European journal of endocrinology · 2025
Medical treatment in acromegaly: a network meta-analysis.
СтатьяСистематический обзорNetwork Meta-AnalysisНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kaparounaki Chrysi, Ilie Mirela-Diana, De Alcubierre Dario, Anagnostis Panagiotis, Haidich Anna-Bettina, Isidori Andrea M, Dekkers Olaf M, Goulis Dimitrios G, Raverot Gérald
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Acromegaly is a rare disorder caused by a growth hormone-secreting pituitary adenoma. Clinical trial evidence for its management is limited. This study compared medical treatments for acromegaly through a network meta-analysis, assessing biochemical and radiological responses.
DESIGN: A systematic review and network meta-analysis were conducted following the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and network meta-analyses guidelines and Cochrane Handbook recommendations (PROSPERO registration: CRD42023364373).
METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched up to June 2024. Included studies were randomized controlled trials and nonrandomized studies evaluating the efficacy or safety of acromegaly treatments. Primary outcomes were the percentage of adjusted insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1) normalization and tumor shrinkage.
RESULTS: Twenty-seven studies, involving 4131 patients and 11 treatments were included. Pegvisomant was the best treatment for IGF-1 normalization, followed by pasireotide LAR. Both outperformed first-generation somatostatin receptor ligands (SRLs) combined with dopamine agonists (odds ratio [OR], 1.83; 95% CIs, 1.37-2.46 and OR, 1.46; 95% CIs, 1.02-2.08, respectively; I2 = 41%). Octreotide LAR was superior to oral octreotide capsules (OR, 5.41; 95% CIs, 1.89-15.52). For tumor shrinkage, pasireotide LAR was more effective than SRLs (n = 1059; OR, 11.47; 95% CIs, 1.5-87.64; I2 = 0%). Methodological heterogeneity may have affected comparability.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest pasireotide LAR and pegvisomant as the most effective treatments for IGF-1 normalization. Pasireotide LAR was the best treatment for tumor shrinkage, though the evidence base was limited, requiring cautious interpretation. Their potential role as first-line options after surgery requires further research. Clinical decisions should consider cost, safety, and patient-specific parameters to optimize outcomes.
DESIGN: A systematic review and network meta-analysis were conducted following the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and network meta-analyses guidelines and Cochrane Handbook recommendations (PROSPERO registration: CRD42023364373).
METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched up to June 2024. Included studies were randomized controlled trials and nonrandomized studies evaluating the efficacy or safety of acromegaly treatments. Primary outcomes were the percentage of adjusted insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1) normalization and tumor shrinkage.
RESULTS: Twenty-seven studies, involving 4131 patients and 11 treatments were included. Pegvisomant was the best treatment for IGF-1 normalization, followed by pasireotide LAR. Both outperformed first-generation somatostatin receptor ligands (SRLs) combined with dopamine agonists (odds ratio [OR], 1.83; 95% CIs, 1.37-2.46 and OR, 1.46; 95% CIs, 1.02-2.08, respectively; I2 = 41%). Octreotide LAR was superior to oral octreotide capsules (OR, 5.41; 95% CIs, 1.89-15.52). For tumor shrinkage, pasireotide LAR was more effective than SRLs (n = 1059; OR, 11.47; 95% CIs, 1.5-87.64; I2 = 0%). Methodological heterogeneity may have affected comparability.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest pasireotide LAR and pegvisomant as the most effective treatments for IGF-1 normalization. Pasireotide LAR was the best treatment for tumor shrinkage, though the evidence base was limited, requiring cautious interpretation. Their potential role as first-line options after surgery requires further research. Clinical decisions should consider cost, safety, and patient-specific parameters to optimize outcomes.