Evaluating relugolix for the treatment of prostate cancer in real-world settings of care: the OPTYX study protocol.

OPTYX is a multi-center, prospective, observational study designed to further understand the actual experience of patients with advanced prostate cancer treated with relugolix (ORGOVYX®), an oral androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), by collecting clinical and patient-reported outcomes from routine care settings. The study aims to enroll 1000 consented patients with advanced prostate cancer from community, academic and government operated clinical practices across the USA. At planned timepoints, real-world data analysis on treatment patterns, adherence and safety as well as health outcomes and health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) after treatment discontinuation will be published in scientific peer-reviewed journals and presented at relevant conferences. This study will provide real-world data for practitioners and researchers in their understanding of the safety and effectiveness of relugolix. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT05467176 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

What is this summary about? This is a protocol summary for a research study named OPTYX. Who can participate in this research? Men 18 or older with advanced prostate cancer initiating treatment with relugolix, an oral androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), at the time of enrollment or within the 1 month before enrollment (remaining on treatment at enrollment) and are willing and able to complete patient assessments during the study. What institutions are performing this research? Community practices, academic institutions and Veterans Health Administration facilities across the USA. What are the research assessments to obtain the results? Data will be collected from the routine medical visits twice yearly including patient demographics, medical history (co-morbidities and cardiac risk factors), prostate cancer history and treatments and test results (routine lab testosterone, PSA levels and imaging). Relugolix response and all serious adverse events (SAEs) and any nonserious adverse events (AE) leading to relugolix treatment discontinuation will be assessed. Patients will be asked to respond to evaluations about their health-related quality of life and adherence to relugolix treatment. How long would the study last? Up to 5 years from enrollment date and/or up to 2 years after relugolix discontinuation. Follow-up will end with consent withdrawal, loss to follow-up, death, or study termination, whichever comes first. What do the results of the study mean? Real-world understanding of the experience and clinical outcomes in patients with advanced prostate cancer in routine clinical care and their clinical trajectory following cessation of relugolix therapy.

Implications of Delayed Testosterone Recovery in Patients with Prostate Cancer.

To assess the clinical impact of delayed testosterone recovery (TR) following the discontinuation of medical androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), a retrospective, longitudinal analysis was conducted in adult males with prostate cancer using the Optum® de-identified Electronic Health Record data set and Optum® Enriched Oncology Data (2010-2021). Of 3875 patients who initiated and discontinued ADT, 1553 received one or more testosterone-level tests within the 12 mo following discontinuation and were included in this study. These 1553 patients were categorized into two cohorts: 25% as TR (testosterone levels >280 ng/dl at any test within 12 mo following ADT discontinuation) and 75% as non-TR. At baseline, non-TR patients were older, had lower testosterone levels, and were more likely to have diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and hypertension, but less likely to have sexual dysfunction. After adjustment for baseline characteristics, the TR cohort had a lower risk of new-onset diabetes (hazard ratio [HR] 0.47; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.27-0.79), trended toward a lower risk of new-onset depression (HR 0.58; 95% CI 0.33-1.02), and had a higher likelihood of seeking treatment for sexual dysfunction (HR 1.33; 95% CI 0.99-1.78) versus the non-TR cohort. These findings support monitoring testosterone levels after ADT discontinuation to manage potential long-term comorbidities in patients with prostate cancer. Patient summary: This real-world analysis of males with prostate cancer who were treated with medical androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) found that most patients did not have their testosterone level checked in the 12 mo after stopping ADT. Of those who did, 75% did not achieve normal testosterone levels (>280 ng/dl), and these patients were more likely to experience new-onset diabetes than those who achieved normal testosterone levels. These results suggest that to ensure effective clinical decision-making, physicians should check patients' testosterone levels after stopping ADT.

