USE OF PEGVISOMANT IN ACROMEGALY. AN ITALIAN SOCIETY OF ENDOCRINOLOGY GUIDELINE.

Acromegaly management is a significant challenge for endocrinologists. The Acromegaly Consensus Group developed several statements on the management of acromegaly and specifically on its medical treatment [1–3]. Acromegaly is a quite rare condition generally caused by a growth hormone (GH)-secreting pituitary adenoma [4]. Delayed diagnosis leads to prevalent presentation of the disease at the stage of macroadenoma (two-thirds of patients) and frequent persistence of active disease after surgery which remains in many patients the primary treatment option [5]. However, active acromegaly is potentially a life threatening condition due its severe systemic complications [6, 7] Therefore, elevated GH and insulin-like growth factor (IGF)-1 levels need to be strictly controlled after failure of surgery with medical or radiation treatments [8]. Furthermore, criteria for disease control may not be fulfilled in a considerable proportion of patients undergoing medical treatment with somatostatin receptor ligands (SRLs) after unsuccessful surgery [9, 10]. Accordingly, some acromegaly patients require the administration of GH antagonist Pegvisomant [11]. Pegvisomant has been introduced in clinical practice more than a decade ago as a medical therapy of acromegaly. However, specific guidelines for Pegvisomant use in acromegaly are lacking. Therefore, the Italian Society of Endocrinology constituted a task force with the objective of assessing the published literature and the clinical experience with Pegvisomant. This group involved endocrinologists recognized experts in the field of acromegaly management and their understanding of the data reported so far worldwide as well as their recommendations for Pegvisomant use in clinical practice are presented here. Biochemical and clinical results of Pegvisomant, indications, treatment modalities, combination therapies, safety and regulatory and cost/efficacy issues were evaluated. Evidences were graded with GRADE system [1–3, 12, 13] based on the quality of evidence as very low quality (VLQ; expert opinion with one or a small number of small uncontrolled studies in support), low quality (LQ; large series of small uncontrolled studies), moderate quality (MQ; one or a small number of large uncontrolled studies or meta-analyses), or high quality (HQ; controlled studies or large series of large uncontrolled studies with sufficiently long follow-up). Recommendations were defined discretionary (DR) if based on VLQ-LQ evidence, or strong (SR) if supported by MQ-HQ evidence.