Efficacy and safety of degarelix in patients with prostate cancer: Results from a phase III study in China

A systematic review and meta-analysis of cardiovascular disease risk with degarelix and GnRH agonists in prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Degarelix is a third-generation GnRH receptor antagonist approved for the treatment of prostate cancer, however, the decision to use a GnRH agonist or an antagonist depends on several factors. We aimed to perform a meta-analysis comparing the cardiovascular disease risk between degarelix and gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists in patients with all stages of prostate cancer.

METHODS

Databases were searched for randomized control trials (RCTs) and observational studies that compared the risk of cardiovascular disease between degarelix and GnRH agonists in patients with prostate cancer. We computed for binary endpoints risk ratio (RR) or hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) which were analyzed using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

A total of 15 studies were included with 123,969 patients and follow-up ranging from 3 to 13 months. Degarelix was associated with a significantly lower incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (RR 0.59; 95% CI 0.41-0.84; p = 0.003; I2 = 84%). Incidence of stroke (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.56-1.42; p = 0.62; I2 = 0%), all-cause mortality (RR 0.64; 95% CI 0.37-1.13; p = 0.12; I2 = 41%), hypertension (RR 0.71; 95% CI 0.48, 1.04; p = 0.08; I2 = 0%), myocardial infarction (HR 1.04; 95% CI 0·59-1·84; p = 0·86; I2 = 66%), heart failure (HR 0.79; 95% CI 0.38-1.62; p = 0.52; I2 = 79%) and arrhythmia (RR 0.63; 95% CI 0.28-1.41; p = 0.86; I2 = 37%), did not reach a statistically significant difference between groups.

CONCLUSION

In patients with prostate cancer, degarelix is associated with a significantly lower incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events.

Risk of cardiovascular disease following degarelix versus gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists in patients with prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer treatment involves hormonal therapies that may carry cardiovascular risks, particularly for long-term use. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists, such as degarelix, may offer advantages over agonists, but comprehensive comparative cardiovascular outcomes are not well established. This study aimed to systematically review and analyze the cardiovascular safety profiles of degarelix compared to those of traditional GnRH agonists, providing critical insights for optimizing treatment strategies.

METHODS

We used Medline (PubMed), Scopus, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases to identify included studies using a preferred search strategy. All studies assessed the cardiovascular events profile between degarelix versus GnRH agonists were included in our study. We used the review manager version 5.4 to perform the analysis.

RESULTS

13 studies (160,214 participants) were included in this meta-analysis. Degarelix was associated with a significantly lower incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events [RR: 0.60, 95%CI (0.41, 0.88), P value = .008]. Incidence of stroke [RR: 0.92, 95%CI (0.56, 1.50), P value= .74], hypertension [RR: 0.85, 95%CI (0.37, 1.93), P value= .69], myocardial infarction [RR: 0.82, 95%CI (0.55, 1.21), P value= .31], heart failure [RR: 0.88, 95%CI (0.63, 1.23), P value= .46] and arrhythmia [RR: 0.61, 95%CI (0.24, 1.54), P value= .30] did not reach a statistically significant difference between groups.

CONCLUSION

Degarelix demonstrates a lower incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events compared to GnRH agonists, suggesting a potential cardiovascular safety advantage in prostate cancer treatment. Further studies are required to prove the results of our systematic review and meta-analysis.

Assessing the effects of prostate cancer therapies on cardiovascular health

Contemporary advances in prostate cancer treatments have markedly improved patient outcomes, yet concerns persist regarding the increased cardiovascular toxicity of prostate cancer treatments, which is multifaceted. Local therapies entail non-negligible cardiovascular risks. The effects of androgen deprivation therapy, which is pivotal in disease management, on cardiovascular health remains contentious, with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists and antagonists showing varying cardiovascular outcomes. Despite the ongoing controversy over the cardiovascular risks of gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonists versus agonists, current evidence does not support favouring one over the other based solely on cardiovascular risk. Combination therapy with androgen receptor pathway inhibitors and androgen deprivation therapy shows additive cardiovascular risks, but robust comparative data are lacking. Chemotherapies such as docetaxel and cabazitaxel, along with emerging targeted therapies and radiopharmaceuticals, are associated with varied cardiovascular risks, necessitating personalized patient assessment. Clinicians should adhere to cardio-oncology guidelines when prescribing therapeutic agents, especially for patients with pre-existing cardiovascular conditions. Optimal monitoring and management strategies are essential to mitigate cardiovascular morbidity and mortality.

