Leuprolide Research & Studies

[Figure: see text]

In the HERO study, relugolix demonstrated sustained testosterone suppression superior to that of leuprolide acetate (97% vs 89%; difference 7.9% [95% confidence interval, 4.1-12%; p < 0.001]).

A 6.6-year-old female presented to endocrinology with precocious puberty for evaluation and management. Workup was initiated, and a diagnosis of central precocious puberty was confirmed. A decision was made to initiate pubertal blockade using gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) therapy with depot leuprolide acetate injections every 3 months. The patient received the first depot leuprolide acetate injection in the right ventrogluteal area. Six hours following the injection, the patient was reported to be inconsolable in pain, which was localized to the right hip site of the earlier injection and associated with a refusal to ambulate. The pain and discomfort continued to progress over the next 24 h despite an alternating regimen of Tylenol and ibuprofen prompting admission to the emergency department. Vital signs demonstrated a low-grade fever and elevated C-reactive protein. An ultrasound of the right hip demonstrated fluid accumulation within the joint. Over the next week, the patient was unable to walk independently and required assistance for activities of daily living. By 2 weeks after the injection, the pain began to remit, and the patient resumed activities of daily living. Following consultation with allergy, a decision was made to continue GnRHa suppressive therapy with an alternative analog (Triptodur). The patient tolerated subsequent treatment without reaction.

We examined the effect of the puberty blocker, leuprolide acetate, on sex differences in juvenile rough-and-tumble play behavior and anxiety-like behavior in adolescent male and female rats. We also evaluated leuprolide treatment on gonadal and pituitary hormone levels and activity-regulated cytoskeleton-protein messenger RNA levels within the adolescent amygdala, a region important both for rough-and-tumble play and anxiety-like behavior. Our findings suggest that leuprolide treatment lowered anxiety-like behavior during adolescent development, suggesting that the maturation of gonadotropin-releasing hormone systems may be linked to increased anxiety. These data provide a potential new model to understand the emergence of increased anxiety triggered around puberty. Leuprolide also reduced masculinized levels of rough-and-tumble play behavior, lowered follicle-stimulating hormone, and produced a consistent pattern of reducing or halting sex differences of hormone levels, including testosterone, growth hormone, thyrotropin, and corticosterone levels. Therefore, leuprolide treatment not only pauses sexual development of peripheral tissues, but also reduces sex differences in hormones, brain, and behavior, allowing for better harmonization of these systems following gender-affirming hormone treatment. These data contribute to the intended use of puberty blockers in stopping sex differences from developing further with the potential benefit of lowering anxiety-like behavior.

Puberty suppression is a standard of care for gender-affirming therapy in gender-diverse youth. Leuprolide acetate is a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) commonly used for pubertal suppression. There are concerns that GnRHa agents prolong the rate-corrected QT interval (QTc) when used as androgen deprivation therapy in management of prostate cancer; however, there is a paucity of literature regarding the effect of leuprolide acetate on QTc intervals in gender-diverse youth.

Objective Basal (unstimulated) LH levels and leuprolide stimulation tests are used to define pubertal status of children presenting with signs of early puberty. The primary aims of this study were to (i) confirm utility of detectable basal LH levels in precluding the need for leuprolide stimulation testing, and, (ii) determine whether duration of testing could be abbreviated from usual 3 h test without compromising sensitivity. Methods We reviewed morning basal and leuprolide-stimulated LH levels in 105 children, aged 1-9 years (mean 6.9 years, SD 1.8) who were seen for concerns of precocious puberty and received a leuprolide stimulation test between June 2006 and March 2017. Results A pubertal basal LH level had high specificity and poor sensitivity for the following outcome measures: (1) peak stimulated LH≥5 mIU/mL (2) treatment with GnRHa; and (3) a composite outcome of (1) and/or (2). Following leuprolide stimulation, LH response was highest at 180 min in most children (n=78, 74.3%). Using a single cutoff of LH≥5 mIU/mL at any timepoint, 25% of children would have been misdiagnosed with an abbreviated 60 min test. A single sample at 180 min would have correctly identified 97% of patients. Conclusions A pubertal basal LH level is sufficient to distinguish children with precocious puberty without stimulation testing. However, prepubertal basal LH had relatively poor negative predictive value to refute CPP, necessitating clinical follow-up and/or a leuprolide stimulation test. For a cutoff of LH≥5 mIU/mL at any timepoint, test duration of 180 min maximizes sensitivity.

Leuprolide acetate, a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist, is used in the treatment of prostate cancer. We report a unique case of a disseminated papular rash following leuprolide acetate injections in a 65-year-old man that shares clinical and histopathological features of papuloerythroderma of Ofuji. Leuprolide-induced papuloerythroderma, as well as a limited number of other disseminated cutaneous eruptions caused by this drug, is extremely rare, with only one case previously reported. Our case calls attention to this uncommon side effect in a commonly used hormonal therapy.

