Hypersensitivity reaction to Abiraterone, successful desensitization protocol in prostate cancer patient.

INTRODUCTION: In prostate cancer, androgens are key in the growth of both normal prostate and cancer cells. Abiraterone acetate inhibits CYP17, an important target in prostate cancer given its central role in the production of adrenal and tumor-derived androgens. Although abiraterone is generally well tolerated, common adverse effects such as hypertension, hypokalemia, and hepatotoxicity have been reported. CLINICAL CASE: We present the case of an 83-year-old Mexican man with high-volume EC IV prostate cancer resistant to castration, orchiectomy, and bone, liver, and lung metastases. First-line treatment with the CHAARTED scheme was indicated, by patient decision refuse chemotherapy treatment. On the fourth day of starting treatment, he developed pruritic erythematous macular skin lesions and urticaria on the posterior chest that resolved spontaneously. A generalized erythematous and pruritic maculopapular rash appeared 12 days after starting abiraterone, for which she was referred to allergies. MANAGEMENT AND RESULTS: An oral provocation test was performed for two days, presenting localized macular lesions eight hours after the administration of abiraterone. An oral desensitization protocol was carried out for ten days in which no hypersensitivity reactions were observed, thus achieving the successful administration of abiraterone.

Olaparib for Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Multiple loss-of-function alterations in genes that are involved in DNA repair, including homologous recombination repair, are associated with response to poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibition in patients with prostate and other cancers. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial evaluating the PARP inhibitor olaparib in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who had disease progression while receiving a new hormonal agent (e.g., enzalutamide or abiraterone). All the men had a qualifying alteration in prespecified genes with a direct or indirect role in homologous recombination repair. Cohort A (245 patients) had at least one alteration in BRCA1, BRCA2, or ATM; cohort B (142 patients) had alterations in any of 12 other prespecified genes, prospectively and centrally determined from tumor tissue. Patients were randomly assigned (in a 2:1 ratio) to receive olaparib or the physician's choice of enzalutamide or abiraterone (control). The primary end point was imaging-based progression-free survival in cohort A according to blinded independent central review. RESULTS: In cohort A, imaging-based progression-free survival was significantly longer in the olaparib group than in the control group (median, 7.4 months vs. 3.6 months; hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.34; 95% confidence interval, 0.25 to 0.47; P<0.001); a significant benefit was also observed with respect to the confirmed objective response rate and the time to pain progression. The median overall survival in cohort A was 18.5 months in the olaparib group and 15.1 months in the control group; 81% of the patients in the control group who had progression crossed over to receive olaparib. A significant benefit for olaparib was also seen for imaging-based progression-free survival in the overall population (cohorts A and B). Anemia and nausea were the main toxic effects in patients who received olaparib. CONCLUSIONS: In men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who had disease progression while receiving enzalutamide or abiraterone and who had alterations in genes with a role in homologous recombination repair, olaparib was associated with longer progression-free survival and better measures of response and patient-reported end points than either enzalutamide or abiraterone. (Funded by AstraZeneca and Merck Sharp & Dohme; PROfound ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02987543.).

The drospirenone (DRSP)-only pill: clinical implications in the daily use.

OBJECTIVES: Progestins used in contraception are either components of combined hormonal contraceptives or are used as a single active ingredient. Progestins are highly effective in long-term contraception and have a very good safety profile with very few contraindications. METHODS: An oestrogen-free ovulation inhibitor POP has been authorised in the USA and the EU. It contains 4 mg of drospirenone (DRSP). The hormone administration regimen of 24 days followed by a 4-day hormone-free period was chosen to improve bleeding control and to maintain oestradiol concentrations at early follicular- phase levels, preventing oestrogen deficiency. RESULTS: Clinical trials have demonstrated high contraceptive effectiveness, a very low risk of cardiovascular risk events and a favourable bleeding pattern. Due to the long half-life of DRSP (30-34 h), the effectiveness is maintained even in case of a forgotten pill on a single occasion. Studies involving deliberate 4 days in one cycle 24-hour delays in taking a pill have demonstrated that ovulation inhibition is maintained if a single pill is missed. CONCLUSIONS: This review article will describe the clinical impact in the daily use of the 4 mg DRSP only pill and the resulting data on the effectiveness and safety of this hormonal contraceptive.

