Predictors of hot flushes in postmenopausal women who receive raloxifene therapy.

OBJECTIVE: In a previous report, we described the results of a randomized, controlled trial that evaluated the potential of raloxifene to induce or exacerbate hot flushes. Here, we provide additional analyses that were undertaken to identify potential predictors of hot flushes and to assess the clinical usefulness of various therapeutic strategies for the reduction of hot flushes in postmenopausal women who receive raloxifene therapy. STUDY DESIGN: In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, 487 unselected postmenopausal women were assigned randomly to receive treatment for 8 months with raloxifene, which was administered either at a dose of 60 mg/d every other day for 2 months followed by 60 mg/d (slow-dose escalation) or 60 mg/d throughout (raloxifene), or placebo. Data on the number, duration, intensity, and severity of hot flushes and awakenings because of night sweats were collected. Logistic regression models were used to examine the predictive value of various demographic and menopausal factors on the development or worsening of hot flushes. RESULTS: At baseline, 40.4% of all randomly assigned patients had hot flushes. The mean number of hot flushes (3-5 per week) was low. Fewer years postmenopause, surgical menopause, and previous estrogen or estrogen/progestin therapy were significant predictors of hot flushes at baseline but were not predictive of incident hot flushes during treatment with raloxifene. Of the women who received raloxifene therapy who had pre-existing hot flushes at baseline, 36% women had none at the end point. Early postmenopause and surgical menopause were significant predictors of a biologically relevant increase in hot flushes (>/=14 flushes/week). Early postmenopause, previous estrogen/progestin therapy, high body mass index, and greater duration of hot flushes at baseline were significant predictors of the need for symptomatic treatment. After 2 months of treatment, women in early postmenopause had significantly more hot flushes with raloxifene therapy than with slow-dose escalation ( P = .042), whereas there was no significant difference between raloxifene therapy and slow-dose escalation among women in later postmenopause. In the 50 patients who requested symptomatic treatment during the study, phytohormones or veralipride did not reduce the number of hot flushes markedly. CONCLUSION: A shorter time since menopause and surgical menopause are important predictors of hot flushes both before and during treatment with raloxifene. Previous estrogen/progestin therapy also increases the risk of hot flushes at baseline. For women in early postmenopause, slow-dose escalation of raloxifene therapy may be a suitable therapeutic strategy for the reduction of the risk of hot flushes.

Raloxifene is not associated with biologically relevant changes in hot flushes in postmenopausal women for whom therapy is appropriate.

OBJECTIVES: Raloxifene is approved for the treatment and prevention of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Previous studies have described a raloxifene-associated increase in hot flushes, reported as adverse events. This study was undertaken to provide a detailed evaluation of the potential of raloxifene to induce or exacerbate hot flushes in postmenopausal women. STUDY DESIGN: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group multicenter study, 487 postmenopausal women were randomized to receive 8 months of treatment with either raloxifene (RLX) at the recommended dose of 60 mg/day, or by slow-dose escalation for the first 2 months, followed by the standard dose for the rest of the study (SDE), or placebo (PL). The frequency, duration, intensity, severity, and impact of hot flushes were measured. RESULTS: With 3-5 hot flushes per week, the mean number at baseline was low. During treatment, it increased by <1 hot flush/week in both active treatment groups and decreased by <1 hot flush/week with PL. The high proportion ( approximately 60%) of asymptomatic patients at baseline had increased further by the end of treatment in all groups. The proportion of women whose pre-existing hot flushes abated during treatment was significantly greater with SDE (P=.005) and PL (P=.050), but not with RLX, when compared with the proportion with treatment-emergent flushes. There were no statistically significant between-group differences in the distribution of the number of hot flushes after 2 months of treatment. At end point, there were no significant differences between SDE and either RLX or PL, but the difference between RLX and PL was statistically significant (P=.035). There were no significant between-group differences in the hot flush impact scores, in treatment satisfaction, and in the proportion of patients requesting symptomatic treatment to alleviate hot flushes. CONCLUSION: In a postmenopausal population meeting the criteria for the prescription of RLX, the overall effect of the drug on hot flushes is low. Previous studies using adverse event reports have overestimated the importance of hot flushes in postmenopausal women during treatment with RLX. Slow-dose escalation seems to decrease the number of symptomatic patients further and may be a useful strategy in women reporting flushes when starting RLX.