4.2 Article

Comparison of octreotide LAR and lanreotide autogel as post-operative medical treatment in acromegaly

期刊

PITUITARY
卷 15, 期 3, 页码 398-404

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11102-011-0335-y

关键词

Acromegaly; Somatostatin analogs; Octreotide; Lanreotide

资金

  1. Ipsen (Paris, France)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Long-acting somatostatin analogs are frequently used as adjuvant treatment of acromegaly patients after noncurative surgery. This sudy aims to compare the efficacy of octreotide long-acting release (OCT) and lanreotide Autogel (LAN) in acromegaly patients. Sixty-eight patients not cured by transsphenoidal endoscopic or microscopic pituitary surgery between 2003 and 2009 were retrospectively analyzed (25 men; 43 women; mean age 41.1 +/- A 10.9 years [range 18-65 years]). The patients were assigned randomly to OCT (n = 36) and LAN (n = 32) groups. Evaluations included insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I) and growth hormone (GH) after oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) 3, 6, 12 and 18 months after starting medical treatment; pituitary magnetic resonance imaging was performed before treatment and after 3 and 12 months. Patients achieving IGF-I levels within the age and gender normal range and GH level < 1 mu g/l following OGTT were considered a 'biochemical cure'. Mean IGF-I and GH values and tumor volumes (cm(3)) in the LAN and OCT groups were similar in the post-operative period before initiation of medical treatment. A statistically significant decrease in GH and IGF-I levels was obtained for both treatment groups at each follow-up visit compared to the previous value. Tumor shrinkage after 12 months of treatment was statistically significant in both groups but the percentage tumor shrinkage (28.5% vs. 34.9%, P = 0.166) and rate of patients achieving biochemical cure (63.9 and 78.1%, P = 0.454) were similar between OCT and LAN groups, respectively. OCT and LAN treatment options have similar efficacy for ensuring biochemical cure and tumor shrinkage in acromegaly patients who had noncurative surgery.

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

4.2
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