The 4 mg drospirenone-only pill improves the bleeding profile in comparison to 0.075 mg desogestrel and achieves high contraceptive efficacy even with a 24 h missed pill window.

A new progestin-only pill (POP): the impact of drospirenone-only pill 4 mg 24 + 4 on coagulation markers and bleeding patterns.

PURPOSE: Progestin-only pills (POPs), compared to combined, are not associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism, but are associated with a poor cycle control. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of a new POP [4 mg drospirenone (DRSP) for 24 days with a 4-day hormone-free interval] on some coagulation markers (both procoagulant and fibrinolytic) and to describe its impact on bleeding patterns. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a prospective trial, based on serum evaluation of following coagulation markers and tests: Factor (F) X, F VIII, F V, INR, aPTT, Protein S and antithrombin III. A 'bleeding diary' was used to categorise women as having (1) unscheduled bleeding, (2) scheduled bleeding and (3) amenorrhoea. Thirty patients were followed for six 28-day intake cycles, with a follow-up at the end of the 3rd and 6th cycles. RESULTS: There was a significant decrease of F X (p = 0.03) (-5.7% at cycle 6). No significant changes have been observed for F VII, F V and INR. A significant increase in aPTT (p = 0.01 at 3 cycles), Protein S (p = 0.0006 at 3 cycles) and antithrombin III (p < 0.0001 at 3 cycles) was recorded. This non-deteriorating coagulation impact was associated with a significant and progressive reduction of days of scheduled and unscheduled bleeding in users between cycles 4 and 6 (from 1.3 ± 0.2 days at cycle 4 to 0.8 ± 0.1 days at cycle 6 and from 2.6 ± 0.4 days at cycle 4 to 0.6 ± 0.2 days at cycle 6, respectively, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: DRSP 24 + 4 use was associated with a non-deteriorating effect on coagulation markers and a significant progressive reduction of days of scheduled and unscheduled bleeding.

Contraception with DRSP 24 + 4 was associated with a non-deteriorating effect on coagulation markers and a significant progressive reduction of days of scheduled and unscheduled bleeding.

Cabazitaxel versus Abiraterone or Enzalutamide in Metastatic Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of cabazitaxel, as compared with an androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor (abiraterone or enzalutamide), in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who were previously treated with docetaxel and had progression within 12 months while receiving the alternative inhibitor (abiraterone or enzalutamide) are unclear. METHODS: We randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, patients who had previously received docetaxel and an androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor (abiraterone or enzalutamide) to receive cabazitaxel (at a dose of 25 mg per square meter of body-surface area intravenously every 3 weeks, plus prednisone daily and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor) or the other androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor (either 1000 mg of abiraterone plus prednisone daily or 160 mg of enzalutamide daily). The primary end point was imaging-based progression-free survival. Secondary end points of survival, response, and safety were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 255 patients underwent randomization. After a median follow-up of 9.2 months, imaging-based progression or death was reported in 95 of 129 patients (73.6%) in the cabazitaxel group, as compared with 101 of 126 patients (80.2%) in the group that received an androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.40 to 0.73; P<0.001). The median imaging-based progression-free survival was 8.0 months with cabazitaxel and 3.7 months with the androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor. The median overall survival was 13.6 months with cabazitaxel and 11.0 months with the androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor (hazard ratio for death, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.89; P = 0.008). The median progression-free survival was 4.4 months with cabazitaxel and 2.7 months with an androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.68; P<0.001), a prostate-specific antigen response occurred in 35.7% and 13.5% of the patients, respectively (P<0.001), and tumor response was noted in 36.5% and 11.5% (P = 0.004). Adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 56.3% of patients receiving cabazitaxel and in 52.4% of those receiving an androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor. No new safety signals were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Cabazitaxel significantly improved a number of clinical outcomes, as compared with the androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor (abiraterone or enzalutamide), in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who had been previously treated with docetaxel and the alternative androgen-signaling-targeted agent (abiraterone or enzalutamide). (Funded by Sanofi; CARD ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02485691.).

Hospitalization for adverse events under abiraterone or enzalutamide exposure in real-world setting: A French population-based study on prostate cancer patients.

