Low-dose desmopressin combined with serum sodium monitoring can prevent clinically significant hyponatraemia in patients treated for nocturia.

OBJECTIVE: To explore risk factors for desmopressin-induced hyponatraemia and evaluate the impact of a serum sodium monitoring plan. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: This was a meta-analysis of data from three clinical trials of desmopressin in nocturia. Patients received placebo or desmopressin orally disintegrating tablet (ODT; 10-100 µg). The incidence of serum sodium <130 mmol/L was recorded by age, sex and dose. Potential predictors of clinically significant hyponatraemia were identified using multivariate analysis in a Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: Dose, age, baseline serum sodium level and kidney function, according to estimated GFR clearance, were significant risk factors for hyponatraemia in both sexes; similar to the known risk factors associated with hyponatraemia in the general population. In men, arthritis and use of drugs for bone disease were also predictive of hyponatraemia, while in women, raised monocytes and absence of lipid-modifying drugs increased the risk of hyponatraemia. Use of the proposed monitoring scheme and the minimum effective dose would have omitted all patients with clinically significant hyponatraemia from further treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of hyponatraemia can be reduced by using minimum effective gender-specific dosing with the ODT formulation of desmopressin (25 µg in women, 50 µg in men). A sodium monitoring plan is proposed whereby baseline sodium must be ≥135 mmol/L (especially important in the elderly), with additional monitoring at week 1 and month 1 for those at elevated risk because they are aged ≥65 years or receiving concomitant medication associated with hyponatraemia. This monitoring plan would help to prevent some at-risk patients developing hyponatraemia; retrospective application of the monitoring plan showed that, once at-risk patients were appropriately screened out, only mild, non-clinically significant hyponatraemia was observed, within ranges of other drugs associated with hyponatraemia and similar to the background prevalence in the treatment population.

Effect of Degarelix, a Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone Receptor Antagonist for the Treatment of Prostate Cancer, on Cardiac Repolarisation in a Randomised, Placebo and Active Comparator Controlled Thorough QT/QTc Trial in Healthy Men.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Degarelix is a gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist registered for the treatment of advanced hormone-dependent prostate cancer. Treatment causing androgen deprivation is associated with QT prolongation and this study investigated whether degarelix at supratherapeutic concentrations has an intrinsic effect per se on cardiac repolarisation and the QT interval. METHODS: This was a single-centre, randomised, crossover study comparing the effect of degarelix, placebo, and the positive control moxifloxacin on the QT interval. Degarelix and placebo treatments were double-blind, whereas moxifloxacin treatment was open-label. Eighty healthy men, aged 18-45 years, received single intravenous doses of degarelix 2.8 mg, and placebo, as well as a single oral dose of moxifloxacin 400 mg. Electrocardiograms were collected up to 24 h after the start of administration, with the QT interval assessed and plasma concentrations of degarelix concomitantly analysed. RESULTS: Time-matched, one-sided 95% upper confidence boundaries for baseline-corrected average changes from placebo for the QT interval, corrected using the Fridericia method (ΔΔQTcF), did not exceed 10 ms at any timepoint, with maximum degarelix concentrations reaching approximately threefold the concentrations seen in the treatment of prostate cancer. Furthermore, concentration-exposure analysis indicated absence of any QT prolongation effects of degarelix. No significant effect on any other cardiac parameter was observed. The lower bound of the 98.3% confidence interval for moxifloxacin ΔΔQTcF exceeded 5 ms, thus verifying assay sensitivity. CONCLUSION: The results showed that the study was validated to detect a significant effect on the QT interval, and that degarelix by itself does not have any effect on the QT interval and cardiac repolarisation at supratherapeutic concentrations.

