Drug-drug interaction potential among patients with nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) treated with novel androgen receptor inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: Nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) patients are often older and use concurrent medications that increase the potential for drug-drug interactions (pDDIs). This study assessed pDDI prevalence in real-world nmCRPC patients treated with apalutamide, darolutamide, or enzalutamide. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Castrated prostate cancer patients without metastases prior to androgen receptor inhibitor initiation were identified retrospectively via Optum Clinformatics Data Mart claims data (8/2019-3/2021). The top 100 concomitant medications were assessed for pDDIs. RESULTS: Among 1,515 patients (mean age: 77 ± 8 years; mean Charlson Comorbidity Index: 3 ± 3), 340 initiated apalutamide, 112 darolutamide, and 1,063 enzalutamide. Common concomitant medication classes were cardiovascular (80%) and central nervous system (52%). Two-thirds of the patients received ≥5 concomitant medications; 30 (30/100 medications) pDDIs were identified for apalutamide and enzalutamide each and 2 (2/100 medications) for darolutamide. Most pDDIs had risk ratings of C or D, but four for apalutamide were rated X. Approximately 58% of the patients on apalutamide, 5% on darolutamide, and 54% on enzalutamide had ≥1 identified pDDI. CONCLUSIONS: Results showed a higher frequency of pDDIs in patients receiving apalutamide and enzalutamide vs darolutamide. The impact of these could not be determined retrospectively. DDI risk should be carefully evaluated when discussing optimal therapy for patients with nmCRPC.

A net-work meta-analysis of the cardiac safety for next-generation hormonal agents in treating castration-resistant prostate cancer: How to choose drugs appropriately?

BACKGROUND: Researchers have shown that using next-generation hormonal agents (NHA) for castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) would lead to increased risk of cardiac adverse effects, making clinician choices more complex. METHODS: We systematically searched Pubmed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases for research published before October 2022. Agents were ranked according to their effectiveness based on cardiac adverse effects using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve. RESULTS: A total of 21 Randomized Controlled Trials (RCT) with 19, 083 patients were included in present study. Our results showed that abiraterone and enzalutamide could lead to a significantly higher hypertension rate compared with placebo; whereas no significant difference was detected between four NHAs and placebo in ischemic heart disease incidence. All four NHAs could significantly increase the risk of cardiotoxicity. CONCLUSIONS: NHAs are generally acceptable in terms of cardiovascular disease compared to placebo in patients with CRPC.

Determination of enzalutamide long-term safety and efficacy for castration-resistant prostate cancer patients after combined anti-androgen blockade followed by alternative anti-androgen therapy: a multicenter prospective DELC study.

BACKGROUND: Alternative anti-androgen therapy has been widely used as a first-line treatment for castration-resistant prostate cancer, and it may affect treatment outcome of subsequent agents targeting the androgen receptor axis. We conducted the prospective observational DELC (Determination of Enzalutamide Long-term safety and efficacy for Castration-resistant prostate cancer patients after combined anti-androgen blockade followed by alternative anti-androgen therapy) study to evaluate the efficacy of enzalutamide in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer who underwent prior combined androgen blockade with bicalutamide and then alternative anti-androgen therapy with flutamide. METHODS: The DELC study enrolled 163 Japanese patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer who underwent alternative anti-androgen therapy with flutamide following failure of initial combined androgen blockade with bicalutamide in multiple institutions between January 2016 and March 2019. Primary endpoint was overall survival. Administration of enzalutamide was started at 160 mg orally once daily in all patients. RESULTS: The rate of decline of prostate-specific antigen by 50% or more was 72.2%, and median overall survival was 42.05 months. Multivariate analysis revealed that higher pretreatment serum levels of prostate-specific antigen (≥11.3 ng/mL; P = 0.004), neuron-specific enolase (P = 0.014) and interleukin-6 (≥2.15 pg/mL; P = 0.004) were independent risk factors for overall survival. Fatigue (30.0%), constipation (19.6%) and appetite loss (17.8%) were the most common clinically relevant adverse events. The enzalutamide dose was not reduced in any patient under the age of 70, but adherence was decreased in those over 70. CONCLUSIONS: In the DELC study, the safety of enzalutamide was comparable to that in previous reports. Serum levels of neuron-specific enolase and interleukin-6 were suggested as prognostic factors for castration-resistant prostate cancer with potential clinical utility.

Oncological Outcomes in Men with Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Treated with Enzalutamide with versus without Confirmatory Bone Scan.

