🧬 Aging Wiki

selective-estrogen-receptor-modulators

Properties1
aliasesSERMs, SERM, raloxifene, tamoxifen, bazedoxifene, ospemifene, lasofoxifene

17 min read

Selective Estrogen Receptor Modulators (SERMs)

SERMs are ligands for esr1 (ERα) and esr2 (ERβ) that act as tissue-selective mixed agonists and antagonists — agonist in some tissues, antagonist in others. The class concept is explicitly a decoupling strategy: capture estrogen’s tissue-beneficial effects (bone anabolism, lipid-lowering, breast/endometrial protection) while blocking estrogen’s proliferative risk in other tissues. This decoupling is partial and tissue-by-tissue; no SERM achieves it cleanly across all tissues simultaneously. For aging medicine, SERMs are the pharmacological acknowledgment that estradiol’s hormonal biology is deeply double-edged.

Distinct from systemic HRT (pure agonists at all tissues, covered on hormone-replacement-therapy), aromatase inhibitors (which block estrogen biosynthesis — see aromatase-inhibitors), and SERDs (selective estrogen receptor degraders, e.g., fulvestrant) that degrade the receptor rather than modulating it.

Class mechanism: tissue-selectivity biology

All estrogen receptors (ERα encoded by ESR1, ERβ encoded by ESR2) are ligand-activated nuclear receptors. Ligand binding causes a conformational change in the receptor’s ligand-binding domain, repositioning helix 12 (H12) of the AF-2 transactivation domain. The specific H12 conformation determines which coactivators versus corepressors are recruited to the receptor-bound promoter:

  • Agonist conformation (position of H12 “closed”): AF-2 surface creates a hydrophobic groove that recruits LXXLL-containing coactivators (SRC-1, SRC-2, p300/CBP) → transcriptional activation.
  • Antagonist conformation (H12 displaced or mispositioned): AF-2 surface is blocked, preventing coactivator recruitment; corepressors (NCoR, SMRT) are instead recruited → transcriptional repression.
  • SERM-induced conformations: ligand-specific, partial, and tissue-dependent based on local coactivator/corepressor expression. The same SERM molecule produces different H12 conformations in different cell types depending on relative coactivator/corepressor ratios.

This coactivator/corepressor tissue dependency is the molecular basis of tissue selectivity. Breast epithelium is rich in coactivators; SERMs that fail to close H12 optimally act as antagonists there. Bone and liver are rich in different coactivators; the same SERMs may be partial agonists 1.

Approved SERM tissue-selectivity profiles

Tamoxifen

Canonical use: Adjuvant treatment and chemoprevention of estrogen-receptor-positive (ER+) breast cancer. First-generation SERM; FDA-approved 1977 for breast cancer treatment.

TissueTamoxifen activityClinical consequence
BreastAntagonist (ERα dominant)↓ ER+ breast cancer risk; adjuvant survival benefit; chemoprevention
EndometriumAgonist (ERα; coactivator-rich)↑ endometrial cancer risk (2–3× baseline); uterine polyps
BonePartial agonist↑ BMD in postmenopausal women; attenuated or absent in premenopausal
LiverAgonist (lipid-modulating genes)↓ LDL-C ~15–20%; ↑ TG (variable); mixed lipid profile
VasculatureMixed↑ VTE risk (2–3×); hotly debated cardiovascular neutrality
HypothalamusAntagonistVasomotor symptoms (hot flashes) — may worsen; not improved

Breast chemoprevention evidence: The NSABP P-1 trial (n=13,388 high-risk women) showed tamoxifen 20 mg/day × 5 years reduced invasive breast cancer risk by 49% (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.39–0.66) 2. Benefit was confined to ER+ tumors; no reduction in ER− tumors — consistent with on-target mechanism.

Endometrial cancer risk: The same NSABP B-14 analysis and subsequent surveillance established a 2–3× relative increase in endometrial cancer with tamoxifen, concentrated in women ≥50 years. This remains the class’s dominant clinical limitation for long-term or primary-prevention use in women with an intact uterus.

