Prolactin Response to Metformin in Cabergoline-Resistant Prolactinomas: A Pilot Study.

INTRODUCTION: Cabergoline is the treatment of choice for prolactinomas. However, 10-20% of prolactinomas are resistant to cabergoline. Metformin, a biguanide widely used in the treatment of diabetes mellitus, has been shown to reduce prolactin secretion in various pituitary tumor-cell lineages both in vitro and in vivo and in human pituitary adenomas in vitro. The aim of this study is to test the effects of metformin addition to cabergoline treatment on prolactin levels in patients with resistant prolactinomas. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: This is a prospective study performed in an outpatient clinic in a reference center. Ten adult patients (26-61 years) with prolactinomas (7 M), persistent hyperprolactinemia (38-386 ng/mL) under cabergoline treatment (2-7 mg/week) for at least 6 months (6-108 months), features of metabolic syndrome, and not taking metformin were included. Metformin (1.0-2.5 g v.o./day) was given according to patients' tolerance. Cabergoline doses were kept unchanged. Serum prolactin levels were measured before and after short- (30-60 days) and long-term (120-180 days) metformin treatment. RESULTS: Mean prolactin levels did not show any significant changes (148 ± 39 vs. 138 ± 42 vs. 133 ± 39 ng/mL, before, at 30-60 days, and at 120-180 days, respectively, p = 0.196) after metformin (mean dose: 1.25 g/day; range: 1.0-2.0 g/day). No patient reached a normal prolactin level during metformin treatment. Two patients were considered partial responders for exhibiting prolactin decreases ≥50% at a single time point during metformin. CONCLUSION: Metformin addition to ongoing high-dose cabergoline treatment in patients with cabergoline-resistant prolactinomas failed to show a consistent inhibitory effect in serum prolactin levels.

Brazilian multicenter study on pegvisomant treatment in acromegaly.

OBJECTIVE: Investigate the therapeutic response of acromegaly patients to pegvisomant (PEGV) in a real-life, Brazilian multicenter study. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Characteristics of acromegaly patients treated with PEGV were reviewed at diagnosis, just before and during treatment. All patients with at least two IGF-I measurements on PEGV were included. Efficacy was defined as any normal IGF-I measurement during treatment. Safety data were reviewed. Predictors of response were determined by comparing controlled versus uncontrolled patients. RESULTS: 109 patients [61 women; median age at diagnosis 34 years; 95.3% macroadenomas] from 10 Brazilian centers were studied. Previous treatment included surgery (89%), radiotherapy (34%), somatostatin receptor ligands (99%), and cabergoline (67%). Before PEGV, median levels of GH, IGF-I and IGF-I % of upper limit of normal were 4.3 µg/L, 613 ng/mL, and 209%, respectively. Pre-diabetes/diabetes was present in 48.6% and tumor remnant in 71% of patients. Initial dose was 10 mg/day in all except 4 cases, maximum dose was 30 mg/day, and median exposure time was 30.5 months. PEGV was used as monotherapy in 11% of cases. Normal IGF-I levels was obtained in 74.1% of patients. Glycemic control improved in 56.6% of patients with pre-diabetes/diabetes. Exposure time, pre-treatment GH and IGF-I levels were predictors of response. Tumor enlargement occurred in 6.5% and elevation of liver enzymes in 9.2%. PEGV was discontinued in 6 patients and 3 deaths unrelated to the drug were reported. CONCLUSIONS: In a real-life scenario, PEGV is a highly effective and safe treatment for acromegaly patients not controlled with other therapies.

