4.3 Article

Prevalence of morphometric vertebral fractures in difficult patients with acromegaly with different biochemical outcomes after multimodal treatment

期刊

ENDOCRINE
卷 59, 期 2, 页码 449-453

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12020-017-1391-5

关键词

Acromegaly; Growth hormone receptor isoforms; Fracture; Pegvisomant; Bone

资金

  1. Pfizer

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Skeletal fragility with high risk of vertebral fractures is an emerging complication of acromegaly in close relationship with duration of active disease. The aim of this cross-sectional study was to evaluate the prevalence and determinants of vertebral fractures in males and females with a history of long-standing active acromegaly undergoing treatment with Pegvisomant. Thirty-eight patients (25 females, 13 males) with acromegaly under Pegvisomant therapy were evaluated for vertebral fractures and bone mineral density at lumbar spine and femoral neck. Gonadal status, serum IGF1 levels and growth hormone receptor genotype were also assessed. Vertebral fractures were detected in 12 patients (31.6%). Fractured patients had longer duration of active disease (p = 0.01) with higher frequency of active acromegaly (p = 0.04), received higher dose of Pegvisomant (p = 0.008), and were more frequently hypogonadic (p = 0.02) as compared to patients who did not fracture. Stratifying the patients for gender, vertebral fractures were significantly associated with Pegvisomant dose (p = 0.02) and untreated hypogonadism (p = 0.02) in males and with activity of disease (p = 0.03), serum insulin-like growth factor-I values (p = 0.01) and d3GHR polymorphism (p = 0.005) in females. No significant association was found between vertebral fractures and bone mineral density at either skeletal site. Vertebral fractures are a frequent complication of long-standing active acromegaly. When patients are treated with Pegvisomant, vertebral fractures may occur in close relationship with active acromegaly and coexistent untreated hypogonadism.

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

4.3
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