The effects of different dosages of oestrogen on the bone mineral density of postmenopausal Hong Kong Chinese women: randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of different dosages of conjugated equine oestrogen on the bone mineral density of postmenopausal Hong Kong Chinese women. DESIGN: A 1-year three-arm randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Out-patient setting at a governmental hospital in Hong Kong. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred and five women aged 45 years or older, in whom menopause had occurred not more than 2 years previously. INTERVENTION: Women were assigned randomly to treatment with conjugated equine oestrogen 0.625 mg/d or 0.3 mg/d, or no oestrogen. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Bone mineral density. RESULTS: Women who were assigned to the control group showed a significant reduction in bone mineral density in both the femoral neck and the lumbar spine (3.6%; P=0.001 and 4.0%; P<0.001, respectively). Those who received oestrogen 0.3 mg/d showed a significant reduction (3.9%; P=0.010) and a non-significant reduction (2.2%; P=0.141) in their lumbar spine and femoral neck bone mineral densities, respectively. In contrast, there was little change in the spinal and femoral neck bone mineral densities in women who received estrogen 0.625 mg/d. CONCLUSION: The minimum effective dosage of conjugated equine oestrogen to prevent osteoporosis in postmenopausal Hong Kong Chinese women is 0.625 mg/d. The bone mineral density, however, was maintained but not increased.

Is in-patient management of diastolic blood pressure between 90 and 100 mm Hg during pregnancy necessary?

A randomised controlled trial was performed at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital to compare the effects and acceptance of routine in-patient versus out-patient management of diastolic blood pressure between 90 and 100 mm Hg in pregnant women. There were no significant differences in the establishment of the diagnosis of hypertension, development of severe hypertension or proteinuric hypertension, the number of women requiring obstetric interventions, or the neonatal outcome between the two groups. Antenatal hospital stay for the in-patient group, however, was more than twice as long as for the out-patient group (difference in mean stay, 3.7 days; 95% confidence interval, 1.3-6.2). The number of hospitalisations in the in-patient group was almost four times greater than that in the out-patient group (difference in mean number of hospitalisations, 1.7; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-2.2). The two groups did not differ in their levels of satisfaction of the overall management of blood pressure. Nevertheless, a greater proportion of women preferred to choose the same type of care among the out-patient group than among the in-patient group if they had hypertension in a future pregnancy (83.7% versus 51.2%; P<0.001). More women were dissatisfied about the number of admissions than on the frequency of out-patient care (40.5% versus 16.3%; P<0.001). We conclude that in-patient care, day care, or home monitoring should be individualised.