PURPOSE: In men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), new bone lesions are sometimes not properly categorized through a confirmatory bone scan, and clinical significance of the test itself remains unclear. This study aimed to demonstrate the performance rate of confirmatory bone scans in a real-world setting and their prognostic impact in enzalutamide-treated mCRPC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who received oral enzalutamide for mCRPC during 2014-2017 at 14 tertiary centers in Korea were included. Patients lacking imaging assessment data or insufficient drug exposure were excluded. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes included performance rate of confirmatory bone scans in a real-world setting. Kaplan-Meier analysis and multivariate Cox regression analysis were performed. RESULTS: Overall, 520 patients with mCRPC were enrolled (240 [26.2%] chemotherapy-naïve and 280 [53.2%] after chemotherapy). Among 352 responders, 92 patients (26.1%) showed new bone lesions in their early bone scan. Confirmatory bone scan was performed in 41 patients (44.6%), and it was associated with prolonged OS in the entire population (median, 30.9 vs. 19.7 months; p < 0.001), as well as in the chemotherapy-naïve (median, 47.2 vs. 20.5 months; p=0.011) and post-chemotherapy sub-groups (median, 25.5 vs. 18.0 months; p=0.006). Multivariate Cox regression showed that confirmatory bone scan performance was an independent prognostic factor for OS (hazard ratio 0.35, 95% confidence interval, 0.18 to 0.69; p=0.002). CONCLUSION: Confirmatory bone scan performance was associated with prolonged OS. Thus, the premature discontinuation of enzalutamide without confirmatory bone scans should be discouraged.

Adverse Events of Abiraterone Acetate vs Enzalutamide.

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to highlight the comprehensive differences in adverse events between abiraterone and enzalutamide based on a big data data set. METHODS: We downloaded adverse event data sets of abiraterone and enzalutamide from the Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System database. We used the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities to treat each adverse event as a preferred term and grouped it into the System Organ Class. Logistic regression analyses were performed to compare abiraterone and enzalutamide. RESULTS: In total, we extracted 59,680 data sets. After exclusion by criteria, we included 26,015 reports on enzalutamide and 7,507 on abiraterone. Enzalutamide and abiraterone presented different toxicity profiles in most System Organ Classes. Overall, the reporting odds ratio indicated a higher incidence rate of serious adverse events for abiraterone than enzalutamide. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, our findings suggest that both drugs present a discrete and nonoverlapping toxicity profile that varies by System Organ Class and patient age. This data set confirms, for the most part, what has been reported in clinical trials as well as true real-world reports.

Enzalutamide and Quality of Life in Biochemically Recurrent Prostate Cancer.

Enzalutamide and Quality of Life in Prostate CancerFreedland et al. present the health-related quality of life outcomes for patients with biochemically recurrent prostate cancer who were randomly assigned to enzalutamide plus leuprolide, enzalutamide monotherapy, or leuprolide alone (EMBARK trial). The key objectives were to determine differences in time to first and confirmed clinically meaningful deterioration in pain and time to first and confirmed clinically meaningful deterioration in functional status. There were no differences among the key outcomes among all three groups.

A scoping review protocol to elucidate outcomes following abiraterone versus enzalutamide for prostate cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Abiraterone acetate and enzalutamide are commonly employed in prostate cancer therapy in an interchangeable manner. These drugs are highly efficacious in androgen antagonism to improve patient outcomes, but they also carry noteworthy risk of adverse effects. Common toxicities vary amongst the two drugs and may have differential interactions with patient co-morbidities, but these patterns are unclear as co-morbidities typically serve as exclusion criteria in clinical trials. Hence, there is no existing guidance on how clinicians may tailor treatment based on patient-specific factors. Analysis of differential patient outcomes between these two drugs can inform future systematic reviews, new clinical studies, and clinical decision making. METHOD AND ANALYSIS: The framework for this methodology was informed by the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews. Title and abstract screening will be performed by two independent researchers to create an initial study inventory. This will be followed by full-text screening for study inclusion. Population-based studies describing patient outcomes, common toxicities, and associations with patient co-morbidities following abiraterone or enzalutamide therapy will be included. After data is extracted, it will be summarized for presentation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The findings of this scoping review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. The results will be used to inform future studies on patient-specific factors informing treatment choice between abiraterone and enzalutamide for castration-resistant prostate cancer. All data are from published openly accessible sources, and therefore, no ethical clearance is necessary. The protocol is also registered at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.19149227.

Adjuvant enzalutamide for the treatment of early-stage androgen-receptor positive, triple-negative breast cancer: a feasibility study.

