Effectiveness of Combined First-Line Medical Treatment in Acromegaly with Prolactin Co-secretion.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the response to first-line medical treatment in treatment-naive acromegaly patients with pure growth hormone (GH)-secreting pituitary adenoma (GH-PA) and those with GH and prolactin co-secreting PA (GH&PRL-PA). DESIGN: Retrospective multicentric study of acromegaly patients followed from 2003 to 2023 in 33 tertiary Spanish hospitals with at least six months of first-line medical treatment. METHODS: Baseline characteristics, first-line medical treatment strategies, and outcomes were analysed. We employed a multiple logistic regression full model to estimate the impact of some baseline characteristics on disease control after each treatment modality. RESULTS: Of the 144 patients included, 72.9% had a GH-PA, and 27.1% had a GH&PRL-PA. Patients with GH&PRL-PA were younger (43.9 ± 15.0 vs. 51.9 ± 12.7 years; p < 0.01) and harboring more frequently macroadenomas (89.7% vs. 72.1%, p = 0.03). First generation somatostatin receptor ligand (fgSRL) as monotherapy was given to 106 (73.6%) and a combination treatment with fgSRL and cabergoline in the remaining 38 (26.4%). Patients with GH&PRL-PA received more frequently a combination therapy (56.4% vs. 15.2%; p < 0.01). After 6 months of treatment, in the group of patients under fgSRL as monotherapy, those patients with GH&PRL-PA had worse control compared to GH-PAs (29.4% vs. 55.1%, p = 0.04). However, these differences in the rate of disease control between both groups disappeared when both received combination treatment with fgSRL and cabergoline. CONCLUSION: In GH&PRL-PA the biochemical control achieved with fgSRL as monotherapy is substantially worse than in patients harboring GH-PA, supporting the inclusion of cabergoline as first line medical treatment in combination with fgSRLs in these subgroups of patients.

Pegvisomant and pasireotide in PRL and GH co-secreting vs GH-secreting Pit-NETs.

The objective of the study was to evaluate the efficacy of second-line therapies in patients with acromegaly caused by a growth hormone (GH) and prolactin (PRL) co-secreting pituitary neuroendocrine tumor (GH&PRL-Pit-NET) compared to their efficacy in patients with acromegaly caused by a GH-secreting pituitary neuroendocrine tumor (GH-Pit-NET). This is a multicenter retrospective study of patients with acromegaly on treatment with pasireotide and/or pegvisomant. Patients were classified in two groups: GH&PRL-Pit-NETs when evidence of hyperprolactinemia and immunohistochemistry (IHC) for GH and PRL was positive or if PRL were >200 ng/dL regardless of the PRL-IHC and GH-Pit-NETs when the previously mentioned criteria were not met. A total of 28 cases with GH&PRL-Pit-NETs and 122 with GH-Pit-NETs met the inclusion criteria. GH&PRL-Pit-NETs presented at a younger age, caused hypopituitarism, and were invasive more frequently than GH-Pit-NETs. There were 124 patients treated with pegvisomant and 49 with pasireotide at any time. The efficacy of pegvisomant for IGF-1 normalization was of 81.5% and of pasireotide of 71.4%. No differences in IGF-1 control with pasireotide and with pegvisomant were observed between GH&PRL-Pit-NETs and GH-Pit-NETs. All GH&PRL-Pit-NET cases treated with pasireotide (n = 6) and 82.6% (n = 19/23) of the cases treated with pegvisomant normalized PRL levels. No differences in the rate of IGF-1 control between pegvisomant and pasireotide were detected in patients with GH&PRL-Pit-NETs (84.9% vs 66.7%, P = 0.178). We conclude that despite the more aggressive behavior of GH&PRL-Pit-NETs than GH-Pit-NETs, no differences in the rate of IGF-1 control with pegvisomant and pasireotide were observed between both groups, and both drugs have shown to be effective treatments to control IGF-1 and PRL hypersecretion in these tumors.