AIMS: Safety profiles of abiraterone and enzalutamide rely mainly on Phase III clinical trials. Our objective was to estimate the incidence rate ratio (IRR) for certain adverse events leading in real life to hospitalization (atrial fibrillation, acute heart failure, ischaemic heart disease, acute kidney injury [AKI], ischaemic stroke, torsade de pointe/QT interval prolongation, hepatitis and seizure), comparing abiraterone to enzalutamide. We also set out to discuss previously identified safety signals. METHOD: Using the French National Health Insurance System database, all patients newly exposed to abiraterone or enzalutamide between 2013 and 2017 and followed until 31 December 2018 were targeted. IRRs for each event were estimated using a Poisson model in a sub-population of patients without contraindications or precautions for use for either treatment. RESULTS: Among 11 534 new users of abiraterone and enzalutamide, AKI (IRR 1.42, 95% CI: 1.01-2.00), liver monitoring suggestive of hepatic damage (IRR 3.06, 95% CI: 2.66-3.53) and atrial fibrillation (IRR 1.12, 95% CI: 1.05-1.19) were significantly more often observed with abiraterone than with enzalutamide. CONCLUSION: Our study provides knowledge on abiraterone and enzalutamide real-life safety profiles, especially for events leading to hospitalization. Despite several limitations, including the lack of clinical data, the safety signal for AKI under abiraterone is in line with results of an analysis of the French pharmacovigilance database, which requires further specific investigations. Enlightening the clinicians' therapeutic choices for patients treated for prostate cancer, our study should lead to clinicians being cautious in the use of abiraterone.

Cardiovascular Events in Men with Prostate Cancer Receiving Hormone Therapy: An Analysis of the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS).

PURPOSE: The comparative cardiovascular risk profiles of available hormone therapies for the treatment of prostate cancer is not known. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We queried the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System, a retrospective, pharmacovigilance database, for cardiovascular adverse event reports in men with prostate cancer receiving gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists, GnRH antagonists, androgen receptor antagonists, and/or androgen synthesis inhibitors from January 2000 to April 2020. RESULTS: Cardiovascular adverse events accounted for 6,231 reports (12.6%) on hormone monotherapy and 1,793 reports (26.1%) on combination therapy. Arterial vascular events were reported most commonly, followed by arrhythmias, heart failure, and venous thromboembolism. Compared to GnRH agonists, GnRH antagonists were associated with fewer cardiovascular adverse event reports as monotherapy (adjusted reporting odds ratio [ROR]=0.70 [95% CI 0.59-0.84], p <0.001) and as combination therapy (ROR=0.47 [0.34-0.67], p <0.0001), driven by reductions in arterial vascular events. Second generation androgen receptor antagonists and abiraterone were associated with more reports of hypertension requiring hospitalization (ROR=1.21 [1.03-1.41], p=0.02 and ROR=1.19 [1.01-1.40], p=0.03, respectively), and more heart failure events when used in combination with GnRH antagonists (ROR=2.79 [1.30-6.01], p=0.009 and ROR=2.57 [1.12-5.86], p=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective analysis of a pharmacovigilance database, arterial vascular events were the most commonly reported cardiovascular adverse events in men on hormone therapy for prostate cancer. GnRH antagonists were associated with fewer reports of overall cardiovascular events and arterial vascular events than GnRH agonists. Additional study is needed to identify optimal strategies to reduce cardiovascular morbidity among men with prostate cancer receiving hormone therapy.

Risk of sexual dysfunction with progestin-based contraceptives in women of child-bearing age.

PURPOSE: To examine whether there is a positive association between sexual dysfunction (SD) and different types of progestin-based contraceptives. METHODS: Nested case-control study in women of child-bearing age (15-45 years) from the IQVIA® Ambulatory electronic medical record database from 2008 to 2018. Cases defined by diagnosis of sexual dysfunction identified by international classification for disease clinical modification code 9th and 10th. Each case was matched to four controls and rates of prescriptions of the following were compared: levonorgestrel intra-uterine device (IUD), progestin, and ethinyl estradiol (EE) combined oral contraceptive (COC) formulations including levonorgestrel, norgestimate, drospirenone, desogestrel, norethindrone, and norgestrel; etonogestrel vaginal ring; and medroxyprogesterone injection. RESULTS: Overall, 6689 cases of patients with SD were matched to 26,756 matched controls. Compared with matched controls, more subjects with SD used levonorgestrel IUD (OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.08-1.44), EE-levonorgestrel COC (OR 1.18, 95% CI 1.00-1.41), EE-drospirenone (OR 1.28, 95% CI 1.00-1.67), and medroxyprogesterone (OR 1.38, 95% CI 1.12-1.70). The use of norgestrel exhibited a protective effect (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.73-0.95). When using the EE-levonorgestrel COC as a comparator, norgestrel users exhibited a protective effect (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.57-0.87) while no other contraceptives showed a statistically significant difference in association with SD. CONCLUSION: Our study found an increase in the use of levonorgestrel (COC and IUD), drospirenone, and medroxyprogesterone in subjects with SD. The risk of contraceptives did not differ when compared with oral levonorgestrel. The small association size and lack of difference between drug formulations suggest a minimal impact of progestin-based contraceptives on sexual dysfunction.