Testosterone castration levels in patients with prostate cancer: Is there a difference between GnRH agonist and GnRH antagonist? Primary results of an open-label randomized control study

PURPOSE

To compare testosterone castration levels between patients treated with the gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist, degarelix, and GnRH agonist.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with prostate cancer (PCa) of a single outpatient clinic were randomized (2:1) to receive degarelix (group A) or GnRH agonist (group B). The study evaluated testosterone and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, patients' age, Gleason score and the presence of metastases (nodal or bone). Testosterone and PSA levels were measured at 1st, 6th, 12th, and 18th months. Mann-Whitney test and Spearman correlation were used to investigate independent variable while standard multiple regression was performed to explore statistically significant correlations. Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare testosterone levels at follow-up.

RESULTS

The study included 168 patients, 107 in group A and 61 in group B. Testosterone levels at 1st month were significantly lower in patients under GnRH antagonist than those receiving GnRH agonist (group A: 22 ng/dL vs. group B: 29 ng/dL, p=0.011). However, PSA values did not differ significantly between groups (group A: 0.130 ng/mL vs. group B: 0.067 ng/mL, p=0.261). In multivariate analysis, treatment with degarelix was an independent factor of lower testosterone levels at 1st month (p=0.013). Comparison of testosterone levels at 6, 12, and 18 months did not reveal any significant difference within each group.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with PCa who are candidates for androgen deprivation therapy, the administration of GnRH antagonist seems to achieve significantly lower testosterone levels compared to treatment with GnRH agonist at 1st month of treatment.

A multicenter, retrospective observational study investigating baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes in patients with hormone-sensitive prostate cancer treated with primary androgen deprivation therapy

OBJECTIVE

This multicenter, retrospective, observational study investigated baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes in patients with hormone-sensitive prostate cancer who received primary androgen deprivation therapy, using Japan Study Group of Prostate Cancer registry data.

METHODS

Among patients in the Japan Study Group of Prostate Cancer registry, those who initiated primary androgen deprivation therapy and were aged 20 years or older were enrolled in this study. The primary endpoint was time to disease progression, defined as time from primary androgen deprivation therapy initiation to either prostate-specific antigen or clinical progression. Secondary endpoints included prostate-specific antigen progression-free survival, prostate-specific antigen response (90% or greater reduction from baseline) and distribution of second-line treatment.

RESULTS

Of the 2494 patients (goserelin, n = 564; leuprorelin, n = 1148; surgical castration, n = 161; degarelix, n = 621), those who received degarelix had higher prostate-specific antigen levels and Gleason scores and were at a more advanced clinical stage than those receiving goserelin or leuprorelin. The median time to disease progression (identical to the prostate-specific antigen progression-free survival result) was not reached for goserelin and leuprorelin, 52.7 months for surgical castration and 54.0 months for degarelix. Although baseline prostate-specific antigen values in the degarelix cohort were higher than those of the leuprorelin or goserelin cohorts, prostate-specific antigen responses were not different among the three cohorts. Regarding second-line treatment, the largest patient group received degarelix followed by leuprorelin (n = 195).

CONCLUSIONS

This study clarified patient characteristics and long-term effectiveness of primary androgen deprivation therapy in real-world clinical practice. Japanese urologists appear to select appropriate primary androgen deprivation therapy based on patient background and tumour characteristics, with degarelix largely reserved for higher risk patients.

Adverse cardiovascular effect following gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist versus GnRH agonist for prostate cancer treatment: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Androgen deprivation therapy is the mainstay of medical treatment for prostate cancer (Pca); however, it is associated with an increased risk of adverse cardiovascular (CV) events and death. To date, CV death has been the leading noncancer cause of death in Pca patients. Both GnRH antagonists (an emerging class of drugs) and GnRH agonists (most frequently prescribed) are efficacious against Pca. However, the adverse effects, especially the adverse CV effect between them remain unclear.

Methods

Through a literature search using MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library, all available studies comparing the safety of CV risk between GnRH antagonists and GnRH agonists in Pca patients were extracted. Comparisons of outcomes of interest between these two classes of drugs were calculated using the risk ratio (RR). Subgroup analyses were performed depending on the study design and preexisting CV disease at baseline.