Low-dose tamoxifen (emerging, R25 recency hit): A 2026 GeroScience preclinical study (McClurg et al., n=ovariectomized rodents) demonstrated that low-dose tamoxifen (below standard clinical doses) ameliorated ovariectomy-induced metabolic and immune dysfunction, with improved glucose tolerance and reduced inflammatory markers 3. This supports ongoing clinical interest in dose-reduction strategies to preserve benefit while reducing endometrial risk. Separate Italian RCT data (DeCensi et al.) at 5 mg/day have shown preserved bone density and breast cancer risk reduction with lower endometrial toxicity — though these are in cancer survivors, not primary-prevention populations. needs-human-replication at 5 mg in primary-prevention setting.

Extrapolation table (tamoxifen breast chemoprevention in healthy postmenopausal women):

DimensionStatus
Pathway conserved in humans?yes — human trial data
Phenotype conserved in humans?yes (NSABP P-1; n=13,388)
Replicated in humans?yes — IBIS-I, Italian RCT, Royal Marsden trials also showed breast-cancer risk reduction

Raloxifene

Canonical use: Prevention and treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis; breast cancer risk reduction in high-risk postmenopausal women. FDA-approved 1997 (osteoporosis), 2007 (breast cancer risk reduction). The most aging-relevant SERM for pure bone/fracture prevention without a gynecological cancer indication.

TissueRaloxifene activityClinical consequence
BoneAgonist (ERα; antiresorptive)↓ vertebral fracture risk ~30% at approved 60 mg dose (MORE); ↑ BMD spine and femoral neck
BreastAntagonist↓ invasive breast cancer risk ~44% vs placebo (STAR data)
EndometriumAntagonist / neutralNo increased endometrial cancer or hyperplasia — key advantage over tamoxifen
LiverAgonist (lipid genes)↓ LDL-C ~12%; no significant HDL effect; ↓ fibrinogen
VasculatureMixed↑ VTE risk (~1.4× vs placebo per RUTH; lower than tamoxifen per STAR); no coronary heart disease benefit (RUTH)
HypothalamusAntagonistHot flashes — may worsen or remain unchanged; does NOT relieve vasomotor symptoms

Bone/fracture evidence — MORE trial: The Multiple Outcomes of Raloxifene Evaluation (MORE; n=7,705 postmenopausal women with osteoporosis) demonstrated over 3 years vs placebo that raloxifene 60 mg/day reduced vertebral fracture risk by 30% (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.50–0.80); the 120 mg/day dose reduced it by 50% (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.40–0.70) 4. Both doses reduced fracture risk regardless of whether women had prevalent vertebral fractures at baseline. Nonvertebral fracture risk was not significantly reduced at either dose (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.80–1.10). Hip fracture reduction was not statistically significant in the primary MORE analysis — an important limitation vs bisphosphonates (which reduce both vertebral and hip fractures).

Breast cancer prevention — STAR trial: The NSABP Study of Tamoxifen and Raloxifene (STAR P-2; n=19,747 postmenopausal women at elevated breast cancer risk) showed raloxifene was equivalent to tamoxifen for reducing invasive breast cancer risk (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.82–1.28; non-inferior) while producing significantly less uterine cancer (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.35–1.08 vs tamoxifen, not statistically significant but numerically fewer) and fewer thromboembolic events (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.54–0.91, significantly reduced) 5. The trade-off: raloxifene showed a higher rate of noninvasive breast cancer (80 vs 57 cases; RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.98–2.00 vs tamoxifen) — clinical significance of this difference is debated.

Cardiovascular — RUTH trial: The Raloxifene Use for The Heart trial (n=10,101 postmenopausal women with coronary heart disease or risk factors) found raloxifene did not reduce the risk of coronary events (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.84–1.07, p=0.40) but did reduce invasive breast cancer (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.38–0.83) and vertebral fractures (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.47–0.89), while increasing VTE risk (HR 1.44, 95% CI 1.06–1.95) and fatal stroke (HR 1.49, 95% CI 1.00–2.24) 6. Key aging take-away: raloxifene is bone + breast protective but cardiovascular-neutral and VTE-harmful — it should not be used as a cardiovascular drug.

Vasomotor symptoms: Raloxifene does not relieve hot flashes. In some women, it may worsen them. This is the dominant reason postmenopausal women who are symptomatic are steered toward HRT rather than raloxifene.

Extrapolation table (raloxifene for fracture prevention):

DimensionStatus
Pathway conserved in humans?yes — human trial data
Phenotype conserved in humans?yes (MORE trial n=7,705)
Replicated in humans?yes — CORE extension, STAR data also confirm bone/breast effects

Bazedoxifene

Canonical use: Menopausal symptom relief + bone protection, combined with conjugated estrogens as the tissue-selective estrogen complex (TSEC). FDA-approved 2013 as Duavee (bazedoxifene 20 mg + conjugated estrogens 0.45 mg). Available in EU as Duavive.

