OBJECTIVES: Comparative efficacy and safety of 2 LHRH analogues in metastatic prostatic carcinoma. METHODS:68 patients received monthly injections for 6 months (randomization): either subcutaneous leuprolide 3.75 mg LP (n = 36), or intramuscular triptorelin 3.75 mg LP (n = 32). (Flare-up prevention: nilutamide). Parameters re-evaluated at 1.3 and 6 months: centralized assays of plasma testosterone (T), LH and serum PSA; clinical symptoms. Main criterion: proportion of patients with T < or = 0.5 ng/mL. RESULTS: The percentages of patients with T < or = 0.50 ng/mL was not significantly different between the two groups and were equal to 100 and 90%, 97 and 100%, and 100 and 96% at the 3 study times, for leuprolide or triptorelin, respectively. The difference was significant at 1 month on complementary analysis at the limit of T < 0.30 ng/mL: 86% with leuprolide versus 60% with triptorelin (p = 0.02) and for mean plasma testosterone: 0.16 +/- 0.10 ng/mL versus 0.33 +/- 0.44 ng/mL, respectively (p = 0.02). The clinical subjective efficacy was not significantly different. CONCLUSION: Both treatments were effective, although plasma testosterone fell more rapidly with leuprolide. No conclusion about the possible clinical or survival benefits can be formulated. Overall safety was satisfactory.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: Comparative efficacy and safety of 2 LHRH analogues in metastatic prostatic carcinoma. METHODS: 68 patients received monthly injections for 6 months (randomization): either subcutaneous leuprolide 3.75 mg LP (n = 36), or intramuscular triptorelin 3.75 mg LP (n = 32). (Flare-up prevention: nilutamide). Parameters re-evaluated at 1.3 and 6 months: centralized assays of plasma testosterone (T), LH and serum PSA; clinical symptoms. Main criterion: proportion of patients with T < or = 0.5 ng/mL. RESULTS: The percentages of patients with T < or = 0.50 ng/mL was not significantly different between the two groups and were equal to 100 and 90%, 97 and 100%, and 100 and 96% at the 3 study times, for leuprolide or triptorelin, respectively. The difference was significant at 1 month on complementary analysis at the limit of T < 0.30 ng/mL: 86% with leuprolide versus 60% with triptorelin (p = 0.02) and for mean plasma testosterone: 0.16 +/- 0.10 ng/mL versus 0.33 +/- 0.44 ng/mL, respectively (p = 0.02). The clinical subjective efficacy was not significantly different. CONCLUSION: Both treatments were effective, although plasma testosterone fell more rapidly with leuprolide. No conclusion about the possible clinical or survival benefits can be formulated. Overall safety was satisfactory.