Insulin sensitivity and cardiovascular risk factors in ovariectomized monkeys with estradiol alone or combined with...

We have previously shown that medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA), either alone or combined with conjugated equine estrogens (CEE), significantly decreased insulin sensitivity (SI), compared with both untreated controls and those treated with CEE alone. The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of estradiol (E2), with and without nomegestrol acetate (NA; a potent progestin that lacks androgenic activity), on SI and arterial antioxidant activity, as determined by F2-isoprostanes. Thirty-six adult female cynomolgus monkeys (Macaca fascicularis) were ovariectomized and fed a moderately atherogenic diet, with one of the following three treatments added to the diet, for 12 weeks: 1) no treatment (control); 2) E2; or 3) continuous combined E2 + NA (E2+NA). SI and glucose effectiveness were assessed by the frequently sampled i.v. glucose tolerance test using a third-phase insulin infusion after 10 weeks of treatment. Cholesterol content and F2-isoprostanes were measured in the thoracic aorta after 12 weeks of treatment. E2 treatment resulted in a significantly greater SI, compared with control or E2+NA-treated monkeys (10.03 +/- 0.91 vs. 6.35 and 6.49 x 10(-4) min(-1) microU(-1) mL; P < 0.05). In contrast to our studies of CEE and MPA, E2+NA treatment, though reducing the SI below that of the E2 group, did not reduce the SI below that of control monkeys. As expected, the short period of treatment resulted in no significant differences in aortic cholesterol content. There was no treatment effect on total F2-isoprostanes (representing F2-isoprostane formation caused primarily by autooxidation), suggesting minimal antioxidant activity. However, there was a treatment difference in the prostaglandin F2alpha (PGF2alpha) isomer (a prostaglandin (PG) isomer formed by both autooxidation of arachidonate and cyclooxygenase activity). PGF2alpha concentrations were 32% lower with E2 treatment, compared with controls, and 36% lower, compared with E2+NA treatment (0.48 +/- 0.08 vs. 0.71 +/- 0.12 and 0.75 +/- 0.06; P < 0.05), suggesting differences in PG synthesis between hormone treatments. In conclusion, NA, a progestin without androgenic activity, may still affect some cardiovascular risk factors differently than estrogen-only therapy. However, it seems to be less detrimental than MPA.