an association between the timing of menarche and cardiovascular disease ( CVD ). However, emerging studies have not examined the timing of menarche in relation to role of estrogen over a lifetime and major adverse cardiac events ( MACE ). Methods and Results: A total of 648 women without surgical menopause undergoing coronary angiography for suspected ischemia in the WISE (Women's Ischemia Syndrome Evaluation) study were evaluated at baseline and followed for 6 years (median) to assess major adverse CVD outcomes. MACE was defined as the first occurrence of all‐cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or heart failure hospitalization. Age at menarche was self‐reported and categorized (≤10, 11, 12, 13, 14, ≥15 years) with age 12 as reference. Total estrogen time and supra–total estrogen time were calculated. Cox regression analysis was performed adjusting for CVD risk factors. Baseline age was 57.9 ± 12 years (mean ± SD ), body mass index was 29.5 ± 6.5 kg/m ² , total estrogen time was 32.2 ± 8.9 years, and supra–total estrogen time was 41.4 ± 8.8 years. MACE occurred in 172 (27%), and its adjusted regression model was J‐shaped. Compared with women with menarche at age 12 years, the adjusted MACE hazard ratio for menarche at ≤10 years was 4.53 (95% CI 2.13‐9.63); and at ≥15 years risk for MACE was 2.58 (95% CI , 1.28‐5.21). Conclusions: History of early or late menarche was associated with a higher risk for adverse CVD outcomes. These findings highlight age at menarche as a potential screening tool for women at risk of adverse CVD events. Clinical Trial Registration: URL : http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT 00000554.

Context: This mini-review provides an overview of menopausal hormone therapy (HT) and cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk, with a focus on the role of hormone formulation, dose, and route of delivery. Methods: This summary is based on authors’ knowledge in the field of menopausal HT and supplemented by a PubMed search using the terms “menopause hormone therapy,” “transdermal,” “estradiol,” “conjugated estrogens,” “bioidentical,” “cardiovascular disease,” “lipoproteins,” “glucose,” “progestogens,” “low dose.” Results: Available evidence indicates that oral unopposed estrogens have a favorable effect on lipoprotein levels, glycemia, insulin, and CVD risk; however, the addition of progestogens blunts the lipid-related effects. The progestogen with the smallest attenuating effect is micronized progesterone. Transdermal estrogens have less effect on coagulation, inflammation, and lipids than oral estrogens and observational studies suggest they pose a lower risk of venous thromboembolism and stroke than oral estrogens. Clinical effects of hormones were not consistently dose dependent. Conclusions: Although HT continues to have an important role in menopause management, it is not recommended for primary or secondary CVD prevention. Different formulations, doses, and routes of delivery of HT have different effects on cardiometabolic markers and risks of clinical CVD events. However, long-term trials evaluating clinical outcomes with transdermal and other alternate HT regimens are limited.

Objective Research comparing hormone therapy (HT) doses, regimens, and routes of delivery in relation to cardiovascular disease (CVD) outcomes has been limited. This study directly compared different estrogen doses, routes of delivery, and HT formulations in postmenopausal women in relation to the risk of coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke, CVD mortality, total CVD, and all-cause mortality. Methods The Women’s Health Initiative Observational Study is a multicenter prospective cohort study that was conducted at 40 US sites. Analyses included 93,676 postmenopausal women aged 50 to 79 years at study entry who were recruited from September 1994 to December 1998, with annual follow-up through August 14, 2009. Results The mean follow-up was 10.4 years. In direct comparisons, oral estradiol was associated with lower hazard ratios (HRs) for stroke than oral conjugated equine estrogens (CEE; HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.40-1.02), but statistical power was limited. Similarly, transdermal estradiol was associated with a moderate but nonsignificantly lower risk of CHD compared with oral CEE (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.37-1.06). For other outcomes, comparisons revealed no appreciable differences by estrogen doses, formulations, or routes of delivery. Absolute risks of CVD events and all-cause mortality were markedly lower in younger women compared with older women. Conclusions In direct comparisons, various HT doses and regimens are associated with similar rates of cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality. However, oral estradiol may be associated with a lower risk of stroke, and transdermal estradiol may be associated with a lower risk of CHD, compared with conventional-dose oral CEE. Additional research is needed to confirm these hypotheses.