Aromatase Inhibitors and the Risk of Cardiovascular Outcomes in Women With Breast Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The association between aromatase inhibitors and cardiovascular outcomes among women with breast cancer is controversial. Given the discrepant findings from randomized controlled trials and observational studies, additional studies are needed to address this safety concern. METHODS: We conducted a population-based cohort study using the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink linked to the Hospital Episode Statistics and Office for National Statistics databases. The study population consisted of women newly diagnosed with breast cancer initiating hormonal therapy with aromatase inhibitors or tamoxifen between April 1, 1998, and February 29, 2016. We usedCox proportional hazards models with inverse probability of treatment and censoring weighting to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs comparing new users of aromatase inhibitors with new users of tamoxifen for each of the study outcomes (myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, heart failure, and cardiovascular mortality). RESULTS: The study population consisted of 23 525 patients newly diagnosed with breast cancer, of whom 17 922 initiated treatment with either an aromatase inhibitor or tamoxifen (8139 and 9783, respectively). The use of aromatase inhibitors was associated with a significantly increased risk of heart failure (incidence rate, 5.4 versus 1.8 per 1000 person-years; HR, 1.86 [95% CI, 1.14-3.03]) and cardiovascular mortality (incidence rate, 9.5 versus 4.7 per 1000 person-years; HR, 1.50 [95% CI, 1.11-2.04]) compared with the use of tamoxifen. Aromatase inhibitors were associated with elevated HRs, but with CIs including the null value, for myocardial infarction (incidence rate, 3.9 versus 1.8 per 1000 person-years; HR, 1.37 [95% CI, 0.88-2.13]) and ischemic stroke (incidence rate, 5.6 versus 3.2 per 1000 person-years; HR, 1.19 [95% CI, 0.82-1.72]). CONCLUSIONS: In this population-based study, aromatase inhibitors were associated with increased risks of heart failure and cardiovascular mortality compared with tamoxifen. There were also trends toward increased risks, although nonsignificant, of myocardial infarction and ischemic stroke. The increased risk of cardiovascular events associated with aromatase inhibitors should be balanced with their favorable clinical benefits compared with tamoxifen.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".