PURPOSE: Chemotherapy with or without immunotherapy remains the mainstay of treatment for triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). A subset of TNBCs express the androgen receptor (AR), representing a potential new therapeutic target. This study assessed the feasibility of adjuvant enzalutamide, an AR antagonist, in early-stage, AR-positive (AR +) TNBC. METHODS: This study was a single-arm, open-label, multicenter trial in which patients with stage I-III, AR ≥ 1% TNBC who had completed standard-of-care therapy were treated with enzalutamide 160 mg/day orally for 1 year. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of 1 year of adjuvant enzalutamide, defined as the treatment discontinuation rate of enzalutamide due to toxicity, withdrawal of consent, or other events related to tolerability. Secondary endpoints included disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), safety, and genomic features of recurrent tumors. RESULTS: Fifty patients were enrolled in this study. Thirty-five patients completed 1 year of therapy, thereby meeting the prespecified trial endpoint for feasibility. Thirty-two patients elected to continue with an optional second year of treatment. Grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events were uncommon. The 1-year, 2-year, and 3-year DFS were 94%, 92% , and 80%, respectively. Median OS has not been reached. CONCLUSION: This clinical trial demonstrates that adjuvant enzalutamide is a feasible and well-tolerated regimen in patients with an early-stage AR + TNBC. Randomized trials in the metastatic setting may inform patient selection through biomarker development; longer follow-up is needed to determine the effect of anti-androgens on DFS and OS in this patient population.

Androgen annihilation versus advanced androgen blockage as first line treatment for metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Despite recent advances in the treatments of metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), patients' prognosis remains suboptimal and novel treatment combinations are under scrutiny. On this matter, the recent ACIS trial tested the role of abiraterone plus apalutamide (androgen annihilation) in addition to androgen deprivation therapy, versus abiraterone plus androgen deprivation therapy. Herein, we performed a meta-analysis to compare overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) among patients who received androgen annihilation versus advanced androgen blockage (abiraterone or enzalutamide), in addition to conventional androgen deprivation therapy. METHODS: A comprehensive search for all published phase III randomized control trials on first line mCRPC that evaluated advanced androgen blockage (COU-AA-302, PREVAIL) or androgen annihilation (ACIS) was conducted PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Scopus databases up to 31/12/2021. We reconstructed survival data from published Kaplan-Meier curves on overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) and meta-analyzed androgen annihilation versus advanced androgen blockage (grouping together abiraterone and enzalutamide) versus androgen deprivation therapy. The outcomes of interest were assessed using difference in restricted mean survival time (ΔRMST) at different time points. RESULTS: Three trials were included involving 3787 patients. Overall, patients receiving androgen annihilation exhibited similar OS compared to advanced androgen blockage: ΔRMST at 36 months of - 0.2 (95%CI: -1.1, 0.8, p = 0.8). At 36 months, relatively to ADT alone, patients receiving androgen annihilation or advanced androgen blockage exhibited longer OS: ΔRMST of 1.6 (95%CI: 0.6, 2.7, p = 0.002) and 1.8 months (95%CI: 1.1, 2.5, p < 0.001), respectively. Patients receiving androgen annihilation exhibited better PFS compared to advanced androgen blockage: ΔRMST at 36 months of 2.4 months (95%CI: 1.0, 3.8, p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: We found no OS benefit for patients with mCRPC treated with androgen annihilation compared to advanced androgen blockage. This might be ascribed to an increased rate of other cause mortality that might determine the absence of an OS benefit or to the efficacy of second line therapies. Optimal treatment sequence and patient selection for androgen annihilation remain open points. However, a PFS benefit was found in case of combination therapy, whose clinical meaning is not yet clear.

Phase II Study of Enzalutamide for Patients With Androgen Receptor-Positive Salivary Gland Cancers (Alliance A091404).

