6-month Formulations of Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Advanced Prostate Cancer: Effectiveness and Rationale for Extended Dosing

Jason M. Hafron, Stuart Atkinson, D. Boldt‐Houle, Joseph F. Renzulli
{"title":"6-month Formulations of Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Advanced Prostate Cancer: Effectiveness and Rationale for Extended Dosing","authors":"Jason M. Hafron, Stuart Atkinson, D. Boldt‐Houle, Joseph F. Renzulli","doi":"10.2174/011874303x237036231011055409","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n Luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists and GnRH antagonists are the most widely used androgen deprivation therapy to achieve castration levels of serum testosterone (T). Adherence to dosing schedules is important to avoid treatment failure. A recent analysis found a high non-adherence rate of 84% for LHRH agonist injections based on dosing schedules used in pivotal trials.\n \n \n \n Narrative review of LHRH therapy and evaluation of which offers optimal efficacy, safety, and practicality.\n \n \n \n 6-month LHRH agonist formulations require fewer appointments for injections than shorter-acting formulations. Therefore, the frequency of late/missed doses and overall non-adherence may be reduced compared to options requiring frequent dosing (e.g., oral therapies and shorter-acting injections). This flexibility may be preferable for patients who live in multiple locations throughout the year, live long distances from clinics, and/or lack access to reliable transportation. 6-month formulations may also have cost benefits compared to shorter-acting doses. Despite similar levels of T suppression during the labeled dosing period, individual 6-month LHRH agonist formulations appear to have unique profiles, e.g., 6-month subcutaneous leuprolide acetate (LA) results in lower T escape rates compared to 6-month intramuscular LA, if dosing is late.\n \n \n \n The efficacy and practicality offered by 6-month LHRH formulations suggest these could reduce opportunities for late injections by requiring fewer office visits and provide greater confidence that efficacy will be maintained should there be extenuating circumstances leading to delays in therapy administration, as experienced during the recent pandemic.\n","PeriodicalId":213268,"journal":{"name":"The Open Urology & Nephrology Journal","volume":"61 28","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Open Urology & Nephrology Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2174/011874303x237036231011055409","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists and GnRH antagonists are the most widely used androgen deprivation therapy to achieve castration levels of serum testosterone (T). Adherence to dosing schedules is important to avoid treatment failure. A recent analysis found a high non-adherence rate of 84% for LHRH agonist injections based on dosing schedules used in pivotal trials. Narrative review of LHRH therapy and evaluation of which offers optimal efficacy, safety, and practicality. 6-month LHRH agonist formulations require fewer appointments for injections than shorter-acting formulations. Therefore, the frequency of late/missed doses and overall non-adherence may be reduced compared to options requiring frequent dosing (e.g., oral therapies and shorter-acting injections). This flexibility may be preferable for patients who live in multiple locations throughout the year, live long distances from clinics, and/or lack access to reliable transportation. 6-month formulations may also have cost benefits compared to shorter-acting doses. Despite similar levels of T suppression during the labeled dosing period, individual 6-month LHRH agonist formulations appear to have unique profiles, e.g., 6-month subcutaneous leuprolide acetate (LA) results in lower T escape rates compared to 6-month intramuscular LA, if dosing is late. The efficacy and practicality offered by 6-month LHRH formulations suggest these could reduce opportunities for late injections by requiring fewer office visits and provide greater confidence that efficacy will be maintained should there be extenuating circumstances leading to delays in therapy administration, as experienced during the recent pandemic.
治疗晚期前列腺癌的 6 个月雄激素剥夺疗法配方:延长剂量的有效性和理由
促黄体生成素释放激素(LHRH)激动剂和GnRH拮抗剂是最广泛使用的雄激素剥夺疗法,可使血清睾酮(T)达到阉割水平。要避免治疗失败,必须遵守给药计划。最近的一项分析发现,根据关键试验中使用的给药计划,LHRH 激动剂注射的不依从率高达 84%。 对 LHRH 疗法进行叙述性回顾,并评估哪种疗法具有最佳疗效、安全性和实用性。 与短效制剂相比,6 个月 LHRH 激动剂制剂需要预约注射的次数更少。因此,与需要频繁用药的方案(如口服疗法和短效注射剂)相比,迟到/漏服的频率和总体不依从性可能会降低。这种灵活性可能更适合全年居住在多个地点、距离诊所较远和/或缺乏可靠交通工具的患者。与短效制剂相比,6 个月制剂也可能具有成本优势。尽管在标注的给药期间T抑制水平相似,但6个月的LHRH激动剂制剂似乎各有特点,例如,如果给药时间较晚,6个月的醋酸亮丙瑞林(LA)皮下注射与6个月的LA肌肉注射相比,T逸出率较低。 6 个月 LHRH 制剂的疗效和实用性表明,这些制剂可以通过减少就诊次数来减少逾期注射的机会,并在出现情有可原的情况导致用药延迟时(如最近的大流行病期间所经历的情况),为保持疗效提供更大的信心。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信