Pegvisomant in combination or pegvisomant alone after failure of somatostatin analogs in acromegaly patients: an observational French ACROSTUDY cohort study

Abstract

Abstract Objective After surgery, when somatostatin analogs (SAs) do not normalise IGF-I, pegvisomant (PEG) is indicated. Our aim was to define the medical reasons for the treatment of patients with PEG as monotherapy (M) or combined with SA, either as primary bitherapy, PB (PEG is secondarily introduced after SA) or as secondary bitherapy, SB (SAs secondarily introduced after PEG). Methods We retrospectively analysed French data from ACROSTUDY. Results 167, 88 and 57 patients were treated with M, PB or SB, respectively, during a median time of 80, 42 and 70 months. The median PEG dose was respectively 15, 10 and 20 mg. Before PEG, the mean IGF-I level did not differ between M and PB but the proportion of patients with suprasellar tumour extension was higher in PB group (67.5% vs. 44.4%, P = 0.022). SB regimen was used preferentially in patients with tumour increase and IGF-I level difficult to normalise under PEG. In both secondary regimens, the decrease of the frequency of PEG’s injections, compared to monotherapy was confirmed. However, the mean weekly dose of PEG between M and PB remained the same. Conclusions The medical rationale for continuing SAs rather than switching to PEG alone in patients who do not normalise IGF-I under SAs was a tumour concern with suprasellar extension and tumour shrinkage under SA. A potential explanation for introducing SA in association with PEG appears to be a tumour enlargement and difficulties to normalise IGF-I levels under PEG given alone. In both regimens, the prospect of lowering PEG injection frequency favoured the choice.