ArticlePloS one2025
A retrospective cohort study assessing medication coverage in patients with prostate cancer prescribed luteinizing hormone releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists in England.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aims to assess adherence to luteinising hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonist treatment for prostate cancer (PC) in England, considering formulation-related differences, their impact on overall survival, and the association with changes in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels over time.
methodsIn this retrospective cohort study, utilising primary care data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) Aurum database linked to Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) and Office for National Statistics (ONS) death registrations, we assessed male patients aged 40 and above diagnosed with PC and prescribed 1-, 3-, or 6-monthly LHRH agonist injections between January 2007 and December 2019. The primary objectives were to measure adherence through proportion of days covered (PDC) and characterize delayed injections, while secondary objectives included assessment of patient demographics, comorbidities, overall survival, and PSA levels. Descriptive statistics were employed, with follow-up restricted to one year for PSA and testosterone measurements due to data availability constraints.
resultsThe study included 32,777 patients with PC receiving LHRH agonists. Most patients (67%) were prescribed 3-monthly formulations, while only 2% received 6-monthly formulations. The mean age of the study population was 74.1 years. Over 80% of patients had at least one comorbidity, with hypertension being the most common. 94% of patients initially prescribed the 3-monthly or 6-monthly regimen remained on their original treatment, in contrast to only 38% for the 1-monthly formulation. Adherence analysis showed that 41.1% of 6-monthly injections were received without delay, compared with 67.9% for the 3-monthly and 77.3% for 1-monthly formulations. A large proportion of patients experienced delays of 14-27 days (32.0%, 33.4%, 54.2%) and over 27 days (39.6%, 48.3%, 46.6%) across the 1-, 3- and 6-monthly formulations respectively. The mean PDC ranged from 90-91% across the three formulation groups, with 89.9%, 84%, and 88.2% achieving ≥ 80% adherence for 3-monthly, 1-monthly, and 6-monthly respectively.
conclusionsThis study revealed substantial and consistent dosing delays in LHRH agonist prescriptions across all formulations within primary care settings in England. These delays can negatively affect the control of PC, potentially hindering disease management for affected patients. Future research with a larger population, encompassing a larger cohort using the 6-monthly formulation, is essential for a comprehensive evaluation of the impact of LHRH agonist injection delays on PC progression.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.