Efficacy and safety of 3-month dosing regimen of degarelix in Japanese subjects with prostate cancer: A phase III study

Exploring the top 30 drugs associated with drug-induced constipation based on the FDA adverse event reporting system

Objective

This project aims to identify the top 30 drugs most commonly associated with constipation and their signal values within the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System database.

Methods

We extracted adverse drug events (ADEs) related to constipation from the FAERS database spanning from January 1, 2004, to September 30, 2023. We compiled the 30 most frequently reported drugs based on the frequency of constipation events. We employed signal detection methodologies to ascertain whether these drugs elicited significant signals, including reporting odds ratio, proportional reporting ratio, multi-item gamma Poisson shrinker, and information component given by the Bayesian confidence propagation neural network. Furthermore, we conducted a time-to-onset (TTO) analysis for drugs generating significant signals using the medians, quartiles, and the Weibull shape parameter test.

Results

We extracted a total of 50, 659, 288 ADEs, among which 169,897 (0.34%) were related to constipation. We selected and ranked the top 30 drugs. The drug with the highest ranking was lenalidomide (7,730 cases, 4.55%), with the most prevalent drug class being antineoplastic and immunomodulating agents. Signal detection was performed for the 30 drugs, with constipation risk signals identified for 26 of them. Among the 26 drugs, 22 exhibited constipation signals consistent with those listed on the FDA-approved drug labels. However, four drugs (orlistat, nintedanib, palbociclib, and dimethyl fumarate) presented an unexpected risk of constipation. Ranked by signal values, sevelamer carbonate emerged as the drug with the strongest risk signal [reporting odds ratio (95% CI): 115.51 (110.14, 121.15); PRR (χ2): 83.78 (191,709.73); EBGM (EB05): 82.63 (79.4); IC (IC025): 6.37 (4.70)]. A TTO analysis was conducted for the 26 drugs that generated risk signals, revealing that all drugs exhibited an early failure type. The median TTO for orlistat was 3 days, the shortest of all the drugs, while the median TTO for clozapine was 1,065 days, the longest of all the drugs.

Conclusion

Our study provides a list of drugs potentially associated with drug-induced constipation (DIC). This could potentially inform clinicians about some alternative medications to consider when managing secondary causes of constipation or caring for patients prone to DIC, thereby reducing the incidence and mortality associated with DIC.

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.

Cardiovascular Effects of GnRH Antagonists Compared With Agonists in Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review

Background

Androgen deprivation therapy is the cornerstone of treatment for patients with advanced prostate cancer. Meta-analysis of small, oncology-focused trials suggest gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists may be associated with fewer adverse cardiovascular outcomes compared with GnRH agonists.

Objectives

This study sought to determine whether GnRH antagonists were associated with fewer major adverse cardiovascular events compared with GnRH agonists.

Methods

Electronic databases were searched for all prospective, randomized trials comparing GnRH antagonists with agonists. The primary outcome was a major adverse cardiovascular event as defined by the following standardized Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities terms: "myocardial infarction," "central nervous system hemorrhages and cerebrovascular conditions," and all-cause mortality. Bayesian meta-analysis models with random effects were fitted.

Results

A total of 11 eligible studies of a maximum duration of 3 to 36 months (median = 12 months) enrolling 4,248 participants were included. Only 1 trial used a blinded, adjudicated event process, whereas potential bias persisted in all trials given their open-label design. A total of 152 patients with primary outcome events were observed, 76 of 2,655 (2.9%) in GnRH antagonist-treated participants and 76 of 1,593 (4.8%) in agonist-treated individuals. Compared with GnRH agonists, the pooled OR of GnRH antagonists for the primary endpoint was 0.57 (95% credible interval: 0.37-0.86) and 0.58 (95% credible interval: 0.32-1.08) for all-cause death.

Conclusions

Despite the addition of the largest, dedicated cardiovascular outcome trial, the volume and quality of available data to definitively answer this question remain suboptimal. Notwithstanding these limitations, the available data suggest that GnRH antagonists are associated with fewer cardiovascular events, and possibly mortality, compared with GnRH agonists.

Advancements in the treatment of metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer

In the last decade, there have been substantial improvements in the outcome of the management of metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) following the development of several novel agents as well as by combining several therapeutic strategies. Although the overall survival (OS) of mHSPC is shown to improve with intense androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), combined with docetaxel, as well as other novel hormonal therapy agents, or alongside local intervention to the primary neoplasm. Notably, luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) antagonists are known to cause fewer cardiovascular side effects compared with LHRH agonists. Thus, in this mini review, we explore the different approaches in the management of mHSPC, with the aim that we may provide useful information for both basic scientists and clinicians when managing relevant clinical situations.