Efficacy and tolerability of current treatments for hormone-refractory prostate cancer patients with visceral metastases.

Aim: To assess the efficacy and tolerability of the first-line treatment options for hormone-refractory prostate cancer patients with visceral metastases. Materials & methods: The records of 191 patients diagnosed with hormone-refractory prostate cancer with visceral metastases were analyzed retrospectively. Results: Docetaxel was administered to 61.2% (n = 117), abiraterone to 14.2% (n = 27) and enzalutamide to 9.4% (n = 18) as the first-line treatment. The median survival of the patients receiving docetaxel, abiraterone and enzalutamide as the first-line treatment during the hormone-refractory period was 15 (95% Cl: 12.9-17) months, 6 (95% Cl: 1.8-10.1) months and 11 (95% Cl: 0.9-23.1) months (p = 0.038), respectively. Conclusion: The present study established a statistically significant difference in favor of docetaxel in terms of overall survival and progression-free survival.

Lay abstract The optimal therapeutic option for castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) patients with visceral metastases is unknown. We assessed the efficacy and tolerability of the first-line treatment options for CRPC patients with visceral metastasis. One hundred ninety-one patients diagnosed with CRPC with visceral metastases were included in the study. The present study established a statistically significant difference in favor of docetaxel in terms of overall survival and progression-free survival between first-line docetaxel, abiraterone and enzalutamide treatments in CRPC patients with visceral metastases. For patients who cannot undergo chemotherapy, enzalutamide, among novel androgen pathway inhibitors, may be the most appropriate option, given its numerical, although statistically insignificant, difference in overall survival and its fewer side effects compared with abiraterone.

Overall and bleeding-related discontinuation rates of a new oral contraceptive containing 4 mg drospirenone only in a 24/4 regimen and comparison to 0.075 mg desogestrel.

OBJECTIVES: Progestin-only pills do not increase the risk of venous thromboembolism, stroke, and myocardial infarction but are associated with poor cycle control. A novel estrogen-free pill containing only drospirenone (DRSP) to improve bleeding patterns and tolerability and reduce discontinuation rates has been introduced into the market. The present study aims to describe the improvement in the acceptability of this DRSP-only pill, e.g. regarding the bleeding profile and the reduction in discontinuation rates due to unacceptable bleeding compared to desogestrel (DSG). STUDY DESIGN: Double-blind, double-dummy prospective phase III study in healthy women aged 18-45 years evaluating a total of 858 women with 6691 DRSP and 332 women with 2487 DSG treatment cycles. RESULTS: Overall, 82 (9.6%) women in the DRSP group and 44 (13.3%) women in the DSG group experienced treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) leading to premature termination of the trial meaning that 32% more women in the DRSP group finished the trial in comparison to the DSG group (based on the AUC of Kaplan-Meier's curves). Discontinuation rates due to abnormal bleeding were 3.7% for DRSP and 7.3% for DSG users. This is a 55.7% lower discontinuation rate in the DRSP group compared to the DSG group. CONCLUSIONS: This report describes the improvement in acceptability and bleeding profile of women using the new DRSP-only oral contraceptive compared to DSG, providing a better quality of life and adherence to the contraceptive method as demonstrated by lower discontinuation rates of women using the estrogen-free DRSP-only pill.