Results

Nine randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) and five real-world observational studies comprising 62160 Pca patients were included in our meta-analysis. Patients receiving GnRH antagonists experienced fewer CV events (RR: 0.66, 95% CI:0.53-0.82, P<0.001), CV death (RR:0.4, 95% CI: 0.24-0.67, P<0.001) and myocardial infarctions (RR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.52-0.96, P=0.03). No difference was found in the incidence of stroke and heart failure. Moreover, GnRH antagonists were associated with fewer CV events in patients with preexisting CV disease but not in those without preexisting CV disease in the RCT series.

Conclusion

GnRH antagonists appear to offer favorable safety in terms of adverse CV events and CV death compared with GnRH agonists among men diagnosed with Pca, especially those who had established CV disease at baseline.

Systematic review registration

https://inplasy.com/inplasy-2023-2-0009/, identifier INPLASY202320009.

Degarelix vs. leuprorelin for the treatment of prostate cancer in China: A cost-utility analysis

Objective

To explore the cost-effectiveness of degarelix acetate for injection (degarelix) compared to leuprorelin in prostate cancer (Pca) castration treatment from Chinese healthcare system perspective.

Methods

A Markov model, adapted from the one established in Finland was conducted for the cost-effectiveness analysis of degarelix and leuprorelin for Pca treatment. The main data were derived from global phase III clinical trials of degarelix (CS21), published study and expert surveys. Outcomes, utility and costs of prostate cancer patients were calculated on a 30-year time horizon. The CS21 study based population of intention-to-treat (ITT) population and three scenarios were modeled. Taking three times of the Gross domestic product (GDP) per capita (242,928 yuan, 2021) as the acceptable threshold for cost-effectiveness. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed on key parameters, including transition probabilities, costs, utility, and discount rate to test the robustness of the model.

Results

Base case analysis for ITT population revealed that total costs of degarelix and leuprorelin were 566,226 yuan and 489,693 yuan, while the total quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were 5.19 and 4.51 during the 30-year time horizon, resulting an incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 112,674 yuan/QALY which was 1.39 times the GDP per capita, lower than willingness-to-pay level of three times the GDP per capita. The results for scenario analyses revealed that compared to leuprorelin, degarelix for Pca treatment in China was cost-effective. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that the model was most sensitive to price of 80 mg degarelix, utility of 1st-line therapy, hazard ratio of PSA recurrence, price of 3.75 mg leuprorelin, response rate of docetaxel per cycle, and discount rate of cost. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, compared to leuprorelin, the probability of degarelix to be cost-effective was 53 and 81% for willingness-to-pay threshold of one and three times the GDP per capita.

Conclusion

Compared to leuprorelin, degarelix for prostate cancer treatment is cost-effective. Moreover, scenario, one-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses revealed that the model was robust.

Effectiveness of GnRH Antagonists and Agonists in Patients with Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer: A Retrospective Study

Objective

To assess the effectiveness of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists and agonists in the treatment of patients with hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (HSPC), thus providing valid data support for their clinical treatment.

Methods

We collected 52 and 65 HSPC patients treated with GnRH antagonists and agonists, respectively, in Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College of HUST between May 2019 and April 2021. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels before and after treatment were recorded and analyzed. Further, univariate and multivariate logistic regressions were used to analyze the influencing factors of PSA control rate in HSPC patients.

Results

In patients receiving antagonist, the control rate of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was 54.28% and 88% without and with abiraterone, respectively, and 47.91% and 72% in patients treated using agonist without and with abiraterone. In 32 pairs of patients obtained via propensity score matching, the PSA control rates were 84.38% and 53.13% for those receiving antagonists and agonists, respectively, and 66.67% and 50% for those without abiraterone, respectively. In addition, univariate logistic regression analysis showed that the type of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) drugs and combined use of abiraterone had a significant effect on the control rate of PSA. Further multivariate logistic regression revealed that GnRH antagonists in ADT drugs were risk factors for PSA control rate.

Conclusion

The PSA control rate of HSPC patients treated with GnRH antagonist is significantly higher than that of the agonist group, and the use of GnRH antagonist is an independent predictor of PSA control rate.