TissueBazedoxifene activityClinical consequence
Uterus/endometriumAntagonist (strong)Protects endometrium from CE-driven proliferation — allows estrogen without progestogen
BoneAgonistMaintains or increases BMD in postmenopausal women
BreastAntagonistNeutral/favorable; no proliferative estrogen effect on breast
Vasomotor/CNSVia CE componentConjugated estrogens relieve hot flashes; bazedoxifene prevents endometrial overstimulation

TSEC rationale: The core innovation is replacing the progestogen in standard combined HRT with a SERM (bazedoxifene) that antagonizes endometrial estrogen signaling. This eliminates progestogen-related adverse effects (mood changes, breakthrough bleeding, potential breast stimulation) while allowing the conjugated estrogen component to relieve menopausal symptoms and protect bone. The SMART trials (Studies of a Morning-After Remedy Tamoxifen-like compound) demonstrated safety of the CE/bazedoxifene combination for bone, breast, and uterus simultaneously 7.

Aging relevance: For symptomatic postmenopausal women who need HRT but have concerns about progestogen (history of hormone-sensitive symptoms, or preference to avoid progestogen), CE/bazedoxifene is the most mechanistically elegant solution. It converts what was a binary choice (estrogen risk vs. nothing) into a more nuanced three-way tissue management. Cross-reference: hormone-replacement-therapy.

Ospemifene

Canonical use: Treatment of genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM) — specifically moderate-to-severe dyspareunia. FDA-approved 2013 as Osphena (60 mg oral daily). The only SERM indicated for vaginal/vulvar tissue.

TissueOspemifene activityClinical consequence
Vaginal / vulvarAgonistRestores vaginal epithelium maturation; reduces dyspareunia
BonePartial agonistSome bone protection (not a primary indication)
BreastAntagonistNo proliferative effect; potentially neutral
EndometriumWeak agonistBorderline: mild endometrial stimulation possible at 60 mg; gynecological surveillance appropriate
VasculatureMixedSimilar VTE risk concern as other SERMs

Evidence for GSM: Multiple phase-3 RCTs demonstrated ospemifene 60 mg/day significantly improved vaginal pH, vaginal maturation index (VMI), and dyspareunia severity vs placebo in postmenopausal women 8. The Drugs & Aging 2026 review (Ferguson et al.) specifically positions ospemifene as a first-line systemic option for GSM in women with breast cancer history where topical estrogen may be more controversial — though evidence in that population specifically is limited 9.

Advantage over topical estrogens for GSM: Oral ospemifene avoids the systemic absorption variability of compounded topical estrogens; it has a defined pharmacokinetic profile and regulatory approval — points relevant to women seeking GSM treatment without compounded preparations. Cross-reference: genitourinary-syndrome-menopause.

Lasofoxifene

Status: Not FDA-approved for any current indication. Received a Complete Response Letter from FDA in 2009; approved in the EU (2009, Fablyn) but withdrawn from the EU market in 2013 for commercial reasons.

Bone profile: The PEARL trial (n=8,556 postmenopausal women with osteoporosis aged 59–80) showed lasofoxifene 0.5 mg/day reduced nonvertebral fractures (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.64–0.91), vertebral fractures (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.47–0.70), and ER-positive breast cancer (HR 0.19, 95% CI 0.07–0.56), with a cardiovascular benefit signal (reduced major coronary events, HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.50–0.93; reduced stroke, HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.41–0.99) — a profile that distinguishes it from raloxifene (which was cardiovascular-neutral and stroke-neutral in RUTH) 10 needs-replication. The VTE increase remained (HR 2.06, 95% CI 1.17–3.60 for 0.5 mg dose). Endometrial cancer rates were not significantly elevated vs placebo (2 cases each group vs 3 in placebo).

Emerging ESR1-mutant breast cancer use: There is growing preclinical and early clinical interest in lasofoxifene for ESR1-mutated metastatic breast cancer (a setting where resistance to aromatase inhibitors develops via gain-of-function ESR1 point mutations that constitutively activate ERα). Lasofoxifene retains high affinity for mutant ERα conformations that other SERMs poorly accommodate. As of 2026, clinical programs exploring this are early-phase; elacestrant (a SERD) received the first FDA approval (2023) specifically for ESR1-mutant metastatic breast cancer. See aromatase-inhibitors for context on ESR1 mutation as a resistance mechanism. needs-human-replication for aging/bone use in current regulatory environment.