Comparing the clinical efficacy and safety of abiraterone and enzalutamide in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Two new drugs, abiraterone and enzalutamide, had recently shown beneficial effects on survival in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. We systematically reviewed the efficacy and safety of abiraterone and enzalutamide in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in real-world practice. METHODS: A search from PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane, Embase was conducted up to 6 March 2019. Available articles from conferences were searched. The endpoint was prostate-specific antigen response, overall survival, progression-free survival, number of patients with any adverse event. RESULTS: Fourteen cohort studies involving 3469 participants were included. Pooled result showed that prostate-specific antigen response was higher for patients receiving enzalutamide than abiraterone (790 patients, odds ratio (OR) 0.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.29-0.77, P = 0.003, I2=59%). Enzalutamide was significantly associated with increased adverse events rate in comparison with abiraterone (730 patients, OR 0.35, 95%CI 0.13-0.92, P = 0.03, I2=65%). There was no statistical difference between abiraterone and enzalutamide with respect to perceived cognitive impairments (1856 patients, OR 0.90, 95%CI 0.29-2.76, P = 0.85, I2=5%). Enzalutamide was significantly associated with increased fatigue risk in comparison with abiraterone (2477 patients, OR 0.46, 95%CI 0.34-0.63, P＜0.00001, I2=0%). CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrated that enzalutamide was more efficacious than abiraterone for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, but was associated with a significantly elevated risk of side effects, particularly fatigue.

Quality of life in patients with metastatic prostate cancer following treatment with cabazitaxel versus abiraterone or enzalutamide (CARD): an analysis of a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 4 study.

BACKGROUND: In the CARD study, cabazitaxel significantly improved radiographic progression-free survival and overall survival versus abiraterone or enzalutamide in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer previously treated with docetaxel and the alternative androgen signalling-targeted inhibitor. Here, we report the quality-of-life outcomes from the CARD study. METHODS: CARD was a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 4 study involving 62 clinical sites across 13 European countries. Patients (aged ≥18 years, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status ≤2) with confirmed metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer were randomly assigned (1:1) by means of an interactive voice-web response system to receive cabazitaxel (25 mg/m2 intravenously every 3 weeks, 10 mg daily prednisone, and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor) versus abiraterone (1000 mg orally once daily plus 5 mg prednisone twice daily) or enzalutamide (160 mg orally daily). Stratification factors were ECOG performance status, time to disease progression on the previous androgen signalling-targeted inhibitor, and timing of the previous androgen signalling-targeted inhibitor. The primary endpoint was radiographic progression-free survival; here, we present more detailed analyses of pain (assessed using item 3 on the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form [BPI-SF]) and symptomatic skeletal events, alongside preplanned patient-reported outcomes, assessed using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P) questionnaire and the EuroQoL-5 dimensions, 5 level scale (EQ-5D-5L). Efficacy analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. Pain response was analysed in the intention-to-treat population with baseline and at least one post-baseline assessment of BPI-SF item 3, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were analysed in the intention-to-treat population with baseline and at least one post-baseline assessment of either FACT-P or EQ-5D-5L (PRO population). Analyses of skeletal-related events were also done in the intention-to-treat population. The CARD study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02485691, and is no longer enrolling. FINDINGS: Between Nov 17, 2015, and Nov 28, 2018, of 303 patients screened, 255 were randomly assigned to cabazitaxel (n=129) or abiraterone or enzalutamide (n=126). Median follow-up was 9·2 months (IQR 5·6-13·1). Pain response was observed in 51 (46%) of 111 patients with cabazitaxel and 21 (19%) of 109 patients with abiraterone or enzalutamide (p<0·0001). Median time to pain progression was not estimable (NE; 95% CI NE-NE) with cabazitaxel and 8·5 months (4·9-NE) with abiraterone or enzalutamide (hazard ratio [HR] 0·55, 95% CI 0·32-0·97; log-rank p=0·035). Median time to symptomatic skeletal events was NE (95% CI 20·0-NE) with cabazitaxel and 16·7 months (10·8-NE) with abiraterone or enzalutamide (HR 0·59, 95% CI 0·35-1·01; log-rank p=0·050). Median time to FACT-P total score deterioration was 14·8 months (95% CI 6·3-NE) with cabazitaxel and 8·9 months (6·3-NE) with abiraterone or enzalutamide (HR 0·72, 95% CI 0·44-1·20; log-rank p=0·21). There was a significant treatment effect seen in changes from baseline in EQ-5D-5L utility index score in favour of cabazitaxel over abiraterone or enzalutamide (p=0·030) but no difference between treatment groups for change from baseline in EQ-5D-5L visual analogue scale (p=0·060). INTERPRETATION: Since cabazitaxel improved pain response, time to pain progression, time to symptomatic skeletal events, and EQ-5D-5L utility index, clinicians and patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer can be reassured that cabazitaxel will not reduce quality of life when compared with treatment with a second androgen signalling-targeted inhibitor. FUNDING: Sanofi.