Brazilian multicenter study on pegvisomant treatment in acromegaly

ABSTRACT Objective Investigate the therapeutic response of acromegaly patients to pegvisomant (PEGV) in a real-life, Brazilian multicenter study. Subjects and methods Characteristics of acromegaly patients treated with PEGV were reviewed at diagnosis, just before and during treatment. All patients with at least two IGF-I measurements on PEGV were included. Efficacy was defined as any normal IGF-I measurement during treatment. Safety data were reviewed. Predictors of response were determined by comparing controlled versus uncontrolled patients. Results 109 patients [61 women; median age at diagnosis 34 years; 95.3% macroadenomas] from 10 Brazilian centers were studied. Previous treatment included surgery (89%), radiotherapy (34%), somatostatin receptor ligands (99%), and cabergoline (67%). Before PEGV, median levels of GH, IGF-I and IGF-I % of upper limit of normal were 4.3 µg/L, 613 ng/mL, and 209%, respectively. Pre-diabetes/diabetes was present in 48.6% and tumor remnant in 71% of patients. Initial dose was 10 mg/day in all except 4 cases, maximum dose was 30 mg/day, and median exposure time was 30.5 months. PEGV was used as monotherapy in 11% of cases. Normal IGF-I levels was obtained in 74.1% of patients. Glycemic control improved in 56.6% of patients with pre-diabetes/diabetes. Exposure time, pre-treatment GH and IGF-I levels were predictors of response. Tumor enlargement occurred in 6.5% and elevation of liver enzymes in 9.2%. PEGV was discontinued in 6 patients and 3 deaths unrelated to the drug were reported. Conclusions In a real-life scenario, PEGV is a highly effective and safe treatment for acromegaly patients not controlled with other therapies.

A novel GNRHR gene mutation causing congenital hypogonadotrophic hypogonadism in a Brazilian kindred.

Congenital hypogonadotrophic hypogonadism (CHH) is a challenging inherited endocrine disorder characterised by absent or incomplete pubertal development and infertility as a result of the low action/secretion of the hypothalamic gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH). Given a growing list of gene mutations accounting for CHH, the application of massively parallel sequencing comprises an excellent molecular diagnostic approach because it enables the simultaneous evaluation of many genes. The present study proposes the use of whole exome sequencing (WES) to identify causative and modifying mutations based on a phenotype-genotype CHH analysis using an in-house exome pipeline. Based on 44 known genes related to CHH in humans, we were able to identify a novel homozygous gonadotrophin-releasing hormone receptor (GNRHR) p.Thr269Met mutant, which segregates with the CHH kindred and was predicted to be deleterious by in silico analysis. A functional study measuring intracellular inositol phosphate (IP) when stimulated with GnRH on COS-7 cells confirmed that the p.Thr269Met GnRHR mutant performed greatly diminished IP accumulation relative to the transfected wild-type GnRHR. Additionally, the proband carries three heterozygous variants in CCDC141 and one homozygous in SEMA3A gene, although their effects with respect to modifying the phenotype are uncertain. Because they do not segregate with reproductive phenotype in family members, we advocate they do not contribute to CHH oligogenicity. WES proved to be useful for CHH molecular diagnosis and reinforced its benefit with respect to identifying heterogeneous genetic disorders. Our findings expand the GnRHR mutation spectrum and phenotype-genotype correlation in CHH.

Effects of ghrelin, GH-releasing peptide-6 (GHRP-6) and GHRH on GH, ACTH and cortisol release in hyperthyroidism before and after treatment.

In thyrotoxicosis GH responses to stimuli are diminished and the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis is hyperactive. There are no data on ghrelin or GHRP-6-induced GH, ACTH and cortisol release in treated hyperthyroidism. We, therefore, evaluated these responses in 10 thyrotoxic patients before treatment and in 7 of them after treatment. GHRH-induced GH release was also studied. Peak GH (µg/L; mean ± SE) values after ghrelin (22.6 ± 3.9), GHRP-6 (13.8 ± 2.3) and GHRH (4.9 ± 0.9) were lower in hyperthyroidism before treatment compared to controls (ghrelin: 67.6 ± 19.3; GHRP-6: 25.4 ± 2.7; GHRH: 12.2 ± 2.8) and did not change after 6 months of euthyroidism (ghrelin: 32.7 ± 4.7; GHRP-6: 15.6 ± 3.6; GHRH: 7.4 ± 2.3), although GH responses to all peptides increased in ~50% of the patients. In thyrotoxicosis before treatment ACTH response to ghrelin was two fold higher (107.4 ± 26.3) than those of controls (54.9 ± 10.3), although not significantly. ACTH response to GHRP-6 was similar in both groups (hyperthyroid: 44.7 ± 9.0; controls: 31.3 ± 7.9). There was a trend to a decreased ACTH response to ghrelin after 3 months of euthyroidism (35.6 ± 5.3; P = 0.052), but after 6 months this decrease was non-significant (50.7 ± 14.0). After 3 months ACTH response to GHRP-6 decreased significantly (20.4 ± 4.2), with no further changes. In hyperthyroidism before treatment, peak cortisol (µg/dL) responses to ghrelin (18.2 ± 1.2) and GHRP-6 (15.9 ± 1.4) were comparable to controls (ghrelin: 16.4 ± 1.6; GHRP-6: 13.5 ± 0.9) and no changes were seen after treatment. Our results suggest that the pathways of GH release after ghrelin/GHRP-6 and GHRH are similarly affected by thyroid hormone excess and hypothalamic mechanisms of ACTH release modulated by ghrelin/GHSs may be activated in this situation.