Aging-relevant synthesis: partial decoupling, real trade-offs

SERMs represent pharmacology’s attempt to achieve tissue-by-tissue estrogen decoupling. The verdict from three decades of clinical evidence:

What works:

  • Bone protection (raloxifene, bazedoxifene, lasofoxifene) is real and robust — vertebral fracture reduction is among the strongest in the osteoporosis drug class, though hip fracture data are weaker than bisphosphonates.
  • Breast cancer chemoprevention (tamoxifen, raloxifene) reduces invasive ER+ breast cancer by ~37–49% vs placebo (tamoxifen 49% in NSABP P-1; raloxifene ~44% in STAR relative to placebo-equivalent based on STAR non-inferiority to tamoxifen; Pourali 2025 NMA: tamoxifen RR 0.76, raloxifene RR 0.63 overall breast cancer vs placebo), a large absolute benefit in high-risk women.
  • Endometrial protection vs. tamoxifen (raloxifene, bazedoxifene) is a genuine advantage — these SERMs do not stimulate endometrial proliferation.
  • Vaginal/vulvar estrogen effects (ospemifene) can be captured without systemic estrogen exposure.

What does not work:

  • Vasomotor symptom relief — no approved SERM relieves hot flashes; some worsen them. For symptomatic menopause, HRT (or non-hormonal alternatives like fezolinetant) is the appropriate intervention.
  • Cardiovascular risk reduction — raloxifene’s RUTH trial was neutral; no SERM has demonstrated cardiovascular event reduction in a powered primary endpoint trial. Tamoxifen’s cardiovascular data are mixed.
  • VTE risk elimination — all SERMs carry an increased venous thromboembolism risk. The magnitude varies by drug and trial: raloxifene HR ~1.4× vs placebo (RUTH) to ~3.1× (MORE, smaller event count); lasofoxifene HR ~2.1× (PEARL). Raloxifene has significantly fewer thromboembolic events than tamoxifen (STAR RR 0.70). This is a class effect paralleling systemic estrogen and is the dominant safety constraint on broad use.

The central aging trade-off: In postmenopausal women, the decision to use a SERM requires balancing:

  • Bone fracture prevention (major mortality/morbidity driver in aged women — hip fracture 1-year mortality ~20–30%)
  • Breast cancer chemoprevention (relevant at elevated-risk thresholds, e.g., Tyrer-Cuzick ≥1.7% 5-year risk)
  • VTE risk (major harm; absolute risk elevation is small in low-VTE-risk individuals; becomes unacceptable with personal or family history)
  • Hot flash exacerbation (quality-of-life concern that may be intolerable, driving discontinuation)
  • Cancer surveillance (endometrial — tamoxifen; gynecological follow-up required)

None of the approved SERMs is established as a geroprotector or longevity drug. Their aging relevance is indirect via fracture prevention and cancer prevention in postmenopausal women — areas where they provide substantial population-level benefit, but are framed around specific diseases rather than the aging process itself.

USPTF / clinical chemoprevention guidance (R25 recency)

The 2019 USPSTF systematic review on medications for breast cancer risk reduction (Nelson et al.) — the authoritative synthesis — found that tamoxifen (20 mg/day × 5 years) reduces invasive breast cancer incidence by 30–65% in high-risk women, with acceptable benefit-risk balance for postmenopausal women without uterus or for women willing to accept endometrial cancer and VTE monitoring 11. Raloxifene was also endorsed with a preference for women with osteoporosis or VTE-low risk. Low-dose tamoxifen (5 mg) was noted as a promising direction but was not formally endorsed at the time.

Recent 2026 Drugs & Aging review (Ferguson et al.) specifically addresses SERMs in the context of breast cancer survivors managing GSM — finding ospemifene a viable option when systemic estrogen is contraindicated, with growing evidence in that population 9.

