Sparrow Pharmaceuticals Announces Completion of Phase 2 Trial and FDA Orphan Drug Designation of Clofutriben for Endogenous Cushing’s Syndrome

Sparrow Pharmaceuticals, a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company developing novel, targeted therapies to address unmet needs in both endocrinology and immunology, today announced that the Phase 2 RESCUE trial of clofutriben, a potent and selective HSD-1 inhibitor, for the treatment of endogenous Cushing’s syndrome is complete. All eligible patients who completed the trial elected to continue treatment with clofutriben in an open label extension (OLE) protocol. The promising results observed to date have catalyzed planning for the next phase of development to begin next year. In addition, Sparrow announced that clofutriben has been granted Orphan Drug Designation by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of endogenous Cushing’s syndrome.

The RESCUE trial was a randomized, placebo-controlled trial of clofutriben for ACTH-dependent endogenous Cushing’s syndrome, a rare disease caused by a tumor that leads to hypersecretion of cortisol. HSD-1 inhibition with clofutriben lowers intracellular cortisol in key tissues where excess cortisol causes toxicity, thereby potentially reducing morbidity from cortisol excess. “HSD-1 inhibition with clofutriben is a completely novel approach to the treatment of endogenous Cushing’s syndrome that may overcome many of the serious problems with current therapies, including major safety, tolerability, and complexity issues such as the risk of adrenal insufficiency and adrenal crisis,” commented Sparrow Chief Medical Officer Frank Czerwiec, MD, PhD. “One of the most encouraging observations is that, given the option to continue clofutriben or switch to another treatment at the end of the trial, patients chose to continue clofutriben in the OLE. We are working closely with our medical, scientific, and patient advisors on plans to present these data and on designs for our next phase of clinical trials to startup next year.”

Sparrow also announced that clofutriben has been granted Orphan Drug Designation (ODD) by the FDA for the treatment of endogenous Cushing’s syndrome. “ODD qualifies sponsors for incentives including tax credits for qualified clinical trials, exemption from user fees, and a potential seven years of market exclusivity after NDA approval,” added Jamie MacPherson, PharmD, Sparrow’s SVP of Regulatory Affairs and Quality. “We are pleased that the FDA has recognized the potential for clofutriben to treat this devastating disease.”

Clofutriben is a potent and selective HSD-1 inhibitor that is in clinical testing for endogenous Cushing’s syndrome (EnCS) and autonomous cortisol secretion (ACS), a milder and more prevalent, yet still serious, form of hypercortisolism than EnCS. HSD-1 is an intracellular enzyme that activates glucocorticoids in target tissues in which glucocorticoids such as cortisol are associated with morbidity including liver, adipose, brain, bone, muscle, and skin. Additionally, clofutriben in combination with the glucocorticoid medicine prednisolone is in Phase 2 clinical trials for the treatment of immunological disorders, beginning with polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR), a prevalent autoimmune disease that mainly affects people over 50. Clofutriben co-administration is intended to reduce the side effects of prednisolone while maintaining its immune suppressive and anti-inflammatory benefits, thereby unlocking the potential of a class of medicines that has been limited in utility for more than 75 years by severe toxicity.

To learn more about Sparrow Pharmaceuticals and clofutriben, visit www.sparrowpharma.com.

About Sparrow Pharmaceuticals

Sparrow Pharmaceuticals was founded to spare patients the ravages of steroids. Leveraging underappreciated scientific insights into glucocorticoid biology, the company is working to provide better treatment options for serious disorders of hypercortisolism, and to revolutionize the treatment of autoimmune and inflammatory conditions. Its lead product, clofutriben (previously SPI-62), is an oral, small molecule, novel therapeutic treatment designed to target a source of active intracellular glucocorticoids in key tissues.

From https://www.morningstar.com/news/business-wire/20241028067997/sparrow-pharmaceuticals-announces-completion-of-phase-2-trial-and-fda-orphan-drug-designation-of-clofutriben-for-endogenous-cushings-syndrome

Insights on Diagnosing and Managing Cushing’s Syndrome

Cushing’s syndrome, or endogenous hypercortisolemia, is a rare condition that both general practice clinicians and endocrinologists should be prepared to diagnose and treat. Including both the pituitary and adrenal forms of the disease, the Endocrine Society estimates that the disorder affects 10 to 15 people per million every year in the United States. It is more common in women and occurs most often in people between the ages of 20 and 50.

Even though Cushing’s remains a rare disease, cortisol recently made waves at the American Diabetes Association 84th Scientific Session. A highlight of the meeting was the initial presentation of data from the CATALYST trial, which assessed the prevalence of hypercortisolism in patients with difficult-to-control type 2 diabetes (A1c 7.5+).

CATALYST is a prospective, Phase 4 study with two parts. In the prevalence phase, 24% of 1,055 enrolled patients had hypercortisolism, defined as an overnight dexamethasone suppression test (ODST) value greater than 1.8 µg/dL and dexamethasone levels greater than 140 µg/dL. Results of CATALYST’s randomized treatment phase are expected in late 2024.

Elena Christofides, MD, FACE, founder of Endocrinology Associates, Inc., in Columbus, OH, believes the CATALYST results will be a wake-up call for both physicians and patients seeking to advocate for their own health. “This means that nearly 1 in 4 patients with type 2 diabetes have some other underlying hormonal/endocrine dysfunction as the reason for their diabetes, or significant contribution to their diabetes, and they should all be screened,” she said. “All providers need to get comfortable with diagnosing and treating hypercortisolemia, and you need to do it quickly because patients are going to pay attention as well.”

In Dr. Christofides’ experience, patients who suspect they have a hormonal issue may start with their primary care provider or they may self-refer to an endocrinologist. “A lot of Cushing’s patients are getting diagnosed and treated in primary care, which is completely appropriate. But I’ve also met endocrinologists who are uncomfortable diagnosing and managing Cushing’s because it is so rare,” she said. “The important thing is that the physician is comfortable with Cushing’s or is willing to put in the work get comfortable with it.”

According to Dr. Christofides, the widespread popular belief that “adrenal fatigue” is causing millions of Americans to feel sick, tired, and debilitated may be creating barriers to care for people who may actually have Cushing’s. “As physicians, we know that adrenal fatigue doesn’t exist, but we should still be receptive to seeing patients who raise that as a concern,” said Dr. Christofides. “We need to acknowledsalige their lived experience as being very real and it can be any number of diseases causing very real symptoms. If we don’t see these patients, real cases of hypercortisolemia could be left undiagnosed and untreated.”

Dr. Christofides, who also serves as a MedCentral Editor-at-Large, said she reminds colleagues that overnight dexamethasone suppression test (ODST) should always be the first test when you suspect Cushing’s. “While technically a screening test, the ODST can almost be considered diagnostic, depending on how abnormal the result is,” she noted. “But I always recommend that you do the ODST, the ACTH, a.m. cortisol, and the DHEAS levels at the same time because it allows you to differentiate more quickly between pituitary and adrenal problems.”

Dr. Christofides does see a place for 24-hour urine collection and salivary cortisol testing at times when diagnosing and monitoring patients with Cushing’s. “The 24-hour urine is only positive in ACTH-driven Cushing’s, so an abnormal result can help you identify the source, but too many physicians erroneously believe you can’t have Cushing’s if the 24-hour urine is normal,” she explained. “Surgeons tend to want this test before they operate and it’s a good benchmark for resolution of pituitary disease.” She reserves salivary cortisol testing for cases when the patient’s ODST is negative, but she suspects Cushing’s may be either nascent or cyclical.

Surgical resection has long been considered first-line treatment in both the pituitary and adrenal forms of Cushing’s. For example, data shared from Massachusetts General Hospital showed that nearly 90% of patients with microadenomas did not relapse within a 30-year period. A recent study found an overall recurrence rate of about 25% within a 10-year period. When reoperation is necessary, remission is achieved in up to 80% of patients.

As new medications for Cushing’s syndrome have become available, Dr. Christofides said she favors medical intervention prior to surgery. “The best part about medical therapy is you can easily stop it if you’re wrong,” she noted. “I would argue that every patient with confirmed Cushing’s deserves nonsurgical medical management prior to a consideration of surgery to improve their comorbidities and surgical risk management, and give time to have a proper informed consent discussion.”

In general, medications to treat Cushing’s disease rely on either cortisol production blockade or receptor blockade, said Dr. Christofides. Medications that directly limit cortisol production include ketoconazoleosilodrostat (Isturisa), mitotane (Lysodren), levoketoconazole (Recorlev), and metyrapone (Metopirone). Mifepristone (Korlym, Mifeprex) is approved for people with Cushing’s who also have type 2 diabetes to block the effects of cortisol. Mifepristone does not lower the amount of cortisol the body makes but limits its effects. Pasireotide (Signifor) lowers the amount of ACTH from the tumor. Cabergoline is sometimes used off-label in the US for the same purpose.

Following surgery, people with Cushing’s need replacement steroids until their adrenal function resumes, when replacement steroids must be tapered. But Dr. Christofides said she believes that all physicians who prescribe steroids should have a clear understanding of when and how to taper patients off steroids.

“Steroid dosing for therapeutic purposes is cumulative in terms of body exposure and the risk of needing to taper. A single 2-week dose of steroids in a year does not require a taper,” she said. “It’s patients who are getting repeated doses of more than 10 mg of prednisone equivalent per day for 2 or more weeks multiple times per year who are at risk of adrenal failure without tapering.”

Physicians often underestimate how long a safe, comfortable taper can take, per Dr. Christofides. “It takes 6 to 9 months for the adrenals to wake up so if you’re using high-dose steroids more frequently, that will cause the patient to need more steroids more frequently,” she explained. “If you’re treating an illness that responds to steroids and you stop them without tapering, the patient’s disease will flare, and then a month from then to 6 weeks from then you’ll be giving them steroids again, engendering a dependence on steroids by doing so.”

When developing a steroid taper plan for postoperative individuals with Cushing’s (and others), Dr. Christofides suggests basing it on the fact that 5 mg of prednisone or its equivalent is the physiologic dose. “Reduce the dose by 5 mg per month until you get to the last 5 mg, and then you’re going to reduce it by 1 mg monthly until done,” she said. “If a patient has difficulty during that last phase, consider a switch to hydrocortisone because a 1 mg reduction of hydrocortisone at a time may be easier to tolerate.”

Prednisone, hydrocortisone, and the other steroids have different half-lives, so you’ll need to plan accordingly, adds Dr. Christofides. “If you do a slower taper using hydrocortisone, the patient might feel worse than with prednisone unless you prescribe it BID.” She suggests thinking of the daily prednisone equivalent of hydrocortisone as 30 mg to allow for divided dosing, rather than the straight 20 mg/day conversion often used.

What happens after a patient’s Cushing’s has been successfully treated? Cushing’s is a chronic disease, even in remission, Dr. Christofides emphasized. “Once you have achieved remission, my general follow-up is to schedule visits every 6 months to a year with scans and labs, always with the instruction if the patient feels symptomatic, they should come in sooner,” she said.

More on Cushing’s diagnosis and therapies.

https://www.medcentral.com/endocrinology/cushings-syndrome-a-clinical-update

Management of Diabetes Mellitus in Acromegaly and Cushing’s Disease with Focus on Pasireotide Therapy

Abstract: Patients suffering from acromegaly and Cushing’s Disease (CD) face the risk of several clinical complications. The onset of diabetes mellitus (DM) is among the most important: exposure to elevated growth hormone or cortisol levels is associated with insulin resistance (IR). DM contributes to increasing cardiovascular risk for these subjects, which is higher compared to healthy individuals. Hyperglycemia may also be caused by pasireotide, a second-generation somatostatin receptor ligand (SRLs), currently used for the treatment of these diseases. Accordingly, with 2014 medical expert recommendations, the management of hyperglycemia in patients with CD and treated with pasireotide is based on lifestyle changes, metformin, DPP-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) and, subsequently, GLP-1 Receptor Agonists (GLP-1 RAs). There is no position for SGLT2-inhibitors (SGLT2-i). However, a very recent experts’ consensus regarding the management of pasireotide-induced hyperglycemia in patients with acromegaly suggests the use of GLP-1 RAs as first line treatment (in suitable patients) and the use of SGLT2-i as second line treatment in patients with high cardiovascular risk or renal disease. As a matter of fact, beyond the hypoglycemic effect of GLP1-RAs and SGLT2-i, there is increasing evidence regarding their role in the reduction of cardiovascular risk, commonly very high in acromegaly and CD and often tough to improve despite biochemical remission. So, an increasing use of GLP1-RAs and SGLT2-i to control hyperglycemia is desirable in these diseases. Obviously, all of that must be done with due attention in order to minimize the occurrence of adverse events. For this reason, large studies are needed to analyze the presence of potential limitations.

Keywords: acromegaly, Cushing’s disease, pasireotide, hyperglycemia, diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular risk

Introduction

Acromegaly and Cushing’s Disease (CD) are rare but weakening endocrine diseases.

Acromegaly is usually caused by a growth hormone (GH)-secreting pituitary adenoma, with subsequent excess of insulin-like growth factor (IGF-1).1 CD is characterized by hyperproduction of cortisol due to an adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH)-secreting pituitary adenoma.2 Impaired glucose metabolism and the onset of DM are common clinical conditions resulting from these diseases. The worsening of glycemic control might also be caused by treatment with somatostatin receptor analogs, more specifically with pasireotide.

Pasireotide, a second-generation somatostatin receptor ligand (SRLs), is currently used for the treatment of acromegaly and CD.3,4

In the management of acromegaly, long-acting pasireotide is recommended at a starting dose of 40 mg monthly (potentially up-titrated to 60 mg) in patients with poorly controlled or uncontrolled disease after failure with first generation SRLs. Several Randomized Control Trials (RCTs) have shown better outcomes in achieving biochemical control compared to octreotide and lanreotide, both in parallel arms as well as in a cross-over evaluation.5,6 In CD, pasireotide is approved for the treatment of persistent hypercortisolism after a surgical procedure or when surgery is not feasible or refused, at a start dose of 0.6 mg twice daily (potentially up titrated to 0.9 mg twice daily).7,8

Hyperglycemia and Increased Cardiovascular Risk in Acromegaly and CD

Impaired glucose metabolism is one of the comorbidities associated with acromegaly and CD, uniquely linked to the pathophysiology of the diseases. As a matter of fact, in acromegaly, the prevalence of altered basal glucose ranges between 7 and 22%, of altered glucose tolerance between 6 and 45%, and of diabetes between 19 and 56%.9 Additionally, disorders of carbohydrate metabolism occur in 14–74% of the patients among the various forms of hypercortisolism while the prevalence of diabetes varies between 21 and 47%.10

The pathogenesis of insulin resistance (IR) in acromegaly is due to multiple factors: GH exerts its effects both directly by inducing gluconeogenesis, glycogenolysis and lipolysis and promoting IR in the liver and peripheral tissues, as well as indirectly through IGF-1.11 GH stimulates the hydrolysis of triglycerides and the production of free fatty acids from adipose tissue, and this increased synthesis of free fatty acids leads to a decrease in insulin-mediated glucose uptake by inhibiting glucose transporters GLUT-1 and GLUT-4.12,13 Moreover, GH suppresses key insulin signaling pathways involved in stimulating glucose transport in muscle and adipose tissue and inhibiting glucose production in the liver.14

The effects of IR secondary to the excess of GH are initially compensated by the increased secretion of insulin from the pancreatic beta cells, which, however, diminishes over time, favoring the onset of prediabetes and diabetes.15,16 Once the beta cell function is affected, the glucose metabolism disorders persist even after the acromegaly is cured.17 Although physiologically IGF-1 improves glucose homeostasis, the chronic excess of GH in acromegaly that causes IR greatly exceeds the possible beneficial effects of IGF-1 on insulin sensitivity.18

Similar to the excess of GH, hypercortisolism affects carbohydrate metabolism mainly in liver, skeletal muscles, and adipose tissue.19 In the liver, excess glucocorticoids stimulate gluconeogenesis by activating numerous genes involved in the hepatic gluconeogenesis, stimulating lipolysis and proteolysis with increasing substrates for gluconeogenesis, potentiating the action of glucagon and inhibiting glycogenogenesis.20

In the muscle, hypercortisolism induces IR by interfering with different components of the insulin-signaling cascade, as well as by stimulating proteolysis and loss of muscle mass. All this reduces the capacity of the muscle to synthesize glycogen and uptake most of the postprandial glucose from circulation.21

Additionally, hypercortisolism causes an increase in visceral obesity and a relative reduction in peripheral adipose tissue, and this “shift” is closely associated with metabolic syndrome and worsens IR. Moreover, the excess of cortisol influences the synthesis and release of hormones from adipose tissue, mainly adipokines, further contributing to the development of IR.21

Glucocorticoids inhibit the synthesis and secretion of insulin. Also in CD, there is an initial transient phase characterized by the increase in insulin secretion as an adaptive mechanism to IR, but later the chronic exposure to higher levels of cortisol induces pancreatic beta cell apoptosis, loss of beta cell function and the subsequent development of diabetes.20,22

The involvement of the bone system in affecting glucose homeostasis has also been found: in fact, long-term exposure to glucocorticoids causes a reduction in circulating osteocalcin that can increase IR.23

Furthermore, two studies in humans24,25 suggested that secretion of incretins (glucagon-like peptide-1, GLP-1 and glucose dependent insulinotropic peptide, GIP) was unaffected by dexamethasone administration, but their insulinotropic effects of on beta-cells were reduced.

The worsening of glycemic control and the onset of DM are also important limitations in the management of some patients treated with pasireotide.26,27 This topic will be further explored in a subsequent paragraph.

As is well known, hyperglycemia contributes to increasing cardiovascular risk, which is already very high in patients with acromegaly or CD.28,29

Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in 23–50% of patients with acromegaly in different studies.9 Hypertension affects about 33% of the patients, ranging from 11 to 54.7%,30 and it is strongly related with typical cardiac implications of acromegaly as valvulopathy, arrhythmias and cardiomyopathy.

In the large Liege Acromegaly Survey database of 3173 acromegalic patients from 10 European countries,31 left ventricular hypertrophy was present in 15.5% at time of diagnosis. The most common manifestations of cardiopathy are biventricular hypertrophy, diastolic-systolic dysfunction, and valvular regurgitation.32 Certainly, the severity of cardiac disease is correlated with age, duration of acromegaly, GH and IGF-1 levels (both vascular growth factors which stimulate collagen deposition) and long-standing hypertension.33 In the worst cases, hypertrophic cardiopathy can evolve into Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction (LVSD), the last stage of cardiac disease, with recurring hospitalizations and very high mortality rates.34 Acromegaly is also associated with sleep apnea (ranging from 45 to 80% of the cases).35

Similarly, in CD cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death: a retrospective study involving 502 patients (83% in remission) with a median follow-up of 13 years36 demonstrated a standardized mortality ratio (SMR) of 3.3 (95% CI 2.6–4.3) for CV disease, in particular 3.6 (95% CI 2.5–5.1) for ischemic cardiac disease and 3.0 (95% CI 1.4–5.7) for stroke. SMR related cardiovascular disease remained higher also after biochemical remission (2.5, 95% CI 1.8–3.4).36 Cardiovascular remodeling caused by hypercortisolism is frequently irreversible: at 5 years post-remission, coronary artery plaques persisted in 27% of subjects vs 3% of control.37 As a result, the risk for ischemic events remains above that of the general population.38

Hypertension is highly prevalent in patients with hypercortisolism: the majority (80–85%) of patients have hypertension at diagnosis and 9% may have required hospital admission because of the hypertension crisis before the diagnosis of hypercortisolism.39 Also, after remission, hypertension results are highly prevalent, as shown in two different studies (50% and 40%, respectively).40,41 Up to 70% of the patients with active CD present abnormal left ventricular mass parameters, whereas systolic and diastolic function were usually normal. Rarely, patients present dilatative cardiopathy and severe HF.42 Moreover, greater incidence of hypokalemia exposes patients to fatal arrhythmias.

Finally, both obesity and dyslipidemia, frequently occurring in these diseases, do not normalize despite biochemical remission.

Mechanisms of Pasireotide-Induced Hyperglycemia

Pasireotide is a multi-receptor targeted SRL, with action on different somatostatin receptors (SSTR). Pasireotide binds with high affinity to SSTR-1, 3 and 5 and lower to SSTR-2 than first generation SSA. More specifically, the affinity for SSTR-5, several times greater than those of octreotide and lanreotide, explains the efficacy of pasireotide: this binding causes the suppression of ACTH and GH, accompanied by tumor volume reduction.43,44

However, this mechanism causes the alteration of glucose metabolism because the binding is not specific to pituitary cells. Stimulation of pancreatic SSTR-5, expressed more in Langerhans islet beta cells than alfa cells (87% vs 44%), suppresses insulin secretion much more than glucagon secretion.45

Pasireotide appears to inhibit the secretion of incretin hormones GIP (glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide) and GLP-1 (glucagon-like peptide-1) in health volunteers after oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT),46 even if a recent study showed no differences in incretin levels and their response to mixed meal tolerance test (MMTT) in CD patients,47 suggesting a main role of direct inhibition of beta-cells activity. However, a reduced intra-islet paracrine effect of GLP-1 cannot be excluded whereas an increased IL-6 mediated GLP-1 secretion in CD may disguise pasireotide inhibitory effect.47,48 Furthermore, pasireotide has no effect on hepatic and peripheral insulin sensitivity.46

Pasireotide-induced hyperglycemia is less pronounced following multiple dosing, and it appears even reversible upon discontinuation of the drug,49 as shown in a pharmacokinetic analysis of single-dose administration, in which mean glucose levels increased to 200 mg/dL (11.1 mmol/L) and returned to euglycemia approximately 23 hours later.50

Not all patients treated with pasireotide develop impaired glucose tolerance or DM: the prevalence of these conditions in CD is respectively 21–64% and 20–47%,51 whereas in acromegaly it is 6–45% and 16–65%.9 This suggests that glycemic control prior to the treatment and a preceding DM, could be predictive of the extent of hyperglycemia.

In the PAOLA study6 a fasting blood glucose (FBG) > 100 mg/dL (5.5 mmol/L) at baseline correlated with higher FBG and higher HbA1c during treatment with pasireotide, while patients with acromegaly < 40 years of age were less likely to experience hyperglycemia than older patients.

Moreover, in acromegalic patients, the up-titration to a dose of 60 mg was associated with a 21–36% increased risk of hyperglycemia.52,53 Other factors that could increase the risk of hyperglycemia were a Body Mass Index > 30 kg/m², hypertension and dyslipidemia at baseline.54

Superimposable results were obtained in another Phase III study,55 always performed in subjects with acromegaly: it was reported that up to 45% of patients with baseline FBG between 100 (5.5 mmol/L) and 126 mg/dL (7.0 mmol/L) had FBG levels ≥126 mg/dL (7.0 mmol/L) after 26 months of pasireotide.55

Also, in CD, preexisting DM or impaired glucose tolerance increased the risk of hyperglycemia-related adverse events (AEs) with pasireotide, although severe AEs were not reported.7

A meta-analysis showed a lower frequency of hyperglycemia-related AEs in acromegalic patients treated with pasireotide monthly (57.3–67.0%) in comparison to those who received it twice daily for CD (68.4–73.0%).27 Also, the rate of discontinuation due to hyperglycemia was higher in CD trials (6.0% and 5.3%) than that in acromegaly trials (3.4% and 4.0%).5–7,56 The reasons for these findings are unknown.

On the other hand, it has been acknowledged that other drugs, commonly used for the treatment of acromegaly or CD, may affect glucose metabolism leading to clinical benefits, even during pasireotide therapy. In fact, in acromegalic subjects, cabergoline can improve glucose tolerance,57 whereas pegvisomant reduces fasting glucose levels and improves insulin sensitivity.58,59 Similar results have been highlighted for ketoconazole,60 metyrapone61 and osilodostrat62 in studies involving patients with CD.

Antidiabetic Drugs with Proven Cardiovascular Benefits

The evidence from Cardio Vascular Outcome Trials with GLP-1 RAs and SGLT2-i have revolutionized the management of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM). As reaffirmed in the recent American Diabetes Association-European Association for the Study of Diabetes (ADA-EASD) Consensus, the treatment approach must be holistic and person-centered, with four main areas of interest: glycemic control, weight loss, CV risk reduction and renal protection.63

In a network meta-analysis of 453 trials assessing glucose-lowering medications from nine drug classes, the greatest reductions in HbA1c were seen with GLP-1 RAs.64 Another meta-analysis comparing the effects of glucose-lowering drugs on body weight and blood pressure indicated the greatest efficacy for reducing body weight with GLP-1 RAs, whereas the greatest reduction in blood pressure is seen with the SGLT2-i.65

Among GLP-1 RAs, liraglutide (at a dose of 1.8 mg daily),66 dulaglutide (at a dose 1.5 mg weekly)67 and injectable semaglutide (at a dose of 0.5 and 1 mg weekly)68 reduced the incidence of three point-MACE (Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events) and the progression of CKD (Chronic Kidney Disease) through the reduction of albuminuria.

With regard to SGLT2-i, empagliflozin and canagliflozin reduced the incidence of three point-MACE.69,70 Empagliflozin, dapagliflozin and canagliflozin demonstrated improvement of CKD in trials with specific renal outcomes, and the first two also demonstrated this benefit in patients without T2DM.71–73 Another significant clinical benefit is the reduction of hospitalization for heart failure (HF), demonstrated also in patients without T2DM for empagliflozin and dapagliflozin, both with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF)74,75 and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).76,77

The Current Management of Pasireotide-Induced Hyperglycemia

Several studies, performed with different designs, evaluated the impact of pasireotide on glucose metabolism. The principal results are summarized in Table 1.5–8,78–85

Table 1 Main Studies Regarding the Use of Pasireotide in Acromegaly and in Cushing’s Disease

It’s undeniable that impairment of glucose metabolism occurred: generally, in all studies the number of subjects with diabetes and prediabetes increased, HbA1c levels were higher and anti-hyperglycemic treatments were required. Metformin, DPP-4i and insulin were commonly used to treat hyperglycemia, whereas GLP-1 RAs and SGLT2-i were given only in a small number of cases.

Nevertheless, a recent randomized multicenter study involving 81 patients with acromegaly or CD receiving pasireotide86 and uncontrolled hyperglycemia with metformin or other oral antidiabetic medications (acarbose or sulfonylureas), evaluated the effects of two different regimens of treatment (incretin-based therapy vs insulin). All 38 patients randomized to an incretin-based therapy (acromegaly, n = 26; CD, n =12) received sitagliptin; 28 of them switched to liraglutide. Twelve patients (31.6% [CD, n = 6; acromegaly, n = 6]) randomized to incretin-based therapy received insulin as rescue therapy. The results have shown a trend for better control of HbA1c with incretin-based therapy. Furthermore, in the same study, 109 patients who received pasireotide did not develop hyperglycemia requiring antidiabetic treatment.86 These findings suggest that impaired glucose metabolism or onset of DM during pasireotide therapy are manageable in most patients, without the need for treatment discontinuation.

Accordingly, given the above-mentioned evidence, glycemia should be monitored in all patients treated with pasireotide in order to intercept an initial alteration of glucose metabolism which could be either prediabetes or DM, according to the indications of ADA.87 In patients treated with pasireotide, FBG and HbA1c levels tend to increase during the first 1–3 months of treatment and stabilize thereafter.88

Regarding CD, in 2014, a medical expert recommendation on pasireotide-induced hyperglycemia was published.89 In this, an HbA1c target value less than 7.0–7.5% (53–58 mmol/L) is established, avoiding as much as possible the risk of hypoglycemia. Patients in euglycemia prior to therapy must be monitored: they should self-check FBG and postprandial glucose (PPG) levels during the day, precisely twice in the first week and once weekly later. Instead, patients with prediabetes and DM must be monitored closely (after 1, 2 and 4 weeks), and they should self-check blood glucose values up to six times per day during the first week, and at least four times per day thereafter.26,89

Medical treatment should always include dietary modification and exercise. Metformin is the first line-therapy, unless contraindicated or not tolerated. If glycemic control is not reached or maintained with monotherapy, combination therapy with drugs targeting the incretinic axis is recommended:89 a Phase I study90 in 19 healthy volunteers randomized to pasireotide 600 μg sc bid alone or co-administered with antidiabetic drugs (metformin 500 mg bid, nateglinide 60 mg tid, vildagliptin 50 mg bid and liraglutide 0.6 daily) demonstrated greater effects of vildagliptin and liraglutide in minimizing hyperglycemia.

Therefore, therapy with a DDP-4i is suggested in a first step combination. Only in the case of failure to reach the HbA1c target, the replace of DDP-4i with a GLP-1 RAs is recommended. If pasireotide-induced hyperglycemia remains uncontrolled with combinations containing metformin and DPP-4i or GLP-1 RAs, experts’ recommendations suggest the beginning of basal insulin therapy. If the individual HbA1c targets are not achieved or the postprandial glucose levels remains elevated, prandial insulin can be added.89

Instead, in acromegaly, a very interesting experts’ consensus statement regarding the management of pasireotide-induced hyperglycemia has been recently published.91 It suggests monitoring blood glucose prior to initiation of pasireotide treatment, through the determination of HbA1c or FBG or the execution of OGTT. Patients are divided into three risk categories related to glycemic status: normal glucose tolerance (NGT) patients at low risk, NGT patients at high risk and prediabetic or diabetic patients. In low-risk patients with no worsening of glycemic control, self-measurement of blood glucose (FBG and PPG) once every week is considered sufficient. In high-risk patients who do not have elevated blood glucose levels, weekly self-monitoring (FBG and PPG) is recommended in the first three months. In patients with pre-existing hyperglycemia, daily self-monitoring in recommended with at least one FBG and one PPG, ideally as multiple-point profiles.91 Further, when possible and economically feasible, high-risk patients should temporarily be equipped with continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) to detect elevated blood glucose levels early and determine deviations from the time in range precisely. During treatment with pasireotide, HbA1c measurements should be routinely performed every three months and at least with each IGF-1measurement.91

For the treatment of hyperglycemia, this recent experts’ consensus statement represents an important leap forward from a conceptual point of view. As a matter of fact, glycemic targets are not strictly fixed but an individualized approach for each patient is suggested. Moreover, CV risk is introduced as a factor influencing the choice of antidiabetic drugs.

Obviously, lifestyle intervention (physical activity, healthy sleep, high-quality nutrition) is always suggested. Metformin is indicated as a first-line medication but, considering the high CV risk of acromegalic subjects, GLP-1 RAs with proven CV benefits could also be considered as a first-line treatment. DPP-4i are considered a viable alternative to GLP-1 RAs in case of gastrointestinal side-effects.91

However, studies demonstrated that 10–30% of acromegalic patients show a paradoxical increase in GH (PI-GH) during 75-g OGTT.3 This is probably due to the action of GIP, which is higher in acromegalic patients, particularly in those with hyperglycemia, and that is likely able to increase the secretion of GH.92,93 As is well known, DPP-4i reduce the incretin-degrading enzyme DPP-4 and thus increase the concentration of active incretins, including GIP. Accordingly, a recent study showed that sitagliptin, administered one hour before 75-g OGTT, increase GH in acromegalic patients, especially in those with PI-GH.94 For this reason, acromegalic patients should be carefully monitored for a potential worsening of the underlying disease during treatment with a DPP- 4i.

The use of SGLT2-i is recommended only as second-line treatment for patients with high CV risk and/or renal disease, despite their high prevalence in acromegaly.91 This is justified by the increased risk of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), a severe condition related to treatment with SGLT2-i, in acromegalic subjects.95–97 However, patients safely treated with pasireotide and SGLT2-i are reported.98

The addition of insulin may be considered, but it should ideally be used as an adjunct to metformin and at least one other therapeutic agent.

Obviously, in case of poor glycemic control despite treatment with several anti-hyperglycemic drugs, the dose reduction or even the discontinuation of pasireotide should be considered.

A Potential Change of Perspective and Open Issues

Considering the complex cardiovascular profile of patients with acromegaly and CD, a much greater use of GLP-1 RAs and SGLT2-i might be necessary if DM occurs. There are at least three important aspects that support this consideration: glycemic control, cardiovascular protection, and weight loss.

Accordingly, both in acromegaly and CD, the use of GLP-1 RAs contributes to the achievement of these three main goals, providing an important possibility to enhance the quality of life and to decrease the mortality of patients, with evident advantages compared to DDP-4i and insulin.86,91,99 In this regard, co-agonists of GLP-1 and GIP, such as tirzepatide, with their extraordinary impact in terms of HbA1c reduction and weight loss, represent a theoretically intriguing therapeutic option for the future, despite the current lack of data in acromegaly and CD.

SGLT2-i are not included in the expert recommendations for the patients with CD.89 Currently, there is not enough evidence to support their use, even if their impact on cardiorenal risk might be valuable.

The same reasoning could apply to the acromegalic subjects. In particular, the very favorable benefit of SGLT2-i on HF risk could be extremely crucial.

A proposal for an approach to contrasting hyperglycemia, also taking into account the higher cardio-renal risk, in acromegaly and CD is depicted in Figure 1.

Figure 1 Proposal for a new approach to treat hyperglycemia in patients with acromegaly or Cushing’s Disease, with or without pasireotide treatment. The restoration of euglycemia should be achieved with concomitant reduction in terms of weight and cardiovascular risk, improving quality of life and decreasing mortality.

Notes: The choice of anti-hyperglycemic drugs should be driven by high CV risk and not by the concomitant treatment for acromegaly and CD. In patients with dual therapy at baseline (Metformin + SGLT2-i or GLP-1 RAs) and glycemic control not achieved, follow the same indications reported in the figure. Consider DPP-4i in case of intolerance at SGLT2-i and GLP-1 Ras; Consider BASAL INSULIN as first therapy in case of severe glycometabolic state (HbA1c > 10%, FBG > 300 mg/dL, clinical signs of catabolism). In patients with high risk of ketoacidosis and positive anamnesis for recurrent genitourinary infections, SGLT2-i should be avoided.

Potential limits are higher costs and the risk of AEs. It is well known that the most common AEs of GLP-1 RAs are gastrointestinal (nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea) and tend to occur during initiation and dose escalation, diminishing over time.100 Same AEs are noted with pasireotide, even if described as non-severe.

Another AE common to both treatments (pasireotide and GLP-1 RAs) are cholelithiasis and gallbladder disease. Different meta-analysis of RCTs confirmed that GLP1-RAs are associated with an increased risk of cholelithiasis, in the absence of any relevant increase in the risk of pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer.101,102 It is notable that in the study which compared incretin-based and insulin therapy, patients in the latter group had a higher incidence of gallbladder or biliary-related AEs (23.3% vs 13.2%).86

Instead, as reported in the recent consensus about the management of hyperglycemia in acromegaly, a potential limit for the use of SGLT2-i is the risk of DKA, a condition characterized by hyperglycemia, metabolic acidosis and ketosis (pH ≤ 7.3, bicarbonate ≤ 15 mmol/L, anion gap > 12 mmol/L), fortunately rare in acromegaly, considering it concerns only 1% of all cases and it often occurs only in the initial disease manifestation.103 During treatment with SGLT2-i, DKA occurs in the absence of hyperglycemia, and so it also known as euglycemic diabetic ketoacidosis (EuDKA).104 The suggested mechanism behind the EuDKA is the reduction of insulin requirement in patient treated with SGLT2-i due to massive glycosuria, with concomitant increased gluconeogenesis (driven by an increase of glucagon), release of free fatty acid and subsequent propensity to ketone production.105

It is noteworthy that GH and cortisol themselves increase lipolysis, the lipid oxidation rate and so ketone bodies. Moreover, the shift in the insulin/glucagon ratio as observed in pasireotide treatment is thought to be especially prone to this metabolic complication, warranting greater caution.103

It’s essential to consider the higher risk of DKA or EuDKA during treatment with SGLT2-i, but it’s equally necessary to specify that their incidence appears significantly lower compared to that of a fatal cardiovascular event, both in acromegaly and CD. As a matter of fact, a multicenter retrospective study, during 2015–2020, in 9940 persons with T2DM treated with SGLT2-i has shown that the overall prevalence of DKA is around 0.43% (with 0.25% for EuDKA).106 Furthermore, even some real-life evaluations conducted in subjects with Type 1 Diabetes, a clinical condition with a well-known high risk of DKA and in which the use of SGLT2-i is actually contraindicated, have shown similar data: Stougard et al107 have observed an incidence of DKA equal to 0% in patients treated with SGLT2-i whereas Anson et al108 have observed a lower risk of DKA and associated hospitalization in subjects treated with SGLT-2i compared to those treated with GLP-1 RAs (obviously, as an adjunct to insulin therapy).

Additionally, in acromegalic subjects treated with pegvisomant, in monotherapy or in combination with pasireotide, the incidence of the EuDKA should be reduced. In fact, a reciprocal positive interaction could be achieved because SGLT2-i attenuate the hyperglycemic effect by decreased insulin secretion, meanwhile pasireotide in combination with pegvisomant mitigates the hyperglucagonemia induced by SGLT2-i. Also, pegvisomant decreases lipid oxidation via extrahepatic suppression of Growth Hormone Receptor in different tissues.109

Hence, it seems reasonable to encourage the use of SGLT2-i even in acromegalic patients treated with pasireotide, especially in those with well-controlled disease, modest hyperglycemia and undergoing combined treatment with pegvisomant. It should be helpful to advise them to discontinue therapy with SGLT2-i in case of intercurrent illnesses that may cause a reduction in carbohydrates intake and dehydration (eg, infections and gastroenteritis), and to not skip doses in the case of contextual insulin therapy. SGLT2-i should be avoided in patients with poorly controlled disease.

The same considerations could also be applied to patients with poorly controlled CD.

Another potential limit for the use of SGLT2-i, especially in CD patients for the overall increased risk of infection in this disease, is the higher prevalence of genitourinary infections, reported in both clinical trials and real world evidence. These infectious events are usually mild, and their prevalence is related to sex and a prior positive history of genital infections. In fact, the risk appears higher in females, and among them, in those with previous infections.110 Moreover, it is interesting to underline that in the study of McGovern et al110 the use of corticosteroids, a clinical condition similar to CD, higher values of HbA1c were not associated with significant additional infection risk in subjects treated with SGLT2-i.

Therefore, it is good clinical practice to suggest meticulous intimate hygiene to patients treated with SGLT-2i, avoiding the use of this class of drugs in those with positive anamnesis for genitourinary infections, especially for females.

It is also worth noting that neither GLP-1 RAs nor SGLT2-i cause hypoglycemia, another condition that significantly increases cardiovascular risk and mortality, as demonstrated in the ACCORD trial.111

Finally, a recent case report112 showed the positive effect of a combined therapy of GLP-1 RAs and SGLT2-i on pasireotide-induced hyperglycemia in a patient with CD. After the failure of metformin and DPP-4i, multiple daily insulin injections and, after two days, dulaglutide 0.75 mg were initiated. After improvement of glycemic control, 10 mg of empagliflozin was started and insulin discontinued. After 3 months, hypercortisolemia and glucose impairment were well-regulated, and the patient’s health improved overall.112

Despite several limits (not optimal use of insulin, short follow-up, lack of data regarding other parameters), this is an example of a treatment that is not glycemic-centered but focused to prevent and improve hypercortisolemia-related complications.

Needless to say, further investigations are needed to analyze the above-mentioned considerations and to overcome the limited findings available.

Ethics Statement

This article is based on previously conducted studies and does not contain any new studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Author Contributions

All authors made a significant contribution to the work reported, whether that is in the conception, study design, execution and considerations, or in all these areas; took part in drafting, revising or critically reviewing the article; gave final approval of the version to be published; have agreed on the journal to which the article has been submitted; and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Funding

The authors did not receive support from any organization for the submitted work.

Disclosure

The authors declare that they have no competing interests in this work.

References

1. Sanno N, Teramoto A, Osamura RY, et al. Pathology of pituitary tumors. Neurosurg Clin N Am. 2003;14(1):25–39. doi:10.1016/s1042-3680(02)00035-9

2. Tritos NA, Miller KK. Diagnosis and management of pituitary adenomas: a review. JAMA. 2023;239(16):1386–1389. doi:10.1001/jama.2023.5444

3. Katznelson L, Laws ER, Helmed S, et al. Acromegaly: an Endocrine Society clinical practice guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2014;99(11):3933–3951. doi:10.1210/jc.2014-2700

4. Nieman LK, Biller BMK, Findling JW, et al. Treatment of Cushing’s syndrome: an Endocrine Society clinical practice guidelines. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2015;100(8):2807–2831. doi:10.1210/jc.2015-1818

5. Colao A, Bronstein MD, Freda P, et al. Pasireotide versus octreotide in acromegaly: a head-to-head superiority study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2014;99(3):791–799. doi:10.1210/jc.2013-2480

6. Gadelha MR, Bronstein MD, Brue T, et al. Pasireotide versus continued treatment with octreotide or lanreotide in patients with inadequately controlled acromegaly (PAOLA): a randomised, Phase 3 trial. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2014;2(11):875–884. doi:10.1016/S2213-8587(14)70169-X

7. Colao A, Petersenn S, Newell-Price J, et al. A 12-month Phase 3 study of pasireotide in Cushing’s disease. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(10):914–924. doi:10.1016/S2213-8587(14)70169-X

8. Lacroix A, Gu F, Gallardo W, et al. Efficacy and safety of once-monthly pasireotide in Cushing’s disease: a 12 month clinical trial. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2018;6(1):17–26. doi:10.1016/S2213-8587(17)30326-1

9. Pivonello R, Auriemma RS, Grasso LF, et al. Complications of acromegaly, cardiovascular, respiratory and metabolic comorbidities. Pituitary. 2017;20:46–62. doi:10.1007/s11102-017-0797-7

10. Li D, El Kawkgi OM, Henriquez AF, Bancos I. Cardiovascular risk and mortality in patients with active and treated hypercortisolism. Gland Surg. 2020;9(1):43–58. doi:10.21037/gs.2019.11.03

11. Ershadinia N, Tritos NA. Diagnosis and treatment of acromegaly: an update. Mayo Clin Proc. 2022;97:333–346. doi:10.1016/j.mayocp.2021.11.007

12. Ferraù F, Albani A, Ciresi A, Giordano C, Cannavò S. Diabetes secondary to acromegaly, physiopathology, clinical features and effects of treatment. Front Endocrinol. 2018;9:358. doi:10.3389/fendo.2018.00358

13. Dal J, List EO, Jørgensen JOL, Berryman DE. Glucose and fat metabolism in acromegaly: from mice models to patient care. Neuroendocrinology. 2015;103:96–105. doi:10.1159/000430819

14. Del Rincon JP, Iida K, Gaylinn BD, et al. Growth hormone regulation of p85α expression and phosphoinositide 3-kinase activity in adipose tissue. Diabetes. 2007;56:1638–1646. doi:10.2337/db06-0299

15. Moustaki M, Paschou SA, Xekouki P, et al. Secondary diabetes mellitus in acromegaly. Endocrine. 2023;81(1):1–15. doi:10.1007/s12020-023-03339-1

16. Kasayama S, Otsuki M, Takagi M, et al. Impaired β-cell function in the presence of reduced insulin sensitivity determines glucose tolerance status in acromegalic patients. Clin Endocrinol. 2000;52:549–555. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2265.2000.00986.x

17. Kinoshita Y, Fujii H, Takeshita A, et al. Impaired glucose metabolism in Japanese patients with acromegaly is restored after successful pituitary surgery if pancreatic β-cell function is preserved. Eur J Endocrinol. 2011;164:467–473. doi:10.1530/EJE-10-1096

18. Frara S, Maffezzoni F, Mazziotti G, Giustina A. Current and emerging aspects of diabetes mellitus in acromegaly. Trends Endocrinol Metab. 2016;27:470–483. doi:10.1016/j.tem.2016.04.014

19. Popovicu MS, Paduraru L, Nutas RM, et al. Diabetes mellitus secondary to endocrine diseases: an update of diagnostic and treatment particularities. Int J Mol Sci. 2023;24(16):12676. doi:10.3390/ijms241612676

20. Scaroni C, Zilio M, Foti M, Boscaro M. Glucose metabolism abnormalities in Cushing syndrome: from molecular basis to clinical management. Endocr Rev. 2017;38(3):189–219. doi:10.1210/er.2016-1105

21. Barbot M, Ceccato F, Scaroni C. Diabetes mellitus secondary to Cushing’s disease. Front Endocrinol. 2018;5(9):284. doi:10.3389/fendo.2018.00284

22. Pivonello R, De Leo M, Vitale P, et al. Pathophysiology of diabetes mellitus in Cushing’s syndrome. Neuroendocrinology. 2010;92(Suppl 1):77–81. doi:10.1159/000314319

23. Brennan-Speranza TC, Henneicke H, Gasparini SJ, et al. Osteoblasts mediate the adverse effects of glucocorticoids on fuel metabolism. J Clin Investig. 2012;122:4172–4189. doi:10.1172/JCI63377

24. Eriksen M, Jensen DH, Tribler S, Holst JJ, Madsbad S, Krarup T. Reduction of insulinotropic properties of GLP-1 and GIP after glucocorticoid-induced insulin resistance. Diabetologia. 2015;58(5):920–928. doi:10.1007/s00125-015-3522-y

25. Jensen DH, Aaboe K, Herniksen JE, et al. Steroid-induced insulin resistance and impaired glucose tolerance are both associated with a progressive decline of incretin effect in first-degree relatives of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabetologia. 2012;55(5):1406–1416. doi:10.1007/s00125-012-2459-7

26. Vergès B. Effects of anti-somatostatin agents on glucose metabolism. Diabetes Metab. 2017;43(5):411–415. doi:10.1016/j.diabet.2017.05.003

27. Silvertstein JM. Hyperglycemia induced by Pasireotide in patients with Cushing’s disease or acromegaly. Pituitary. 2016;19:536–543. doi:10.1007/s11102-016-0734-1

28. Puglisi S, Ferraù F, Ragonese M, Spagnolo F, Cannavò S. Cardiometabolic risk in acromegaly: a review with a focus on pasireotide. Front Endocrinol. 2020;11:28. doi:10.3389/fendo.2020.00028

29. Coulden A, Hamblin R, Wass J, Karavitaki N. Cardiovascular health and mortality in Cushing’s disease. Pituitary. 2022;25(5):750–753. doi:10.1007/s11102-022-01258-4

30. Puglisi S, Terzolo M. Hypertension and acromegaly. Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am. 2019;48:779–793. doi:10.1016/j.ecl.2019.08.008

31. Petrossians P, Daly AF, Natchev E, et al. Acromegaly at diagnosis in 3173 patients from the Liege Acromegaly Survey (LAS) Database. Endocr Relat Cancer. 2017;24(10):505–518. doi:10.1530/ERC-17-0253

32. Sharma AN, Tan M, Amsterdam EA, Singh GD. Acromegalic cardiomyopathy: epidemiology, diagnosis and management. Clin Cardiol. 2018;41(3):419–425.