New Antiandrogen Compounds Compared to Docetaxel for Metastatic Hormone Sensitive Prostate Cancer: Results from a Network Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE: Docetaxel represent the standard of care in patients with metastatic, hormone sensitive prostate cancer. However, androgen receptor axis targeted therapies have also been shown to be effective. We aimed to analyze findings in randomized controlled trials investigating first-line treatment for hormone sensitive prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We systematically reviewed the literature according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) criteria and the PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcomes) methodology. Outcomes of interest were overall and progression-free survival, and the rate of high grade adverse events. RESULTS: No treatment was superior to docetaxel in terms of overall survival. However, abiraterone (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.76-1.05), enzalutamide (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.69-1.19) and apalutamide (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.67-1.22) showed nonstatistically significant lower overall mortality rates than docetaxel. Abiraterone (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.59-0.86), enzalutamide (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.49-0.75) and apalutamide (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.57-0.95) also showed statistically significant lower disease progression rates than docetaxel. Furthermore, abiraterone (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.56-1.21) showed no statistically significant lower rate of high grade adverse events compared to docetaxel. Finally, enzalutamide (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.35-0.92) and apalutamide (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.24-0.79) showed statistically significant lower rates of high grade adverse events compared to docetaxel. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with androgen receptor axis targeted therapies combined with androgen deprivation therapy in patients with hormone sensitive prostate cancer did not offer a statistically significant advantage in overall survival compared to the standard, docetaxel. However, it was associated with a lower disease progression rate. Moreover, apalutamide and enzalutamide offer a better safety profile.

Use of record linkage to evaluate treatment outcomes and trial eligibility in a real-world metastatic prostate cancer population in Scotland.

PURPOSE: New treatments are introduced into standard care based on clinical trial results. However, it is not clear if these benefits are reflected in the broader population. This study analysed the clinical outcomes of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, treated with abiraterone and enzalutamide, within the Scottish National Health Service. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study using record linkage of routinely collected healthcare data (study period: February 2012 to February 2017). Overall survival (OS) was analysed using Kaplan-Meier methods and Cox Proportional Hazard models; a subgroup analysis comprised potentially trial-eligible patients. RESULTS: Overall, 271 patients were included and 73.8% died during the study period. Median OS was poorer than in the pivotal trials, regardless of medication and indication: 10.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 8.6-15.1) and 20.9 months (95% CI 14.9-29.0) for abiraterone, and 12.6 months (95% CI 10.5-18.2) and 16.0 months (95% CI 9.8-not reached) for enzalutamide, post and pre chemotherapy, respectively. Only 46% of patients were potentially "trial eligible" and in this subgroup OS improved. Factors influencing survival included baseline performance status, and baseline prostate-specific antigen, alkaline phosphatase, and albumin levels. CONCLUSIONS: Poorer prognostic features of non-trial eligible patients impact real-world outcomes of cancer medicines. Electronic record linkage of routinely collected healthcare data offers an opportunity to report outcomes on cancer medicines at scale and describe population demographics. The availability of such observational data to supplement clinical trial results enables patients and clinicians to make more informed treatment decisions, and policymakers to contextualise trial findings.