PURPOSE: The androgen receptor (AR) is expressed (+) in a subset of salivary gland cancers (SGCs). This phase II trial evaluated the efficacy of the antiandrogen enzalutamide in AR+ SGC. METHODS: Patients with locally advanced/unresectable or metastatic AR+ SGCs were enrolled. Enzalutamide (160 mg) was given orally once daily. The primary end point was the best overall response rate per RECIST v1.1 within eight cycles. Confirmed responses in ≥ 5 of 41 patients would be considered promising. Secondary end points were progression-free survival, overall survival, and safety. RESULTS: Forty-six patients were enrolled; 30 (65.2%) received prior systemic therapy, including 13 (28.3%) with AR-targeted drugs. Of seven (15.2%) partial responses (PRs), only two (4.3%) were confirmed per protocol and counted toward the primary end point. Twenty-four patients (52.2%) had stable disease; 15 (32.6%) had progression of disease as best response. Twenty-six patients (56.5%) experienced tumor regression in target lesions; 18 (39.1%) had partial response/stable disease ≥ 6 months. Tumor regressions were observed in female patients (5 of 6 [83.3%]) and those who received prior AR- (6 of 13 [46.2%]) or human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-targeted therapies (5 of 8 [62.5%]). Three patients remained on treatment at data cutoff (duration, 32.2-49.8 months). The median progression-free survival was 5.6 months (95% CI, 3.7 to 7.5); the median overall survival was 17.0 months (95% CI, 11.8 to 30.0). The most common adverse events were fatigue, hypertension, hot flashes, and weight loss. Total and free testosterone levels increased by a mean of 61.2% and 48.8%, respectively, after enzalutamide. CONCLUSION: Enzalutamide demonstrated limited activity in AR+ SGC, failing to meet protocol-defined success in part because of a lack of response durability. Strategies to enhance the efficacy of antiandrogen therapy are needed.

Phase Ib/II Study of Enzalutamide with Samotolisib (LY3023414) or Placebo in Patients with Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: To report efficacy and safety of samotolisib (LY3023414; PI3K/mTOR dual kinase and DNA-dependent protein kinase inhibitor) plus enzalutamide in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) following cancer progression on abiraterone. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled phase Ib/II study (NCT02407054), following a lead-in segment for evaluating safety and pharmacokinetics of samotolisib and enzalutamide combination, patients with advanced castration-resistant prostate cancer with progression on prior abiraterone were randomized to receive enzalutamide (160 mg daily)/samotolisib (200 mg twice daily) or placebo. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) assessed by Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group criteria (PCWG2). Secondary and exploratory endpoints included radiographic PFS (rPFS) and biomarkers, respectively. Log-rank tests assessed treatment group differences. RESULTS: Overall, 13 and 129 patients were enrolled in phase Ib and II, respectively. Dose-limiting toxicity was not reported in patients during phase Ib and mean samotolisib exposures remained in the targeted range despite a 35% decrease when administered with enzalutamide. In phase II, median PCWG2-PFS and rPFS was significantly longer in the samotolisib/enzalutamide versus placebo/enzalutamide arm (3.8 vs. 2.8 months; P = 0.003 and 10.2 vs. 5.5 months; P = 0.03), respectively. Patients without androgen receptor splice variant 7 showed a significant and clinically meaningful rPFS benefit in the samotolisib/enzalutamide versus placebo/enzalutamide arm (13.2 months vs. 5.3 months; P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Samotolisib/enzalutamide has tolerable side effects and significantly improved PFS in patients with mCRPC with cancer progression on abiraterone, and this may be enriched in patients with PTEN intact and no androgen receptor splice variant 7.

Risk of Metabolic and Cardiovascular Adverse Events With Abiraterone or Enzalutamide Among Men With Advanced Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Abiraterone and enzalutamide are the most common oral agents for the treatment of men with advanced prostate cancer. To understand their safety profiles in real-world settings, we examined the association between the use of abiraterone or enzalutamide and the risk of metabolic or cardiovascular adverse events while on treatment. METHODS: Men with advanced prostate cancer and their use of abiraterone or enzalutamide were identified in a 20% sample of the 2010-2017 national Medicare claims. The primary composite outcome was the occurrence of a major metabolic or cardiovascular adverse event, defined as an emergency room visit or hospitalization associated with a primary diagnosis of diabetes, hypertension, or cardiovascular disease. The secondary composite outcome was the occurrence of a minor metabolic or cardiovascular adverse event, defined as an outpatient visit associated with a primary diagnosis of the aforementioned conditions. Risks were assessed separately for abiraterone and enzalutamide using Cox regression. All statistical tests were 2-sided. RESULTS: Compared with men not receiving abiraterone, men receiving abiraterone were at increased risk of both a major composite adverse event (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.77, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.53 to 2.05; P < .001) and a minor composite adverse event (HR = 1.24, 95% CI = 1.05 to 1.47; P = .01). Compared with men not receiving enzalutamide, men receiving enzalutamide were at an increased risk of a major composite adverse event (HR = 1.22, 95% CI = 1.01 to 1.48; P = .04) but not a minor composite adverse event (HR = 1.04, 95% CI = 0.83 to 1.30; P = .75). CONCLUSION: Careful monitoring and management of men on abiraterone or enzalutamide through team-based approaches are critical.

Improved Survival With Enzalutamide in Patients With Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer.

