4.2 Article

Oral octreotide capsules for the treatment of acromegaly: comparison of 2 phase 3 trial results

Journal

PITUITARY
Volume 24, Issue 6, Pages 943-953

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11102-021-01163-2

Keywords

Oral octreotide; Acromegaly; IGF-I; Somatostatin receptor ligands; Somatostatin analogs; Growth hormone

Funding

  1. Chiasma, Inc. (Needham, MA)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Results from trials investigating oral octreotide capsules as an alternative treatment for acromegaly showed consistent biochemical response, durability of response, and patient preference for oral treatment, despite differences in trial design.
Purpose Results are presented from 2 to 3 trials investigating oral octreotide capsules (OOC) as an alternative to injectable somatostatin receptor ligands (iSRLs) in the treatment of acromegaly. Methods CH-ACM-01 was an open-label trial (N = 155) and CHIASMA OPTIMAL was a double-blind placebo-controlled (DPC) trial (N = 56), both investigating OOC as maintenance therapy for patients with acromegaly who were biochemical responders receiving iSRLs. Results Baseline characteristics in both trials reflected those expected of patients with acromegaly responding to treatment and were similar between trials, despite differences in inclusion criteria. OOC demonstrated a consistent degree of biochemical response across trials, with 65% of patients in CH-ACM-01 maintaining response during the core period and 64% of patients in CHIASMA OPTIMAL at the end of the DPC. Mean insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I) levels remained within inclusion criteria at the end of treatment in both trials. Of 110 patients entering the fixed-dose phase in CH-ACM-01, 80% maintained or improved acromegaly symptoms from baseline to the end of treatment. Over 85% of patients in both trials elected to continue into the extension phases. OOC were found to be well tolerated across both trials, and no dose-related adverse events were observed. Conclusions OOC demonstrated remarkably consistent results for biochemical response, durability of response, and preference to continue with oral treatment across these 2 complementary landmark phase 3 trials, despite differences in the design of each.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available