Cross-references

  • esr1 — estrogen receptor alpha; primary molecular target; conformational basis of SERM tissue-selectivity
  • esr2 — estrogen receptor beta; secondary target with distinct tissue distribution (keratinocytes, CNS, GI)
  • estradiol — endogenous ligand; what SERMs compete with or substitute for
  • hormone-replacement-therapy — systemic estrogen replacement; complementary and partly competing strategy; cross-link via bazedoxifene/TSEC
  • aromatase-inhibitors — alternative estrogen-modulating strategy (upstream synthesis blockade); dominates adjuvant breast cancer treatment in postmenopausal women vs tamoxifen
  • osteoporosis — primary disease context for raloxifene and bazedoxifene; fracture prevention as aging-mortality driver
  • genitourinary-syndrome-menopause — primary indication for ospemifene; distinct from other SERMs’ bone/cancer profile
  • menopause — biological context; the hormonal transition that defines the target population for most SERMs
  • cardiovascular-aging — relevant via RUTH trial (neutral), VTE risk (class harm), lipid effects (LDL-lowering agonist effect)
  • topical-estrogens — complementary/competing local estrogen strategy for vaginal/skin aging
  • intervention-classes — selective-estrogen-receptor-modulation class added 2026-06-03

Limitations and gaps

  • VTE risk is a class-wide limitation with no SERM currently overcoming it. This is the dominant safety constraint for chronic use in aging women without bone/breast risk sufficient to justify it. dose-response-unclear for whether lower doses eliminate VTE risk while preserving bone benefit.
  • Hip fracture prevention is weaker than for bisphosphonates/denosumab for all approved SERMs — the fracture endpoint that predicts mortality most strongly. Combination or sequential therapy (SERM → bisphosphonate) has not been adequately studied. needs-replication for head-to-head fracture endpoint data vs denosumab or zoledronate.
  • Vasomotor symptom worsening drives high discontinuation rates in the postmenopausal population most likely to benefit from bone/breast protection. The unmet clinical need for a SERM that relieves vasomotor symptoms is the primary commercial/clinical gap in the class. long-term-unknown for whether any SERM-like agent can achieve all three benefits simultaneously.
  • No biological-age endpoint. No SERM RCT has used DNA methylation clock, DunedinPACE, or proteomic aging biomarkers. Whether SERM use shifts biological age clocks (via bone/estrogen signaling) is unknown. needs-human-replication
  • Low-dose tamoxifen (5 mg) in primary prevention: Validated in cancer-survivor populations; no large RCT in healthy older women. This is the next-experiment gap on this page.
  • Male aging: Tamoxifen and clomiphene (a non-standard SERM) are used off-label in men with hypogonadism to increase LH/testosterone; this is outside the aging-medicine context covered here but represents an emerging use. needs-human-replication for male aging indications.

Footnotes

Footnotes

  1. doi:10.1016/j.coph.2010.09.007 · McDonnell DP, Wardell SE · Curr Opin Pharmacol 2010 · review · molecular mechanisms underlying pharmacological actions of ER modulators; coactivator/corepressor model; AF-2 helix H12 conformation; mechanistic basis of SERM tissue-selectivity and breast vs endometrial divergence · PMID: 20926342 ↩

  2. doi:10.1093/jnci/90.18.1371 · Fisher B, Costantino JP, Wickerham DL, et al. (NSABP P-1 Investigators) · J Natl Cancer Inst 1998;90(18):1371–88 · rct · n=13,388 high-risk women · tamoxifen 20 mg/day vs placebo × 5 years · invasive breast cancer RR 0.51 (95% CI 0.39–0.66); 49% reduction; confined to ER+ tumors; endometrial cancer RR 2.53; VTE RR ~3× · PMID: 9747868 ↩

  3. doi:10.1007/s11357-025-02086-7 · McClurg HE, Ferraro A, Pham G, et al. · GeroScience 2026 · in-vivo (rodent model) · ovariectomized rodents treated with low-dose tamoxifen · improved glucose tolerance, reduced inflammatory markers, amelioration of metabolic and immune dysfunction · PMID: 41667737 · model: rodent OVX; not yet replicated in humans needs-human-replication ↩

  4. doi:10.1001/jama.282.7.637 · Ettinger B, Black DM, Mitlak BH, et al. (MORE Investigators) · JAMA 1999;282(7):637–45 · rct · n=7,705 postmenopausal women with osteoporosis (6,828 evaluable at 36 months) · raloxifene 60 or 120 mg/day vs placebo × 3 years · vertebral fracture: 60 mg/day RR 0.70 (95% CI 0.50–0.80); 120 mg/day RR 0.50 (95% CI 0.40–0.70); both doses regardless of baseline fracture prevalence; nonvertebral fracture not significantly reduced (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.80–1.10); VTE RR 3.1 (95% CI 1.5–6.2) · PMID: 10517716 ↩

