Dataset Information

Real-world Cardiovascular Outcomes Associated With Degarelix vs Leuprolide for Prostate Cancer Treatment.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

With a growing interest in the use of real-world evidence for regulatory decision-making, it is important to understand whether real-world data can be used to emulate the results of randomized clinical trials.

Objective

To use electronic health record and administrative claims data to emulate the ongoing PRONOUNCE trial (A Trial Comparing Cardiovascular Safety of Degarelix Versus Leuprolide in Patients With Advanced Prostate Cancer and Cardiovascular Disease).

Design, setting, and participants

This retrospective, propensity-matched cohort study included adult men with a diagnosis of prostate cancer and cardiovascular disease who initiated either degarelix or leuprolide between December 24, 2008, and June 30, 2019. Participants were commercially insured individuals and Medicare Advantage beneficiaries included in a large US administrative claims database.

Exposures

Degarelix or leuprolide.

Main outcomes and measures

The primary end point was time to first occurrence of a major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE), defined as death due to any cause, myocardial infarction, or stroke, analogous to the PRONOUNCE trial. Secondary end points were time to death due to any cause, myocardial infarction, stroke, and angina. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to evaluate primary and secondary end points.

Results

A total of 32 172 men initiated degarelix or leuprolide for prostate cancer; of them, 9490 (29.5%) had cardiovascular disease, and 7800 (24.2%) met the PRONOUNCE trial eligibility criteria and were included in this study. Overall, 165 participants (2.1%) were Asian, 1390 (17.8%) were Black, 663 (8.5%) were Hispanic, and 5258 (67.4%) were White. The mean (SD) age was 74.4 (7.4) years. Among 2226 propensity score-matched patients, no significant difference was observed in the risk of MACE for patients taking degarelix vs those taking leuprolide (10.18 vs 8.60 events per 100 person-years; hazard ratio [HR], 1.18; 95% CI, 0.86-1.61). Degarelix was associated with a higher risk of death from any cause (HR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.01-2.18) but not of myocardial infarction (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.60-2.25), stroke (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.45-1.85), or angina (HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 0.43-4.27).

Conclusions and relevance

In this emulation of a clinical trial of men with cardiovascular disease undergoing treatment for prostate cancer, degarelix was not associated with a lower risk of cardiovascular events than leuprolide. Comparison of these data with PRONOUNCE trial results, when published, will help enhance our understanding of the appropriate role of using real-world data to emulate clinical trials.

SUBMITTER: Wallach JD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8536955 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesThis study will compare the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) among men with advanced prostate cancer who are being treated with a gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist versus a GnRH agonist.BackgroundTreatment of advanced prostate cancer with ADT might increase the risk of subsequent cardiovascular events among men with known atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), but a recent meta-analysis suggested that this risk might be lower with ADT using a GnRH antagonist versus a GnRH agonist.MethodsPRONOUNCE is a multicenter, prospective, randomized, open, blinded endpoint trial that will enroll approximately 900 patients with advanced prostate cancer and pre-existing ASCVD who will be treated with ADT. Participants will be randomized to receive the GnRH antagonist degarelix or the GnRH agonist leuprolide as ADT for 12 months. The primary endpoint is time from randomization to first confirmed, adjudicated occurrence of a MACE, which is defined as a composite of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke through 12 months of ADT treatment. Baseline cardiovascular biomarkers (high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, high-sensitivity troponin T, and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide), as well as serial inflammatory and immune biomarkers, will be evaluated in exploratory analyses.ResultsAs of October 1, 2019, a total of 364 patients have been enrolled. The mean age is 74 years, 90% are white, 80% have hypertension or dyslipidemia, 30% diabetes mellitus, 40% have had a previous myocardial infarction, and 65% have had previous revascularization. Regarding prostate cancer features at randomization, 48% of the patients had localized disease, 23% had locally advanced disease, and 18% had metastatic disease.ConclusionsPRONOUNCE is the first prospective cardiovascular outcomes trial in advanced prostate cancer that will delineate whether the risk of subsequent cardiovascular events associated with ADT is lower with a GnRH antagonist versus a GnRH agonist for men with pre-existing ASCVD. (A Trial Comparing Cardiovascular Safety of Degarelix Versus Leuprolide in Patients With Advanced Prostate Cancer and Cardiovascular Disease [PRONOUNCE]; NCT02663908).