Degarelix Versus Goserelin Plus Bicalutamide in the Short-Term Relief of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms in Prostate Cancer Patients: Results of a Pooled Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: In patients with prostate cancer (PCa), prostate enlargement may give rise to lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS); many patients suffer from moderate-to-severe symptoms. We compare the efficacy of degarelix and goserelin plus bicalutamide in improving LUTS in PCa patients. METHODS: Data were pooled from three Phase 3, randomized clinical trials of once-monthly treatment for 12 weeks with degarelix (240/80 mg; n = 289) or goserelin (3.6 mg) plus bicalutamide (50 mg; n = 174) for initial flare protection. LUTS at weeks 4, 8, and 12 were compared to baseline. Clinically relevant LUTS relief was a ≥3-point International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) decrease. Adverse events were assessed throughout the trials. RESULTS: Patients receiving degarelix had significantly greater decreases in IPSS vs. goserelin at week 12 (adjusted difference: -1.24; 95% CI -2.33 to -0.14, P = 0.03). Clinically relevant LUTS relief with degarelix was especially pronounced in patients with moderate-to-severe LUTS (baseline IPSS ≥13) (odds ratio; OR 2.31; 95% CI 1.19-4.47, P = 0.01) and advanced PCa (OR 2.36; 95% CI 1.10-5.04, P = 0.03). A twofold higher OR for early (week 4) LUTS relief was seen with degarelix vs. goserelin (OR 2.03; 95% CI 1.14-3.60, P = 0.02). No difference in total prostate volume or urinary tract infection-related adverse events (2%) was seen between treatment groups. CONCLUSION: An early, significant and clinically more pronounced improvement of LUTS, especially in patients with moderate-to-severe LUTS or advanced PCa, was seen with degarelix vs. goserelin plus bicalutamide.

Factors Predicting the Off-treatment Duration in Patients with Prostate Cancer Receiving Degarelix as Intermittent Androgen Deprivation Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Intermittent androgen deprivation therapy (IAD) is commonly used in prostate cancer because of the benefits of the off-treatment period (OTP). The off-treatment time for patients depends on cancer progression, often measured as a rise in prostate-specific antigen (PSA). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate if certain factors can predict OTP duration following 7-mo degarelix therapy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This multivariable analysis included 191 prostate cancer patients with baseline PSA 4-50 ng/ml or PSA doubling time <24 mo entering the first OTP with PSA ≤4 ng/ml and testosterone <0.5 ng/ml. OTP continued until disease progression, measured as PSA >4 ng/ml. Despite a study-defined OTP maximum of 24 mo, a 50% failure rate was not observed within certain strata. A Weibull distribution was used to estimate median time to PSA >4 ng/ml adjusted for the following variables: age; baseline (or end of induction period [EOI]) PSA; baseline testosterone; cancer stage/previous curative treatment; and Gleason score. According to the results and the utility of these factors in clinical practice, the model was reduced in a stepwise manner. Time to testosterone recovery (testosterone >0.5 and >2.2 ng/ml) was estimated in a similar manner. RESULTS: The full five-factor model showed that baseline PSA (p<0.0001), age (p=0.004), prostate cancer stage/previous therapy (p=0.023), and baseline testosterone (p=0.039) influenced OTP. A reduced two-factor model (baseline PSA, age) showed that only baseline PSA influenced OTP (p<0.0001), and patients with baseline PSA ≤4 ng/ml had the longest OTP. In addition, EOI PSA (p<0.0001) and age (p=0.050) significantly influenced OTP. The times to testosterone >0.5 and >2.2 ng/ml were longer for older patients and those with lower baseline testosterone levels. CONCLUSION: Patients with lower baseline and EOI PSA, and older patients can stay off therapy longer and therefore may benefit more from degarelix IAD. These factors may help in proposing an algorithm to predict the OTP and optimise visit frequency. PATIENT SUMMARY: We describe extended analysis results for a trial in which patients with prostate cancer received intermittent androgen deprivation treatment. Prostate-specific antigen levels at baseline and at the end of the induction period, as well as older age, predicted the duration of the off-treatment period. Testosterone recovery was slower in older patients and in patients who had lower pretreatment testosterone levels. These factors may help in deciding whether to choose continuous or intermittent treatment as a strategy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00801242.

