Background

Prolonged sitting and physical inactivity are associated with higher circulating levels of estrogens. It is unknown whether these risk factors are associated with circulating androgens/androgen metabolites, another set of hormones implicated in the etiology of cancers in postmenopausal women.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of 1,782 postmenopausal women in the Women's Health Initiative Observational Study. Serum concentrations of 12 androgens/androgen metabolites were quantified using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Physical activity and sitting time were self-reported at baseline. We performed linear regression to estimate geometric means (GM) of androgen/androgen metabolite concentrations (pmol/L) according to physical activity and sitting time, adjusting for potential confounders and stratified by menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) use.

Results

Physical activity (≥15 vs. 0 MET-h/wk) was inversely associated with estrogen-to-androgen ratios among never/former MHT users (adj-GM = 37.5 vs. 49.6 unconjugated estrone:androstenedione; 20.2 vs. 30.3 unconjugated estradiol:testosterone; all P _trend ≤ 0.03) but was not associated among current MHT users. Prolonged sitting (≥10 vs. ≤5 h/d) was positively associated with these ratios among both never/former (adj-GM = 44.2 vs. 38.3, P _trend = 0.10; adj-GM = 23.4 vs. 20.2, P _trend = 0.17; respectively) and current MHT users (adj-GM = 197 vs. 147; 105 vs. 75.5; respectively; all P _trend ≤0.02), but the associations were statistically significant among current MHT users only. The associations persisted after adjustment for BMI. After adjustment for adrenal androgens, physical activity and sitting were not associated with androgen metabolites.

Conclusions

Physical activity and sitting were associated with serum estrogen-to-androgen ratios but not androgen metabolites.

Impact

This study contributes to our understanding of the link between physical activity, sitting, and cancer risk in postmenopausal women.

Background

Recommended systolic blood pressure targets often do not consider the relationship of low diastolic blood pressure (DBP) levels with cardiovascular disease (CVD) and all-cause mortality risk, which is especially relevant for older people with concurrent comorbidities. We examined the relationship of DBP levels to CVD and all-cause mortality in older women in the Women's Health Initiative Long Life Study (WHI-LLS).

Methods

The study sample included 7,875 women (mean age: 79 years) who underwent a blood pressure measurement at an in-person home visit conducted in 2012-2013. CVD and all-cause mortality were centrally adjudicated. Hazard ratios (HRs) were obtained from adjusted Cox proportional hazards models.

Results

After 5 years follow-up, all-cause mortality occurred in 18.4% of women. Compared with a DBP of 80 mm Hg, the fully adjusted HR for mortality was 1.33 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.04-1.71) for a DBP of 50 mm Hg and 1.67 (95% CI: 1.29-2.16) for a DBP of 100 mm Hg. The HRs for CVD were 1.14 (95% CI: 0.78-1.67) for a DBP of 50 mm Hg and HR 1.50 (95% CI: 1.03-2.17) for a DBP of 100 mm Hg. The nadir DBP associated with lowest mortality risk was 72 mm Hg overall.

Conclusions

In older women, consideration should be given to the potential adverse effects of low and high DBP. Low DBP may serve as a risk marker. DBP target levels between 68 and 75 mm Hg may avoid higher mortality risk.

OBJECTIVE: The menopausal transition results in a progressive decrease in circulating estrogen levels. Experimental evidence in rodents has indicated that estrogen depletion leads to a reduction of energy expenditure and physical activity. It is unclear whether treatment with estrogen therapy increases physical activity level in postmenopausal women. METHODS: A total of 27,327 postmenopausal women aged 50-79 years enrolled in the Womens Health Initiative randomized double-blind trials of menopausal hormone therapy. Self-reported leisure-time physical activity at baseline, and years 1, 3, and 6 was quantified as metabolic equivalents (MET)-h/wk. In each trial, comparison between intervention and placebo groups of changes in physical activity levels from baseline to follow-up assessment was examined using linear regression models. RESULTS: In the CEE-alone trial, the increase in MET-h/wk was greater in the placebo group compared with the intervention group at years 3 ( P = 0.002) and 6 ( P < 0.001). Similar results were observed when analyses were restricted to women who maintained an adherence rate ≥80% during the trial or who were physically active at baseline. In the CEE + MPA trial, the primary analyses did not show significant differences between groups, but the increase of MET-h/wk was greater in the placebo group compared with the intervention group at year 3 ( P = 0.004) among women with an adherence rate ≥80%. CONCLUSIONS: The results from this clinical trial do not support the hypothesis that estrogen treatment increases physical activity among postmenopausal women.