Safety, Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Evaluation of Teverelix for the Treatment of Hormone-Sensitive Advanced Prostate Cancer: Phase 2 Loading-Dose-Finding Studies

Teverelix is a potential treatment option for the prevention of acute urinary retention recurrence in men suffering from benign prostatic hyperplasia

PURPOSE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of teverelix in treatment naïve patients aged over 50 years with symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), and to explore teverelix' potential in preventing AUR secondary to BPH with the aim to inform a planned Phase 2 trial.

METHODS

This Phase 2, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study involved BPH patients with an International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) ≥ 13 and uroflow < 13 mL/sec. After a 4-week single-blind placebo run-in, patients were randomized to receive teverelix 60 mg (n = 41) or placebo (n = 40) subcutaneously on day 1 and day 3. The primary endpoint was IPSS reduction at end of treatment period (Week 16); secondary endpoints included uroflow, prostate volume (PV), pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, quality of life (QoL), and safety. Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance with α set at 0.05.

RESULTS

At Week 16, teverelix significantly reduced IPSS by a mean of 6.3 (SD: ± 3.9) versus 1.1 (SD: ± 2.9) for placebo. By Week 2, teverelix showed a mean IPSS reduction of 13.0% compared to 3.8% for placebo, reaching 34.5% by Week 16 versus 5.2% for placebo. Clinically relevant IPSS reductions were observed in 44% of teverelix patients by Week 2, increasing to 83% by Week 12. Teverelix also achieved a significant 11% reduction in PV within 4 weeks, improved maximum urinary flow rate, and enhanced QoL scores.

CONCLUSION

Teverelix shows potential as an effective, well-tolerated treatment for LUTS secondary to BPH, with rapid and sustained benefits. The significant prostate volume reduction suggests that teverelix may help prevent recurrent AUR, warranting further dedicated studies.

GnRH Peptide Antagonist: Comparative Analysis of Chemistry and Formulation with Implications for Clinical Safety and Efficacy

Overexpression of the gonadotropin-releasing hormone receptor (GnRH-R) plays a vital role in the advancement of reproductive malignancies such as ovarian, endometrial, and prostate cancer. Peptidomimetic GnRH antagonists are a substantial therapeutic development, providing fast and reversible suppression of gonadotropins by directly blocking GnRH-R. Unlike typical GnRH agonists, these antagonists prevent the early hormonal flare, have a faster onset of action, and have a lower risk of cardiovascular problems. These characteristics qualify GnRH antagonists as revolutionary therapy for diseases such as advanced prostate cancer, endometriosis, uterine fibroids, and in vitro fertilization procedures. Key GnRH peptide antagonists authorized by the regulatory agencies include Cetrorelix, Ganirelix, Abarelix, Degarelix, and Teverelix. Assisted reproductive technologies (ART) are dominated by Cetrorelix and Ganirelix, while Degarelix and Abarelix have shown significant promise in treating advanced prostate cancer. Teverelix appears as a next-generation GnRH antagonist with an ideal mix of efficacy and safety, showing promise in a variety of reproductive and hormone-dependent illnesses. This review investigates the pharmacological role of GnRH in reproductive physiology and its consequences in disease, emphasizing structural advances in third- and fourth-generation GnRH antagonists. All GnRH peptide-based antagonists were analyzed in detail for formulation strategy, pharmacokinetics, effectiveness, and safety. This review also emphasizes GnRH antagonists' clinical promise, providing insights into their evolution and the possibility for future research in developing safer, more effective treatments for complicated hormonal diseases.

