Defining Benefits and Risks for SERMs in Clinical Trials and Clinical Practice

A bstract : Differences between clinical trials and clinical practice with respect to defining benefits and benefit/risk ratios for SERMs are discussed. These differences stem from the perception that there is discordance between the statistical significance and the “clinical meaningfulness” of research data in the minds of the practitioner and patient. One way that we can obtain data that are more clinically meaningful is to solicit input in the planning stages of clinical trials from practicing community clinicians and their patients. However, there are drawbacks to community input, such as potentially unrealistic expectations. A further issue is the need to characterize clinically meaningful drug benefits and acceptable benefit/risk ratios for a drug. Individual patients have differences regarding their views of optimal benefits and acceptable risks, so a method or tool for determining what is clinically meaningful would be helpful in presenting comprehensive information to the patient. To present useful information to clinicians, head‐to‐head comparisons of a new drug with a standard agent should be undertaken. NIH's support in this area of comparator trials is critical to their implementation. Estrogen has been considered the standard for comparison of agents for conditions associated with menopause in clinical trials. Estrogen has been the “gold standard” in clinical practice as well. In fact, challenging the position of estrogen, even where scientifically supported, has proven to be an uphill battle. In the practice setting, we elaborate the challenges of keeping up with the scientific literature and of then communicating this information in a fashion that is relevant to the individual patient.