Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34677594›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2021

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

Joshua D Wallach, Yihong Deng, Rozalina G McCoy, Sanket S Dhruva, Jeph Herrin, Alyssa Berkowitz, Eric C Polley, Kenneth Quinto, Charu Gandotra, William Crown and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
5.1field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.

Joshua D WallachDepartment of Environmental Health Sciences, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut.
Yihong DengRobert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Rozalina G McCoyRobert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Sanket S DhruvaSection of Cardiology, San Francisco Veterans Affairs Health Care System, San Francisco, California.
Jeph HerrinSection of Cardiovascular Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
Alyssa BerkowitzCenter for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Yale-New Haven Health, New Haven, Connecticut.
Eric C PolleyDivision of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Kenneth QuintoOffice of Medical Policy, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Springs, Maryland.
Charu GandotraOffice of New Drugs, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Springs, Maryland.
William CrownFlorence Heller Graduate School, Brandeis University, Waltham, Massachusetts.
Peter NoseworthyDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Xiaoxi YaoRobert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Nilay D ShahRobert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Joseph S RossFlying Buttress Associates, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Timothy D LyonDepartment of Urology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida.
Mayo Clinic in Arizona · USCenter for Drug Evaluation and Research · USMayo Clinic in Florida · USYale New Haven Health System · USBrandeis University · USMayo Clinic · USSan Francisco VA Health Care System · USYale University · US

Funding

Yale Clinical and Translational Science Award (U Component)UL1TR001863 · NCATS · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI John H. Krystal, LUCILA OHNO-MACHADO · 2016 to 2026
$102.9M
Identifying Patient Subgroups That Are Most Likely To Benefit From Medications Used To Treat Alcohol Use DisorderK01AA028258 · NIAAA · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI WALLACH, JOSHUA DAVID · 2021 to 2025
$892k
FDA HHS U01 FD005938NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001863NIAAA NIH HHS K01 AA028258
6 · The paper itself

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.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overAntineoplastic Agents, HormonalCohort StudiesHumansLeuprolideMaleOligopeptidesProstatic NeoplasmsTreatment OutcomeUnited Statesacetyl-2-naphthylalanyl-3-chlorophenylalanyl-1-oxohexadecyl-seryl-4-aminophenylalanyl(hydroorotyl)-4-aminophenylalanyl(carbamoyl)-leucyl-ILys-prolyl-alaninamideAntineoplastic Agents, HormonalLeuprolideOligopeptides

Identifiers

PMID34677594
PMCPMC8536955
OpenAlexW3205289497

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.