33. Colao A, Marzullo P, Di Somma C, Lombardi G. Growth hormone and the heart. Clin Endocrinol. 2001;54(2):137–154. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2265.2001.01218.x

34. Marstrand P, Han L, Day SM, et al. Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy with left ventricular systolic dysfunction: insights from the SHaRe Registry. Circulation. 2020;141(17):1371–1383. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.044366

35. Davì MV, Giustina A. Sleep apnea in acromegaly, a review on prevalence, pathogenetic aspects and treatment. Expert Rev Endocrinol Metab. 2012;7:55–62. doi:10.1586/eem.11.82

36. Ragnarsson O, Olsson DS, Papakokkinou E, et al. Overall and disease-specific mortality in patients with Cushing disease: a Swedish nationwide study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2019;104(6):2375–2384. doi:10.1210/jc.2018-02524

37. Colao A, Pivonello R, Spiezia S, et al. Persistence of increased cardiovascular risk in patients with Cushing’s disease after five years of successful care. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1999;84(8):2664–2672. doi:10.1210/jcem.84.8.5896

38. Varlamov EV, Langlois F, Vila G, Fleseriu M. Management of endocrine disease: cardiovascular risk assessment, thromboembolism, and infection prevention in Cushing’s syndrome: a practical approach. Eur J Endocrinol. 2021;184(5):R207–R224. doi:10.1530/EJE-20-1309

39. Fallo F, Di Dalmazi G, Beuschlein F, et al. Diagnosis and management of hypertension in patients with Cushing’s syndrome: a position statement and consensus of the Working Group on Endocrine Hypertension of the European Society of Hypertension. J Hypertens. 2022;40(11):2085–2101. doi:10.1097/HJH.0000000000003252

40. Giordano R, Picu A, Marinazzo E, et al. Metabolic and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with Cushing’s syndrome of different aetiologies during active disease and 1 year after remission. Clin Endocrinol. 2011;75(3):354–360. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2265.2011.04055.x

41. Faggiano A, Pivonello R, Spiezia S, et al. Cardiovascular risk factors and common carotid artery caliber and stiffness in patients with Cushing’s disease during active disease and 1 year after disease remission. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2003;88(6):2527–2533. doi:10.1210/jc.2002-021558

42. Toja PM, Branzi G, Ciambellotti F, et al. Clinical relevance of cardiac structure and function abnormalities in patients with Cushing’s syndrome before and after cure. Clin Endocrinol. 2012;76(3):332–338. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2265.2011.04206.x

43. Bruns C, Lewis I, Briner U, Meno-Tetang G, Weckbecker G. SOM230: a novel somatostatin peptidomimetic with broad somatotropin release inhibiting factor (SRIF) receptor binding and a unique antisecretory profile. Eur J Endocrinol. 2002;146(5):707–716. doi:10.1530/eje.0.1460707

44. Moloney KJ, Mercado JU, Ludlam WH, Mayberg MR. Pasireotide (SOM230): a novel pituitary-targeted medical therapy for the treatment of patients with Cushing’s disease. Expert Rev Endocrinol Metab. 2012;7(5):491–502. doi:10.1586/eem.12.49

45. Singh V, Brendel MD, Zacharias S, et al. Characterization of somatostatin receptor subtype-specific regulation of insulin and glucagon secretion: an in vitro study on isolated human pancreatic islets. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2007;92:673–680. doi:10.1210/jc.2006-1578

46. Henry RR, Ciaraldi TP, Armstrong D, Burke P, Ligueros-Saylan M, Mudaliar S. Hyperglycaemia associated with pasireotide: results from a mechanistic study in healthy volunteers. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2013;98:3446–3453. doi:10.1210/jc.2013-1771

47. Barbot M, Mondin A, Regazzo D, et al. Incretin response to mixed meal challenge in active Cushing’s disease and after pasireotide therapy. Int J Mol Sci. 2022;23:5217. doi:10.3390/ijms23095217

48. Schmid AH, Brueggen J. Effects of somatostatin analogs on glucose homeostasis in rats. J Endocrinol. 2012;212:49–60. doi:10.1530/JOE-11-0224

49. MacKenzie Feder J, Bourdeau I, Vallette S, Beauregard H, Marie LG S, Lacroix A. Pasireotide monotherapy in Cushing’s disease: a single-centre experience with 5-year extension of phase III trial. Pituitary. 2014;17(6):519–529. doi:10.1007/s11102-013-0539-4

50. Golor G, Hu K, Ruffin M, et al. A first-in-man study to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of pasireotide (SOM230), a multireceptor-targeted somatostatin analog, in healthy volunteers. Drug Des Devel Ther. 2012;6:71–79. doi:10.2147/DDDT.S29125

51. Feelders RA, Pulgar SJ, Kempel A, Pereira AM. The burden of Cushing’s disease: clinical and health-related quality of life aspects. Eur J Endocrinol. 2012;167(3):311–326. doi:10.1530/EJE-11-1095

52. Shen G, Darstein C, Hermosillo Resendiz K, Hu K. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic analyses of pasireotide LAR and octreotide LAR: randomized, double-blind, phase III study in patients with medically naïve acromegaly. Poster presented at: European congress of endocrinology; May 3–7; 2014; Wroclaw, Poland.

53. Shen G, Darstein C, Hermosillo Resendiz K, Hu K. Analysis of pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) data for efficacy and safety from a randomized phase III study of pasireotide LAR in patients with acromegaly inadequately controlled on first-generation somatostatin analogs (SSA). Poster presented at: Endocrine society annual meeting; March 5–8; 2015; San Diego, CA.

54. Gadelha MR, Gu F, Bronstein MD, et al. Risk factors and management of pasireotide-associated hyperglycemia in acromegaly. Endocr Connect. 2020;9(12):1178–1190. doi:10.1530/EC-20-0361

55. Sheppard M, Bronstein MD, Freda P, et al. Pasireotide LAR maintains inhibition of GH and IGF-1 in patients with acromegaly for up to 25 months: results from the blinded extension phase of a randomized, double- blind, multicenter, phase III study. Pituitary. 2015;18(3):385–394. doi:10.1007/s11102-014-0585-6

56. Boscaro M, Bertherat J, Findling J, et al. Extended treatment of Cushing’s disease with pasireotide: results from a 2-year, Phase II study. Pituitary. 2014;17(4):320–326. doi:10.1007/s11102-013-0503-3

57. Higham CE, Atkinson AB, Aylwin S, et al. Effective combination treatment with cabergoline and low-dose pegvisomant in active acromegaly: a prospective clinical trial. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2012;97:1187–1193. doi:10.1210/jc.2011-2603

58. van der Lely AJ, Hutson RK, Trainer PJ, et al. Long-term treatment of acromegaly with pegvisomant, a growth hormone receptor antagonist. Lancet. 2001;358:1754–1759. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(01)06844-1

59. Schreiber I, Buchfelder M, Droste M, et al. Treatment of acromegaly with the GH receptor antagonist pegvisomant in clinical practice: safety and efficacy evaluation from the German Pegvisomant Observational Study. Eur J Endocrinol. 2007;156:75–82. doi:10.1530/eje.1.02312

60. Castinetti F, Guignat L, Giraud P, et al. Ketoconazole in Cushing’s disease: is it worth a try? J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2014;99(5):1623–1630. doi:10.1210/jc.2013-3628

61. Valassi E, Crespo I, Gich I, Rodrìguez J, Webb SM. A reappraisal of the medical therapy with steroidogenesis inhibitors in Cushing’s syndrome. Clin Endocrinol. 2012;77:735–742. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2265.2012.04424.x

62. Gadelha M, Bex M, Feelders RA, et al. Randomized trial of osilodrostat for the treatment of Cushing’s disease. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2022;107(7):e2882–e2895. doi:10.1210/clinem/dgac178

63. Davies MJ, Aroda VR, Collins BS, et al. Management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes. A consensus report by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD). Diabetes Care. 2022;45(11):2753–2786. doi:10.2337/dci22-0034

64. Tsapas A, Avgerinos I, Karagiannis T, et al. Comparative effectiveness of glucose-lowering drugs for type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2020;173:278–286. doi:10.7326/M20-0864

65. Tsapas A, Karagiannis T, Kakotrichi P, et al. Comparative efficacy of glucose-lowering medications on body weight and blood pressure in patients with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2021;23:2116–2124. doi:10.1111/dom.14451

66. Marso SP, Daniels GH, Brown-Frandsen K, et al.; for the LEADER Steering Committe on behalf of the LEADER Trial Investigators. Liraglutide and cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:311–322. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1603827

67. Gerstein HC, Colhoun HM, Dagenais GR, et al.; for the REWIND Investigators. Dulaglutide and cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes (REWIND): a double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2019;394:121–130. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31149-3

68. Marso SP, Bain CS, Consoli A, et al.; for the SUSTAIN-6 Investigators. Semaglutide and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes. N Eng J Med. 2016;375:1834–1844. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1607141

69. Zinman B, Wanner C, Lachin JM, et al.; for the EMPA-REG OUTCOME Investigators. Empagliflozin, cardiovascular outcomes, and mortality in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2015;375:2117–2128. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1504720

70. Neal B, Perkovic V, Mahaffey KW, et al.; for the CANVAS Program Collaborative group. Canagliflozin and cardiovascular and renal events in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2017;377:644–657. doi:10.1056/NEJMc1712572

71. The EMPA-KIDNEY Collaborative group. Empagliflozin in patients with chronic kidney disease. N Engl J Med. 2023;388:117–127. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2204233

72. Heerspink HJL, Stefánsson BV, Correa-Rotter R, et al.; for the DAPA-CKD Trial committees and investigators.. Dapagliflozin in patients with chronic kidney disease. N Engl J Med. 2020;383:1436–1446. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2024816

73. Perkovic V, Jardine MJ, Neal B, et al.; for the CREDENCE Trial investigators. Canagliflozin and renal outcome in type 2 diabetes and nephropathy. N Engl J Med. 2019;380:2295–2306. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1811744

74. Packer M, Anker SD, Butler J, et al.; for the EMPEROR-Reduced Trial investigators. Cardiovascular and renal outcomes with empagliflozin in heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2020;383:1413–1424. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2022190

75. McCurray JJV, Solomon SD, Inzucchi SE, et al.; for the DAPA-HF Trial committees and investigators. Dapagliflozin in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. N Engl J Med. 2019;381:1995–2008. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1911303

76. Anker SD, Butler J, Filippatos G, et al.; fort the EMPEROR-Preserved Trial investigators. Empagliflozin in heart failure with a preserved ejection fraction. N Engl J Med. 2021;385:1451–1461. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2107038

77. Solomon SD, McMurray JJV, Clagget B, et al.; for the DELIVER Trial committees and investigators. Dapagliflozin in heart failure with mildly reduced of preserved ejection fraction. N Engl J Med. 2022;387:1089–1098. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2206286

78. Fleseriu M, Rusch E, Geer EB; on behalf of the ACCESS Study Investigators. Safety and tolerability of pasireotide long-acting release in acromegaly-results from the acromegaly, open-label, multicenter, safety monitoring program for treating patients who have a need to receive medical therapy (ACCESS) study. Endocrine. 2017;55:247–255. doi:10.1007/s12020-016-1182-4

79. Lasolle H, Ferriere A, Vasilijevic A, Eimer S, Nunes ML, Tabarin A. Pasireotide-LAR in acromegaly patients treated with a combination therapy: a real-life study. Endocr Connect. 2019;8:1383–1394. doi:10.1530/EC-19-0332

80. Witek P, Bolanowski M, Szamotulska K, Wojciechowska-Luzniak A, Jawiarczyk-Przybylowska A, Kaluzny M. The effect of 6 month’s treatment with pasireotide LAR on glucose metabolism in patients with resistant acromegaly in Real-World clinical settings. Front Endocrinol. 2021;10(12):633944. doi:10.3389/fendo.2021.633944

81. Wolf P, Dormoy A, Maione L, et al. Impairment in insulin secretion without changes in insulin resistance explains hyperglycemia in patients with acromegaly treated with pasireotide LAR. Endocr Connect. 2022;11:e220296. doi:10.1530/EC-22-0296

82. Fleseriu M, Petersenn S, Biller BMK, et al. Long-term efficacy and safety of once-monthly pasireotide in Cushing’s disease: a phase III extension study. Clin Endocrinol. 2019;91:776–785. doi:10.1111/cen.14081

