A Canadian multi-centre, open-label long-term study of Pegvisomant treatment in refractory acromegaly
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Acromegaly is a rarely diagnosed condition with potentially serious complications including accelerated heart disease and reduced survival. After a mean interval of nearly 9 years from onset of disease, a significant proportion of patients are diagnosed with invasive adenomas precluding complete surgical resection. Furthermore, strict normalization of the growth hormone (GH) target insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I) cannot always be achieved by adjunctive medical therapy with somatostatin analogues. Here we report the results of a Canadian multi-centre study open-label, dose-titrated long-term study examining safety and efficacy outcomes of a growth hormone receptor antagonist, pegvisomant in 19 patients with refractory acromegaly. METHODS: Previously pegvisomant-treated and treatment-naïve refractory acromegalic patients at least 18 yr of age were eligible (n=19). Patients received open-label daily subcutaneous injections of pegvisomant adjusted according to IGF-I levels. Safety and IGF-I levels were assessed every 4 to 6 wk. Baseline and follow-up visits at 3-month intervals also included administration of the Signs and Symptoms of Acromegaly Questionnaire. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00151437. RESULTS: We show that, in escalating doses, pegvisomant results in age-adjusted normalization of IGF-I in nearly all such patients. This IGF-I normalization occurred early on and was maintained throughout the study period of 27 months (IGF-I standard deviation score (SDS), mean +/- SE: 1.66 +/- 0.36, P=0.0003 vs baseline), with a nadir at 18 months (IGF-I SDS, mean +/- SE: 1.50 +/- 0.38, P=0.0010 vs baseline). IGF-I control was also accompanied by measurable improvements in disease-associated symptoms and without radiographic evidence of pituitary tumour progression. Overall, the safety profile of pegvisomant therapy in this patient population was found to be satisfactory and suitable for a long-term treatment. CONCLUSION: Our findings provide support for the long-term safety and efficacy of the GH receptor antagonist pegvisomant in achieving IGF-I control in patients with refractory acromegaly.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".