Injection-site granulomas resulting from the administration of both leuprorelin acetate and goserelin acetate for the treatment of prostatic cancer

Novel insights into post-marketing AEs associated with leuprorelin: A comprehensive analysis utilizing the FAERS database

Purpose

This research focused on meticulously tracking and identifying adverse reactions associated with leuprorelin, a drug prescribed for conditions such as prostate cancer, endometriosis, uterine fibroids, and early-onset puberty. The main objective was to enhance patient safety and offer informed guidance on the appropriate use of this treatment.

Methods

From the first quarter of 2004 to the fourth quarter of 2023, a comprehensive analysis was conducted on a significant number of adverse event reports (AERs) from the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database. Data mining with dismutation analysis was conducted to quantify signals associated with adverse events (AEs) related to leuprorelin, utilizing powerful algorithms such as ROR, PRR, BCPNN, and EBGM.

Results

A total of 102 positive reaction terms (PT) spanning 24 System Organ Classes (SOCs) were identified from an analysis of 60,709 reports associated with leuprorelin use. Notably, several previously unrecognized adverse reactions were uncovered, including Artificial Menopause, Ovarian Adhesion, Follicular Cystitis, Intercepted product preparation error, among others. These findings underscore the importance of exercising additional vigilance regarding the potential adverse effects of leuprorelin, such as Abscess Sterile, Injection site granuloma, Intercepted medication error, and Bulbospinal muscular atrophy congenital.

Conclusions

This research has successfully uncovered new and unforeseen signals associated with adverse drug reactions (ADRs) following leuprorelin administration. The study provides valuable insights into the intricate connection between ADRs and leuprorelin usage. The results underscore the crucial significance of continuous surveillance and meticulous monitoring to promptly identify and manage AEs, ultimately enhancing patient safety and well-being while undergoing leuprorelin therapy.

[LOCAL REACTIONS OF LUTEINIZING HORMONE-RELEASING HORMONE AGENTS AND ITS EFFECTS ON CLINICAL OUTCOMES IN PROSTATE CANCER PATIENTS]

(Background) Currently, luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LH-RH) agonists and antagonists are used for androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT). However, they are associated with subcutaneous granuloma, rubor, dolor, calor, and eventual ulcer and/or abscess formation. The prevalence of these adverse effects, causes and mechanisms, and effects on serum testosterone levels and clinical outcomes are poorly understood. (Method) We collected the clinical records of men with pathologically diagnosed prostate cancer who were followed in our hospital. The primary aim of the study was to determine the prevalence of granuloma formation, its causes, and the mechanisms involved. The secondary aim was to analyze the effects of subcutaneous induration on serum testosterone levels and clinical outcomes. (Results) Overall, 185 men using leuprorelin (n=161; median age, 75 years), degarelix (n=21; median age, 76), or goserelin (n=3; median age, 76) were analyzed. In the leuprorelin cohort, 51 patients (33.5%) had subjective and/or objective subcutaneous induration and 2 (1.2%) had a large lesion (diameter > 3.0 cm). In the degarelix cohort, 18 patients (85.7%) developed induration and 8 (38%) had a large lesion. One month after the start of ADT, patients in the leuprorelin and degarelix cohorts had median serum testosterone levels that reached the same level as that after castration. There was no significant difference in the overall survival rate between the leuprorelin and degarelix cohorts. There was no significant difference in the serum testosterone level or overall survival rate between patients with or without induration. (Conclusions) The local adverse effects of LH-RH agents are prevalent, but we can regulate the adverse effects by understanding the mechanism involved. The formation of subcutaneous induration did not affect the serum testosterone level or clinical outcome.

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.

Evidence-based medicine: comparative analysis of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone analogues in combination with external beam radiation and surgery in the treatment of carcinoma of the prostate

What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? Luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone analogues are a cornerstone in the management of many clinical situations in prostate cancer patients. The multiplicity of drugs make it difficult to decide which is the best drug to prescribe to each patient. Whether or not the different luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone analogues belong to the same drug class is only merely supposed. This study adds a systematic review of the literature in order to determine whether or not the luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone analogues available for prescription belong to the same drug class (same family, similar chemical structure, mechanism of action, and efficacy). The current evidence available is not enough to support a presumed drug class effect of the various analogues in the treatment of prostate carcinoma.

OBJECTIVE

• To study whether luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) analogues are agents of the same pharmacological class, i.e. whether they have the same clinical effect, using an evidence-based medicine approach.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

• We reviewed the evidence on the alleged 'drug class effect' among analogues and the existing bibliographic support for their use in various medical indications. We used PubMed as the main search source. Evidence level and degree of recommendation were assigned to each conclusion based on the 'Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network'.

RESULTS

• There are no studies designed to answer the question of class effect between LHRH analogues or agonists. Reviews and meta-analyses have been performed on many other issues related to therapeutic management either with analogues alone, or in combination with radiation therapy and surgery. • Direct comparisons do not allow definitive conclusions to be reached. Indirect evidence is obtained from randomized studies comparing the different LHRH analogues with other treatments used to obtain androgen deprivation. Other issues related to pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics that can support either the existence or non-existence of class effect were evaluated.

CONCLUSION

• The current available evidence is not enough to support a presumed class effect of the drug among the different analogues in the treatment of prostate carcinoma in its various clinical situations.

Bilateral injection-site granuloma by subcutaneous administration of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone analogue: a case report

We report a typical case of injection-site granuloma attributed to subcutaneous administration of leuprorelin acetate, an LHRH agonist. A 70-year-old man who had undergone total prostatectomy and was subsequently given leuprorelin injections for prostatic cancer presented with bilateral nodules in the lower abdominal wall. An excisional biopsy revealed a non-caseous epithelioid granuloma consisting of CD-68 positive histiocytic cells with infiltration of T-lymphocytes and eosinophils; skin metastasis from prostatic adenocarcinoma was ruled out through histological and immunohistochemical analysis. Generally, granulomas may be caused by delayed-type hypersensitivity to the constituents of leuprorelin acetate injections.

NanoART, neuroAIDS and CNS drug delivery

A broad range of nanomedicines is being developed to improve drug delivery for CNS disorders. The structure of the blood-brain barrier (BBB), the presence of efflux pumps and the expression of metabolic enzymes pose hurdles for drug-brain entry. Nanoformulations can circumvent the BBB to improve CNS-directed drug delivery by affecting such pumps and enzymes. Alternatively, they can be optimized to affect their size, shape, and protein and lipid coatings to facilitate drug uptake, release and ingress across the barrier. This is important as the brain is a sanctuary for a broad range of pathogens including HIV-1. Improved drug delivery to the CNS would affect pharmacokinetic and drug biodistribution properties. This article focuses on how nanotechnology can serve to improve the delivery of antiretroviral medicines, termed nanoART, across the BBB and affect the biodistribution and clinical benefit for HIV-1 disease.