Effects of ghrelin, growth hormone-releasing peptide-6, and growth hormone-releasing hormone on growth hormone, adrenocorticotropic hormone, and cortisol release in type 1 diabetes mellitus.

In type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM), growth hormone (GH) responses to provocative stimuli are normal or exaggerated, whereas the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis has been less studied. Ghrelin is a GH secretagogue that also increases adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) and cortisol levels, similarly to GH-releasing peptide-6 (GHRP-6). Ghrelin's effects in patients with T1DM have not been evaluated. We therefore studied GH, ACTH, and cortisol responses to ghrelin and GHRP-6 in 9 patients with T1DM and 9 control subjects. The GH-releasing hormone (GHRH)-induced GH release was also evaluated. Mean fasting GH levels (micrograms per liter) were higher in T1DM (3.5 ± 1.2) than in controls (0.6 ± 0.3). In both groups, ghrelin-induced GH release was higher than that after GHRP-6 and GHRH. When analyzing Δ area under the curve (ΔAUC) GH values after ghrelin, GHRP-6, and GHRH, no significant differences were observed in T1DM compared with controls. There was a trend (P = .055) to higher mean basal cortisol values (micrograms per deciliter) in T1DM (11.7 ± 1.5) compared with controls (8.2 ± 0.8). No significant differences were seen in ΔAUC cortisol values in both groups after ghrelin and GHRP-6. Mean fasting ACTH values were similar in T1DM and controls. No differences were seen in ΔAUC ACTH levels in both groups after ghrelin and GHRP-6. In summary, patients with T1DM have normal GH responsiveness to ghrelin, GHRP-6, and GHRH. The ACTH and cortisol release after ghrelin and GHRP-6 is also similar to controls. Our results suggest that chronic hyperglycemia of T1DM does not interfere with GH-, ACTH-, and cortisol-releasing mechanisms stimulated by these peptides.

Ghrelin and GHRP-6-induced ACTH and cortisol release in thyrotoxicosis.

Thyrotoxicosis might alter the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis. We evaluated the effects of ghrelin and GHRP-6 on the HPA axis in 20 hyperthyroid patients and in 9 controls. Mean basal cortisol (microg/dl) and ACTH (pg/ml) levels were higher in hyperthyroidism (cortisol: 10.7 +/- 0.7; ACTH: 21.5 +/- 2.9) compared to controls (cortisol: 8.1 +/- 0.7; ACTH: 13.5 +/- 1.8). In thyrotoxicosis Delta AUC cortisol values (microg/dl.90 min) after ghrelin (484 +/- 80) and GHRP-6 (115 +/- 63) were similar to controls (ghrelin: 524 +/- 107; GHRP-6: 192 +/- 73). A significant increase in Delta AUC ACTH (pg/ml x 90 min) after ghrelin was observed in thyrotoxicosis (4,189 +/- 1,202) compared to controls (1,499 +/- 338). Delta AUC ACTH values after GHRP-6 were also higher, although not significantly (patients: 927 +/- 330; controls: 539 +/- 237). In summary, our results suggest that ghrelin-mediated pathways of ACTH release might be activated by thyroid hormone excess, but adrenocortical reserve is maintained.