A review of clinical evidence to assess differences in efficacy and safety of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonist (goserelin) and LHRH antagonist (degarelix)

Luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist (LHRH-A), goserelin, and antagonist, degarelix, are both indicated for the treatment of advanced prostate cancer (PCa); however, large comparative trials evaluating their efficacy and safety are lacking. In this review, we assessed the available evidence for both the drugs. Although degarelix achieves an early rapid decline in testosterone (T) and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, median T and PSA levels, in addition to prostate volume and International Prostate Symptom Scores, become comparable with goserelin over the remaining treatment period. Degarelix causes no initial flare, therefore it is recommended in patients with spinal metastases or ureteric obstruction. Goserelin achieves lower PSA, improved time to progression, and better survival outcomes when administered adjunctively to radiotherapy compared with radiotherapy alone, with significant results even over long-term follow-up. The evidence supporting adjuvant degarelix use is limited. Goserelin has better injection site safety, single-step delivery, and an efficient administration schedule compared with degarelix, which has significantly higher injection site reactions and less efficient administration mechanism. There is conflicting evidence about the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD), and caution is required when using LHRH-A in patients with preexisting CVD. There is considerable long-term evidence for goserelin in patients with advanced PCa, with degarelix being a more recent option. The available comparative evidence of goserelin versus degarelix has several inherent limitations related to study design, sample size, conduct, and statistical analyses, and hence warrants robust prospective trials and long-term follow-up.

Advances with androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer

INTRODUCTION

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) has been a treatment of choice for prostate cancer in almost all phases, particularly in the locally advanced, metastatic setting in both hormone-sensitive and castration-resistant diseaseand in those who are unfit for any local therapy. Different ways of administering ADT comes in the form of surgical or chemical castration with the use of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH-agonists) being the foremost way of delivering ADT.

AREAS COVERED

This review encompasses ADT history, use of leuprolide, degarelix, and relugolix, with contextual use of ADT in combination with androgen-signaling inhibitors and potential mechanisms of resistance. Novel approaches with regard to hormone therapy are also discussed.

EXPERT OPINION

The use of GnRH-agonists and GnRH-antagonists yields efficacy that is likely equivalent in resulting in testosterone suppression. While the side-effect profile with ADT are generally equivalent, effects on cardiovascular morbidity may be improved with the use of oral relugolix though this is noted with caution since the cardiovascular side-effects were a result of secondary subgroup analyses. The choice of ADT hinges upon cost, availability, ease of administration, and preference amongst physicians and patients alike.

Relugolix, an oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist for the treatment of prostate cancer

Androgen deprivation therapy using gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues is standard treatment for intermediate and advanced prostate cancer. GnRH agonist therapy results in an initial testosterone flare, and increased metabolic and cardiovascular risks. The GnRH antagonist relugolix is able to reduce serum testosterone levels in men with prostate cancer without inducing testosterone flare. In the HERO Phase III trial, relugolix was superior to leuprolide acetate at rapidly reducing testosterone and continuously suppressing testosterone, with faster post-treatment recovery of testosterone levels. Relugolix was associated with a 54% lower incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events than leuprolide acetate. As the first oral GnRH antagonist approved for the treatment of advanced prostate cancer, relugolix offers a new treatment option.