83. Pivonello R, Arnaldi G, Scaroni C, et al. The medical treatment with pasireotide in Cushing’s disease: an Italian multicentre experience based on “real-world experience”. Endocrine. 2019;64:657–672. doi:10.3389/fendo.2020.00648

84. Simeoli C, Ferrigno R, De Martino MC, et al. The treatment with pasireotide in Cushing’s disease: effect of long-term treatment on clinical picture and metabolic profile and management of adverse events in the experience of a single center. J Endocrinol Invest. 2020;43:57–73. doi:10.1007/s12020-015-0557-2

85. Sahin S, Karimova G, Özcan SG, Durcan E, Özkaya HM, Kadıoğlu P. Pasireotide treatment in Cushing’s Disease: a single tertiary center’s experience. Turk J Med Sci. 2022;52:467–476. doi:10.55730/1300-0144.5335

86. Samson SL, Gu F, Feldt-Rasmussen U, et al. Managing pasireotide-associated hyperglycemia: a randomized, open-label, Phase IV study. Pituitary. 2021;24:887–903. doi:10.1007/s11102-021-01161-4

87. ElSayed NA, Aleppo G, Aroda VR, et al. Classification and diagnosis of diabetes: standard of Care in Diabetes- 2023. Diabetes Care. 2023;46(Suppl.1):S19–S40. doi:10.2337/dc23-S002

88. Samson SL. Management of hyperglycemia in patients with acromegaly treated with pasireotide LAR. Drugs. 2016;76(13):1235–1243. doi:10.1007/s40265-016-0615-y

89. Colao A, De Block C, Gaztambide MS, Kumar S, Seufert J, Casanueva FF. Managing hyperglycemia in patients with Cushing’s disease treated with pasireotide: medical expert recommendations. Pituitary. 2014;17:180–186. doi:10.1007/s11102-013-0483-3

90. Breitschaft A, Hu K, Hermosillo Resendiz K, Darstein C, Golor G. Management of hyperglycemia associated with pasireotide (SOM230): healthy volunteer study. Diabet Res Clin Pract. 2014;103:458–465. doi:10.1016/j.diabres.2013.12.011

91. Störmann S, Meyhöfer SM, Groener JB, et al. Management of pasireotide-induced hyperglycemia in patients with acromegaly: an experts’ consensus statement. Front Endocrinol. 2024;15:1348990. doi:10.3389/fendo.2024.1348990

92. Peracchi M, Porretti S, Gebbia C, et al. Increased glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) secretion in acromegaly. Eur J Endocrinol. 2001;145:R1–R4. doi:10.1530/eje.0.145r001

93. Shekhawat VS, Bhansali S, Dutta P, et al. Glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) resistance and β-cell dysfunction contribute to hyperglycaemia in acromegaly. Sci Rep. 2019;9:5646. doi:10.1038/s41598-019-41887-7

94. Oba-Yamamoto C, Kameda H, Miyoshi H, et al. Acromegaly cases exhibiting increased Growth Hormone levels during oral glucose loading with preadministration of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor. Intern Med. 2021;60(15):2375–2383. doi:10.2169/internalmedicine.4755-20

95. Quarella M, Walser D, Brandle M, Fournier JY, Bilz S. Rapid onset of diabetic ketoacidosis after SGLT2 inhibition in a patient with unrecognized acromegaly. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2017;102(5):1451–1453. doi:10.1210/jc.2017-00082

96. Yoshida N, Goto H, Suzuki H, et al. Ketoacidosis as the initial clinical condition in nine patients with acromegaly: a review of 860 cases at a single institute. Eur J Endocrinol. 2013;169(1):127–132. doi:10.1530/eje-13-0060

97. Prencipe N, Bioletto F, Bona C, Gatti F, Grottoli S. Diabetic ketoacidosis in acromegaly: a case study-somatostatin analogs adverse event or disease complication? Acta Diabetol. 2020;57(4):491–493. doi:10.1007/s00592-019-01437-z

98. Zaina A, Grober Y, Abid A, Arad E, Golden E, Badarny S. Sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors treatment in acromegalic patients with diabetes-a case series and literature review. Endocrine. 2021;73(1):65–70. doi:10.1007/s12020-021-02718-w

99. Mehlich A, Bolanowski M, Mehlich D, Witek P. Medical treatment of Cushing’s disease with concurrent diabetes mellitus. Front Endocrinol. 2023;14:1174119. doi:10.3389/fendo.2023.1174119

100. Wharton S, Davies M, Dicker D, et al. Managing the gastrointestinal side effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists in obesity: recommendations for clinical practice. Postgrad Med. 2022;134(1):14–19. doi:10.1080/00325481.2021.2002616

101. He L, Wang J, Ping F, et al. Association of Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonist use with risk of gallbladder and biliary disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials. JAMA. 2022;182(5):513.519. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2022.0338

102. Monami M, Nreu B, Scatena A, et al. Safety issues with glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (pancreatitis, pancreatic cancer and cholelithiasis): data from Randomized Controlled Trials. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2017;19(9):1233–1241. doi:10.1111/dom.12926

103. Zaina A, Prencipe N, Golden E, et al. How to position sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors in the management of diabetes in acromegaly patients. Endocrine. 2023;80(3):491–499. doi:10.1007/s12020-023-03352-4

104. Peteres AL, Buschur EO, Buse JB, Cohan P, Diner JC, Hirsch IB. Euglycemic Diabetic Ketoacidosis: a potential complication of treatment with Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter 2 Inhibition. Diabetes Care. 2015;38(9):1687–1693. doi:10.2337/dc15-0843

105. Sampani E, Sarafidis P, Papagianni A. Euglycaemic diabetic ketoacidosis as a complication of SGLT-2 inhibitors: epidemiology, pathophysiology, and treatment. Expert Opin Drug Saf. 2020;19(6):673–682. doi:10.1080/14740338.2020.1764532

106. Ata F, Yousaf Z, Khan AA, et al. SGLT-2 inhibitors associated euglycemic and hyperglycemic DKA in multicentric cohort. Sci Rep. 2021;11:10293. doi:10.1038/s41598-021-89752-w

107. Stougaard EB, Kristensen PL, Kielgast U, et al. Real life evaluation of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibition in type 1 diabetes and the risk of diabetic ketoacidosis. Diab Vasc Dis Res. 2022;19:14791641221130043.

108. Anson M, Zhao SS, Austin P, Ibarburu GH, Malik RA, Alam U. SGLT2i and GLP-1 RA therapy in type 1 diabetes and Reno-vascular outcomes: a real-world study. Diabetologia. 2023;66:1869–1881.

109. Adnan Z. Sodium Glucose Co-transporter Inhibitors in patients with acromegaly and diabetes. Trends Endocrinol Metab. 2019;30(2):77–79. doi:10.1016/j.tem.2018.11.007

110. McGovern AP, Hogg M, Shields BM, et al.; BM MASTERMIND consortium. Risk factors for genital infections in people initiating SGLT2 inhibitors and their impact on discontinuation. BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care. 2020;8(1):e001238. doi:10.1136/bmjdrc-2020-001238

111. The Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes Study Group. Effects of intensive glucose lowering in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:2545–2559. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa0802743

112. Shikata M, Ashida K, Goto Y, et al. Pasireotide-induced hyperglycemia in a patient with Cushing’s disease: potential use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist for treatment. Clin Case Rep. 2020;8(12):2613–2618. doi:10.1002/ccr3.3230

Creative Commons License © 2024 The Author(s). This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.

The Efficacy Of Bisphosphonates For Osteoporosis In Young Cushing’s Disease Patients With Biochemical Remission

Background: Patients with Cushing’s disease (CD) often experience slow recovery of bone mineral density (BMD), and the effectiveness of anti-osteoporosis drugs in young CD patients who have achieved biochemical remission after surgery is not well understood. Therefore, we aimed to explore whether bisphosphonates could help accelerate the recovery of osteoporosis in young CD patients with remission.

Methods: We retrospectively enrolled 34 young patients with CD who achieved postoperative biochemical remission. All patients suffered from osteoporosis before surgery and were divided into postoperative bisphosphonate treatment group (16 cases) and without bisphosphonate treatment group (18 cases). Clinical data, BMD (Z Value), and bone turnover markers were collected at the time of diagnosis and one year after successful tumor resection.

Results: The Z values in the lumbar spine showed slight improvement in both groups at follow-up compared to baseline, but this improvement was not statistically significant. There was no significant difference observed between the two groups at follow-up. One year after operation, bone formation markers (OC and P1NP) were significantly higher than those at baseline in both groups. However, OC and P1NP in the bisphosphonate treatment group were lower than those in control group at one year follow-up. In without bisphosphonate treatment group, β-CTX from follow-up visit was higher than that at baseline, while no significant difference was observed in the bisphosphonate treatment group before and after surgery.

Conclusion: Young patients with Cushing’s disease combined with osteoporosis might not benefit from bisphosphonate therapy for osteoporosis recovery in the first year after achieving biochemical remission.

Introduction

Osteoporosis is one of common complications of Cushing’s syndrome (CS). 40–78% of CS patients have osteopenia at diagnosis and 22–57% have osteoporosis (1). Previous studies reported non-violent fractures in 16–50% of patients with CS at diagnosis (15).

The pathophysiological mechanism of glucocorticoid (GC)-induced osteoporosis is very complex. The main feature is a persistent decrease in bone formation accompanied by an early transient increase in bone resorption, which directly acts on osteoblasts, osteoclasts, and osteocytes (69). In addition, GC also can lead to bone loss through indirect effects, mainly including decreased sex hormone levels, intestinal and renal calcium absorption and reabsorption, muscle mass and mechanical sensitivity and increased parathyroid hormone levels, etc. (10).

Prevention strategies for osteoporosis in patients treated with long-term exogenous hormones were relatively mature, and drugs promoting bone formation or inhibiting bone resorption should be used. However, osteoporosis was often ignored in patients with Cushing’s syndrome. Previous studies had shown that BMD of patients with CS improved after achieving biochemical remission (11), but some patients still had osteoporosis for several years after remission, even though their BMD were improved compared to preoperative levels (1). A study showed that BMD increased due to high turnover of bone after CS remission, and no additional anti-osteoporotic treatment was considered (12). However, till now it remained unclear whether anti-osteoporosis treatment could help accelerate the recovery of osteoporosis in young CD patients with biochemical remission after surgery.

Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine the efficacy of bisphosphonates for osteoporosis in young Cushing’s disease (CD) patients with biochemical remission.

Materials and methods

Subjects

This study was a retrospective cohort study and was approved by the Human Investigation Ethics Committee at Huashan Hospital (No.2017M011). Thirty-four young CD patients combined with osteoporosis at diagnosis who were hospitalized in the Department of Endocrinology, Huashan Hospital, Fudan University from January 2010 to February 2021 were included. Patients’ selection was shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1

www.frontiersin.org

Figure 1 Research flow chart.

Inclusion criteria were as follows: 1) the diagnostic criteria for Cushing’s disease were met, and the pituitary ACTH adenoma was confirmed by surgical pathology, 2) men ≥18 years old but younger than 50 years old at diagnosis; premenopausal women ≥ 18 years old and young women(<50 years old) with menstrual abnormalities which were associated with CD, 3) Z-score of BMD in lumbar spine or femoral neck ≤-2.0 at diagnosis of Cushing’s disease or with a history of fragility fractures, 4) attaining biochemical remission after transsphenoidal surgery, 5) receiving regular follow-up and bone mineral density was measured in our hospital at diagnosis and one year follow-up.

Enrolled patients were divided into two groups based on whether using bisphosphonates treatment after surgery or not. Biochemical remission of Cushing’s disease was defined as morning serum cortisol <2μg/dL (<55nmol/L) within the week after surgery and although serum cortisol at 8:00 a.m. was≥2 µg/dl or back to normal range immediate after surgery, it became hypocortisolemic at subsequent evaluation(s) and without relapse during the follow-up (1315). Meanwhile, relapse was excluded by cortisol value < 1.8 µg/dL after 1-mg dexamethasone suppression test (DST) and 24-hour urinary free cortisol (UFC) in normal range (13).