  5. doi:10.1001/jama.295.23.joc60074 · Vogel VG, Costantino JP, Wickerham DL, et al. (NSABP STAR P-2 Investigators) · JAMA 2006;295(23):2727–41 · rct · n=19,747 postmenopausal women at elevated breast cancer risk (mean 5-yr risk 4.03%) · raloxifene 60 mg/day vs tamoxifen 20 mg/day × 5 years · invasive breast cancer: raloxifene non-inferior to tamoxifen (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.82–1.28); uterine cancer: RR 0.62 (95% CI 0.35–1.08; fewer with raloxifene, non-significant); noninvasive breast cancer: RR 1.40 (95% CI 0.98–2.00, more with raloxifene); thromboembolic events: RR 0.70 (95% CI 0.54–0.91, significantly fewer with raloxifene) · PMID: 16754727 ↩

  6. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa062462 · Barrett-Connor E, Mosca L, Collins P, et al. (RUTH Trial Investigators) · N Engl J Med 2006;355(2):125–37 · rct · n=10,101 postmenopausal women with CHD or CHD risk factors · raloxifene 60 mg/day vs placebo × median 5.6 years · primary endpoint (coronary events) HR 0.95 (95% CI 0.84–1.07, p=0.40; non-significant); invasive breast cancer HR 0.56 (95% CI 0.38–0.83); vertebral fracture HR 0.65 (95% CI 0.47–0.89); VTE HR 1.44 (95% CI 1.06–1.95); fatal stroke HR 1.49 (95% CI 1.00–2.24) · PMID: 16837676 ↩

  7. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.03.113 · Lobo RA, Pinkerton JV, Gass MLS, Dorin MH, Ronkin S, Pickar JH, Constantine G · Fertil Steril 2009 · rct · bazedoxifene/conjugated estrogens evaluation for menopausal symptoms, metabolic parameters, and overall safety profile (SMART program) · CE/BZA combinations maintained endometrial safety while improving hot flashes and BMD; uterine safety confirmed across BZA doses · PMID: 19635615 ↩

  8. doi:10.1016/j.maturitas.2014.02.015 · review of ospemifene RCT program · Maturitas 2014 · review · ospemifene 60 mg/day vs placebo in postmenopausal women with vulvovaginal atrophy/dyspareunia · significantly improved vaginal maturation index, vaginal pH, and dyspareunia severity; FDA-approved basis · PMID: 24679891 ↩

  9. doi:10.1007/s40266-026-01287-9 · Ferguson D, Pederson H, Kling JM · Drugs Aging 2026 · review · treatment of genitourinary syndrome of menopause in postmenopausal women with history of breast cancer; ospemifene positioned as viable option where systemic estrogen is contraindicated; systematic evidence review · PMID: 41758440 ↩ ↩2

  10. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa0808692 · Cummings SR, Ensrud K, Delmas PD, LaCroix AZ, et al. (PEARL Study Investigators) · N Engl J Med 2010;362(8):686–96 · rct · n=8,556 postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, aged 59–80 · lasofoxifene 0.5 mg/day vs placebo × 5 years · nonvertebral fracture HR 0.76 (95% CI 0.64–0.91); vertebral fracture HR 0.58 (95% CI 0.47–0.70); ER-positive breast cancer HR 0.19 (95% CI 0.07–0.56); coronary events HR 0.68 (95% CI 0.50–0.93); stroke HR 0.64 (95% CI 0.41–0.99); VTE HR 2.06 (95% CI 1.17–3.60) · PMID: 20181970 ↩

  11. PMID: 31509365 · Nelson HD, Fu R, Zakher B, McDonagh M, Pappas M, Stillman L · AHRQ Evidence Synthesis 2019 · systematic-review (USPSTF evidence review) · breast cancer chemoprevention medications · tamoxifen 30–65% reduction invasive breast cancer; raloxifene equivalent (non-inferior) for postmenopausal women; benefit-risk favors use in high-risk women without VTE history · no DOI in PubMed record (AHRQ book accession NBK546162) ↩

Graph View

Backlinks