Degarelix for treating advanced hormone-sensitive prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Degarelix is a gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist that leads to medical castration used to treat men with advanced or metastatic prostate cancer, or both. It is unclear how its effects compare to standard androgen suppression therapy.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of degree compared with standard androgen suppression therapy for men with advanced hormone-sensitive prostate cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched multiple databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, LILACS until September 2020), trial registries (until October 2020), and conference proceedings (until December 2020). We identified other potentially eligible trials by reference checking, citation searching, and contacting study authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials comparing degarelix with standard androgen suppression therapy for men with advanced prostate cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently classified studies and abstracted data from the included studies. The primary outcomes were overall survival and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes were quality of life, cancer-specific survival, clinical progression, other adverse events, and biochemical progression. We used a random-effects model for meta-analyses and assessed the certainty of evidence for the main outcomes according to GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 11 studies with a follow-up of between three and 14 months. We also identified five ongoing trials. Primary outcomes Data to evaluate overall survival were not available.  Degarelix may result in little to no difference in serious adverse events compared to standard androgen suppression therapy (risk ratio (RR) 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62 to 1.05; low-certainty evidence; 2750 participants). Based on 114 serious adverse events in the standard androgen suppression group, this corresponds to 23 fewer serious adverse events per 1000 participants (43 fewer to 6 more). We downgraded the certainty of evidence for study limitations and imprecision. Secondary outcomes Degarelix likely results in little to no difference in quality of life assessed with a variety of validated questionnaires (standardized mean difference 0.06 higher, 95% CI 0.05 lower to 0.18 higher; moderate-certainty evidence; 2887 participants), with higher scores reflecting better quality of life. We downgraded the certainty of evidence for study limitations. Data to evaluate cancer-specific survival were not available. The effects of degarelix on cardiovascular events are very uncertain (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.61; very low-certainty evidence; 80 participants). We downgraded the certainty of evidence for study limitations, imprecision, and indirectness as this trial was conducted in a unique group of high-risk participants with pre-existing cardiovascular morbidities. Degarelix likely results in an increase in injection site pain (RR 15.68, 95% CI 7.41 to 33.17; moderate-certainty evidence; 2670 participants). Based on 30 participants per 1000 with injection site pain with standard androgen suppression therapy, this corresponds to 440 more injection site pains per 1000 participants (192 more to 965 more). We downgraded the certainty of evidence for study limitations. We did not identify any relevant subgroup differences for different degarelix maintenance doses.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We did not find trial evidence for overall survival or cancer-specific survival comparing degarelix to standard androgen suppression, but serious adverse events and quality of life may be similar between groups. The effects of degarelix on cardiovascular events are very uncertain as the only eligible study had limitations, was small with few events, and was conducted in a high-risk population. Degarelix likely results in an increase in injection site pain compared to standard androgen suppression therapy. Maximum follow-up of included studies was 14 months, which is short. There is a need for methodologically better designed and executed studies with long-term follow-up evaluating men with metastatic prostate cancer.

The Efficacy and Safety of Relugolix Compared with Degarelix in Advanced Prostate Cancer Patients: A Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials

CONTEXT

Degarelix is associated with high rates of injection site reaction. The US Food and Drug Administration approved relugolix, an oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist, for the treatment of advanced prostate cancer patients.

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review and network meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of relugolix versus degarelix.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematic search was performed using major web databases for studies published before January 30, 2021, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) extension statement for a network meta-analysis. Studies that compared the efficacy (12-mo castration rate with testosterone ≤50 ng/dl) and safety (adverse events [AEs]) of relugolix or degarelix and of the control group (GnRH agonists) were included. We used the Bayesian approach in the network meta-analysis.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Four studies (n = 2059) met our eligibility criteria. The main efficacy analysis was conducted for two different treatments (relugolix and all doses of degarelix vs GnRH agonists); relugolix (risk ratio [RR] 1.09, 95% credible interval [CrI]: 0.95-1.23) and degarelix (RR 0.98, 95% CrI: 0.91-1.06) were not associated with different 12-mo castration rates. In the subgroup analysis, degarelix 480 mg was significantly associated with a lower castration rate (RR 0.46, 95% CrI: 0.07-0.92). In all efficacy ranking analyses, relugolix achieved the best rank. The safety analyses showed that relugolix (RR 0.99, 95% CrI: 0.6-1.6 and RR 0.72, 95% CrI: 0.4-1.3, respectively) and degarelix (RR 1.1, 95% CrI: 0.75-1.35 and RR 1.05, 95% CrI: 0.42-2.6, respectively) were not associated with either all AE or serious AE rates. In the ranking analyses, degarelix achieved the worst rank of all AEs and the best rank of serious AEs. Relugolix (RR 0.44, 95% CrI: 0.16-1.2) and degarelix (RR 0.74, 95% CrI: 0.37-1.52) were not associated with different cardiovascular event (CVE) rates; both were associated with lower CVE rates than GnRH agonists in the ranking analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that the efficacy and safety of relugolix are comparable with those of degarelix, albeit with no injection site reaction. Such data should be interpreted with caution until large-scale direct comparison studies with a longer follow-up are available.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We found that relugolix, an oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist, has comparable efficacy and safety with degarelix, a parenteral GnRH antagonist, for the treatment of advanced prostate cancer patients.

