4.6 Article

Long-term effects of pegvisomant on comorbidities in patients with acromegaly: a retrospective single-center study

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENDOCRINOLOGY
卷 173, 期 5, 页码 693-702

出版社

BIOSCIENTIFICA LTD
DOI: 10.1530/EJE-15-0500

关键词

-

资金

  1. Novartis
  2. Ipsen
  3. Pfizer

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Context: The effect of pegvisomant on IGF1 levels in patients with acromegaly is well documented, but little is known of its long-term impact on comorbidity. Aim: The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the effects of long-term pegvisomant therapy on cardiorespiratory and metabolic comorbidity in patients with acromegaly. Patients and methods: We analyzed the long-term (up to 10 years) effect of pegvisomant therapy given alone (n=19, 45%) or in addition to somatostatin analogues and/or cabergoline (n=23, 55%) on echocardiographic, polysomnographic and metabolic parameters in respectively 42, 12 and 26 patients with acromegaly followed in Bicetre hospital. Results: At the first cardiac evaluation, 20 +/- 16 months after pegvisomant introduction, IGF1 levels normalized in 29 (69%) of the 42 patients. The left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) improved significantly in patients whose basal LVEF was <= 60% and decreased in those whose LVEF was >70%. The left ventricular mass index (LVMi) decreased from 123 +/- 25 to 101 +/- 21 g/m(2) (P<0.05) in the 17 patients with a basal LVMi higher than the median (91 g/m(2)), while it remained stable in the other patients. Pegvisomant reduced the apnoea-hypopnea index and cured obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) in four of the eight patients concerned. Long-term follow-up of 22 patients showed continuing improvements in cardiac parameters. The BMI and LDL cholesterol level increased minimally during pegvisomant therapy, and other lipid parameters were not modified. Conclusions: Long-term pegvisomant therapy not only normalizes IGF1 in a large proportion of patients but also improves cardiac and respiratory comorbidity.

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

4.6
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