Decreased ghrelin-induced GH release in thyrotoxicosis: comparison with GH-releasing peptide-6 (GHRP-6) and GHRH.

In thyrotoxicosis GH response to several stimuli is impaired, but there is no data on ghrelin-induced GH release in these patients. Ghrelin is a potent GH secretagogue and it also increases glucose levels in men. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of ghrelin (1 microg/kg), GHRP-6 (1 mug/kg) and GHRH (100 microg), i.v., on GH levels in 10 hyperthyroid patients and in 8 controls. Glucose levels were also measured during ghrelin and GHRP-6 administration. In control subjects and hyperthyroid patients peak GH (microg/l; mean +/- SE) values after ghrelin injection (controls: 66.7 +/- 13.6; hyper: 19.3 +/- 2.4) were significantly higher than those obtained after GHRP-6 (controls: 26.7 +/- 5.1; hyper: 12.6 +/- 1.3) and GHRH (controls: 13.5 +/- 4.3; hyper: 5.3 +/- 1.3). There was a significant decrease in GH responsiveness to ghrelin, GHRP-6 and GHRH in the hyperthyroid group compared to controls. In control subjects and hyperthyroid patients basal glucose (mmol/l) values were 4.5 +/- 0.1 and 4.7 +/- 0.2, respectively. There was a significant increase in glucose levels 30 min after ghrelin injection (controls: 4.9 +/- 0.1; hyper: 5.2 +/- 0.2), which remained elevated up to 120 min. When the two groups were compared no differences in glucose values were observed. GHRP-6 administration was not able to increase glucose levels in both groups. Our data shows that GH release after ghrelin, GHRP-6 and GHRH administration is decreased in thyrotoxicosis. This suggests that thyroid hormone excess interferes with GH-releasing pathways activated by these peptides. Our results also suggest that ghrelin's ability to increase glucose levels is not altered in thyrotoxicosis.

Decreased GH secretion and enhanced ACTH and cortisol release after ghrelin administration in Cushing's disease: comparison with GH-releasing peptide-6 (GHRP-6) and GHRH.

GH responsiveness to GH secretagogues (GHS) is blunted in Cushing's disease (CD), while ACTH/cortisol responses are enhanced, by mechanisms still unclear. Ghrelin, the endogenous ligand for GHS-receptors (GHS-R), increases GH, ACTH, cortisol and glucose levels in humans. This study evaluated the GH, ACTH, cortisol and glucose-releasing effects of ghrelin in CD in comparison with GHRP-6. GHRH-induced GH release was also studied. Ten patients with CD (BMI 26.9+/-1.0 kg/m(2)) and ten controls (BMI 24.4+/-1.1 kg/m(2)) received ghrelin (1 microg/kg), GHRP-6 (1 microg/kg) and GHRH (100 microg) separately. GH, ACTH, cortisol and glucose levels were measured. In CD ghrelin-induced GH (microg/L; mean +/- SE) release (peak: 7.2+/-3.0) was higher than seen with GHRP-6 (2.7+/-1.0) and GHRH (0.7+/-0.2), but lower than in controls (ghrelin: 58.3+/-12.1; GHRP-6: 22.9+/-4.8; GHRH: 11.3+/-3.7). In controls ACTH (pg/mL) release after ghrelin (79.2+/-26.8) was higher than after GHRP-6 (23.6+/-5.7). In CD these responses (ghrelin: 192+/-43; GHRP-6: 185+/-56) were similar, and enhanced compared to controls. The same was observed with cortisol. Glucose levels failed to increase after ghrelin in CD, differently than in controls. Our data suggests that hypothalamic and pituitary pathways of GH release activated by ghrelin, GHRP-6 and GHRH are deranged in chronic hypercortisolism. The increased ACTH/cortisol responses to ghrelin and GHRP-6 in CD could be mediated by overexpression of GHS-R in ACTH-secreting adenomas. Hypercortisolism apparently impairs the ability of ghrelin to increase glucose levels.