4.6 Article

Slow-release lanreotide in Graves' ophthalmopathy: A double-blind randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial

Journal

JOURNAL OF ENDOCRINOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION
Volume 29, Issue 5, Pages 413-422

Publisher

EDITRICE KURTIS S R L
DOI: 10.1007/BF03344124

Keywords

lanreotide; somatostatin analogs; thyroid eye disease; thyroid associated ophthalmopathy; Graves' ophthalmopathy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

SS analogs are an attractive alternative in treating Graves' ophthalmopathy (GO). Most of the previous studies were uncontrolled and enrolled few patients. The present study was conducted as a larger scale, prospective, randomized controlled study to determine the effectiveness of a slow-release formulation of lanreotide in GO. Sixty patients with active GO received an im injection every two weeks of either lanreotide 30 mg or placebo for 12 weeks. They were then followed and further treated in the traditional way if necessary. The Clinical Activity Score (CAS) was the primary efficacy criterion. Proptosis, diplopia, corneal erosion or ulcer, visual acuity, extraocular muscle movement and intralocular pressure were also evaluated. At the end of the 12 weeks, the mean CAS was not significantly decreased in the lanreotide group compared to the placebo group. The overall mean difference of proptosis between these two groups also did not reach significance at 12 weeks. Only diplopia at downward gaze had significant improvement for the lanreotide-treated group vs placebo group (p = 0.03). No differences were observed between the two groups compared to other outcome measures. During the 24-month follow-up after the clinical trial, 14 patients received eye surgery in the placebo group compared with 10 patients in the lanreotide group (p = 0.29). Six patients received methylprednisolone pulse therapy in the placebo group and two patients in the lanreotide group (p = 0.25). In conclusion, lanreotide treatment had no significant effects on GO compared with placebo.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available