ArticleClinical epidemiology2026
Cardiovascular Risks of Aromatase Inhibitors versus Tamoxifen in Postmenopausal Breast Cancer: A Multinational Cohort Study.
Article in Clinical epidemiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Aromatase inhibitors (AIs) are the preferred treatment for postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+) breast cancer, but their cardiovascular safety remains uncertain. This study compared cardiovascular risks associated with AIs versus tamoxifen in two distinct populations. Patients and methods: This retrospective cohort study used data from the US SEER-Medicare database (2007-2020) and Taiwan's National Health Insurance claims database and cancer registry (2010-2021). Postmenopausal women with HR+ stage I-III breast cancer were categorized by their initial endocrine therapy. Study outcomes included major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), venous thromboembolism (VTE), and heart failure (HF). Covariate balance was achieved through inverse probability of treatment weighting, and cause-specific hazard models were used for risk assessment in each cohort. Results: The study included 36,950 US patients (89% AI users) and 22,676 Taiwan patients (71% AI users). In the US, AIs were associated with an HR of 1.13 (95% CI 0.83-1.52) for MACE and 1.17 (95% CI 0.93-1.48) for HF, compared to tamoxifen. In Taiwan, the HRs were 1.23 (95% CI 0.87-1.73) for MACE and 0.93 (95% CI 0.73-1.21) for HF. AI use was linked to a lower VTE risk in the US (HR: 0.35, 95% CI 0.27-0.45), while the Taiwan cohort showed a non-significant trend (HR: 0.72, 95% CI 0.42-1.25). Conclusion: AIs were not associated with a definitive increase in MACE or HF risk compared with tamoxifen, although confidence intervals suggest some uncertainty in the estimates. The observed differences in VTE risk across cohorts highlight the need for population-specific considerations when selecting endocrine therapy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.