Many women remain understandably hesitant about hormone therapy. Much of this hesitation, along with the anxiety and fear that sometimes comes with it, can likely be traced back to one high-profile study. The Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) study, published on July 17, 2002, in JAMA, significantly changed how hormone therapy was viewed and prescribed. Its impact was immediate: use of menopausal hormone therapy dropped by nearly 80% worldwide.

Over time, it has become clear that the study’s findings were misunderstood and, in some cases, sensationalized through the media. Today, with the benefit of two decades of follow-up data and a growing body of research, we can revisit the WHI study with fresh eyes and a more complete understanding of what it did and did not tell us. Let’s break it down.

The 2002 WHI study background

The Women’s Health Initiative was a large, U.S. federally funded randomized controlled trial designed to evaluate whether hormone replacement therapy (HRT), now also referred to as menopause hormone therapy (MHT), could prevent chronic diseases such as cardiovascular disease, osteoporotic fractures, and certain cancers in healthy postmenopausal women. Essentially, for HRT to be used in disease prevention, the team needed to be sure it could prevent disease and not achieve that goal by introducing a new health concern.

Over 27,000 postmenopausal women aged 50 to 79 participated. With an average age of 63, most of the women were more than a decade past menopause. Participants were divided into two groups based on which form of HRT they would receive:

• Women with a uterus received a Premarin (conjugated equine estrogens or CEE) and medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA, a synthetic progestin, similar to progesterone)
• Women without a uterus received Premarin alone

There was also a calcium + vitamin D group and a low-fat diet group. We will focus on the hormonal groups in this article. 

Here’s what the study found: 

Premarin + MPA (women with a uterus): 

• Small increase in breast cancer risk
• Increased risk of stroke and blood clots
• Reduced risk of colorectal cancer and hip fractures
• No overall change in all-cause mortality during the initial follow-up 

*Trial halted in July 2002, three years early, as risks outweighed benefits.

Premarin alone (women without a uterus): 

• Significant reduction in breast cancer incidence and mortality over 20 years
• Higher risk of stroke, particularly in older participants
• Lower risk of fractures, particularly hip fractures
• No difference in all-cause mortality compared to placebo 

*Stopped March 2004 due to increased stroke risk and lack of chronic disease prevention benefit.

The WHI concluded that HRT is not advisable as a strategy to prevent chronic diseases in older postmenopausal women. This means that starting hormone therapy solely to protect against conditions like heart disease, fractures, or cancer in women who are already well past menopause (in their 60s-70s), carries more risks than benefits.

Putting the WHI in context

While the WHI’s goals and findings were scientifically grounded, the way the results were presented and reported led to confusion for many. Understandably, bold headlines and fear-based messaging often overshadow more nuanced insights. This is a reminder that headlines don’t often tell the whole story and you deserve information that reflects the full picture. To truly understand what the WHI did and didn’t show, we need to look at its findings in context.

The WHI was not designed to study symptom relief

A common misunderstanding about the WHI is the belief that its findings apply to all uses of hormone therapy, including the treatment of menopausal symptoms. 

In reality, the study had a very specific focus: it was designed to investigate whether hormone therapy could prevent chronic diseases in healthy, older postmenopausal women. It did not evaluate the benefits of hormone therapy for relieving symptoms like hot flashes, night sweats, or vaginal dryness; these symptoms can significantly impact quality of life and are often the primary reason women seek treatment.

Participants were older and far past menopause

The women enrolled in the WHI study were postmenopausal, with an average age of 63. Most had been through menopause for more than a decade before starting hormone therapy. This distinction is key because we now know that a woman’s age and how recently she entered menopause plays a major role in how her body responds to hormone therapy.

The current medical consensus recommends starting treatment within 10 years of menopause and before age 60, ideally between 45 and 55. According to the well-researched “Timing Hypothesis,” this timing helps ensure that benefits—especially for cardiovascular health—outweigh the risks for most healthy women.

When started at the right time, hormone therapy has been shown to be safe and effective at relieving vasomotor symptoms (like hot flashes and night sweats), improving sleep and mood, and treating genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM). These benefits can have a meaningful impact on a woman’s quality of life—physically, emotionally, and even sexually. 

Relative and absolute risk paint different pictures

Another powerful misunderstanding to come out of the WHI study was around breast cancer risk. In 2002, media headlines beamed with warnings that hormone therapy “increased breast cancer risk by 24%.” What wasn’t clearly communicated is that this figure refers to a relative risk. In absolute terms, the risk increase was just 0.1% per year, or 1 additional case per 1,000 women annually. 

In conversation with Dr. Rachel Rubin, Dr. Peter Attia uses a sharp analogy: “If I told you a treatment fixed 100 problems but increased your chance of getting hit by an asteroid by 100%, would you take it?”  The answer depends on your baseline risk; if your chance of getting hit by an asteroid is near zero, doubling it doesn’t mean much. Similarly, a 24% relative increase sounds terrifying, but when the baseline risk is low, the real-world impact is small.

