Neurocognitive impairment associated with traditional and novel androgen receptor signaling inhibitors ± androgen deprivation therapy: a pharmacovigilance study

Abstract

Background: Conflicting evidence exists regarding whether hormone therapy for prostate cancer is associated with neurotoxicity. Thus, we aim to characterize the association between different types of hormone therapy and neurocognitive impairment in a real-world pharmacovigilance database.

Methods: We queried VigiBase, the World Health Organization's international pharmacovigilance database, for reports of neurocognitive impairment among men who took hormone therapy from 1968 to 2021. We performed disproportionality analysis comparing rates of neurocognitive impairment with different types of hormone therapy versus other VigiBase drugs. Traditional hormonal therapy was defined as androgen deprivation therapy (ADT: gonadotropin-releasing-hormone agonists or antagonists) or first-generation androgen receptor (AR) antagonists. Novel AR signaling inhibitors (ARSIs) were defined as ARSIs with or without ADT. Differences were assessed using reporting odds ratio (ROR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and Empirical Bayes Estimator (EBE) values ≥1.0 signifying statistical significance.

Results: Odds of neurocognitive impairment were significantly elevated with traditional hormone therapy (ROR 1.47, 95% CI 1.34-1.62, EBE = 1.35) and novel ARSIs (ROR 2.40, 95% CI 2.28-2.54, EBE = 2.26). Odds of neurocognitive impairment were significantly elevated with enzalutamide (ROR 2.89, 95% CI 2.73-3.05, EBE = 2.70) and numerically increased with apalutamide (ROR 3.31, 95% CI 1.57-7.00, EBE = 0.98), but were decreased with abiraterone (ROR 0.68, 95% CI 0.55-0.84, EBE = 0.57).

Conclusions: This study demonstrates elevated odds of neurocognitive impairment with hormone therapy in a real-world data set. Neurotoxicity risk was higher with novel ARSIs than traditional agents, and higher with enzalutamide than abiraterone. Due to limitations inherent to disproportionality analysis (measuring associations, not risk) and incomplete data prohibiting the ability to control for factors such as age or use of secondary drugs (e.g., concurrent use of novel ARSIs with ADT), results are exploratory in nature. The amalgamation of these and other conflicting data may contribute to clinical decision-making for men with prostate cancer eligible for treatment with these therapies, especially those with significant neurologic comorbidities.