Current and emerging gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists for the treatment of prostate cancer

Introduction:Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is currently the backbone treatment of metastatic prostate cancer and is also used in combination with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT). Castration may be achieved either by bilateral orchiectomy or by administration of LHRH agonists or GnRH antagonists.Areas covered: In this article, the authors assess the current and emerging role of GnRH antagonists for the treatment of prostate cancer focusing on oncological results and safety (i.e. cardiovascular risk). In addition, updated data regarding the first orally administered GnRH antagonist, relugolix, is presented.Expert opinion: Studies demonstrate that GnRH antagonists are at least equal with LHRH agonists in terms of testosterone suppression and PSA progression free survival with a major advantage being rapid testosterone suppression. Thus, the optimal group of patients included symptomatic metastatic prostate cancer patients especially if cardiovascular comorbidities or LUTS are also present. Emerging data regarding benefit of the use of GnRH antagonists in patients with concomitant cardiovascular disease are of great interest. Relugolix has emerged as the first orally administered GnRH antagonist able to achieve and maintain testosterone castration levels and it is associated with a profound reduction of major cardiovascular events.

Analysis of Clinical Trials on Therapies for Prostate Cancer in Mainland China and Globally from 2010 to 2020

The overall aging of the world population has contributed to the continuous upward trend in the incidence of prostate cancer (PC). Trials on PC therapy have been extensively performed, but no study has analyzed the overall trends and characteristics of these trials, especially for those carried out in China. This study aimed to provide insights on the future direction of drug development in PC, thus supplying essential supportive data for stakeholders, including researchers, patients, investors, clinicians, and pharmaceutical industry. The details of the clinical trials of drug therapies for PC during January 1, 2010, to January 1, 2020, were collected from Pharmaprojects. A total of 463 clinical trials on different therapies with 132 different drugs were completed. The long-acting endocrine therapy with few side effects, radiotherapy combined with immune checkpoint inhibitors, gene-targeted chemotherapeutics, and novel immunotherapeutic products changed the concept of PC treatment. In mainland China, 31 trials with 19 drugs have been completed in the 10 assessment years. China has initiated a few trials investigating a limited number of drug targets, centered in a markedly uneven geographical distribution of leading clinical trial units; hence, the development of PC drugs has a long way to go. Given the large patient pool, China deserves widespread attention for PC drug research and development. These findings might have a significant impact on scientific research and industrial investment.

Progress in Clinical Research on Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone Receptor Antagonists for the Treatment of Prostate Cancer

Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) receptor agonists are still the most commonly used androgen deprivation treatment (ADT) drugs for prostate cancer in clinical practice. Currently, the GnRH receptor antagonists used for endocrine therapy for prostate cancer primarily include degarelix and relugolix (TAK-385). The former is administered by subcutaneous injection, while the latter is an oral drug. Compared to GnRH agonists, GnRH antagonists reduce serum testosterone levels more rapidly without an initial testosterone surge or subsequent microsurges. This review focuses on the mechanism of action of GnRH antagonists and agonists, the developmental history of GnRH antagonists, and emerging data from clinical studies of the two antagonists used as endocrine therapy for prostate cancer.

THE CARDIOVASCULAR EFFECTS OF GNRH ANTAGONISTS IN MEN WITH PROSTATE CANCER

AIMS

The aim of this study was to determine whether gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists (an emerging class of drugs to suppress testosterone synthesis in the treatment of prostate cancer) cause less adverse cardiovascular events than the more commonly use GnRH agonists.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We conducted a systematic review to identify all randomised, controlled trials in which a GnRH antagonist was compared with a GnRH agonist in men with prostate cancer. We identified ten eligible studies including two different GnRH antagonists, degarelix (n = 1681) and relugolix (n = 734), which were compared with the GnRH agonists, leuprolide (n = 714) and goserelin (n = 600). The pooled risk ratios (95% confidence intervals) among GnRH antagonist recipients for adverse cardiovascular events, cardiovascular death and all-cause mortality were 0.57 (0.39-0.81); 0.49 (0.25-0.96); and 0.48 (0.28-0.83) respectively. Important limitations of the included trials were their short duration of follow-up, unblinded study design and (in most of the studies) the identification of adverse cardiovascular events through safety reporting mechanisms rather than as a pre-specified outcome. There was no evidence of heterogeneity of findings among the studies.

CONCLUSIONS

There is consistent but methodologically limited data to suggest that GnRH antagonists - a relatively new class of androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer - cause significantly less cardiovascular adverse effects than the more frequently used GnRH agonists.