MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A randomized, controlled, multicentre trial comparing pegvisomant alone with combination therapy of pegvisomant and long‐acting octreotide in patients with acromegaly

2009· article· en· W2100615084 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Endocrinology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPituitary Gland Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMount Sinai Hospital
FundersNovo NordiskNational Institutes of HealthPfizerEli Lilly and Company
KeywordsPegvisomantMedicineAcromegalyAdverse effectInternal medicineOctreotideRandomized controlled trialGastroenterologySomatostatinEndocrinologyGrowth hormoneHormone

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: For patients with acromegaly who are suboptimally controlled on long-acting octreotide (LAR), treatment options are to switch to pegvisomant monotherapy (PM) or add pegvisomant to LAR (P-LAR). Our objective was to evaluate if the safety and efficacy of these regimens differ. DESIGN: This was an open-label, multicentre, randomized, 40-week outpatient study. The control arm consisted of patients controlled on LAR (n = 28). PATIENTS: A total of 27 patients with suboptimally controlled acromegaly [as indicated by a serum IGF-I level > or = 1.3 x upper limit of normal (ULN) of the age-related reference range] were randomized to PM (10 mg once daily initially, then adjusted in 5-mg increments every 8 weeks based on IGF-I levels) and 29 to P-LAR (LAR dosing remained fixed). MEASUREMENTS: The primary end-point was adverse events (AEs). The secondary end-point was biochemical IGF-I-based efficacy. The RIA for IGF-I was discontinued by the manufacturer during the study and a chemiluminescent assay was subsequently used. Previously obtained IGF-I levels were re-analysed. RESULTS: PM and P-LAR were well tolerated and there were no differences in the number of AEs. Patients receiving P-LAR tended to be more likely to have clinically significant increases in hepatic transaminase levels, especially those receiving high-dose LAR. Normalization of IGF-I was similar with both regimens (56% and 62% of patients for PM and P-LAR respectively). The change in IGF-I assay resulted in lower rates of IGF-I normalization than expected. Reductions in fasting glucose levels were greater with PM than with P-LAR (-0.8 mmol/l; 95% confidence interval -1.16, -0.53 mmol/l). CONCLUSIONS: In patients suboptimally controlled on LAR, PM and P-LAR were equally well tolerated and effective in normalizing IGF-I, and overall clinical improvement was observed with both regimens. Thus, pegvisomant monotherapy and adjunctive therapy are equally viable options for the treatment of LAR-resistant 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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.576

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.295 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it