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.

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.

Switching Patients With Prostate Cancer from GnRH Antagonist to Long-acting LHRH Agonist for Androgen Deprivation: Reducing Hospital Visits During the Coronavirus Pandemic

Aim

To reduce the frequency of the need for hospital visits for patients with prostate cancer (PCa) taking androgen-deprivation therapy during the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic, we switched them from gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist to a long-acting luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LH-RH) agonist. Here, we confirmed the efficacy and safety profile of this switching.

Patients and Methods

We analyzed the medical records of 32 patients with PCa who received ADT and switched from GnRH antagonist to a long-acting LH-RH agonist during the COVID-19 pandemic, evaluating hematological and serological variables, including serum testosterone and prostate-specific antigen.

Results

Before and after the switching from GnRH antagonist to LH-RH agonist, the median serum testosterone levels were 0.22 and 0.18 ng/ml, respectively, and the median serum prostate-specific antigen levels were 0.18 and 0.11 ng/ml, respectively. No changes in the rates of flare-ups of conditions or adverse events were observed.

Conclusion

Switching from GnRH antagonist to a long-acting LH-RH agonist appears to be a reasonable option that does not diminish efficacy or exacerbate adverse events.

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.

Differential Impact of Gonadotropin-releasing Hormone Antagonist Versus Agonist on Clinical Safety and Oncologic Outcomes on Patients with Metastatic Prostate Cancer: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

CONTEXT

Androgen deprivation therapy is the mainstay treatment of metastatic prostate cancer, achieved mainly by gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists or antagonists.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the differential impact of GnRH agonists and antagonists on clinical safety and oncologic outcomes.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

This meta-analysis was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A literature search using the electronic databases (MEDLINE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Scopus) included randomized controlled trials comparing the clinical safety and oncologic outcomes of GnRH agonists and antagonists. The endpoints of interest were the following: (1) treatment-related adverse effects (AEs), (2) prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression, and (3) overall mortality. The relative risk (RR) was used as the summary statistic, and results were reported with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Eight clinical trials (20 published studies) comprising 2632 men met our inclusion criteria; of them, 1646 received GnRH antagonist and 986 had GnRH agonist. Treatment-emerging AEs occurred in 73% patients in the GnRH antagonist group and 68% in the GnRH agonist group (RR: 1.10, 95% CI: 1.04-1.15). Serious AEs occurred in 9.8% of the GnRH antagonist and 11% of the GnRH agonist group (RR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.73-1.17). Antagonists were associated with higher injection site reaction rates (38%) than agonists (4.8%). GnRH antagonist was associated with fewer cardiovascular events (RR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.34-0.80). There was no significant difference in PSA progression, but GnRH antagonist was associated with lower overall mortality rates than GnRH agonists (RR: 0.48, 95% CI: 0.26-0.90, p =  0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Existing data indicate that GnRH antagonist use is associated with significantly lower overall mortality and cardiovascular events as compared with agonists. These findings should be interpreted with caution owing to the short follow-up duration and assessment of cardiovascular events as secondary endpoints in the included trials. Further studies are needed to validate or refute these observations. Injection site reactions were significantly higher in the GnRH antagonist group.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist is associated with lower death rates and cardiovascular events than GnRH agonists, based on the data from trials with short follow-up duration. GnRH agonists are associated with lower adverse events, such as decreased libido, hot flushes, erectile dysfunction, back pain, weight gain, constipation, and injection site reactions. There were no significant differences in prostate-specific antigen progression or fatigue.