Project description:BackgroundThe relative cardiovascular safety of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists compared with GnRH agonists in men with prostate cancer and known atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease remains controversial.MethodsIn this international, multicenter, prospective, randomized, open-label trial, men with prostate cancer and concomitant atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive the GnRH antagonist degarelix or the GnRH agonist leuprolide for 12 months. The primary outcome was the time to first adjudicated major adverse cardiovascular event (composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) through 12 months.ResultsBecause of slower-than-projected enrollment and fewer-than-projected primary outcome events, enrollment was stopped before the 900 planned participants were accrued. From May 3, 2016, to April 16, 2020, a total of 545 patients from 113 sites across 12 countries were randomly selected. Baseline characteristics were balanced between study groups. The median age was 73 years, 49.8% had localized prostate cancer; 26.3% had locally advanced disease, and 20.4% had metastatic disease. A major adverse cardiovascular event occurred in 15 (5.5%) patients assigned to degarelix and 11 (4.1%) patients assigned to leuprolide (hazard ratio, 1.28 [95% CI, 0.59-2.79]; P=0.53).ConclusionsPRONOUNCE (A Trial Comparing Cardiovascular Safety of Degarelix Versus Leuprolide in Patients With Advanced Prostate Cancer and Cardiovascular Disease) is the first, international, randomized clinical trial to prospectively compare the cardiovascular safety of a GnRH antagonist and a GnRH agonist in patients with prostate cancer. The study was terminated prematurely because of the smaller than planned number of participants and events, and no difference in major adverse cardiovascular events at 1 year between patients assigned to degarelix or leuprolide was observed. The relative cardiovascular safety of GnRH antagonists and agonists remains unresolved. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02663908.

Project description:BackgroundMetastatic prostate cancer has a 30% 5-year survival rate despite recent therapeutic advances. There is a need to improve the clinical understanding and treatment of this disease, particularly in the real-world setting and among patients who are under-represented in clinical trials.ObjectiveWe aimed to evaluate the characteristics and clinical outcomes of patients who received their first treatment for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) in routine clinical practice, independent of treatment used, including subgroups with baseline cardiac disease, diabetes mellitus, or visceral metastases.Patients and methodsProspective, noninterventional analysis of patient record data in the multicenter Prostate Cancer Registry (PCR) of men with mCRPC. The data were collected in 16 countries with the aim of recruiting more than 3000 patients between 2013 and 2016. The study end date was 9 July 2018. Data evaluated included baseline characteristics, treatment exposure, and efficacy outcomes [overall survival (OS) and time to progression (TTP)] of patients treated with abiraterone acetate plus prednisone or prednisolone (collectively, "abiraterone"), enzalutamide, or docetaxel. Descriptive outcomes are reported from the overall patient population and subgroups of patients with baseline cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus, or visceral metastases. The treatment effects for time to progression were compared for the overall patient population.ResultsThe study enrollment period lasted 2.5 years, and each patient was followed for a maximum of 3 years. A total of 1874 patients in the PCR had not received previous mCRPC treatment at baseline, although they had received androgen-deprivation therapy. Prevalent co-morbidities included cardiovascular disease in 65.4% and diabetes mellitus in 17.4% of patients. Baseline characteristics suggested that patients with more advanced disease received docetaxel treatment. In the overall patient population, the median time to progression with abiraterone, enzalutamide, and docetaxel as first-line mCRPC therapy was 9.6, 10.3, and 7.6 months, respectively, and median OS was 27.1, 27.1, and 27.9 months, respectively. Outcomes in the subgroups of patients with cardiovascular disease or diabetes mellitus were similar to those of the whole population in the analysis. As expected, patients with visceral metastases had shorter TTP and OS than patients in the overall population.ConclusionsThis analysis shows, for the first time, the effectiveness in parallel of first-line abiraterone, enzalutamide, and docetaxel in mCRPC, including in patients with co-morbidities such as cardiovascular disease or diabetes mellitus or in patients with visceral metastases. These real-world findings from the PCR provide meaningful information to help manage mCRPC, particularly in patients under-represented in clinical studies.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02236637; registered September 2014.

Project description:IntroductionCardiovascular (CV) events are the leading cause of death in prostate cancer. Men with prostate cancer are likely to have CV risk factors and use CV-related concomitant medications. In the phase 3 HERO study, a 54% lower incidence of major adverse cardiac events was reported in men treated with the oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) receptor antagonist, relugolix, vs leuprolide. Herein, we characterize the impact of concomitant CV therapies on efficacy and safety in the HERO study.MethodsIn HERO, 930 men with advanced prostate cancer (APC) were randomized 2:1 and treated with relugolix (120 mg orally once daily; after single 360 mg loading dose) or leuprolide (injections every 3 months) for 48 weeks. Subgroups analyzed included men who received antihypertensives, antithrombotics, or lipid-modifying therapies (LMAs), as well as the most common drug classes (> 10%) and single most common agent within each class. Assessments included sustained testosterone suppression to castrate levels (< 50 ng/dL) through 48 weeks and safety.ResultsAntihypertensives, antithrombotics, and LMAs were utilized by 52.7%, 39.1%, and 39.6% of men in HERO, respectively. In the main subgroups, point estimates for sustained castration rates were generally consistent with overall estimates of relugolix and leuprolide observed in the overall population. Sustained castration rates were also mostly consistent for men taking the most common drug classes and individual agents in each class (losartan [n = 103]: relugolix, 95.4% vs leuprolide, 80.6%; amlodipine [n = 229]: 97.2% vs 85.5%; metoprolol [n = 88]: 95.7% vs 86.9%; acetylsalicylic acid [n = 259]: 97.0% vs 92.1%; clopidogrel [n = 43]: 96.4% vs 86.7%; simvastatin [n = 78]: 98.0% vs 87.3%). Incidence and types of adverse events (AEs) among men who received these medications were mostly consistent with overall population results, with some increases in grade ≥ 3 and fatal AEs.ConclusionRelugolix suppressed testosterone and was generally well tolerated when given with concomitant CV agents.Trial registrationClinical Trial ID NCT03085095.Prior presentationData presented at 15th Annual Genitourinary Cancers Symposium; February 17-19, 2022, San Francisco, CA, USA [Abstract 101, Poster board E11]. The published abstract from this presentation can be found at https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JCO.2022.40.6_suppl.101 .

