4.1 Article

Medical Therapy of Acromegaly in Germany 2019-Data from the German Acromegaly Registry

期刊

出版社

GEORG THIEME VERLAG KG
DOI: 10.1055/a-1191-2437

关键词

Acromegaly; growth hormone; IGF-1; cabergoline; lanreotide; octreotide; pegvisomant

资金

  1. Ipsen Pharma GmbH, Ettlingen, Germany
  2. Novartis Pharma GmbH, Nuremberg, Germany
  3. Pfizer Deutschland GmbH, Berlin, Germany

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In German patients with acromegaly, most patients receiving medical therapy have normal or low IGF-1 levels. The majority of patients are treated with somatostatin analogs, with some patients using a combination of different medical regimens. Some patients did not achieve normalization of IGF-1 levels.
Context Acromegaly is a rare disease caused by excessive growth hormone (GH) secretion from pituitary adenomas in most cases. If neurosurgical therapy is contraindicated or not sufficient, medical therapy is the second line therapy. Objective To describe current medical therapy in acromegaly. Design & Methods Retrospective data analysis from 2732 patients treated in 69 centers of the German Acromegaly Registry. 749 patients were seen within the recent 18 months, of which 420 were on medical therapy (56.1%). Results 73% of medically treated acromegalic patients had normal/low IGF-1 levels. 57% of patients with non-normalized IGF-1 levels had an IGF-1 value between 1- and 1.25-fold above the upper limit of normal. Most patients (55%) received somatostatin analogs as monotherapy, 12% GH receptor monotherapy, and 9% dopamine agonist therapy. Doses of each medical therapy varied widely, with 120 mg lanreotide LAR every 4 weeks, 30 mg octreotide LAR every 4 weeks, 140 mg pegvisomant per week and 1mg cabergoline per week being the most frequent used regimens. A combination of different medical regimens was used in almost 25% of the patients. Conclusion The majority of German acromegalic patients receiving medical therapy are controlled according to normal IGF-1 levels.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据