3.9 Article

Criteria for diagnosis and postoperative control of acromegaly, and screening and management of its comorbidities: Expert consensus

Journal

ENDOCRINOLOGIA DIABETES Y NUTRICION
Volume 65, Issue 5, Pages 297-305

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.endinu.2018.01.008

Keywords

Acromegaly; Comorbidity; Diagnosis; Management; Screening; Diabetes

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Acromegaly is a rare disease with many comorbidities that impair quality of life and limit survival. There are discrepancies in various clinical guidelines regarding diagnosis and postoperative control criteria, as well as screening and optimal management of comorbidities. This expert consensus was aimed at establishing specific recommendations for the Spanish healthcare system. The existing recommendations, the scientific evidence on which they are based, and the main controversies are reviewed. Unfortunately, the low prevalence and high clinical variability of acromegaly do not provide strong scientific evidences. To mitigate this disadvantage, a modified Delphi questionnaire, combining the best available scientific evidence with the collective judgment of experts, was used. The questionnaire, generated after a face-to-face debate, was completed by 17 Spanish endocrinologists expert in acromegaly. A high degree of consensus was reached (79.3%), as 65 of the total 82 statements raised were accepted. Some criteria for diagnosis and postoperative control were identified by this procedure. Regarding comorbidities, recommendations have been established or suggested for screening and management of oncological, cardiovascular, respiratory (sleep apnea), metabolic (dystipidemia and diabetes), musculoskeletal, and hypopituitarism-related disorders. Consensus recommendations may facilitate and homogenize clinical care to patients with acromegaly in the Spanish health system. (C) 2018 SEEN y SED. Published by Elsevier Espana, S.L.U. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available