The Effect of Androgen Deprivation Therapy on the Cardiovascular System in Advanced Prostate Cancer

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is a mainstay treatment for metastatic prostate cancer, improving progression-free survival. ADT suppresses the production of testosterone and reduces circulating levels of the hormone. Luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LH-RH) agonists are the most commonly used ADT modality. They can be given alone or in combination with androgen synthesis inhibitors or androgen receptor antagonists. An estimated 40% of prostate cancer patients will receive ADT as part of their therapy during their lifetime. However, ADT has numerous adverse effects, including an increased cardiovascular risk that impacts quality of life. Relugolix is an alternative form of ADT. It is the only oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist, circumventing injection site reactions, making it easier for patients to take, and thus increasing compliance. Testosterone suppression with relugolix is excellent and testosterone recovery after discontinuation is rapid. This paper reviews the ADT and anti-androgen treatment options for men with prostate cancer and the cardiovascular effects of these therapies. There is accumulating evidence that cardiovascular risk with relugolix is lower than with other ADT medications and also lower than with androgen synthesis inhibitors and androgen receptor antagonists. This paper provides insight into the use of different ADT regimens based on the cardiovascular status and circumstances. It explores strategies to mitigate negative cardiovascular consequences and highlights the need for further study.

A Model-Informed Drug Development Approach to Design a Phase 3 Trial of Teverelix Drug Product in Advanced Prostate Cancer Patients with Increased Cardiovascular Risk

Teverelix drug product (DP) is a parenteral gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist that has been successfully tested in phase 2 trials for hormone-sensitive advanced prostate cancer (APC) and benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). In previous APC trials, teverelix DP was administered as intramuscular (IM) and subcutaneous (SC) injections, using a loading dose and (in a single trial) a maintenance dose. Our objective was to derive an optimal dosing regimen for phase 3 clinical development, using a pharmacometrics modeling approach. Data from 9 phase 2 studies (229 patients) was utilized to develop a population pharmacokinetic (PK) model that described the concentration profile accommodating both IM and SC routes of administration. A 2-compartment model with sequential first-order absorption (slow and fast) and lag times best described the PK profiles of teverelix following SC and IM administration. An indirect response model with inhibition of production rate was fit to describe testosterone (T) concentrations based on physiological relevance. The final population PK-pharmacodynamic model was used to conduct simulations of various candidate dosing regimens to select the optimal dosing regimen to achieve clinical castration (T < 0.5 ng/mL by day 28) and to sustain clinical castration for 26 weeks. Model simulation showed that a loading dose of 360 mg SC and 180 mg IM with a maintenance dose of 360 mg SC 6-weekly (Q6W) starting at day 28 can achieve a ≥95% castration rate up to 52 weeks. This dose regimen was selected for phase 3 clinical development, which includes cardiovascular safety assessment in comparison to a GnRH agonist.

Efficacy, tolerability, and safety of teverelix DP in patients with advanced prostate cancer: A multicenter, open-label, phase 2 trial

BACKGROUND

Teverelix drug product (DP) is a novel injectable gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist.

METHODS

An adaptive phase 2, open-label, multicenter trial was conducted in patients with advanced prostate cancer to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a combined subcutaneous (SC) and intramuscular (IM) loading dose regimen of teverelix DP of 120 mg SC + 120 mg IM (Group 1; N = 9) or 180 mg SC + 180 mg IM (Group 2; N = 41) administered at a single visit, followed by 6-weekly SC maintenance doses of 120 mg (Group 1) or 180 mg (Group 2), up to Day 168. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving castration levels with serum testosterone <0.5 ng/mL at Day 28 with a target castration rate of 90%. Injection sites were inspected by the investigator at every visit and reactions (ISRs) were proactively recorded.

RESULTS

The target castration rate was reached in Group 2 (97.5%) but not in Group 1 (62.5%). The castration rates were not maintained to Day 42 (Group 2: 82.5%; Group 1: 50.0%). Suppression of testosterone to castrate levels occurred rapidly (median time: 2 days for both groups). Suppression of testosterone, prostate-specific antigen, follicle-stimulating hormone, and luteinizing hormone was sustained throughout the treatment period, being more prominent with the higher dose. The adverse event (AE) profile was similar between groups. The most common AEs were injection-site induration (n = 40: 80.0%), injection-site erythema (n = 35: 70.0%), and hot flush (n = 21: 42.0%). Most ISRs were Grade 1.

CONCLUSION

Overall, the teverelix DP doses were generally well-tolerated but did not adequately maintain castration levels.