Phase I trial of TAK-385 in hormone treatment-naïve Japanese patients with nonmetastatic prostate cancer

This open‐label, phase I dose‐finding study evaluated the gonadotropin‐releasing hormone antagonist, TAK‐385, in Japanese patients with nonmetastatic prostate cancer. In a two‐part design, patients received daily oral TAK‐385 at doses of 320 (loading, day 1)/80 (maintenance, day 2 and thereafter), 320/120, 320/160, or 360/120 mg for 28 days in a dose‐escalation phase (part A, n = 13), and at 320/80 or 320/120 mg for up to 96 weeks in a randomized expansion phase (part B, n = 30). Primary endpoint in both parts was safety, including dose‐limiting toxicity in part A. Secondary endpoints included pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and prostate‐specific antigen concentration. Ten (77%) patients in part A and all patients in part B experienced an adverse event; hot flush (part A, n = 4; part B, n = 15), viral upper respiratory tract infection (part A, n = 1; part B, n = 10), and diarrhea (part B, n = 8) were most frequent. No dose‐limiting toxicities were observed (part A). In 12 evaluable patients (part A), TAK‐385 was rapidly absorbed after a single loading dose; on day 28 (maintenance dose), median steady‐state T_max was ~1‐2 hours and mean t_1/2z was 67‐79 hours. All doses rapidly reduced testosterone concentrations to castration levels within 1 week. Durable reductions in prostate‐specific antigen of >90% from baseline were observed through 96 weeks. TAK‐385 appeared tolerable and resulted in sustained reductions in testosterone to castration levels at all doses. The lowest loading/maintenance dose required for a clinical effect was 320/80 mg.

http://ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02141659.

Quality-of-Life Assessment and Reporting in Prostate Cancer: Systematic Review of Phase 3 Trials Testing Anticancer Drugs Published Between 2012 and 2018

Quality of life (QoL) is not included among the end points in many studies, and QoL results are underreported in many phase 3 oncology trials. We performed a systematic review to describe QoL prevalence and heterogeneity in QoL reporting in recently published prostate cancer phase 3 trials. A PubMed search was performed to identify primary publications of randomized phase 3 trials testing anticancer drugs in prostate cancer, issued between 2012 and 2018. We analyzed QoL inclusion among end points, presence of QoL results, and methodology of QoL analysis. Seventy-two publications were identified (15 early-stage, 20 advanced hormone-sensitive, and 37 castration-resistant prostate cancer [CRPC]). QoL was not listed among study end points in 23 studies (31.9%) (40.0% early stage, 40.0% advanced hormone sensitive, and 24.3% CRPC). QoL results were absent in 15 (30.6%) of 49 primary publications of trials that included QoL among end points. Overall, as a result of absent end point or unpublished results, QoL data were lacking in 38 (52.8%) primary publications (53.3% early stage, 55.0% in advanced hormone sensitive, and 51.4% in CRPC). The most commonly used QoL tools were Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P) (21, 53.8%) and European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) (14, 35.9%); most common methods of analysis were mean changes or mean scores (28, 71.8%), time to deterioration (14, 35.9%), and proportion of patients with response (10, 25.6%). In conclusion, QoL data are lacking in a not negligible proportion of recently published phase 3 trials in prostate cancer, although the presence of QoL results is better in positive trials, especially in CRPC. The methodology of QoL analysis is heterogeneous for type of instruments, analysis, and presentation of results.

Efficacy and safety of 3-month dosing regimen of degarelix in Japanese subjects with prostate cancer: A phase III study

Non‐inferiority in the cumulative castration rate of the 3‐month formulation of degarelix compared with the 3‐month formulation of goserelin was evaluated in subjects with prostate cancer. A phase III, open‐label, parallel‐arm study was carried out. An initial dose of 240 mg degarelix or 3.6 mg goserelin was given s.c.; after day 28, a maintenance dose of 480 mg degarelix or 10.8 mg goserelin was given once every 84 days. Non‐inferiority in castration rate and safety of degarelix to goserelin were evaluated. The primary end‐point was the cumulative castration rate from day 28 to day 364 and the non‐inferiority margin was set to be 10%. A total of 234 subjects with prostate cancer were randomized to the degarelix group (n = 117) and the goserelin group (n = 117). The cumulative castration rate was 95.1% in the degarelix group and 100.0% in the goserelin group. As there were no events in the goserelin group, an additional analysis was carried out using 95% confidence intervals of the difference in the proportion of subjects with castration. Analyses indicated the non‐inferiority of the 3‐month formulation of degarelix to goserelin. Degarelix showed more rapid decreases in testosterone, luteinizing hormone, follicle stimulating hormone, and prostate‐specific antigen levels compared with goserelin. The most common adverse events in the degarelix group were injection site reactions. Non‐inferiority of the 3‐month formulation of degarelix to goserelin was shown for testosterone suppression. The 3‐month formulation of degarelix was also found to be tolerated as an androgen deprivation therapy for patients with prostate cancer. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier NCT01964170).