In addition, this 24% increase came only from one group in the WHI: women who had a uterus and were randomized to take Premarin and MPA. Follow-up studies show that women in the estrogen-only group (Premarin alone) actually experienced a 23% lower risk of breast cancer incidence and a 44% lower risk of breast cancer mortality compared to placebo over 20 years. 

Despite all of this, the headline “HRT causes breast cancer” stuck around and became medical dogma for many women. This reminds us how easy it is for fear and misinformation to take hold when complex science is simplified into scary soundbites. But you have the power to look deeper, ask questions, and seek the whole story. Your health and well-being deserve thoughtful, honest information, not just headlines and we are here to help. 

Hormone therapy is not one-size-fits-all

Lastly, the WHI study treated hormone therapy as a uniform intervention. Every participant received the same hormone type, dose, and oral administration—Premarin with or without MPA—without accounting for individual differences such as age, health status, time since menopause, or specific symptoms.

Menopause is a deeply personal experience, and hormone therapy should be tailored to fit each woman’s unique needs, goals, and medical background. Growing evidence supports a personalized approach to hormone therapy, using factors like age, time since menopause, symptom severity, vascular health, breast cancer risk, biomarkers, and genetics to guide safer, more effective treatment. 

As part of this individualized care, most health professionals—including The Menopause Society—recommend that “formulation, dose, and route of administration for hormone therapy should be determined individually and reassessed periodically.” 

Moving forward with confidence

We now have the opportunity to reframe hormone therapy not as a last resort, but as a proactive tool to protect quality of life in midlife. While the 2002 WHI study raised important questions and understandably made many women hesitant, we now have nearly two decades of follow-up data and research that paint a more nuanced picture. Hormone therapy is not a one-size-fits-all treatment, nor is it something to be feared outright.

Like all medications, HRT carries some risks, without a doubt. However, these risks vary widely depending on factors such as the type of hormones used, delivery method, dosage, duration, and your individual health profile. For the benefits to outweigh the risks, hormone therapy should be personalized and all factors must be taken into account. If you’re considering hormone therapy, consult your healthcare professional or trust Coral’s medical team to find the right option for you. You can schedule a call with a Coral Menopause Care Coordinator to help assess your needs and guide next steps.

Disclaimer: The information provided here is for informational purposes only. It is not intended as medical advice. Always consult with your doctor or healthcare provider to determine what is best for your individual health needs.

References:

1. Cleveland Clinic. Cortisol: What It Is, Function, Symptoms & Levels. Cleveland Clinic. Published October 12, 2021. https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/22187-cortisol
2. Guidi J, Lucente M, Sonino N, Fava Giovanni A. Allostatic Load and Its Impact on Health: A Systematic Review. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics. 2020;90(1):1-17. doi:https://doi.org/10.1159/000510696
3. Harvard Health. Women and sleep: 5 simple steps to a better night’s rest. Harvard Health. Published November 16, 2015. https://www.health.harvard.edu/womens-health/women-and-sleep-one-simple-step-to-a-longer-healthier-life
4. Insight Network. insight timer. Insighttimer.com. Published 2020. https://insighttimer.com/
5. Mayo Clinic. 12 Tips to Tame Stress. Mayo Clinic. Published 2021. https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/stress-management/in-depth/stress-relievers/art-20047257
6. Mayo Clinic. Chronic stress puts your health at risk. Mayo Clinic. Published August 1, 2023. https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/stress-management/in-depth/stress/art-20046037
7. Mayo Clinic. Meditation: A simple, fast way to reduce stress. Mayo Clinic. Published December 14, 2023. https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/meditation/in-depth/meditation/art-20045858
8. Neophytou E, Manwell LA, Eikelboom R. Effects of excessive screen time on neurodevelopment, learning, memory, mental health, and neurodegeneration: A scoping review. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction. 2019;19(3):724-744. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-019-00182-2
9. Pascoe MC, Thompson DR, Jenkins ZM, Ski CF. Mindfulness mediates the physiological markers of stress: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Psychiatric Research. 2017;95:156-178. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2017.08.004
10. Public Health Agency of Canada. Are Canadian adults getting enough sleep? Infographic. Government of Canada. Published September 6, 2019. https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/publications/healthy-living/canadian-adults-getting-enough-sleep-infographic.html
11. Richer R, Zenkner J, Küderle A, Rohleder N, Eskofier BM. Vagus activation by Cold Face Test reduces acute psychosocial stress responses. Scientific Reports. 2022;12(1):1-11. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-23222-9
12. The Nutrition Source. Stress and Health. The Nutrition Source. Published October 5, 2020. https://nutritionsource.hsph.harvard.edu/stress-and-health/
13. Vashist S, Schneider EM. Depression: An Insight and Need for Personalized Psychological Stress Monitoring and Management. Journal of Basic & Applied Sciences. 2014;10:177-182. doi:https://doi.org/10.6000/1927-5129.2014.10.25
14. What Is yogic breathing? Benefits, types, and how to try. www.medicalnewstoday.com. Published September 16, 2022. https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/what-is-yogic-breathing#Yogic-breathing-techniques%C2%A0