Comparison of effectiveness and safety outcomes of abiraterone versus enzalutamide in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: To compare the effectiveness and safety between abiraterone and enzalutamide in the treatment of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). METHODS: We systematically searched for relevant articles from PubMed, Cochrane, Embase from their inception through November 4, 2019. Available articles from conferences were searched. The endpoints were prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response, overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), number of patients with any adverse event (AE). RESULTS: 15 cohort studies involving 3546 participants were included in this meta-analysis. Pooled result showed that PSA response rate in the enzalutamide group was significantly greater than that in the abiraterone group (867 patients, risk ratio (RR) 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61-0.79, p＜0.00001, I2=29%). There was no significant difference in the total incidence of AEs between two groups (730 patients, RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.14-1.31, p = 0.14, I2=84%). The common adverse events observed in the published articles were fatigue and perceived cognitive impairments. Patients who received enzalutamide had the higher risk to have the feeling of fatigue compared with abiraterone group (2555 patients, RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.24-0.85, p=0.01, I2=92%). And there was no statistical difference between two groups respect to the side effect of perceived cognitive impairments (1856 patients, RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.47-1.88, p=0.85, I2=15%). CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrated that enzalutamide was associated with higher PSA response rate compared to abiraterone in patients with mCRPC, and no significant difference was found between two groups in the overall AE. But enzalutamide use induced higher risk of the AE of fatigue.

Efficacy and cardiovascular safety of the new estrogen-free contraceptive pill containing 4 mg drospirenone alone in a 24/4 regime.

BACKGROUND: A new estrogen-free contraceptive has been approved by both the FDA and more than 15 European authorities. It is composed of drospirenone (DRSP) at a dosage of 4 mg in a regimen 24/4. The molecule is known to have anti-gonadotropic, anti-mineralocorticoid, anti-estrogenic, and antiandrogenic properties. The purpose of these clinical trials with a new estrogen-free contraceptive was to introduce a contraceptive method with high efficacy and showing a profile with low cardiovascular risks. METHODS: Three European and American multicenter clinical trials have been conducted in more than 2500 patients and more than 25,000 cycles, not only demonstrating an excellent efficacy (Pearl Index of 0.73) but also investigating possible cardiovascular risks. In the USA study, 422 participants (41.9%) had a risk factor for VTE, while in the European studies, 261 patients (16.6%) had at least one VTE risk factor. Amount of arterial and venous thromboembolic events, hemostasiological data, blood pressure development, and ECG data were evaluated. RESULTS: No single case of VTE was documented, no changes in hemastosiological parameters were observed, a small decrease in RR in patients with pretreatment values between 130 and 140 and/or 85 to 90 mm HG and no influence on ECG parameters were observed. CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of a new estrogen-free contraceptive with 4 mg of non-micronized drospirenone in a 24/4-day regimen expands contraception options for women as not only a high efficacy could be demonstrated during clinical trials but also a very high cardiovascular safety profile was observed even in women with cardiovascular risk factors. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT registration numbers: 2010-021787-15 & 2011-002396-42 . Clincaltrials.gov: NCT02269241 .

Impact of antiandrogen withdrawal syndrome in castration-resistant prostate cancer patients treated with abiraterone or enzalutamide.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of antiandrogen withdrawal syndrome after bicalutamide withdrawal in castration-resistant prostate cancer patients treated with androgen receptor-axis targeted agents. METHODS: The study cohort comprised 94 patients treated with abiraterone (n = 34) or enzalutamide (n = 60) as a first-line androgen receptor-axis targeted agent for castration-resistant prostate cancer despite combined androgen blockade by castration with bicalutamide as the first-line therapy. The association between clinicopathological factors (including antiandrogen withdrawal syndrome) and therapeutic outcome after using abiraterone and enzalutamide was investigated. RESULTS: The decline in the prostate-specific antigen level after use of abiraterone or enzalutamide was comparable between patients with and without antiandrogen withdrawal syndrome. Antiandrogen withdrawal syndrome (hazard ratio 3.84, 95% confidence interval 1.29-11.45; P = 0.016) was associated with a higher risk of progression on multivariate analysis, but not all-cause death after abiraterone use. Progression-free survival and overall survival after enzalutamide use did not differ between patients with and without antiandrogen withdrawal syndrome. CONCLUSIONS: The present data suggest a modest therapeutic efficacy of abiraterone in castration-resistant prostate cancer patients with anti-androgen withdrawal syndrome after bicalutamide withdrawal.