The efficacy and side-effect profile of ulipristal acetate as compared with those of leuprolide acetate for the treatment of symptomatic uterine fibroids before surgery are unclear.

Clinically unsuspected pituitary adenomas are common among adults on autopsy and MRI survey. Acute pituitary hemorrhage is far more rare. We report a case of a 61-year-old male patient with locally advanced prostate cancer who presented with an acute picture of pituitary apoplexy after his first dose of leuprolide. He developed headache and neck pain within a few hours of treatment followed by nausea, vomiting, ptosis and diplopia. Pituitary apoplexy is a potentially life threatening medical emergency. Although the pathophysiology is poorly defined, various conditions and treatments have been reported to trigger apoplexy. Apoplexy has been reported in response to pituitary stimulation by GnRH or GnRH-agonists. Initial stimulatory effects of gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) analogue may induce apoplexy in patients with asymptomatic gonadotroph adenomas.

Chemical enhancers and vehicles were tested for their ability to improve the percutaneous absorption of leuprolide, a nonapeptide (luteinizing hormone releasing hormone analogue; MW 1209.4). In vitro permeabilities in nude mouse, snake, and cadaver skin were evaluated in either Franz diffusion cells or a Bronaugh flow-through system using an HPLC assay. Skin irritation caused by the formulations was evaluated in the rabbit. The chemical enhancer systems investigated strongly enhanced skin penetration of leuprolide. Maximum permeability enhancement of leuprolide acetate can be achieved with a nonirritating formulation containing ethanol, menthol, camphor, methyl salicylate, urea, and hydrogel. The in vitro permeability in nude mouse skin was 10 or 100 times higher than that obtained in cadaver skin, depending on the type of enhancer that was used in the formulation. Snake skin was at least 10 times less permeable than cadaver skin in this study. However, the effects of chemical enhancers on skin permeability were highly dependent on the skin model. Further, the in vitro permeability of leuprolide in the base form was 10 times higher than in the acetate form with the enhancers.

To test the hypothesis that maximal androgen blockade improves the effectiveness of the treatment of prostatic cancer, we conducted a randomized, double-blind trial in patients with disseminated, previously untreated prostate cancer (stage D2). All 603 men received leuprolide, an analogue of gonadotropin-releasing hormone that inhibits the release of gonadotropins, in combination with either placebo or flutamide, a nonsteroidal antiandrogen that inhibits the binding of androgens to the cell nucleus. As compared with the 300 patients receiving leuprolide and placebo, the 303 patients randomly assigned to receive leuprolide and flutamide had a longer progression-free survival (16.5 vs. 13.9 months; P = 0.039) and an increase in the median length of survival (35.6 vs. 28.3 months; P = 0.035). The differences between the treatments were particularly evident for men with minimal disease and good performance status; however, further studies should be conducted in this subgroup. Symptomatic improvement was greatest during the first 12 weeks of the combined androgen blockade, when leuprolide alone often produces a painful flare in the disease. We conclude that in patients with advanced prostate cancer, treatment with leuprolide and flutamide is superior to treatment with leuprolide alone.

We compared the efficacy and safety of the gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogue, leuprolide (1 mg subcutaneously daily), with diethylstilbestrol (DES, 3 mg by mouth daily) in patients with prostate cancer and distant metastases (Stage D2) who had not previously received systemic treatment. Initial therapy (leuprolide or DES) was continued for as long as an objective response was noted; cross-over to the alternative arm occurred at the time of disease progression or intolerable adverse reactions. Ninety-eight patients were randomly assigned to leuprolide, and 101 to DES. Suppression of testosterone and dihydrotestosterone and decreases in acid phosphatase were comparable in the two groups. Patients receiving DES experienced more frequent painful gynecomastia (P less than 0.00001), nausea and vomiting (P = 0.02), edema (P = 0.008), and thromboembolism (P = 0.065) than those receiving leuprolide. The leuprolide group reported more "hot flashes" (P = 0.00001). Overall, 86 per cent of the leuprolide group had an objective response (complete response, 1 per cent; partial response, 37 per cent; stable disease, 48 per cent), as compared with 85 per cent of the DES group (complete, 2 per cent; partial, 44 per cent; stable, 39 per cent). Actual survival rates at one year were 87 per cent for the leuprolide group and 78 per cent for the DES group (P = 0.17). We conclude that leuprolide offers an important alternative treatment that is therapeutically equivalent to and causes fewer side effects than DES for the initial systemic management of metastatic prostate cancer.