Search

“Race” and “ethnicity” are socially constructed terms, not based on biology - in contrast to biologic ancestry and genetic admixture - and are flexible, contested, and unstable concepts, often driven by power. Although individuals may self-identify with a given race and ethnic group, as multidimensional beings exposed to differential life influencing factors that contribute to disease risk, additional social determinants of health (SDOH) should be explored to understand the relationship of race or ethnicity to health. Potential health effects of structural racism, defined as “the structures, policies, practices, and norms resulting in differential access to goods, services, and opportunities of society by “race,” have been largely ignored in medical research. The Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) was expected to enroll a racially and ethnically diverse cohort of older women at 40 U.S. clinical centers between 1993 and 1998; yet, key information on the racial and ethnic make-up of the WHI cohort of 161,808 women was limited until a 2020–2021 Task Force was charged by the WHI Steering Committee to better characterize the WHI cohort and develop recommendations for WHI investigators who want to include “race” and/or “ethnicity” in papers and presentations. As the lessons learned are of relevance to most cohorts, the essence of the WHI Race and Ethnicity Language and Data Interpretation Guide is presented in this paper. Recommendations from the WHI Race and Ethnicity Language and Data Interpretation Guide include: Studies should be designed to include all populations and researchers should actively, purposefully and with cultural-relevance, commit to recruiting a diverse sample; Researchers should collect robust data on race, ethnicity and SDOH variables that may intersect with participant identities, such as immigration status, country of origin, acculturation, current residence and neighborhood, religion; Authors should use appropriate terminology, based on a participant’s self-identified “race” and “ethnicity”, and provide clear rationale, including a conceptual framework, for including race and ethnicity in the analytic plan; Researchers should employ appropriate analytical methods, including mixed-methods, to study the relationship of these sociocultural variables to health; Authors should address how representative study participants are of the population to which results might apply, such as by age, race and ethnicity. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40695-021-00071-6.

Context The Women's Health Initiative (WHI) trial of estrogen plus progestin vs placebo was stopped early, after a mean 5.6 years of follow-up, because the overall health risks of hormone therapy exceeded its benefits. Objective To report health outcomes at 3 years (mean 2.4 years of follow-up) after the intervention was stopped. Design, Setting, and Participants The intervention phase was a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial of conjugated equine estrogens (CEE) 0.625 mg daily plus medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) 2.5 mg daily, in 16 608 women aged 50 through 79 years, recruited by 40 centers from 1993 to 1998. The postintervention phase commenced July 8, 2002, and included 15 730 women. Main Outcome Measures Semi-annual monitoring and outcomes ascertainment continued per trial protocol. The primary end points were coronary heart disease and invasive breast cancer. A global index summarizing the balance of risks and benefits included the 2 primary end points plus stroke, pulmonary embolism, endometrial cancer, colorectal cancer, hip fracture, and death due to other causes. Results The risk of cardiovascular events after the intervention was comparable by initial randomized assignments, 1.97% (annualized rate) in the CEE plus MPA (343 events) and 1.91% in the placebo group (323 events). A greater risk of malignancies occurred in the CEE plus MPA than in the placebo group (1.56% [n = 281] vs 1.26% [n = 218]; hazard ratio [HR], 1.24; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-1.48). More breast cancers were diagnosed in women who had been randomly assigned to receive CEE plus MPA vs placebo (0.42% [n = 79] vs 0.33% [n = 60]; HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.91-1.78) with a modest trend toward a lower HR during the follow-up after the intervention. All-cause mortality was somewhat higher in the CEE plus MPA than in the placebo group (1.20% [n = 233] vs 1.06% [n = 196]; HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.95-1.39). The global index of risks and benefits was unchanged from randomization through March 31, 2005 (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.03-1.21), indicating that the risks of CEE plus MPA exceed the benefits for chronic disease prevention. Conclusions The increased cardiovascular risks in the women assigned to CEE plus MPA during the intervention period were not observed after the intervention. A greater risk of fatal and nonfatal malignancies occurred after the intervention in the CEE plus MPA group and the global risk index was 12% higher in women randomly assigned to receive CEE plus MPA compared with placebo. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00000611

ContextThe Women's Health Initiative (WHI) trial of estrogen plus progestin was stopped early because of adverse effects, including an increased risk of stroke in the estrogen plus progestin group.ObjectiveTo assess the effect of estrogen plus progestin on ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke and in subgroups, and to determine whether the effect of estrogen plus progestin was modified by baseline levels of blood biomarkers.DesignMulticenter double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial involving 16 608 women aged 50 through 79 years with an average follow-up of 5.6 years. Baseline levels of blood-based markers of inflammation, thrombosis, and lipid levels were measured in the first 140 centrally confirmed stroke cases and 513 controls.InterventionsParticipants received 0.625 mg/d of conjugated equine estrogen plus 2.5 mg/d of medroxyprogesterone acetate (n = 8506) or placebo (n = 8102).Main Outcome MeasuresOverall strokes and stroke subtype and severity were centrally adjudicated by stroke neurologists.ResultsOne hundred fifty-one patients (1.8%) in the estrogen plus progestin and 107 (1.3%) in the placebo groups had strokes. Overall 79.8% of strokes were ischemic. For combined ischemic and hemorrhagic strokes, the intention-to-treat hazard ratio (HR) for estrogen plus progestin vs placebo was 1.31 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-1.68); with adjustment for adherence, the HR was 1.50 (95% CI, 1.08-2.08). The HR for ischemic stroke was 1.44 (95% CI, 1.09-1.90) and for hemorrhagic stroke, 0.82 (95% CI, 0.43-1.56). Point estimates of the HRs indicate that excess risk of all stroke was apparent in all age groups, in all categories of baseline stroke risk, and in women with and without hypertension, prior history of cardiovascular disease, use of hormones, statins, or aspirin. Other risk factors for stroke, including smoking, blood pressure, diabetes, lower use of vitamin C supplements, blood-based biomarkers of inflammation, higher white blood cell count, and higher hematocrit levels did not modify the effect of estrogen plus progestin on stroke risk.ConclusionsEstrogen plus progestin increases the risk of ischemic stroke in generally healthy postmenopausal women. Excess risk for all strokes attributed to estrogen plus progestin appeared to be present in all subgroups of women examined.