Comparison of change in body weight between contraception containing 30-µg ethinylestradiol/2-mg chlormadinone acetate or 30-µg ethinylestradiol/3-mg drospirenone: a randomised controlled trial.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare changes in body weight in women using a combined oral contraceptive (COC) consisting of 30-µg ethinylestradiol (EE) and 2-mg chlormadinone acetate (CMA) or a COC consisting of 30-µg EE and 3-mg drospirenone (DRSP).Methods: This randomised double-blind controlled trial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01608698) was conducted at a university hospital-based clinic in Thailand between June 2012 and September 2015. A total of 102 women were enrolled in the study, 99 of whom were randomised to EE/CMA (n = 45) or EE/DRSP (n = 54). Each participant was treated for six cycles. Body weight and other parameters as well as side effects were recorded at baseline and at the end of the third and sixth cycles of treatment.Results: A significant difference was observed in mean body weight change between the EE/CMA and EE/DRSP groups from both baseline to third cycle (0.51 ± 1.36 kg vs -0.43 ± 1.56 kg; p = .003) and baseline to sixth cycle (1.00 ± 1.84 kg vs -0.20 ± 2.23 kg; p = .013). The mean difference in body mass index and waist circumference had a similar trend to that of the mean difference in body weight. There was no significant difference in side effects between groups.Conclusion: A COC containing 30-µg EE/3-mg DRSP tended to confer a significantly more favourable change in body weight over a 6-month period compared with a COC containing 30-µg EE/2-mg CMA, which was associated with an increase in body weight.

Recognition and Treatment of Adrenal Insufficiency Secondary to Abiraterone: A Case Report and Literature Review.

OBJECTIVE: Abiraterone is a relatively noncytotoxic drug approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2011 for the treatment of metastatic prostate cancer (MPC). As an inhibitor of 17α-hydroxylase and C17,20-lyase (CYP17), abiraterone blocks androgen synthesis and glucocorticoid production. Decreased cortisol levels result in an increased ACTH release, which can lead to increased mineralocorticoid levels. While coadministration of abiraterone and glucocorticoids has been effective in reducing an apparent mineralocorticoid excess, adequate replacement of physiologic glucocorticoids, especially in times of acute stress, remains less well-defined. METHODS: A literature search was conducted using the PubMed and Google Scholar databases for abiraterone and adrenal insufficiency. Publications were selected based on the quality of the data and clinical relevance. We reviewed the landmark trials leading to FDA approval and establishment of the standard glucocorticoid replacement dosing. RESULTS: We present 2 patients with MPC on abiraterone therapy. These 2 patients required modification of the glucocorticoid therapy because of adverse effects. CONCLUSIONS: We found that a standard dose of prednisone of 5 mg/day as recommended previously may be inadequate to achieve physiologic glucocorticoid replacement in some patients with prostate cancer while on abiraterone treatment and as a result adrenal insufficiency due to inadequate dosing might be more common than initially thought. Additionally 10 mg of prednisone daily may cause adverse effects in some patients. Thus clinicians should be aware of the potential for development of adrenal insufficiency or symptoms of glucocorticoid excess in these patients receiving prednisone so that appropriate modifications in glucocorticoid dosing can be instituted without any delay. Prednisone dosing may need to be individualized in each patient receiving abiraterone therapy.

Management of anticoagulation in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer receiving abiraterone + prednisone.

PURPOSE: Abiraterone has been proven to be an effective agent used in the management of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, significantly improving overall and progression-free survival. Due to the pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties of abiraterone, concurrent use with anticoagulation may pose a challenge for clinicians. Thrombosis within the cancer setting continues to increase patient mortality; therefore, appropriate anticoagulation through the use of a management algorithm can reduce adverse events and increase quality of life. METHODS: A review of the literature was preformed by a medical oncologist, haematologist and pharmacists to identify relevant randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses and retrospective studies. Major society guidelines were reviewed to further aid in developing the anticoagulation protocol for non-valvular atrial fibrillation and venous thromboembolism within this patient population. After reviewing the literature, a clinical framework was designed to aid clinicians in the management of those patients receiving abiraterone concurrently with an anticoagulant. RESULTS: In this review, we describe the potential interactions between abiraterone and various anticoagulants and provide management strategies based on the most recent literature for atrial fibrillation, venous thromboembolism and mechanical heart valves to avoid potential drug-drug interactions. CONCLUSION: Abiraterone therapy has become a mainstay of the management of advanced prostate cancer and is often used over prolonged years. In this review, we have summarized a framework of how to use abiraterone in men with prostate cancer on anticoagulants. Evidence available to date suggests that patients with an indication for anticoagulation such as atrial fibrillation, venous thromboembolism and mechanical heart valves can be treated safely with abiraterone in the appropriate setting, with appropriate monitoring.