Exclusion criteria included: 1) having comorbidities affecting BMD (e.g., hyperparathyroidism, hyperthyroidism, primary hypogonadism, rheumatic immune disease, gastric bypass, inflammatory bowel disease, etc.), 2) long-term use of glucocorticoid drugs for the treatment of immune related diseases (except for hypopituitarism hormone replacement therapy) or other drugs that significantly affect bone metabolism, 3) use of anti-osteoporosis drugs before surgery, 4) postoperative treatment with anti-osteoporotic drugs other than bisphosphonate, 5) Cushing’s syndrome other than pituitary origin, 6) loss of follow up, 7) uncured or relapse of CD during the follow up.

Clinical and biochemical methods

We collected data on demographic characteristics, duration of CD-related signs and symptoms, comorbidities, medications, laboratory tests, and bone mineral density.

Endocrine hormones included cortisol (F), 24-hour urinary free cortisol (24hUFC), adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH); growth hormone (GH), insulin-like growth factor (IGF-1), prolactin (PRL), luteinizing hormone (LH), follicle stimulating hormone (FSH), estrogen (E2), progesterone (P), testosterone (T), thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH), and free thyroxine (FT4). Hormonal measurements were carried out by chemiluminescence assay (Advia Centaur CP). Bone metabolism markers included osteocalcin (OC), type I procollagen amino-terminal peptide (P1NP), type I collagen C-terminal peptide degradation product (CTX), parathyroid hormone (PTH), 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)VD], and they were measured in a Roche Cobas e411 analyzer using immunometric assays (Roche Diagnostics, Indianapolis, IN, USA).

Bone mineral density was measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry of American HOLOGIC company Discovery type W in all patients at diagnosis of CD and one year follow-up after surgery. Z value was used for young CD patients and Z value = (measured value – mean bone mineral density of peers)/standard deviation of BMD of peers. In this study, osteoporosis was defined as a Z-value of -2.0 or lower or with a history of fragility fractures.

All patients were administered with 20mg of hydrocortisone 3 times daily after surgery to avoid steroid withdrawal syndrome, with a 10-day taper afterward. When hydrocortisone was reduced to 10mg once a day for 10 days, the patient was followed up for the first time after surgery. Then the hormone replacement dose was adjusted based on the patient’s blood level obtained before that day’s glucocorticoid intake and urine cortisol level. All patients were administered with calcium carbonate D3 tablet (one tablet a day, consisting of calcium 600mg and D3 125U) and vitamin D (0.25ug a day) at diagnosis of osteoporosis till the last follow-up.

Statistical analyses

Normal distributed continuous variables were expressed as mean values ± standard deviation (s.d.). Median, 25th percentile, and 75th percentile (Median [P25, P75]) for variables without a normal distribution. Independent t-tests for normally distributed continuous variables and non-parametric tests for variables without a normal distribution were used to compare data between groups. SPSS 20.0 (SPSS) was used. A two-tailed P value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Patients’ characteristics at baseline

418 CD patients were hospitalized in the Department of Endocrinology, Huashan Hospital from January 2010 to February 2021. A total of 34 patients were included in our study, with an average age of 33.06 ± 7.37 years, 13 males (38.24%) and 21 females (61.76%). Sixteen patients were treated with bisphosphonates postoperatively (bisphosphonate group, including zoledronic acid and alendronate sodium), and eighteen patients were not treated with bisphosphonates postoperatively (without bisphosphonate group). Characteristics of the two groups were summarized in Table 1. Although there was a significant different in disease duration, there were no differences in age, gender, BMI, the proportion of hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidemia, liver function, kidney function, serum calcium, PTH, vitamin D level, bone metabolism markers, cortisol level, thyroid function, and growth hormone level between the two groups at baseline. Meanwhile, there was no significant difference in Z score of lumbar vertebra and femoral neck between two groups, -2.49 ± 0.56 (CV%=22.49%) vs-2.85 ± 0.61 (CV%=21.40%) and -1.74 ± 0.78 (CV%=44.83%) vs -1.93 ± 0.80 (CV%=41.45%) respectively. Therefore, the impact of different disease duration on the results was relatively small.

Table 1

www.frontiersin.org

Table 1 Clinical Baseline Characteristics of Patients in two groups.

One year after achieving biochemical remission, BMD improved in both groups; however there was no significant difference between the two groups

For these patients with osteoporosis secondary to Cushing’s disease, the most important work was to remove the cause. Patients with a history of fragility fractures didn’t receive bisphosphonate after surgery partly because they refused to use it. As shown in Table 2Figures 2A, B, there were no significant differences in the Z Score of lumbar vertebra and femoral neck between the two groups at baseline. The Z values in lumbar spine at one year follow-up of both groups were slightly improved but not significantly compared to baseline respectively. There was no significant difference in the Z score of lumbar vertebra [-2.40 ± 0.617 (CV%=25.71%) vs -2.81 ± 0.771 (CV%=27.44%), p=0.0766] or femoral neck [-1.9 ± 0.715 (CV%=37.63%) vs -2.01 ± 0.726 (CV%=36.12%), p=0.6378] between two groups at one year follow-up.

Table 2

www.frontiersin.org

Table 2 Changes in bone mineral density and bone turnover markers before and 1 year after remission in the two groups.

Figure 2

www.frontiersin.org

Figure 2 Comparison of BMD and bone turnover markers at baseline and one year after remission between bisphosphonate-treated and non-bisphosphonate-treated groups. (A) Z Score of lumbar vertebra; (B) Z Score of femoral neck; (C) levels of OC; (D) levels of P1NP; (E) levels of β-CTX. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001.

At one year follow-up, bone formation markers increased obviously in both groups compared to those at diagnosis, and they increased higher without bisphosphonate treatment

As shown in Table 2Figures 2C–E, there were no significant differences in bone turnover markers including OC, P1NP, and β-CTX between the two groups at baseline. Serum OC levels were significantly higher than those before surgery in both groups at one year follow-up after achieving remission respectively (5.90 (2.40–8.03) ng/ml vs 46.7 (23.25–83) ng/ml in control group, p<0.0001, and 6.80 (4.50–8.60) ng/ml vs 33.8 (14.46–49.27) ng/ml in treatment group, p=0.009). However, the serum OC level in the control group at follow-up was significantly higher than that in the treatment group [46.7 (23.25–83) ng/ml vs 33.8 (14.46–49.27) ng/ml, p=0.0381]. Serum P1NP levels were also significantly higher than those before surgery in both groups at follow-up after achieving remission of Cushing’s disease respectively (34.72 (23.22–41.79) ng/ml vs 353.5(124.9–501.2) ng/ml in control group, p=0.003, and 22.57 (15.93–30.53) ng/ml vs 181.1(65.46–228.75) ng/ml in treatment group, p=0.001). Similarly, the serum P1NP level at follow-up in the control group was significantly higher than that in the treatment group [353.5 (124.9–501.2) vs 181.1 (65.46–228.75) ng/ml, p=0.0484].

In the group without bisphosphonate treatment, β-CTX at one year after remission was higher than that before surgery [0.97 (0.83–1.57) vs 0.42 (0.16–0.66) ng/ml, p=0.006]. However, there was no significant difference in the bisphosphonate treatment group between baseline and follow-up [0.59 (0.27–0.90) vs 0.72(0.47–1.50) ng/ml, p=0.115]. No significant difference was seen for β-CTX level at follow-up between the two groups [0.97 (0.83–1.57) vs 0.72(0.47–1.50) ng/ml, p=0.409].

Discussion

Osteoporosis is one of common complications of Cushing’s disease and the recovery of bone mineral density after remission is a slow process. An important clinically question is whether young patients with CD after remission would benefit from anti-osteoporotic drugs such as bisphosphonates. To our knowledge, this study was the first well-powered retrospective cohort study of the efficacy of bisphosphonates for osteoporosis in young CD patients with biochemical remission. Our data showed that BMD improved slowly in young CD patients with remission at the first- year follow-up regardless of whether bisphosphate was used or not, and no significant difference in BMD improvement was observed between two groups at follow-up.

It was well known that after cure of Cushing’s syndrome, there was a long recovery period for BMD. It had been shown that full recovery from BMD in cured adult CS patients could take up to a decade or more (116). However, Hermus (17) had shown that some patients had a 2% or more reduction in BMD in the short term after surgery, especially in the first 6 months after surgery, and did not show consistent BMD increases until 24 months after surgery. It also showed that there was a highly significant inverse correlation between age and increase of BMD in the lumbar spine after surgery (17). The lack of significant improvements in BMD in our results might be related to the short duration of follow-up.

Current studies of endogenous Cushing’s syndrome had shown that bone metabolism was characterized by decreased bone formation and increased bone resorption, consistent with the classical effects of glucocorticoids (11). Successful treatment of endogenous Cushing’s syndrome resulted in a strong activation of bone turnover, characterized by increased bone formation and resorption. A retrospective study by Pepijn van Houten showed that sustained improvement in BMD continued for up to 20 years after CD treatment, and a large proportion of patients in this cohort were treated with anti-osteoporotic drugs (1). The study also showed that patients not receiving anti-osteoporosis drugs experienced significant spontaneous improvement in mean BMD. However, this retrospective study could not be used to answer the clinical question of whether anti-osteoporotic therapy was beneficial due to selection bias in enrolled patients. Leah T Braun showed that within 2 years of successful surgical remission in patients with Cushing’s syndrome, markers of bone formation suggested a high rate of bone turnover, resulting in a significant net increase in BMD in the majority of patients. The results strongly suggested that an observational approach to bone phenotype was justified as long as CS remission was assured (12). However, this retrospective study mentioned a significant mismatch in baseline BMD between the two groups (anti-osteoporotic medication group and without anti-osteoporotic medication group) and did not describe the type of anti-osteoporosis drugs (promoting bone formation or inhibiting bone resorption or both). Somma’s prospective study showed that a significant increase in lumbar and femoral BMD was observed in 21 CD patients who achieved remission after surgery and were either treated with alendronate for 12 months or not (18). It should be noted that this study included postmenopausal women, and there were no direct comparisons of clinical data, bone mineral density, and bone turnover markers at baseline and follow-up between the two groups.

Our study also showed that even bone formation markers increased at follow-up in bisphosphonate group, they were significantly lower compared to non- bisphosphonate users. Since bone metabolism was in a state of high turnover in the initial stage of biochemical remission from Cushing’s disease, our results indicated that bisphosphonates might affect bone formation in the first year after remission and was not conductive to the improvement of BMD. The mechanism of bisphosphonates in the treatment of osteoporosis lied in their high affinity with skeletal hydroxyapatite, allowing them to specifically bind to actively remodeling bone surface and inhibit the function of osteoclasts, thereby inhibiting bone resorption. Studies had shown that while bisphosphonates strongly inhibited bone resorption, they also significantly reduced bone formation. This reduced formation was often attributed to mechanisms that maintained the resorption/formation balance during remodeling (19).

There are evidence-based guidelines available for assessing fracture risk during long-term exogenous glucocorticoid(GC) therapy in adults, as well as for initiating and selecting anti-osteoporosis therapy. Specifically, for patients at risk of fracture taking GC ≥2.5 mg/day for >3 months, treatment options include bisphosphonates, denosumab, or PTH analogs. Although there is currently no definitive evidence-based treatment regarding the choice and efficacy of anti-osteoporosis after glucocorticoid withdrawal, it is widely accepted that treatment should be continued based on bone density and fracture risk assessment. For patients at a high fracture risk level (T≤-2.5), it is recommended to either continue their current anti-osteoporosis treatment or switch to an alternative medication. The main challenge faced by individuals with endogenous glucocorticoid induced osteoporosis (GIOP) is that exogenous GIOP is not exactly the same as endogenous GIOP. Therefore, it is not appropriate to apply the same strategies of exogenous GIOP for CD patients with remission. The findings of this study indicated that bisphosphonate therapy might not be beneficial for osteoporosis recovery in CD patients achieving biochemical remission (20).

