Practical differences between luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonists in prostate cancer: perspectives across the spectrum of care

Autor: Majana Soče, Robert Janknegt, Davide Meani, Harri Visapää, Mladen Solarić, Rose-Marie Rosén
Přispěvatelé: Department of Oncology, Clinicum, Department of Diagnostics and Therapeutics, HUS Abdominal Center
Rok vydání: 2017
Předmět:
Oncology
medicine.medical_specialty
TESTOSTERONE LEVELS
Urology
3122 Cancers
030232 urology & nephrology
Reviews
androgen deprivation therapy
lcsh:RC870-923
DEPOT FORMULATIONS
LEUPRORELIN ACETATE
Androgen deprivation therapy
03 medical and health sciences
Prostate cancer
0302 clinical medicine
Leuprorelin
Internal medicine
cost
medicine
20 NG/DL
Testosterone
INNOVATIVE PHARMACEUTICAL FORMS
hormones
business.industry
Goserelin Acetate
castration
lcsh:Diseases of the genitourinary system. Urology
3126 Surgery
anesthesiology
intensive care
radiology
prostate cancer
OPEN-LABEL
medicine.disease
PHASE-III
LEUPROLIDE ACETATE
3. Good health
Review article
Endocrinology
Tolerability
030220 oncology & carcinogenesis
testosterone
leuprorelin
ANDROGEN-DEPRIVATION THERAPY
practical differences
Luteinizing hormone
business
medicine.drug
Zdroj: Therapeutic Advances in Urology, Vol 10 (2018)
ISSN: 1756-2880
1756-2872
Popis: Background: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists is well established for the treatment of men with metastatic prostate cancer. As clear differences in efficacy, safety, or tolerability between the available LHRH agonists are lacking, the healthcare management team needs to look to practical differences between the formulations when selecting therapy for their patients. Moreover, as the economic burden of prostate cancer rises alongside earlier diagnosis and improved survival, the possibility for cost savings by using products with specific features is growing in importance. Methods: A review was conducted to summarize the information on the different LHRH agonist formulations currently available and offer insight into their relative benefits and disadvantages from the perspectives of physicians, a pharmacist, and a nurse. Results: The leuprorelin acetate and goserelin acetate solid implants have the advantage of being ready to use with no requirement for refrigeration, whereas powder and microsphere formulations have to be reconstituted and have specific storage or handling constraints. The single-step administration of solid implants, therefore, has potential to reduce labor time and associated costs. Dosing frequency is another key consideration, as administering the injection provides an opportunity for face-to-face interaction between the patient and healthcare professionals to ensure therapy is optimized and give reassurance to patients. Prostate cancer patients are reported to prefer 3- or 6-monthly dosing, which aligns with the monitoring frequency recommended in European Association of Urology guidelines and has been shown to result in reduced annual costs compared with 1-month formulations. Conclusions: A number of practical differences exist between the different LHRH agonist preparations available, which may impact on clinical practice. It is important for healthcare providers to be aware and carefully consider these differences when selecting treatments for their prostate cancer patients.
Databáze: OpenAIRE
Externí odkaz: