Marked Hyperthyroxinemia During Amiodarone Treatment Revealing Thyroid Hormone Resistance Syndrome

International audienc

Efficacy of everolimus in patients with metastatic insulinoma and refractory hypoglycemia

BACKGROUND: Refractory hypoglycemia in patients with metastatic insulinoma is an important cause of morbidity and mortality. Everolimus could be a new therapeutic option. METHODS: Within the French Group, we conducted a retrospective, multicentric study of endocrine tumors to evaluate the time to the first recurrence of symptomatic hypoglycemia, after everolimus initiation, in patients with metastatic insulinoma and refractory hypoglycemia. Ongoing hyperglycemic medical options, tumor response, and safety information were recorded. RESULTS: Twelve patients with metastatic insulinoma and refractory hypoglycemia who were treated with everolimus between May 2007 and June 2011 were reviewed. Everolimus (starting dose, 10 mg/day, except in one patient, 5 mg/day) was given after a median of four previous therapeutic lines. Medication aimed at normalizing blood glucose levels in 11 patients. After a median duration of 6.5 months (range 1-35+ months), median time to the first recurrence of symptomatic hypoglycemia was 6.5 months (range 0 to 35+ months). Three patients discontinued everolimus because of cardiac and/or pulmonary adverse events at 1, 1.5, and 7 months after initiation, which led to two deaths. Three patients discontinued everolimus because of tumor progression at 2, 3, and 10 months after initiation, without recurrence of hypoglycemia. CONCLUSION: Everolimus appears to be a new effective treatment for patients with metastatic insulinoma and refractory hypoglycemia. Tolerance should be carefully monitored

A new specific succinate-glutamate metabolomic hallmark in SDHx-related paragangliomas

Paragangliomas (PGLs) are frequently associated with germline mutations in genes involved in energy metabolism. The purpose of the present study was to assess whether the tumor metabolomic profile of patients with hereditary and apparently sporadic PGLs enables the distinction of different subtypes of tumors. Twenty-eight unrelated patients with a histological diagnosis of PGLs were included in the present study. Twelve had germline mutations in SDHx genes (5 SDHB, 7 SDHD), 6 VHL, and 10 were apparently sporadic. Intact tumor samples from these patients (one per patient) were evaluated with (1)H high-resolution magic angle spinning (HRMAS) NMR spectroscopy. SDHx-related tumors were characterized by an increase in succinate levels in comparison to other tumor subtypes (p = 0.0001 vs VHL and p = 0.000003 vs apparently sporadic). Furthermore, we found significantly lower values of glutamate in SDHx-related tumors compared to other subtypes (p = 0.0007 vs VHL and p = 0.003 vs apparently sporadic). Moreover, SDHx-tumors also exhibited lower values of ATP/ADP/AMP (p = 0.01) compared to VHL. VHL tumors were found to have the highest values of glutathione (GSH) compared to other tumors. Based on 4 metabolites (succinate, glutamate, GSH, and ATP/ADP/AMP), tumors were accurately distinguished from the other ones on both 3- and 2-class PLS-DA models. The present study shows that HRMAS NMR spectroscopy is a very promising method for investigating the metabolomic profile of various PGLs. The present data suggest the existence of a specific succinate-glutamate hallmark of SDHx PGLs. The relevance of such a metabolomic hallmark is expected to be very useful in designing novel treatment options as well as improving the diagnosis and follow-up of these tumors, including metastatic ones

Persistent cAMP-Signals Triggered by Internalized G-Protein–Coupled Receptors

Real-time monitoring of G-protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) signaling in native cells suggests that the receptor for thyroid stimulating hormone remains active after internalization, challenging the current model for GPCR signaling

Sarilumab in patients admitted to hospital with severe or critical COVID-19: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial

Background: Elevated proinflammatory cytokines are associated with greater COVID-19 severity. We aimed to assess safety and efficacy of sarilumab, an interleukin-6 receptor inhibitor, in patients with severe (requiring supplemental oxygen by nasal cannula or face mask) or critical (requiring greater supplemental oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal support) COVID-19. Methods: We did a 60-day, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multinational phase 3 trial at 45 hospitals in Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, Russia, and Spain. We included adults (≥18 years) admitted to hospital with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and pneumonia, who required oxygen supplementation or intensive care. Patients were randomly assigned (2:2:1 with permuted blocks of five) to receive intravenous sarilumab 400 mg, sarilumab 200 mg, or placebo. Patients, care providers, outcome assessors, and investigators remained masked to assigned intervention throughout the course of the study. The primary endpoint was time to clinical improvement of two or more points (seven point scale ranging from 1 [death] to 7 [discharged from hospital]) in the modified intention-to-treat population. The key secondary endpoint was proportion of patients alive at day 29. Safety outcomes included adverse events and laboratory assessments. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04327388; EudraCT, 2020-001162-12; and WHO, U1111-1249-6021. Findings: Between March 28 and July 3, 2020, of 431 patients who were screened, 420 patients were randomly assigned and 416 received placebo (n=84 [20%]), sarilumab 200 mg (n=159 [38%]), or sarilumab 400 mg (n=173 [42%]). At day 29, no significant differences were seen in median time to an improvement of two or more points between placebo (12·0 days [95% CI 9·0 to 15·0]) and sarilumab 200 mg (10·0 days [9·0 to 12·0]; hazard ratio [HR] 1·03 [95% CI 0·75 to 1·40]; log-rank p=0·96) or sarilumab 400 mg (10·0 days [9·0 to 13·0]; HR 1·14 [95% CI 0·84 to 1·54]; log-rank p=0·34), or in proportions of patients alive (77 [92%] of 84 patients in the placebo group; 143 [90%] of 159 patients in the sarilumab 200 mg group; difference −1·7 [−9·3 to 5·8]; p=0·63 vs placebo; and 159 [92%] of 173 patients in the sarilumab 400 mg group; difference 0·2 [−6·9 to 7·4]; p=0·85 vs placebo). At day 29, there were numerical, non-significant survival differences between sarilumab 400 mg (88%) and placebo (79%; difference +8·9% [95% CI −7·7 to 25·5]; p=0·25) for patients who had critical disease. No unexpected safety signals were seen. The rates of treatment-emergent adverse events were 65% (55 of 84) in the placebo group, 65% (103 of 159) in the sarilumab 200 mg group, and 70% (121 of 173) in the sarilumab 400 mg group, and of those leading to death 11% (nine of 84) were in the placebo group, 11% (17 of 159) were in the sarilumab 200 mg group, and 10% (18 of 173) were in the sarilumab 400 mg group. Interpretation: This trial did not show efficacy of sarilumab in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 and receiving supplemental oxygen. Adequately powered trials of targeted immunomodulatory therapies assessing survival as a primary endpoint are suggested in patients with critical COVID-19. Funding: Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals