Albiglutide and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease (Harmony Outcomes): a double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial

Background: Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists differ in chemical structure, duration of action, and in their effects on clinical outcomes. The cardiovascular effects of once-weekly albiglutide in type 2 diabetes are unknown. We aimed to determine the safety and efficacy of albiglutide in preventing cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. Methods: We did a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial in 610 sites across 28 countries. We randomly assigned patients aged 40 years and older with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease (at a 1:1 ratio) to groups that either received a subcutaneous injection of albiglutide (30–50 mg, based on glycaemic response and tolerability) or of a matched volume of placebo once a week, in addition to their standard care. Investigators used an interactive voice or web response system to obtain treatment assignment, and patients and all study investigators were masked to their treatment allocation. We hypothesised that albiglutide would be non-inferior to placebo for the primary outcome of the first occurrence of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, which was assessed in the intention-to-treat population. If non-inferiority was confirmed by an upper limit of the 95% CI for a hazard ratio of less than 1·30, closed testing for superiority was prespecified. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02465515. Findings: Patients were screened between July 1, 2015, and Nov 24, 2016. 10 793 patients were screened and 9463 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to groups: 4731 patients were assigned to receive albiglutide and 4732 patients to receive placebo. On Nov 8, 2017, it was determined that 611 primary endpoints and a median follow-up of at least 1·5 years had accrued, and participants returned for a final visit and discontinuation from study treatment; the last patient visit was on March 12, 2018. These 9463 patients, the intention-to-treat population, were evaluated for a median duration of 1·6 years and were assessed for the primary outcome. The primary composite outcome occurred in 338 (7%) of 4731 patients at an incidence rate of 4·6 events per 100 person-years in the albiglutide group and in 428 (9%) of 4732 patients at an incidence rate of 5·9 events per 100 person-years in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·78, 95% CI 0·68–0·90), which indicated that albiglutide was superior to placebo (p<0·0001 for non-inferiority; p=0·0006 for superiority). The incidence of acute pancreatitis (ten patients in the albiglutide group and seven patients in the placebo group), pancreatic cancer (six patients in the albiglutide group and five patients in the placebo group), medullary thyroid carcinoma (zero patients in both groups), and other serious adverse events did not differ between the two groups. There were three (<1%) deaths in the placebo group that were assessed by investigators, who were masked to study drug assignment, to be treatment-related and two (<1%) deaths in the albiglutide group. Interpretation: In patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, albiglutide was superior to placebo with respect to major adverse cardiovascular events. Evidence-based glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists should therefore be considered as part of a comprehensive strategy to reduce the risk of cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes. Funding: GlaxoSmithKline

Is receptor profiling useful for predicting pituitary therapy?

Medical treatment of pituitary tumours may present important challenges in the presence of resistance to first line therapy. In this setting, the availability of specific markers of responsiveness/resistance could be helpful to provide tailored patients' treatment. Pituitary receptor profiling has emerged as a potentially useful tool for predicting the response to specific pituitary-directed medical therapy, mainly somatostatin analogues and dopamine agonists. However, its utility is not always straightforward. In fact, agonist-receptor coupling to the consequent biological response is complex and sometimes jeopardizes the understanding of the molecular basis of pharmacological resistance. Defective expression of pituitary receptors, genetic alterations, truncated variants, impaired signal transduction or involvement of other proteins, such as cytoskeleton proteins or the Aryl hydrocarbon receptor interacting protein amongst others, have been linked to differential tumour phenotype or treatment responsiveness with conflicting results, keeping the debate on the utility of pituitary receptor profiling open. Why does this occur? How can we overcome the difficulties? Is there a true role for pituitary receptor profiling in the near future? All authors of this debate article agree on the need of prospective studies using standardized methods in order to assess the efficacy of receptor profiling as a reliable clinical predictive factor

Hypophysitis following Treatment with Ustekinumab: Radiological and Pathological Findings

ContextUstekinumab is a human IgG1 monoclonal antibody that targets interleukin (IL)-12 and IL-23, which may be useful in the treatment of autoimmune conditions such as psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, and Crohn’s disease. Hypophysitis is an immune-derived inflammatory condition of the pituitary gland that may lead to pituitary dysfunction. With the increasing use of immunotherapy, it is possible that this and other new immune-related adverse events (IRAEs) arise, although the mechanisms involved are still incompletely defined.Case descriptionA 35-year-old male, with a previous history of severe plaque-psoriasis who had started treatment with ustekinumab 4 months before, complained of progressive and persistent headache. Brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was unremarkable. One year later, a new MRI was performed due to headache persistence, which revealed a homogenous and diffuse pituitary enlargement, with suprasellar extension and optic chiasm involvement, blurring of the pituitary stalk, absence of clear differentiation between the anterior and posterior lobes, and no signs of hemorrhage or adenomas. Endocrine evaluation was consistent with panhypopituitarism. Work-up of infiltrative and infectious diseases was negative. Follow-up MRI revealed an increase in the pituitary enlargement and transsphenoidal surgery was performed. Pathological findings revealed an intense fibrosis and a chronic inflammatory infiltrate, but no evidence of adenoma, granuloma, or acid fast bacilli. Immunohistochemical staining showed a combined T-cell (CD3+, CD4+) and B-cell (CD19+, CD20+) phenotype.ConclusionWe suggest a novel IRAE of ustekinumab, with full radiological and immunopathological iconography, which may be mediated by the complex interaction between different immunological processes

Neuroendocrine Tumor Heterogeneity Adds Uncertainty to the World Health Organization 2010 Classification: Real-World Data from the Spanish Tumor Registry (R-GETNE).

Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (GEP-NENs) are a complex family of tumors of widely variable clinical behavior. The World Health Organization (WHO) 2010 classification provided a valuable tool to stratify neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) in three prognostic subgroups based on the proliferation index. However, substantial heterogeneity remains within these subgroups, and simplicity sometimes entails an ambiguous and imprecise prognostic stratification. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the prognostic impact of histological differentiation within the WHO 2010 grade (G) 1/G2/G3 categories, and explore additional Ki-67 cutoff values in GEP-NENs. A total of 2,813 patients from the Spanish National Tumor Registry (RGETNE) were analyzed. Cases were classified by histological differentiation as NETs (neuroendocrine tumors [well differentiated]) or NECs (neuroendocrine carcinomas [poorly differentiated]), and by Ki-67 index as G1 (Ki-67 20%). Patients were stratified into five cohorts: NET-G1, NET-G2, NET-G3, NEC-G2, and NEC-G3. Five-year survival was 72%. Age, gender, tumor site, grade, differentiation, and stage were all independent prognostic factors for survival. Further subdivision of the WHO 2010 grading improved prognostic stratification, both within G2 (5-year survival: 81% [Ki-67 3%-5%], 72% [Ki-67 6%-10%], 52% [Ki-67 11%-20%]) and G3 NENs (5-year survival: 35% [Ki-67 21%-50%], 22% [Ki-67 51%-100%]). Five-year survival was significantly greater for NET-G2 versus NEC-G2 (75.5% vs. 58.2%) and NET-G3 versus NEC-G3 (43.7% vs. 25.4%). Substantial clinical heterogeneity is observed within G2 and G3 GEP-NENs. The WHO 2010 classification can be improved by including the additive effect of histological differentiation and the proliferation index. Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms are tumors of widely variable clinical behavior, roughly stratified by the World Health Organization (WHO) 2010 classification into three subgroups based on proliferation index. Real-world data from 2,813 patients of the Spanish Registry RGETNE demonstrated substantial clinical heterogeneity within grade (G) 2 and G3 neuroendocrine neoplasms. Tumor morphology and further subdivision of grading substantially improves prognostic stratification of these patients and may help individualize therapy. This combined, additive effect shall be considered in future classifications of neuroendocrine tumors and incorporated for stratification purposes in clinical trials

A Consensus on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Acromegaly Comorbidities: An Update.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the Acromegaly Consensus Group was to revise and update the consensus on diagnosis and treatment of acromegaly comorbidities last published in 2013. PARTICIPANTS: The Consensus Group, convened by 11 Steering Committee members, consisted of 45 experts in the medical and surgical management of acromegaly. The authors received no corporate funding or remuneration. EVIDENCE: This evidence-based consensus was developed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system to describe both the strength of recommendations and the quality of evidence following critical discussion of the current literature on the diagnosis and treatment of acromegaly comorbidities. CONSENSUS PROCESS: Acromegaly Consensus Group participants conducted comprehensive literature searches for English-language papers on selected topics, reviewed brief presentations on each topic, and discussed current practice and recommendations in breakout groups. Consensus recommendations were developed based on all presentations and discussions. Members of the Scientific Committee graded the quality of the supporting evidence and the consensus recommendations using the GRADE system. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence-based approach consensus recommendations address important clinical issues regarding multidisciplinary management of acromegaly-related cardiovascular, endocrine, metabolic, and oncologic comorbidities, sleep apnea, and bone and joint disorders and their sequelae, as well as their effects on quality of life and mortality

A Consensus on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Acromegaly Comorbidities: An Update.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the Acromegaly Consensus Group was to revise and update the consensus on diagnosis and treatment of acromegaly comorbidities last published in 2013. PARTICIPANTS: The Consensus Group, convened by 11 Steering Committee members, consisted of 45 experts in the medical and surgical management of acromegaly. The authors received no corporate funding or remuneration. EVIDENCE: This evidence-based Consensus was developed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system to describe both the strength of recommendations and the quality of evidence following critical discussion of the current literature on the diagnosis and treatment of acromegaly comorbidities. CONSENSUS PROCESS: Acromegaly Consensus Group participants conducted comprehensive literature searches for English-language papers on selected topics, reviewed brief presentations on each topic, and discussed current practice and recommendations in breakout groups. Consensus recommendations were developed based on all presentations and discussions. Members of the Scientific Committee graded the quality of the supporting evidence and the consensus recommendations using the GRADE system. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence-based approach consensus recommendations address important clinical issues regarding multidisciplinary management of acromegaly-related cardiovascular, endocrine, metabolic, and oncologic comorbidities, sleep apnea, and bone and joint disorders and their sequelae, as well as their effects on quality of life and mortality