A Phase I Clinical Trial Evaluating the Safety and Dosing of Relugolix with Novel Hormonal Therapy for the Treatment of Advanced Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), a cornerstone of prostate cancer treatment, is commonly co-prescribed as combination therapy. OBJECTIVE: To better understand the safety and tolerability profile of relugolix, an oral non-peptide gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) receptor antagonist, in combination with abiraterone acetate (abiraterone) and apalutamide, a phase I study was undertaken. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This is an ongoing, 52-week, open-label, parallel cohort study of relugolix in combination with abiraterone in men with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) or metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) [Part 1] and apalutamide in men with mCSPC or non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) [Part 2]. Eligible patients treated with leuprolide acetate or degarelix with abiraterone or apalutamide prior to baseline, at which time they were transitioned to relugolix. Assessments included reporting of adverse events, clinical laboratory tests, vital sign measurements, electrocardiogram (ECG) parameters, and testosterone serum concentrations. In this interim report, patients completing ≥12 weeks were included. RESULTS: Overall, 15 men were enrolled in Part 1 and 10 in Part 2. Adverse events were mostly mild-to-moderate in intensity and were consistent with the known safety profiles of the individual medications. No transition (from prior ADT treatment)- or time-related trends in clinical laboratory tests, vital sign measurements, or ECG parameters were observed. Mean testosterone concentrations remained below castration levels. CONCLUSIONS: Combination therapy of relugolix and abiraterone or apalutamide was associated with a favorable safety and tolerability profile consistent with the known profiles of the individual medications. Castration levels of testosterone were maintained after transitioning to relugolix from other ADTs. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04666129.

Pilot, Randomized, Blinded, Placebo-Controlled Trial Investigating the Correlation Between Acid Control and Heartburn Relief with 14 Days of Esomeprazole Treatment.

INTRODUCTION: Reflux symptoms are frequently associated with esophageal acid exposure. However, other potential causes unrelated to acid secretion are possible, and the relationship between acid control and symptomatic improvement remains unclear. This study investigated the correlation between individual intragastric pH control and heartburn relief among subjects with frequent heartburn who are likely to self-treat with over-the-counter (OTC) medications. We hypothesized that improved acid control would provide greater symptomatic improvement among individuals representative of an OTC population. METHODS: This phase 4, single-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was conducted in subjects without diagnosed gastroesophageal reflux disease or other gastrointestinal conditions who were experiencing frequent heartburn (≥ 3 episodes/week; ≥ 2 nighttime episodes/week over past 30 days) that was responsive to treatment. Subjects entered a 7-day run-in phase, received placebo BID (before breakfast and dinner), and completed symptom diaries. During the treatment phase, subjects received esomeprazole 20 mg BID, esomeprazole 20 mg then placebo, or placebo BID. Subjects underwent 24-h intragastric pH monitoring at baseline and day 14 and completed daily symptom diaries. RESULTS: In the per-protocol population (n = 39), mean (SD) change from baseline in percentage of time with intragastric pH > 4 was 58.7% (± 26.4%) versus 41.0% (± 30.4%) for those who did and did not achieve 24-h heartburn relief. Significant correlations were observed between change in percentage of time with intragastric pH > 4 and 24-h heartburn relief (OR 1.028; 95% CI 1.001, 1.055; P = 0.0442) and complete resolution (OR 1.034; 95% CI 1.003, 1.065; P = 0.0301). CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with greater improvements in duration of intragastric acid suppression had an increased likelihood of achieving heartburn relief and resolution. These results indicate that individuals not adequately controlling their intragastric pH may require an escalation in dose of their acid-suppressive therapy, assessment with 24-h pH monitoring, or a change in treatment regimen to address non-reflux-related etiologies of their heartburn. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02708355. FUNDING: Pfizer Consumer Healthcare, Madison, NJ, USA. Plain language summary available for this article.

Dissolution rates of over-the-counter painkillers: a comparison among formulations.

BACKGROUND: We wanted to compare the dissolution profile of several over-the-counter analgesics to understand whether the different formulation techniques employed to enhance absorption were associated with variations in the dissolution rate, a parameter known to affect drug absorption. METHODS: We considered 5 formulations currently marketed in Italy: aspirin tablets (Aspirina Dolore e Infiammazione®), ibuprofen tablets and liquid capsules (Moment®), ibuprofen lysine tablets (Nurofenimmedia®) and dexketoprofen trometamol tablets (Enantyum®). Dissolution tests were performed according to the current USP/NF monograph dissolution procedure. Drug dissolution was evaluated at 1, 3, 6, 15, and 30 minutes since the start of the test. Dissolution was evaluated at three different pH: 1.2, 4.5 and 6.8. Every test was repeated 12 times. RESULTS: The aspirin formulation was by far the most rapid dissolving formulation, among those tested, with more than 80% of the tablet dissolved at 6 minutes for every pH considered. At pH 1.2 and 4.5, only the dexketoprofen formulation was able to reach the dissolution level of aspirin at 30 minutes, but had lower levels of dissolution at the previous time points. Instead, at pH 6.8, most of the formulations approached aspirin dissolution level, but only after 15 minutes. Ibuprofen capsules had the slowest kinetics, with a lag phase the first 6 minutes. CONCLUSIONS: Different formulation strategies can lead to great differences in the dissolution rates even among drugs of the same class, suggesting that enhancements in the formulation of painkillers can lead to improvements in drug absorption, and thus in the onset of analgesia.

Influence of Differing Analgesic Formulations of Aspirin on Pharmacokinetic Parameters.

Aspirin has been used therapeutically for over 100 years. As the originator and an important marketer of aspirin-containing products, Bayer's clinical trial database contains numerous reports of the pharmacokinetics of various aspirin formulations. These include evaluations of plain tablets, effervescent tablets, granules, chewable tablets, and fast-release tablets. This publication seeks to expand upon the available pharmacokinetic information concerning aspirin formulations. In the pre-systemic circulation, acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) is rapidly converted into its main active metabolite, salicylic acid (SA). Therefore, both substances are measured in plasma and reported in the results. The 500 mg strength of each formulation was chosen for analysis as this is the most commonly used for analgesia. A total of 22 studies were included in the analysis. All formulations of 500 mg aspirin result in comparable plasma exposure to ASA and SA as evidenced by AUC. Tablets and dry granules provide a consistently lower Cmax compared to effervescent, granules in suspension and fast release tablets. Effervescent tablets, fast release tablets, and granules in suspension provide a consistently lower median Tmax compared to dry granules and tablets for both ASA and SA. This report reinforces the importance of formulation differences and their impact on pharmacokinetic parameters.

Assessment of the efficacy and safety profiles of aspirin and acetaminophen with codeine: results from 2 randomized, controlled trials in individuals with tension-type headache and postoperative dental pain.

BACKGROUND: Aspirin is a widely used NSAID that has been extensively studied in numerous conditions. Nonprescription analgesics, such as aspirin, are frequently used for a wide variety of common ailments, including conditions such as dental pain and tension-type headache. OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare the efficacy and safety profiles of aspirin, acetaminophen with codeine, and placebo in the treatment of post-operative dental pain and tension-type headache. METHODS: These were 2 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, single-dose clinical trials that assigned participants (2:2:1) to receive either aspirin (1000 mg), acetaminophen (300 mg) with codeine (30 mg), or placebo. The primary efficacy end point was the sum of pain intensity differences from baseline (SPID) over 6 hours for the dental pain study and over 4 hours for the tension-type headache study. Other common analgesic measures, in addition to safety, were also evaluated. RESULTS: The results of the dental pain study for aspirin and acetaminophen with codeine suggest statistically significant efficacy for all measures compared with placebo at all time points. Aspirin provided statistically significant efficacy compared with acetaminophen with codeine for SPID(0-4) (P = 0.028). In the tension-type headache study, aspirin and acetaminophen with codeine provided statistically significant efficacy compared with placebo for SPID(0-4) and SPID(0-6) (P < 0.001) and for total pain relief (P < 0.001). There were no significant differences between aspirin and acetaminophen with codeine at any evaluation of SPID (P ≥ 0.070), complete relief (P ≥ 0.179), or time to meaningful relief (P ≥ 0.245). Regarding safety, there were no statistically significant differences between treatment groups in the incidence of adverse events in the dental pain and tension-type headache studies. CONCLUSIONS: These 2 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies demonstrate that treatment with aspirin (1000 mg) provides statistically significant analgesic efficacy compared with placebo use and comparable efficacy with acetaminophen (300 mg) with codeine (30 mg) therapy after impacted third molar extraction and in tension- type headache.