• Aucun résultat trouvé

Response to letter – Androgen deprivation therapy and cardiovascular risk: No meaningful difference between GnRH antagonist and agonists

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Partager "Response to letter – Androgen deprivation therapy and cardiovascular risk: No meaningful difference between GnRH antagonist and agonists"

Copied!
3
0
0

Texte intégral

(1)

HAL Id: hal-01661110

https://hal-univ-rennes1.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01661110

Submitted on 11 Dec 2017

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- entific research documents, whether they are pub- lished or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

Response to letter – Androgen deprivation therapy and cardiovascular risk: No meaningful difference between

GnRH antagonist and agonists

Lucie-Marie Scailteux

To cite this version:

Lucie-Marie Scailteux. Response to letter – Androgen deprivation therapy and cardiovascular risk: No

meaningful difference between GnRH antagonist and agonists. European Journal of Cancer, Elsevier,

2017, 87, pp.204. �10.1016/j.ejca.2017.06.042�. �hal-01661110�

(2)

June 16

th

, 2017

Response to letter to Re: Androgen deprivation therapy and cardiovascular risk: No meaningful difference between GnRH antagonist and agonists.

To The Editor:

We thank Professor Albertsen for his interest to our study.

We do acknowledge that pre-existing cardiovascular events were assessed on a look-back period of 6 months before starting ADT and we observed few events. As regards history of cardiovascular disease, difference in events definition and timing did not allow any fair comparison between our population-based study and the trials meta-analysed by Albertsen et al. [1] However, as regards cardiovascular risk factors (diabetes mellitus, hypertension, lipid-lowering drug use), results were more consistent.

His meta-analysis raised the hypothesis that GnRH antagonists may lower cardiovascular events or death from any cause when compared with agonists predominently in men with pre-existing cardiovascular disease (around on third of the population) but a significant result was also found in the whole population. In that latter instance, our results were not in line. Notwithstanding a different composite outcome (more focused), we observed a non-significant result with a large confidence interval, reflecting a lack of power (HR = 1.2; 95%CI, 0.7 to 2.1). However, under the assumption of an unbiased analysis, true hazard ratio is almost surely not below 0.7 and could even reach 2.1.

Whatever the interpretation we may choose, this is not in line with the hypothesis of a clinical meaningful protective effect of GnRH antagonists.

Sincerely,

Lucie-Marie SCAILTEUX, PharmD, PhD

Pharmacovigilance, Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Information Center, Rennes Hospital University UPRES, EA 7449, REPERES “Research in Pharmacoepidemiology and Access to Care”, Rennes

France

(3)

[1] Albertsen PC, Klotz L, Tombal B, Grady J, Olesen TK, Nilsson J. Cardiovascular morbidity associated with gonadotropin releasing

hormone agonists and an antagonist. European urology. 2014;65(3):565-73.

Références

Documents relatifs

found a rare variation in the DDAH-1 gene, which is associated with elevated plasma concentrations of ADMA in heterozygous mutation carriers. There

The distinct mechanisms of action, resulting in different clinical effects, of statins and fibrates provide a rationale for combined use in the treatment of patients with

Supporting the ability of polyA:U to enhance anticancer immune responses, adjuvant polyA:U administration has been associated with a significant reduction in the risk for

[r]

The prevalence of cardiovascular diseases was 19.8%, respiratory diseases 9.4%, musculoskeletal disorders 50.4%, physical disabilities 27.7%, vision-hearing disabilities 27.4%,

A l’analyse, il semble toutefois que les deux registres d’apprentissage identifiés, l’un associé à l’exploration d’un contenu et l’autre aux conduites argumentatives, de

Sud sono sono ambiziosi: non solo si vogliono svi- luppare nuovi metodi di analisi delle problemati- che studiate, ma si prevede anche di illustrare pos- sibili strategie

Previous data from human subjects after acute cardiovascular events showed an inverse association between the thrombin genera- tion marker F1+2 and cardiovascular endpoints