Drugs in Context (Jun 2024)

Evaluation of the criteria for renewal of LHRH agonists in patients with prostate cancer: results of the ANAREN Study

  • Jesús Calleja-Escudero,
  • Víctor Barrondo,
  • Andrés Rodriguez-Alonso,
  • Francisco Gómez-Veiga,
  • Joan Bestard,
  • Antonio Gómez-Caamaño,
  • Anne-Sophie Grandoulier,
  • Maria Pérez-Sampietro,
  • Venancio Chantada-Abal,
  • Raúl Poza de Celis,
  • on behalf of ANAREN Study Group

DOI
https://doi.org/10.7573/dic.2024-2-2
Journal volume & issue
no. 13
pp. 1 – 12

Abstract

Read online

Introduction: Injectable extended-release formulations of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonists (LHRHa) have simplified the treatment of prostate cancer with a satisfactory level of androgen castration. This study aims to determine the percentage of patients whose initial LHRHa prescription was renewed during follow-up, how many changed formulation and how their quality of life evolved. Methods: This is an observational, prospective, multicentre study of men with prostate cancer who were to receive treatment with LHRHa (triptorelin every 3 or 6 months, leuprorelin every 3 or 6 months, or goserelin every 3 months) for 24 months. The treatment used was recorded and quality of life was assessed (QLQ-PR25 questionnaire) at four follow-up visits. Results: A total of 497 men (median age 75 years) were evaluated. The median exposure to LHRHa was 24 months. The initial prescription was renewed in 95.7% at follow-up 1 and 75% at follow-up 4. The main reason for changing from a 6-month to a 3-month formulation was a preference for sequential treatment (according to the investigator) and to see the physician more frequently (according to the patient). The main reason for switching from the 3-month to 6-month formulation was simplification of treatment (according to the investigator) and for convenience (according to the patient). Findings in the QLQ-PR25 questionnaire revealed no changes in urinary or bowel symptoms, though an improvement in sexual activity was reported. Practically all investigators and patients were satisfied/very satisfied with the treatment. Conclusion: Changes in formulation were scarce and generally justified by convenience factors or personal preferences. Patients maintained a good health status, with a high rate of retention of LHRHa treatment. Clinical Trial Registration: Study number: A-ES-52014-224. A plain language summary is provided as supplementary material (available at: https://www.drugsincontext.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/dic.2024-2-2-Suppl.pdf).

Keywords