Differences between GH and PRL co-secreting and GH-secreting pituitary adenomas. A series of 604 cases.

PURPOSE: To evaluate differences in clinical presentation and in surgical outcomes between growth hormone-secreting pituitary adenomas (GH-PAs) and GH and prolactin co-secreting pituitary adenomas (GH&PRL-PAs). METHODS: Multicenter retrospective study of 604 patients with acromegaly submitted to pituitary surgery. Patients were classified into two groups according to serum PRL levels at diagnosis and immunohistochemistry (IHC) for PRL: a) GH&PRL-PAs when PRL levels were above the upper limit of normal and IHC for GH and PRL was positive or PRL levels were >100ng/and PRL IHC was not available (n=130) and b) GH-PAs who did not meet the previously mentioned criteria (n=474). RESULTS: GH&PRL-PAs represented 21.5% (n=130) of patients with acromegaly. The mean age at diagnosis was lower in GH&PRL-PAs than in GH-PAs (P<0.001). GH&PRL-PAs were more frequently macroadenomas (90.6% vs. 77.4%, P=0.001) and tended to be more invasive (33.6% vs. 24.7%, P=0.057) than GH-PAs. Furthermore, they had presurgical hypopituitarism more frequently (OR 2.8, 95% CI 1.83-4.38). IGF-1 upper limit of normality (ULN) levels at diagnosis were lower in patients with GH&PRL-PAs (median 2.4 [IQR 1.73-3.29] vs. 2.7 [IQR 1.91-3.67], P=0.023). There were no differences in the immediate (41.1% vs 43.3%, P=0.659) or long-term post-surgical acromegaly biochemical cure rate (53.5% vs. 53.1%, P=0.936) between groups. However, there was a higher incidence of permanent arginine-vasopressin deficiency (AVP-D) (7.3% vs. 2.4%, P=0.011) in GH&PRL-PAs patients. CONCLUSIONS: GH&PRL-PAs are responsible for 20% of acromegaly cases. These tumors are more invasive, larger and cause hypopituitarism more frequently than GH-PAs and are diagnosed at an earlier age. The biochemical cure rate is similar between both groups, but patients with GH&PRL-PAs tend to develop permanent postsurgical AVP-D more frequently.

New Metrics to Assess Type 2 Diabetes After Bariatric Surgery: The "Time-Within-Remission Range".

Almost one third of patients do not achieve type 2 diabetes remission after bariatric surgery or are unable to sustain this effect long term. Our objective was to delve further into the dynamic responses of diabetes after bariatric surgery and to evaluate the "time-within-remission range" as a variable of metabolic control. A descriptive cohort study was done using a computerised multicentre and multidisciplinary registry. All data were adjusted by propensity score. A total of 1186 subjects with a follow-up of 4.5 ± 2.5 years were included. Type of surgery, diabetes remission, recurrence of diabetes, "time-within-remission range" and key predictors of diabetes outcomes were assessed. All patients (70% women, 51.4 ± 9.2 years old, body mass index (BMI) 46.3 ± 6.9 kg/m2) underwent primary bariatric procedures. "Time-within-remission range" were 83.3% (33.3-91.6) after gastric bypass, 68.7% (7.1-87.5) after sleeve gastrectomy and 90% (83.3-92.8) after malabsorptive techniques (p < 0.001 for all). Duration of diabetes, baseline HbA1c and insulin treatment were significantly negatively correlated with the "time-within-remission range". The association of bariatric techniques with "time-within-remission range", using gastric bypass as a reference, were: odds ratio (OR) 3.70 (2.34-5.84), p < 0.001 for malabsorptive techniques and OR 0.55 (0.40-0.75), p < 0.001 for sleeve gastrectomy. Characteristics of type 2 diabetes powerfully influence the outcomes of bariatric surgery. The "time-within-remission range" unveils a superiority of gastric bypass compared to sleeve gastrectomy.