Tocilizumab versus Rituximab in Patients with Moderate to Severe Steroid-resistant Graves' Orbitopathy.

INTRODUCTION: To describe the efficacy of tocilizumab in patients with Graves' orbitopathy resistant or dependent to steroids and compare to rituximab treated patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Graves's orbitopathy response was considered as decrease of at least 2 points of the CAS. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients were included, 7 patients were treated with tocilizumab and 14 with rituximab. The primary was achieved in all 7 patients (100%) on tocilizumab and 9 out of 14 patients on (64%) rituximab (p = .17). Mean change in CAS was consistent with a decrease of 3.3 ± 0.5 points in patients on tocilizumab versus 2.5 ± 1.9 in patients on rituximab (p = .07). One patient on tocilizumab (14%) and 4 patients (29%) on rituximab experienced significant relapse during the follow-up. The difference in relapse-free survival was not significant in patients on tocilizumab (10.8 ± 4 months) compared with rituximab (17.88 ± 3.66). CONCLUSION: We showed a significant improvement in the CAS, visual acuity, diplopia, and proptosis with both tocilizumab and rituximab.

Germline inactivating mutations of the aryl hydrocarbon receptor-interacting protein gene in a large cohort of sporadic acromegaly: mutations are found in a subset of young patients with macroadenomas.

OBJECTIVE: Germline mutations of the aryl hydrocarbon receptor-interacting protein gene (AIP) have recently been described in three families with GH or prolactin-secreting tumors, as well as in a few patients with apparently sporadic somatotropinomas. The aim of the study was to determine the prevalence of AIP mutations in a large cohort of patients with apparently sporadic GH-secreting tumors. DESIGN: One hundred and fifty-four patients were included in a prospective cohort designed to study the genetic predisposition to GH-secreting tumors together with 270 controls. METHODS: In all these subjects, the entire coding sequence of the AIP gene was screened for germline mutations. RESULTS: AIP mutations were detected in 5 out of 154 patients (3%): nonsense mutations in exon 4 (p.Lys201X; n = 2) and in exon 6 (p.Arg304X), one deletion in exon 3 (c.404delA; pHis135LeufsX21), and one mutation affecting the splice acceptor site of exon 4 (c.469-2 A > G). The five patients with an AIP mutation were significantly younger (mean age +/- S.D.: 25 +/- 10 vs 43 +/- 14 years, P = 0.005) and three of them presented with gigantism. One missense mutation (p.Arg304Gln) was found in a single patient that was absent in all controls. CONCLUSIONS: Germline mutations of the AIP gene were found in a small proportion of patients with sporadic pituitary somatotropinomas. This study shows that age and gigantism are simple clinical features which can help to select patients for mutation screening. It also supports the role of AIP in pituitary tumorigenesis.