Project description:IntroductionMuch drug development and published analysis for epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) focuses on early-line treatment. Full sequences of treatment from diagnosis to death and the impact of later lines of therapy are rarely studied. We describe the establishment of an international network of cancer centers configured to compare real-world treatment pathways in UK, Portugal, Germany, South Korea, France and Romania (the Ovarian Real-World International Consortium; ORWIC).Methods3344 patients diagnosed with EOC (2012-2018) were analysed using a common data model and hub and spoke programming approach applied to existing electronic medical records. Consistent definition of line of therapy between sites and an efficient approach to analysis within the limitations of local information governance was achieved.ResultsMedian age of participants was 53-67 years old and 5-29% were ECOG >1. Between 62% and 84% of patients were diagnosed with late-stage disease (FIGO III-IV). Sites treating younger and fitter patients had higher rates of debulking surgery for those diagnosed at late stage than sites with older, more frail patients. At least 21% of patients treated with systemic anti-cancer therapy (SACT) had recurrent disease following second-line therapy (2L); up to 11 lines of SACT treatment were recorded for some patients. Platinum-based SACT was consistently used across sites at 1L, but choices at 2L varied, with hormone therapies commonly used in the UK and Portugal. The use (and type) of maintenance therapy following 1L also varied. Beyond 2L, there was little consensus between sites on treatment choice: trial compounds and unspecified combinations of other agents were common.DiscussionSpecific treatment sequences are reported up to 4L and the establishment of this network facilitates future analysis of comparative outcomes per line of treatment with the aim of optimizing available options for patients with recurrent EOC. In particular, this real-world network can be used to assess the growing use of PARP inhibitors. The real-world optimization of advanced line treatment will be especially important for patients not usually eligible for involvement with clinical trials. The resources to enable this analysis to be implemented elsewhere are supplied and the network will seek to grow in coverage of further sites.

Project description:ObjectivesThe treatment landscape for metastatic renal cell carcinoma changed a lot in the last few years. This study aimed to assess the treatment sequences and outcomes for metastatic renal cell carcinoma in a real-world setting.Materials and methodsWe enrolled patients with metastatic renal cell carcinomawho received first-line systemic treatment with tyrosin kinase inhibitors monotherapy, ipilimumab plus nivolumab, or pembrolizumab plus axitinibbetween January2009 and May 2023 on the database of TriNetX network. Overall survival, time on treatment and time to next treatment were evaluated using Kaplan-Meiermethod.ResultsTotally, 4183 received tyrosine kinase inhibitor monotherapy, 1555 received ipilimumab plus nivolumab, and 559 received axitinib plus pembrolizumab. Median time on treatment was 2.5 months for the tyrosine kinase inhibitor monotherapy cohort, 5.4 months for the ipilimumab plus nivolumab cohort, and 8.3 months for the pembrolizumab plus axitinib cohort. Median time to next treatment was 16.6 months for both the tyrosine kinase inhibitor monotherapy and ipilimumab plus nivolumab cohorts, and 22.1 months for the pembrolizumab plus axitinib cohort. Median overall survival was 42.2 months for the tyrosine kinase inhibitor monotherapy cohort, 39.7monthsfor the ipilimumab plus nivolumab cohort, and not reached for the pembrolizumab plus axitinib cohort. In comparison with the tyrosine kinase inhibitor monotherapy cohort, patients in the pembrolizumab plus axitinib cohort showed survival benefit (log-rank p = 0.0168) in overall survival, but not the case in the ipilimumab plus nivolumab cohort.ConclusionThere was a trend toward using first-line immuno-oncology based therapy for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma in a real-world practice. Axitinib plus pembrolizumuab cohort had survival benefits over tyrosine kinase inhibitor and ipilimumab plus nivolumab cohorts, while patients in the ipilimumab plus nivolumab cohort had more distant metastases and comorbidities.