ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2026
Differences in adverse drug reactions between GnRH antagonists and agonists in the treatment of prostate cancer: a retrospective analysis using real-world data.
Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2026. 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
Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the safety profiles of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists and agonists in the treatment of prostate cancer (PC). Methods: A retrospective pharmacovigilance analysis was conducted using the US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database from the first quarter of 2004 to the fourth quarter of 2024. Within-class direct comparison analyses between GnRH antagonists and GnRH agonists were performed using disproportionality methods, including the Reporting Odds Ratio (ROR) and Proportional Reporting Ratio (PRR). Further analyses on age stratification, combination therapy, and onset time of adverse events (AEs) were conducted to explore the safety differences between GnRH antagonists and agonists. Results: A total of 2,486 reports were included in the study, comprising 444 reports for GnRH antagonists and 2,042 reports for GnRH agonists. GnRH antagonists showed higher risk for injection site reactions compared with GnRH agonists, with the strongest signals observed for injection site erythema (ROR = 16.07, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 9.14-28.28; PRR = 14.33; χ Conclusion: This pharmacovigilance study identified distinct AE reporting patterns between GnRH antagonists and GnRH agonists in PC treatment. GnRH antagonists were primarily characterized by higher risk of local injection site reactions, whereas AE profiles varied according to patient age, treatment duration, and concomitant medication exposure.
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.