Triptorelin 11.25mg powder and solvent for prolonged-release suspension for injection vials

ObjectiveThe escalating incidence of prostate cancer poses a significant global public health challenge. Optimal utilization of resources is crucial for the effective deployment of funds among the diverse and emerging treatment options for managing prostate cancer. This systematic review aims to offer insights and serve as a reference for pharmacoeconomic studies related to the use of degarelix and luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists in the treatment of prostate cancer.MethodsWe conducted a comprehensive search in databases including Embase, PubMed, the Cochrane Library, CNKI, Web of Science, Scopus, and the Tufts CEA Registry to identify cost-effectiveness studies on the use of degarelix and LHRH agonists in the treatment of prostate cancer, spanning from the inception of these databases up to December 30, 2025. Two independent reviewers sequentially examined titles, abstracts, and full-text articles, applying predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria to select studies for data extraction. Any disagreements were resolved through discussion until a consensus was reached. The quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Quality of Health Economic Studies and Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards. Relevant data were then summarized and comparatively analyzed, focusing on aspects such as the model framework, model parameters, and uncertainty analysis.ResultsA total of 13 studies were ultimately incorporated, with an overall high quality but significant methodological variations among them. Five studies compared degarelix with leuprorelin, goserelin, or triptorelin; four compared triptorelin to goserelin or leuprorelin; one study evaluated leuprorelin acetate in a 6-month depot formulation vs. a 3-month depot; two compared leuprorelin to goserelin and triptorelin; and one study assessed radiotherapy vs. radiotherapy plus goserelin. Eight studies employed the Markov model, with time horizons spanning from 1 year to 30 years. The majority of the studies (n = 7) conducted cost-effectiveness analyses, and most were based in developed countries (n = 7). Degarelix was deemed cost-effective in the United States, United Kingdom, and China. Additionally, 6-month depot LHRH agonists were found to be more cost-effective than their monthly or 3-monthly counterparts.ConclusionFrom a societal perspective, the evidence suggests that degarelix may be a cost-effective option for patients with prostate cancer. All assessments of LHRH agonists are of high quality. Among the three LHRH agonists evaluated, the 6-month depot formulation of triptorelin may be a cost-effective option in certain settings. In clinical practice, the evaluation of a drug should comprehensively consider its efficacy, adverse effects, cost-effectiveness, and overall patient survival. The evidence is predominantly derived from high-income countries, and thus the conclusions may have limited generalizability to low- and middle-income country settings.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/recorddashboard, PROSPERO CRD420250653923.

Abstract licence: CC BY

Background and objectiveFew studies have compared short-term androgen deprivation (STADT) combined with high-dose radiotherapy (STADT-RT) versus high-dose radiotherapy (RT) alone in localized prostate cancer.MethodsThe GETUG 14 study randomized 376 patients to RT (n = 191) or STADT-RT (n = 179). The RT dose was 80 Gy in both arms. STADT consisted of monthly triptorelin and daily flutamide for a total duration of 4 mo, starting 2 mo before RT. Disease-free survival (DFS) was the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), biochemical failure (BF), metastasis failure (MF), toxicity, and quality of life.Key findings and limitationsAmong the 370 patients in the modified intention-to-treat population, 241 (65%) had intermediate-risk and 107 (28%) high-risk prostate cancer. At median follow-up among surviving patients of 84 mo (interquartile range 62-99 mo), the 5-yr DFS rate was 76% in RT arm versus 84% in STADT-RT arm (hazard ratio [HR] 0.64, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.43-0.94]). ADT addition decreased BF (HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.28-0.72) and MF (HR 0.5, 95% CI 0.23-1.11) but not OS (HR 1.22, 95% CI 0.65-2.29). There were no significant differences for RT versus STADT-RT in the incidence rates for grade ≥2 toxicity in terms of acute gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity (26%, 95% CI 20-32 vs 26%, 95% CI 20-33), acute genitourinary (GU) toxicity (39%, 95% CI 32-46% vs 42%, 95% CI 35-50%), late GI toxicity (21%, 95% CI 16-28% vs 23%, 95% CI 18-30%), or late GU toxicity (30%, 95% CI 24-38% vs 27%, 95% CI 21-34%).Conclusions and clinical implicationsSTADT is a well-tolerated and effective strategy that can enhance oncological outcomes when combined with high-dose RT, particularly for patients with intermediate- or high-risk prostate cancer.

Abstract licence: CC BY

BackgroundCentral precocious puberty (CPP) results from premature activation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis. Although the standard intravenous gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) stimulation test is often inaccessible, a subcutaneous (SC) GnRH analogue (GnRHa) test is used. However, the conventional SC route presents logistical challenges including prolonged observation times and the need for multiple blood draws. Thus, identifying a more efficient administration route could optimize clinical workflows and enhance patient comfort. This study aimed to determine whether intramuscular (IM) administration is comparable to SC administration by analyzing the time to peak luteinizing hormone (LH) levels.PurposeTo evaluate and compare the time to peak LH levels and diagnostic timing of IM versus SC GnRH stimulation tests in girls with CPP.MethodsThis randomized controlled trial enrolled 92 girls with suspected CPP. Participants were assigned via 2:1 block randomization to receive 100 mcg triptorelin acetate via SC (n=62) or IM (n=30) injection. Serial blood samples for LH and follicle-stimulating hormone were collected at 0, 30, 60, 90, and 120 minutes.ResultsThere were no significant differences between the 2 groups in demographic characteristics. Peak LH responses were most frequent at 30 minutes in both groups (IM, 33.3%; SC, 35.5%; P=0.88). The mean LH levels at 30, 60, 90, and 120 minutes did not differ significantly between groups. Diagnostic confirmation of CPP occurred within 30 minutes in 96.7% and 96.8% of patients in the IM and SC groups, respectively.ConclusionThe IM GnRH stimulation test was comparable to the standard SC test in terms of LH response magnitude and timing.

Abstract licence: CC BY-NC