Degarelix monotherapy compared with luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists plus anti-androgen flare protection in advanced prostate cancer: an analysis of two randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to assess differences in efficacy outcomes between luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonist plus antiandrogen (AA) flare protection and monotherapy with the gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonist degarelix in patients with prostate cancer. METHODS: Data from 1455 patients were pooled from two prospective, phase III randomized 1-year clinical trials of degarelix versus LHRH agonist with or without AA. The AA bicalutamide was administered at the investigator's discretion. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated using a Cox proportional hazards regression model and a conditional logistic regression model was used for a case-control analysis of odds ratios (ORs). RESULTS: Patients received degarelix monotherapy (n = 972) or LHRH agonist (n = 483) of whom 57 also received AA. Overall, prostate-specific antigen progression-free survival (PSA PFS) was improved with degarelix versus LHRH agonist + AA (Cox proportional hazards regression model-adjusted HR for PSA PFS failure was 0.56 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.33-0.97, p = 0.038]). To compensate for a higher proportion of patients with metastases, Gleason score 7-10, and PSA >20 ng/ml in the LHRH agonist + AA group, a case-control analysis using a conditional logistic regression model was utilized. This resulted in an OR for PSA PFS of 0.42 (95% CI 0.20-0.89; p = 0.023) in the overall population, and 0.35 (95% CI 0.13-0.96; p = 0.042) in patients with PSA >50 ng/ml at baseline, when treated with degarelix versus LHRH agonists + AA. There were a small number of deaths, 1.9% with degarelix and 7% with LHRH agonists + AA (case-control analysis OR = 0.37; p = 0.085). CONCLUSIONS: Degarelix monotherapy produced a more favorable effect on PSA PFS outcomes than a LHRH agonist + AA flare protection therapy in patients with prostate cancer when a case-control analysis was used to compensate for differences between treatment groups.

Quantifying observational evidence for risk of fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular disease following androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer: a meta-analysis.

CONTEXT: Whether androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for men with prostate cancer (PCa) increases the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains controversial. Pooled analyses using data from randomised controlled trials suggest no increased risk of fatal CVD following ADT, but no pooled analyses exist for observational studies. OBJECTIVE: To perform a meta-analysis using observational data on ADT and risk of CVD events in men with PCa. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: PubMed and Embase were searched using predefined inclusion criteria to perform meta-analyses on associations between types of ADT and nonfatal and fatal CVD outcomes using information from observational studies. Random effects meta-analyses were conducted to estimate relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: A total of eight observational studies were identified studying at least one type of ADT and a nonfatal or fatal CVD outcome. The RR for risk of any type of nonfatal CVD was 1.38 (95% CI, 1.29-1.48) for men with PCa on gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists, compared with men not treated with ADT. When analysing nonfatal ischemic heart disease only, the RR was 1.39 (95% CI, 1.26-1.54). The associations between GnRH agonists and nonfatal or fatal myocardial infarction or stroke were even stronger: RR: 1.57 (95% CI, 1.26-1.94) and RR: 1.51 (95% CI, 1.24-1.84), respectively. The results for other types of ADT in relation to the risk of any nonfatal CVD were RR: 1.44 (95% CI, 1.28-1.62) for orchiectomy and RR: 1.21 (95% CI, 1.07-1.367) for antiandrogens. CONCLUSIONS: Observational data show a consistent positive association between ADT and the risk of CVD. This finding supports the need for future randomised trials of PCa patients that include older patients and men with multiple comorbidities to better reflect the general population. PATIENT SUMMARY: We investigated all the available data from observational studies on hormonal treatment for prostate cancer and its possible cardiovascular adverse effects. We found consistent evidence that this treatment may increase the risk of cardiovascular disease.

Degarelix as an intermittent androgen deprivation therapy for one or more treatment cycles in patients with prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines for prostate cancer treatment suggest that intermittent androgen deprivation (IAD) can be considered for certain patients. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of degarelix as IAD for one or more treatment cycle(s) in prostate cancer patients requiring androgen deprivation. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This open-label uncontrolled multicenter study included patients with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) >4 to 50 ng/ml or PSA doubling time <24 mo. Induction included 7-mo treatment. Off-treatment period started when PSA was ≤4 ng/ml and lasted up to 24 mo based on PSA and testosterone levels. Treatment was reinitiated when PSA was >4 ng/ml. INTERVENTION: Each induction period included a starting dose of degarelix 240mg, and thereafter 80mg once a month for 6 mo, followed by off-treatment periods. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary end point was time to PSA >4 ng/ml. Secondary end points were subgroup analysis of the primary end point, time to testosterone >0.5 and >2.2 ng/ml, quality of life (QoL), and sexual function during the first off-treatment period. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Of 213 patients in the first induction period, 191 entered the first off-treatment period, 35 patients entered the second induction, and 30 entered the second off-treatment period. Only two patients entered the third cycle. Median time to PSA >4 ng/ml and duration of first off-treatment period was 392 d each. Significant differences in time to PSA >4 ng/ml were observed between subgroups stratified by prognostic factors (previous curative treatment, cancer stage, PSA levels, and Gleason scores). Time to testosterone >0.5 and >2.2 ng/ml was 112 and 168 d, respectively. Change in QoL remained nonsignificant, and sexual function gradually improved during the off-treatment period. Adverse events were fewer during the off-treatment period and subsequent treatment cycles. CONCLUSIONS: IAD with degarelix resulted in an improvement in sexual function commensurate with increased testosterone levels while PSA remained suppressed. The treatment for one treatment cycle or more was well tolerated. PATIENT SUMMARY: Guidelines for prostate cancer treatment suggest that intermittent androgen deprivation (IAD) can be considered for certain patients. IAD with degarelix resulted in improved sexual function commensurate with increased testosterone levels while prostate-specific antigen remained suppressed. The treatment for one treatment cycle or more was well tolerated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT00801242.

Disease control outcomes from analysis of pooled individual patient data from five comparative randomised clinical trials of degarelix versus luteinising hormone-releasing hormone agonists.

BACKGROUND: Studies comparing the gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist, degarelix, with luteinising hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists indicate differences in outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To assess differences in efficacy and safety outcomes in a pooled analysis of trials comparing degarelix with LHRH agonists. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Data were pooled from five prospective, phase 3 or 3b randomised trials (n=1925) of degarelix and leuprolide or goserelin in men requiring androgen deprivation therapy for the treatment of prostate cancer. Patients received either 3 mo (n=467) or 12 mo (n=1458) of treatment. INTERVENTION: Men were randomised to receive degarelix (n=1266), leuprolide (n=201), or goserelin (n=458). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Unadjusted Kaplan-Meier analyses were supported by the Cox proportional hazards model, adjusted for disease-related baseline factors, to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) of efficacy and safety outcomes. The Fisher exact test compared crude incidences of adverse events. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression-free survival (PFS) was improved in the degarelix group (HR: 0.71; p=0.017). For patients with baseline PSA levels >20 ng/ml, the HR for PSA PFS was 0.74 (p=0.052). Overall survival (OS) was higher in the degarelix group (HR: 0.47; p=0.023). OS was particularly improved with degarelix in patients with baseline testosterone levels >2 ng/ml (HR: 0.36; p=0.006). In terms of disease-related adverse events, there were, overall, fewer joint-related signs and symptoms, musculoskeletal events, and urinary tract events in the degarelix group. CONCLUSIONS: These data indicate clinical benefits with degarelix, including a significant improvement in PSA PFS and OS, as well as reduced incidence of joint, musculoskeletal, and urinary tract adverse events, compared with LHRH agonists.

Long-term tolerability and efficacy of degarelix: 5-year results from a phase III extension trial with a 1-arm crossover from leuprolide to degarelix.

OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate the safety and efficacy of up to 5 years of degarelix treatment and the effects of crossing over from leuprolide to degarelix in the extension phase of a phase III pivotal 1-year trial. METHODS: Patients receiving degarelix who completed the 1-year trial continued on 80 mg (n = 125) or 160 mg (n = 126) maintenance doses. Patients who received leuprolide were rerandomized to degarelix 240/80 mg (n = 69) or 240/160 mg (n = 65). Safety and tolerability were assessed (primary end point), as well as testosterone and prostate-specific antigen levels and prostate-specific antigen progression-free survival (secondary end points). RESULTS: Adverse event frequency was similar between both the groups. Adverse events included initial injection site reactions, hot flushes, and increased weight. Testosterone and prostate-specific antigen values during the extension study were similar to those seen during the 1-year trial in patients who continued on degarelix or crossed over from leuprolide. The prostate-specific antigen progression-free survival hazard rate was decreased significantly after the crossover in the leuprolide to degarelix group (from 0.20 to 0.09; P = .002), whereas in patients who continued on degarelix, the rate did not change significantly. In patients with baseline prostate-specific antigen >20 ng/mL, the same hazard rate change pattern was observed on crossover (from 0.38 to 0.19; P = .019). CONCLUSION: Degarelix was well tolerated; no safety concerns were identified. The significant prostate-specific antigen progression-free survival benefit established for degarelix over leuprolide during year 1 remained consistent at 5 years.