The effect of medical and urologic disorders on the survival of patients with metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer treated with abiraterone or enzalutamide

Cardiovascular events among patients with prostate cancer treated with abiraterone and enzalutamide

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

There is growing concern about the adverse metabolic and cardiovascular effects of abiraterone acetate (AA) and enzalutamide (ENZ), two standard hormonal therapies for prostate cancer. We analysed the risk of cardiovascular adverse events among patients treated with AA and ENZ.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We used Kythera Medicare data from January 2019 to June 2023 to identify patients with at least one pharmacy claim for AA or ENZ. The index date was the first prescription claim date. Patients were required to have 1 year of data pre- and post-index date. New users excluded those with prior AA or ENZ claims and pre-existing cardiovascular comorbidities. Demographic and clinical variables, including age, socioeconomic status (SES), comorbidity score, prostate-specific comorbidities, and healthcare costs, were analysed . Propensity score matching was employed for risk adjustment.

RESULTS

Of the 8,929 and 8,624 patients in the AA and ENZ cohorts, respectively, 7,647 were matched after adjusting for age, sociodemographic, and clinical factors. Between the matched cohorts (15.54% vs. 14.83%, p < 0.05), there were no statistically significant differences in any cardiovascular event after adjusting for these factors. The most common cardiovascular event in both cohorts was heart failure (5.20% vs. 4.49%), followed by atrial fibrillation (4.42% vs. 3.60%) and hypotension (2.93% vs. 2.48%).

INTERPRETATION

This study provides real-world evidence of the cardiovascular risk of AA and ENZ that may not appear in clinical trial settings. Adjusting for age, baseline comorbidities, and SES, the likelihood of a cardiovascular event did not differ between treatment groups.

A net-work meta-analysis of the cardiac safety for next-generation hormonal agents in treating castration-resistant prostate cancer: How to choose drugs appropriately?

BACKGROUND

Researchers have shown that using next-generation hormonal agents (NHA) for castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) would lead to increased risk of cardiac adverse effects, making clinician choices more complex.

METHODS

We systematically searched Pubmed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases for research published before October 2022. Agents were ranked according to their effectiveness based on cardiac adverse effects using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve.

RESULTS

A total of 21 Randomized Controlled Trials (RCT) with 19, 083 patients were included in present study. Our results showed that abiraterone and enzalutamide could lead to a significantly higher hypertension rate compared with placebo; whereas no significant difference was detected between four NHAs and placebo in ischemic heart disease incidence. All four NHAs could significantly increase the risk of cardiotoxicity.

CONCLUSIONS

NHAs are generally acceptable in terms of cardiovascular disease compared to placebo in patients with CRPC.

Real-world outcomes for first line next-generation hormonal agents in metastatic prostate cancer: a systematic review

Aim: This review aims to summarize published evidence on the real-world (RW) outcomes of abiraterone or enzalutamide in first-line metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Materials & methods: Studies reporting on RW effectiveness, safety, economic and/or health-related quality of life outcomes were identified by systematic literature review (2011-2021, incl. Embase®, MEDLINE®) and presented in a qualitative synthesis. Risk of bias was assessed using ROBINS-I or the Molinier checklist. Results: 88 studies (n = 83,427 patients) were included. Median progression-free (40 studies) and overall survival (38 studies) ranged from 3.7 to 20.9 months and 9.8 to 45 months, respectively. Survival, safety and economic outcomes were similar across individual treatments, while limited health-related quality of life evidence suggested improvements with abiraterone. Risk of bias was moderate to high. Conclusion: RW outcomes in first-line metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer remain poor despite treatment, highlighting an unmet need for new regimens. This review was supported by AstraZeneca and Merck Sharp & Dohme.

A new method to quantify the effect of co-medication on the efficacy of abiraterone in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients

Background and Objective: Patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) treated with abiraterone acetate (AA) have co-morbidities treated with different drugs. The aim was to quantify the potential effect of co-medications on AA treatment duration (TD) and overall survival (OS). Methods: A new parameter, called "individual drug score" (IDS) was calculated by summing the "drug score"-s (DS) of all co-medications for each patient. The DS was determined by quantifying the effect of a given co-drug on enzymes involved in steroidogenesis and metabolism of AA. The correlation between log (IDS) and TD was tested by non-linear curve fit. Kaplan-Meier method and multivariate Cox regression was used for analysis of TD and OS. Results: The IDS and TD of AA+prednisolone showed a dose-response correlation (n = 166). Patients with high IDS had significantly longer TD and OS (p <0.001). In multivariate analysis IDS proved to be an independent marker of TD and OS. The same analysis was performed in a separate group of 81 patients receiving AA+dexamethasone treatment. The previously observed relationships were observed again between IDS and TD or OS. After combining the AA+prednisolone and AA+dexamethasone groups, analysis of the IDS composition showed that patients in the high IDS group not only used more drugs (p <0.001), but their drugs also had a higher mean DS (p = 0.001). Conclusion: The more co-drugs with high DS, the longer the duration of AA treatment and OS, emphasizing the need for careful co-medication planning in patients with mCRPC treated with AA. It is recommended that, where possible, co-medication should be modified to minimize the number of drugs with negative DS and increase the number of drugs with high DS. Our new model can presumably be adapted to other drugs and other cancer types (or other diseases).

Frailty and survival among veterans treated with abiraterone or enzalutamide for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer

INTRODUCTION

Abiraterone and enzalutamide are treatments for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Due to a lack of head-to-head trials, they are prescribed interchangeably. However, the drugs have different pharmacokinetics and thus may have differing efficacy and adverse effects influenced by patient functional status and comorbid diseases. Additionally, mCRPC mainly affects older adults and since the prevalence of frailty increases with age, frailty is an important patient factor to consider in personalizing drug selection.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective observational study of US veterans treated with abiraterone or enzalutamide for mCRPC from September 2014 to June 2017. Frailty was assessed using the Veterans Affairs Frailty Index (VA-FI), which utilizes administrative codes to assign a standardized frailty score. Patients were categorized as frail if VA-FI scores were > 0.2. The primary outcome was difference in overall survival (OS) between the two treatment groups. Cox regression modeling and propensity score matching was used to compare between abiraterone and enzalutamide treatments.

RESULTS

We identified 5,822 veterans, 57% of whom were initially treated with abiraterone and 43% with enzalutamide. Frail patients (n = 2,314; 39.7%) were older, with a mean age of 76.1 versus 74.9 years in the non-frail group (n = 3,508; 60.3%, p < 0.001) and had shorter OS compared to non-frail patients regardless of treatment group (18.5 vs. 26.6 months, p < 0.001). Among non-frail patients there was no significant difference in OS between abiraterone and enzalutamide treatment (27.7 vs 26.1 months, p = 0.07). However, frail patients treated with enzalutamide versus abiraterone had improved OS (20.7 vs 17.2 months, p < 0.001). In a propensity score matched analysis of frail patients (n = 2,070), enzalutamide was associated with greater median OS (24.1 vs 20.9 months, p < 0.001). In patients with dementia, enzalutamide was associated with longer OS (19.4 vs. 16.6 months, p = 0.003).

DISCUSSION

In this study of 5822 US veterans with mCRPC, treatment with enzalutamide was associated with improved OS compared to abiraterone among frail veterans and veterans with dementia, but not among non-frail veterans. Future studies should evaluate interactions between frailty and cancer treatments to optimize selection of therapy among frail adults.

Outcomes Following Abiraterone versus Enzalutamide for Prostate Cancer: A Scoping Review

Abiraterone acetate (AA) and enzalutamide (ENZ) are commonly used for metastatic prostate cancer. It is unclear how their outcomes and toxicities vary with patient-specific factors because clinical trials typically exclude patients with significant comorbidities. This study aims to fill this knowledge gap and facilitate informed treatment decision making. A registered protocol utilizing PRISMA scoping review methodology was utilized to identify real-world studies. Of 433 non-duplicated publications, 23 were selected by three independent reviewers. ENZ offered a faster and more frequent biochemical response (30-50% vs. 70-75%), slowed progression (HR 0.66; 95% CI 0.50-0.88), and improved overall survival versus AA. ENZ was associated with more fatigue and neurological adverse effects. Conversely, AA increased risk of cardiovascular- (HR 1.82; 95% CI 1.09-3.05) and heart failure-related (HR 2.88; 95% CI 1.09-7.63) hospitalizations. Ultimately, AA was associated with increased length of hospital stay, emergency department visits, and hospitalizations (HR 1.26; 95% CI 1.04-1.53). Accordingly, total costs were higher for AA, although pharmacy costs alone were higher for ENZ. Existing data suggest that AA and ENZ have important differences in outcomes including toxicities, response, disease progression, and survival. Additionally, adherence, healthcare utilization, and costs differ. Further investigation is warranted to inform treatment decisions which optimize patient outcomes.