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported.In primary analysis, enzalutamide plus androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) improved radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) in patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC); however, overall survival data were immature. In the phase III, double-blind, global ARCHES trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02677896), 1,150 patients with mHSPC were randomly assigned 1:1 to enzalutamide (160 mg once daily) plus ADT or placebo plus ADT, stratified by disease volume and prior docetaxel use. Here, we report the final prespecified analysis of overall survival (key secondary end point) and an update on rPFS, other secondary end points, and safety. After unblinding, 180 (31.3%) progression-free patients randomly assigned to placebo plus ADT crossed over to open-label enzalutamide plus ADT. As of May 28, 2021 (median follow-up, 44.6 months), 154 of 574 patients randomly assigned to enzalutamide plus ADT and 202 of 576 patients randomly assigned to placebo plus ADT had died. Enzalutamide plus ADT reduced risk of death by 34% versus placebo plus ADT (median not reached in either group; hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.81; P < .001). Enzalutamide plus ADT continued to improve rPFS and other secondary end points. Adverse events were generally consistent with previous reports of long-term enzalutamide use. In conclusion, enzalutamide plus ADT significantly prolongs survival versus placebo plus ADT in patients with mHSPC.

Real-world burden of adverse events for apalutamide- or enzalutamide-treated non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Second-generation androgen receptor inhibitors (ARIs) have been associated with adverse events (AEs) such as fatigue, falls, fractures, and rash in non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) patients as identified in clinical trials. The objectives of this study were to describe the incidence and management of AEs in patients receiving apalutamide and enzalutamide. METHODS: This retrospective chart review study was conducted in nmCRPC-treating sites in the United States. Patients starting apalutamide or enzalutamide between February 1, 2018 and December 31, 2018 were included and any AEs they experienced were recorded. AEs, including those considered to be of special interest as defined in the pivotal clinical trials of the second-generation ARIs, were analyzed and grouped retrospectively in this study. Detailed chart data (patient demographics, clinical characteristics, treatment history, type of AE, outcomes, and resource utilization) were then collected for a randomly selected subset among patients with ≥1 AE to characterize AEs and their management. Descriptive results were summarized. RESULTS: Forty-three sites participated in the study. A total of 699 patients were included, of whom 525 (75.1%) experienced ≥1 AE. The most common AEs were fatigue/asthenia (34.3%), hot flush (13.9%), and arthralgia (13.6%). In the subset of 250 patients randomly selected from those who experienced ≥1 AE, patients were primarily White (72.0%), the mean age was 71 years, 86.0% had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score of 0-1 at nmCRPC diagnosis, and the average prostate specific antigen (PSA) value at diagnosis was 23.2 ng/mL. PSA-doubling time < 10 months was chosen as reason to initiate treatment in 40% of patients. The median duration of follow-up was 1.1 years, with 14.4% of patients progressing to metastasis by end of study period. Grade 3-4 and Grade 5 AEs occurred in 14.4 and 0.4% of patients, respectively. Actions taken to manage AEs included AE-directed treatment (38.0%), ARI discontinuation (10.4%), dose reduction (7.6%), and AE-related hospitalization (4.8%). CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the burden of AEs among nmCRPC patients treated with apalutamide or enzalutamide, providing a relevant real-world benchmark as clinical trial evidence and the treatment landcape for nmCRPC continues to evolve.

Unintentional combining enzalutamide with a moderate CYP2C8 inhibitor in a patient with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: a case report.

BACKGROUND: Enzalutamide, registered for the treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), is an inducer of multiple CYP-enzymes. Enzalutamide itself is mainly converted by CYP2C8 to the active metabolite N-desmethylenzalutamide (NDME). Due to a pharmacokinetic interaction, combining enzalutamide with a moderate CYP2C8 inhibitor might result in higher enzalutamide concentrations. Addressing this interaction is challenging since pharmacokinetic data are missing. CASE PRESENTATION: We present a case of a Caucasian male with mCRPC who was treated with enzalutamide and a moderate CYP2C8 inhibitor, clopidogrel, concomitantly. Plasma trough levels (Ctrough) of enzalutamide and its active metabolite N-desmethylenzalutamide (NDME) were determined and compared when treated with and without clopidogrel. The sum concentration of enzalutamide and NDME was not affected by coadministration of a moderate CYP2C8 inhibitor. Both treatments were well tolerated and no major side effect were observed. CONCLUSION: This case report shows that enzalutamide can be safely prescribed while cotreated with a moderate CYP2C8-inhibitor, without reducing the dose. More research is warranted to make a statement about the effect of enzalutamide on clopidogrel.

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.