Leuprolide Acetate for Puberty Suppression in Transgender and Gender Diverse Youth: A Comparison of Subcutaneous Eligard Versus Intramuscular Lupron

PURPOSE

To compare the efficacy of intramuscular Lupron and subcutaneous Eligard, two formulations of leuprolide, for puberty suppression in transgender and gender diverse (TGD) youth.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review of TGD youth receiving Lupron or Eligard 22.5 mg every 3 months was conducted to determine hormone levels obtained 1 hour after an injection (1hrPost) and patient-reported clinical puberty suppression.

RESULTS

Forty eight patients were analyzed: 33% assigned female at birth of which 25% were premenarchal, mean age at first injection 13.7 years, and 50% received concurrent gender affirming hormones. Of these, 13% received Lupron, 52% Eligard, and 35% initially received Lupron then transitioned to Eligard due to drug shortages. There were 55 incidents of 1hrPost levels, 42 after Eligard and 13 after Lupron. Clinical puberty suppression occurred in all patients; however, biochemical suppression occurred in 90% of Eligard and 69% of Lupron (p = .06).

DISCUSSION

Eligard and Lupron were both effective in suppressing clinical puberty progression in our population of TGD youth, of which 50% were receiving concurrent gender affirming hormones.

Leuprolide acetate 1-, 3- and 6-monthly depot formulations in androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer in nine European countries: evidence review and economic evaluation

Objective

Leuprolide is an established luteinizing hormone–releasing hormone (LHRH) agonist used as first-line treatment in advanced prostate cancer. As different formulations and dosing schedules are likely to have economic implications, we aimed to evaluate their efficacy, safety, and costs in nine European countries: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Netherlands, Poland, and Portugal.

Methods

Database searches identified 13 clinical trials of leuprolide 1- (1 M), 3- (3 M) and 6-monthly (6 M). Only data on leuprolide with Atrigel were compared for all three formulations, which had the same efficacy, safety, and adherence. Cost-minimization analysis accounting for cost of Eligard®, specialist consultations, and diagnostics during up to 12 months follow-up was conducted. The perspective was that of public payers.

Results

No significant differences were observed in the percentages of intention-to-treat patients achieving testosterone levels ≤ 50 ng/dL following treatment with Eligard® 1 M (93.3%), 3 M (98.3%), and 6 M (97.3%) (P > 0.05), and adverse event profiles of the three formulations were comparable. Overall, 6 M was the least expensive, with average total annual costs from €788 (Belgium) to €1839 (Portugal). The 3 M option was between 2.5% (Hungary) and 37.6% (Belgium) more expensive than 6 M; 1 M formulation was the most expensive, with costs 15.5% and 151.6% more expensive than 6 M for those countries, respectively. The 3 M option was 11.2%–45.3% less expensive than 1 M. Total costs were associated with frequency of visits for injection and monitoring. The 1 M required twelve visits, 3 M 4.4–4.8 visits, and 6 M 2.1–2.3 visits. Up to 50% additional visits could be funded with the savings resulting from switching eligible patients from 1 M and 3 M to 6 M. Results were stable in univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Conclusion

Eligard® formulations offer comparable efficacy and safety, but different dosing schedules require different number of visits. The 6 M formulation offers the greatest cost savings and should be considered the treatment of choice in eligible patients in Europe.