Injection systems for two luteinising hormone-releasing hormone agonists: a comparative assessment of administration times and nurses' perceptions

Are all gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonists equivalent for the treatment of prostate cancer? A systematic review

To review direct comparative studies of the gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists goserelin, triptorelin, and leuprorelin for the treatment of prostate cancer, and identify whether there are meaningful clinical differences between these agents. In June 2017, the following searches were performed independently by two reviewers in PubMed: (i) 'prostate cancer' and 'triptorelin' and 'leuprorelin', (ii) 'prostate cancer' and 'triptorelin' and 'goserelin', and (iii) 'prostate cancer' and 'goserelin' and 'leuprorelin', without time restriction. Duplicates were deleted. Relevant conference abstracts were also screened. A total of 16 direct comparative trials were identified: 12 reported on efficacy outcomes, four on safety/tolerability, and five on the convenience of administration/user perceptions. These studies are restricted in terms of patient numbers, formulations assessed, and endpoints measured; none were adequately powered for survival outcome measures. Studies reporting on efficacy endpoints did not show major differences in the ability of these GnRH agonists to reduce levels of testosterone or prostate-specific antigen. Some studies suggest differences in short- or long-term testosterone control, the rate of injection site adverse events, and patient/healthcare professional perceptions, but definitive conclusions cannot be drawn from the existing evidence. Few direct comparative trials of GnRH agonists have been conducted. Whilst GnRH agonists provide a similar castration effect, there is not enough evidence to show that GnRH agonists are equivalent.

Practical differences between luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonists in prostate cancer: perspectives across the spectrum of care

BACKGROUND

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists is well established for the treatment of men with metastatic prostate cancer. As clear differences in efficacy, safety, or tolerability between the available LHRH agonists are lacking, the healthcare management team needs to look to practical differences between the formulations when selecting therapy for their patients. Moreover, as the economic burden of prostate cancer rises alongside earlier diagnosis and improved survival, the possibility for cost savings by using products with specific features is growing in importance.

METHODS

A review was conducted to summarize the information on the different LHRH agonist formulations currently available and offer insight into their relative benefits and disadvantages from the perspectives of physicians, a pharmacist, and a nurse.

RESULTS

The leuprorelin acetate and goserelin acetate solid implants have the advantage of being ready to use with no requirement for refrigeration, whereas powder and microsphere formulations have to be reconstituted and have specific storage or handling constraints. The single-step administration of solid implants, therefore, has potential to reduce labor time and associated costs. Dosing frequency is another key consideration, as administering the injection provides an opportunity for face-to-face interaction between the patient and healthcare professionals to ensure therapy is optimized and give reassurance to patients. Prostate cancer patients are reported to prefer 3- or 6-monthly dosing, which aligns with the monitoring frequency recommended in European Association of Urology guidelines and has been shown to result in reduced annual costs compared with 1-month formulations.

CONCLUSIONS

A number of practical differences exist between the different LHRH agonist preparations available, which may impact on clinical practice. It is important for healthcare providers to be aware and carefully consider these differences when selecting treatments for their prostate cancer patients.

Treatment costs for advanced prostate cancer using luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonists: a solid biodegradable leuprorelin implant versus other formulations

AIM

To compare treatment costs with alternative luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonist preparations and determine whether a leuprorelin solid implant is associated with potential cost savings.

PATIENTS & METHODS

A hypothetical population of 1000 prostate cancer patients was apportioned between the three most commonly-prescribed LHRH agonist preparations. Differentiated annual costs for 1- and 3-monthly formulations were calculated for France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the UK (EU5) and Sweden, and compared with the leuprorelin solid implant.

RESULTS

Compared with alternative formulations, leuprorelin solid implants had potential annual cost savings/1000 patients of €353,000 (EU5) and €699,000 (Sweden; 1-month formulations), and €259,000 (EU5) and €300,000 (Sweden; 3-month formulations).

CONCLUSION

The leuprorelin solid implant was associated with potential cost savings compared with the most commonly used LHRH agonist preparations.

Evaluation of long-acting somatostatin analog injection devices by nurses: a quantitative study

The somatostatin analogs (SSAs) lanreotide Autogel/Depot and octreotide long-acting release are used to treat acromegaly and neuroendocrine tumors. The present study evaluated opinions on SSA injection devices, including a recently approved lanreotide new device (lanreotide-ND), among nurses in Europe and the USA. Nurses injecting SSAs for at least three patients per year (n = 77) were interviewed regarding SSA devices. Device attributes were rated via questionnaire; nurses were then timed administering test injections with lanreotide-ND and octreotide long-acting release. The most important delivery system attributes were easy/convenient preparation and injection (ranked in the top five by 70% of nurses), low clogging risk (58%), and high product efficacy (55%). Compared with the octreotide long-acting release device, lanreotide-ND scored higher on 15/16 attributes, had shorter mean preparation and administration time (329 versus 66 seconds, respectively; P ≤ 0.01) and a higher overall preference score (70 versus 114, respectively; P ≤ 0.01). The five most important lanreotide-ND attributes were: prefilled device, confidence a full dose was delivered, low clogging risk, easy/convenient preparation and injection, and fast administration. These device features could lead to improvements in clinical practice and benefit patients/caregivers who administer SSAs at home.

Patient-controlled analgesia: patient and nurse satisfaction with intravenous delivery systems and expected satisfaction with transdermal delivery systems

OBJECTIVE

To compare patient and nurse satisfaction with intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV-PCA) to their prospective satisfaction with patient-controlled transdermal delivery system (PCTS) technology.

METHODS

Nationwide samples of 301 nurses (200 medical-surgical, 101 post-anesthesia care units) and 500 surgery patients (192 abdominal, 119 gynecological, 189 orthopedic) completed self-administered, Internet-based questionnaires. Respondents indicated satisfaction with attributes of IV-PCA and, after reading a description of PCTS, indicated prospective satisfaction with comparable attributes. Within patient and nurse samples, half rated IV-PCA first (and later re-rated overall satisfaction) and half rated PCTS first. Paired comparison t-tests were used to determine significant differences in satisfaction for IV-PCA and PCTS attributes.

RESULTS

Nurses reported significantly higher satisfaction with PCTS for patient and nurse ease of use, safety, and tolerability (p < 0.001 for all); and higher satisfaction with IV-PCA for the ability to vary drugs (p < 0.001) and doses (p < 0.001), deliver basal doses (p < 0.001), and dose tracking accessibility (p = 0.003) and quality (p = 0.002). Patients reported significantly higher satisfaction with PCTS for pain relief (p < 0.001), safety (p = 0.027), self-control (p < 0.001), and patient (p < 0.001) and nurse ease of use (p < 0.001); and higher satisfaction with IV-PCA for correct set-up and programming (p = 0.002). Overall satisfaction did not differ significantly among nurses, but among patients satisfaction with IV-PCA declined after considering PCTS (p < 0.001). Nurses placed greater importance on safety to their overall satisfaction than patients did.

LIMITATIONS

Only respondents with Internet access were included. PCTS satisfaction is hypothetical and may not reflect true product satisfaction.

CONCLUSION

PCTS is a novel delivery system for postoperative pain and has the potential to improve patient and nurse satisfaction over IV-PCA.