Our study, limited by retrospective clinical studies, a small sample size, and a short follow-up duration, might not optimally answer the question of whether patients with CD achieving remission would benefit from bisphosphonate therapy, although it was a relatively well-designed retrospective cohort study and reached the maximum number after strict inclusion criteria and matching baseline characteristics as much as possible. Therefore, prospective randomized controlled clinical trials with longer duration were needed in the future.

In conclusion, our study suggested that young patients with Cushing’s disease combined with osteoporosis might not benefit from bisphosphonate therapy for osteoporosis recovery in the first year after achieving biochemical remission.

Data availability statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Ethics statement

The studies involving humans were approved by the Human Investigation Ethics Committee at Huashan Hospital. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Author contributions

QS: Writing – original draft. WS: Writing – original draft, Formal analysis, Data curation. HY: Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Resources. SZ: Writing – review & editing, Supervision.

Funding

The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. The present study was supported by grants from initial funding of Huashan Hospital (2021QD023).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

References

1. van Houten P, Netea-Maier R, Wagenmakers M, Roerink S, Hermus A, van de Ven A. Persistent improvement of bone mineral density up to 20 years after treatment of Cushing’s syndrome. Eur J Endocrinol. (2021) 185:241–50. doi: 10.1530/EJE-21-0226

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

2. Ohmori N, Nomura K, Ohmori K, Kato Y, Itoh T, Takano K. Osteoporosis is more prevalent in adrenal than in pituitary Cushing’s syndrome. Endocr J. (2003) 50:1–7. doi: 10.1507/endocrj.50.1

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

3. Valassi E, Santos A, Yaneva M, Tóth M, Strasburger CJ, Chanson P, et al. The European Registry on Cushing’s syndrome: 2-year experience. Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics. Eur J Endocrinol. (2011) 165:383–92. doi: 10.1530/EJE-11-0272

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

4. Zhou J, Zhang M, Bai X, Cui S, Pang C, Lu L, et al. Demographic characteristics, etiology, and comorbidities of patients with cushing’s syndrome: A 10-year retrospective study at a large general hospital in China. Int J Endocrinol. (2019) 2019:7159696. doi: 10.1155/2019/7159696

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

5. Kristo C, Jemtland R, Ueland T, Godang K, Bollerslev J. Restoration of the coupling process and normalization of bone mass following successful treatment of endogenous Cushing’s syndrome: a prospective, long-term study. Eur J Endocrinol. (2006) 154:109–18. doi: 10.1530/eje.1.02067

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

6. O’Brien CA, Jia D, Plotkin LI, Bellido T, Powers CC, Stewart SA, et al. Glucocorticoids act directly on osteoblasts and osteocytes to induce their apoptosis and reduce bone formation and strength. Endocrinology. (2004) 145:1835–41. doi: 10.1210/en.2003-0990

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

7. Liu Y, Porta A, Peng X, Gengaro K, Cunningham EB, Li H, et al. Prevention of glucocorticoid-induced apoptosis in osteocytes and osteoblasts by calbindin-D28k. J Bone Miner Res. (2004) 19:479–90. doi: 10.1359/JBMR.0301242

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

8. Yun SI, Yoon HY, Jeong SY, Chung YS. Glucocorticoid induces apoptosis of osteoblast cells through the activation of glycogen synthase kinase 3beta. J Bone Miner Metab. (2009) 27:140–8. doi: 10.1007/s00774-008-0019-5

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

9. Pereira RC, Delany AM, Canalis E. Effects of cortisol and bone morphogenetic protein-2 on stromal cell differentiation: correlation with CCAAT-enhancer binding protein expression. Bone. (2002) 30:685–91. doi: 10.1016/S8756-3282(02)00687-7

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

10. Buckley L, Humphrey MB. Glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis[J]. N Engl J Med. (2018) 379:2547–56. doi: 10.1056/NEJMcp1800214

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

11. Mancini T, Doga M, Mazziotti G, Giustina A. Cushing’s syndrome and bone. Pituitary. (2004) 7:249–52. doi: 10.1007/s11102-005-1051-2

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

12. Braun LT, Fazel J, Zopp S, Benedix S, Osswald-Kopp A, Riester A, et al. The effect of biochemical remission on bone metabolism in cushing’s syndrome: A 2-year follow-up study. J Bone Miner Res. (2020) 35:1711–7. doi: 10.1002/jbmr.4033

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

13. Fleseriu M, Auchus R, Bancos I, Ben-Shlomo A, Bertherat J, Biermasz NR, et al. Consensus on diagnosis and management of Cushing’s disease: a guideline update. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. (2021) 9:847–75. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(21)00235-7

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

14. Dutta A, Gupta N, Walia R, Bhansali A, Dutta P, Bhadada SK, et al. Remission in Cushing’s disease is predicted by cortisol burden and its withdrawal following pituitary surgery. J Endocrinol Invest. (2021) 44:1869–78. doi: 10.1007/s40618-020-01495-z

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

15. Chinese Pituitary Adenoma Cooperative Group. Consensus of Chinese experts on diagnosis and treatment of Cushing’s disease. Natl Med J China. (2016) 96:835–40. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0376-2491

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

16. Randazzo ME, Grossrubatscher E, Dalino Ciaramella P, Vanzulli A, Loli P. Spontaneous recovery of bone mass after cure of endogenous hypercortisolism. Pituitary. (2012) 15:193–201. doi: 10.1007/s11102-011-0306-3

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

17. Hermus AR, Smals AG, Swinkels LM, Huysmans DA, Pieters GF, Sweep CF, et al. Bone mineral density and bone turnover before and after surgical cure of Cushing’s syndrome. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. (1995) 80:2859–65. doi: 10.1210/jcem.80.10.7559865

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

18. Di Somma C, Colao A, Pivonello R, Klain M, Faggiano A, Tripodi FS, et al. Effectiveness of chronic treatment with alendronate in the osteoporosis of Cushing’s disease. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf). (1998) 48:655–62. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2265.1998.00486.x

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

19. Russell RG, Watts NB, Ebetino FH, Rogers MJ. Mechanisms of action of bisphosphonates: similarities and differences and their potential influence on clinical efficacy. Osteoporos Int. (2008) 19:733–59. doi: 10.1007/s00198-007-0540-8

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

20. Humphrey MB, Russell L, Danila MI, Fink HA, Guyatt G, Cannon M, et al. 2022 American college of rheumatology guideline for the prevention and treatment of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis. Arthritis Rheumatol. (2023) 75:2088–102. doi: 10.1002/art.42646

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Keywords: Cushing’s disease, young patients, osteoporosis, bisphosphonates, bone turnover markers

Citation: Sun Q, Sun W, Ye H and Zhang S (2024) The efficacy of bisphosphonates for osteoporosis in young Cushing’s disease patients with biochemical remission: a retrospective cohort study. Front. Endocrinol. 15:1412046. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2024.1412046

Received: 04 April 2024; Accepted: 04 June 2024;
Published: 21 June 2024.

Edited by:

Daniela Merlotti, University of Siena, Italy

Reviewed by:

Catalina Poiana, Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Romania
Ming Chen, Chinese PLA General Hospital, China

Copyright © 2024 Sun, Sun, Ye and Zhang. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Hongying Ye, janeyhy@163.com; Shuo Zhang, zhangshuo@huashan.org.cn

†These authors share first authorship

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

From https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/endocrinology/articles/10.3389/fendo.2024.1412046/full

Xeris Presents New Post Hoc Analysis on Effects of Levoketoconazole (Recorlev®) in Cushing’s Syndrome Patients at ENDO 2024

In patients with Cushing’s syndrome maintained on Recorlev, a lower baseline mUFC was associated with higher cortisol normalization rate.

Lower mUFC at baseline was also associated with lower maintenance dose requirements and lower rates of potentially clinically important liver-related adverse events and liver test abnormalities.

The SONICS study previously showed that Recorlev treatment was effective at normalizing cortisol across the spectrum of Cushing’s syndrome severity.

Xeris Biopharma Holdings, Inc. (Nasdaq: XERS), a growth-oriented biopharmaceutical company committed to improving patients’ lives by developing and commercializing innovative products across a range of therapies, today announced it presented a post-hoc analysis from its previously published SONICS study on the effects of levoketoconazole (Recorlev®) in adults with Cushing’s syndrome at ENDO 2024 in Boston, June 1-4, 2024.

“The results of this analysis suggest that patients with Cushing’s syndrome/disease with lower mUFC(s) normalize at a higher rate than those with more severe disease and may require lower doses of Recorlev and experience lower rates of liver-related adverse events. This exploratory analysis brings further perspective to the importance of individualizing and tailoring medical management,” said James Meyer, PharmD, Xeris’ Senior Director, Publications and Medical Communications.

Title: Effects of Levoketoconazole on 24-hour Mean UFC (mUFC) in the SONICS Study: Relation to Baseline mUFC in Adults with Cushing’s Syndrome: A Post-hoc Analysis (SAT-085)

This post-hoc exploration included all enrolled patients in SONICS who were treated and had a post-baseline mUFC, aiming to further elucidate relationships between baseline biochemical disease severity, drug dose, and intermediate-term mUFC response. For the current analyses, 92 patients treated with levoketoconazole and with baseline mUFC measurement (modified ITT) were stratified into 3 baseline mUFC subgroups: Group 1 (≤ 2.5x upper limit of normal (ULN)); Group 2 (>2.5x to ≤ 5x ULN); or Group 3 (>5x ULN) and analyzed in respect to mUFC response, average daily dose, and adverse events following 6 months of maintenance therapy. Groups 1 and 2 were similar in baseline characteristics; whereas Group 3 differed with younger age, fewer female participants, more recently diagnosed, and more frequently on prior therapy.

Group 2 (Baseline mUFC 267.9 nmol/D) had the highest apparent mUFC response rate (12/33 [36.4%]), 95% CI 0.20, 0.54) as compared with Group 1 (Baseline mUFC 498.7 nmol/D) (12/38 [31.6%], 95% CI 0.16, 0.47) or Group 3 (Baseline mUFC 1672.8 nmol/D) (5/21 [23.8%]; 95% CI 0.01, 0.55); Group 3 having a notably lower response.

Daily doses of levoketoconazole were related to baseline mUFC. Thus, Group 3 used a nominally higher average daily dose (631 mg and 741 mg) during maintenance therapy and at the last dose in the 6-month maintenance phase (regardless of completion status) than Group 1 (475 mg and 545 mg) or Group 2 (548 mg and 611 mg).

Group 3 had more liver-related AEs of special interest than Group 1 or 2 (14% vs 7.9% or 3.0%) and more AEs leading to discontinuation (24% vs 12% or 16%). Group 3 had a higher incidence of liver test (ALT, AST, GGT) abnormalities compared to Group 1 and Group 2.

This post hoc analysis demonstrated:

  • Normalization of mUFC with levoketoconazole in Cushing’s syndrome patients maintained on levoketoconazole in the SONICS study for up to 6 months appeared to vary inversely with baseline mUFC.
  • Lower mUFC at baseline was also associated with lower maintenance dose requirements and lower rates of potentially clinically important liver-related AEs and liver test abnormalities.
  • Whether observed baseline characteristic differences between the highest tertile of baseline mUFC and the 2 lower tertiles were simply coincidental to or confounders or mediators of the described relationships with mUFC remains to be explored.

About Cushing’s Syndrome

Endogenous Cushing’s syndrome is a rare, serious, and potentially fatal endocrine disease caused by chronic elevated cortisol exposure–often the result of a benign tumor of the pituitary gland. This benign tumor tells the body to overproduce high levels of cortisol for a sustained period of time, which often results in characteristic physical signs and symptoms that are distressing to patients. The disease is most common among adults between the ages of 30–50, and it affects women three times more often than men. Women with Cushing’s syndrome may experience a variety of health issues including menstrual problems, difficulty becoming pregnant, excess male hormones (androgens), primarily testosterone, which can cause hirsutism (growth of coarse body hair in a male pattern), oily skin, and acne.3

Additionally, the multisystem complications of the disease are potentially life threatening. These include metabolic changes such as high blood sugar or diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, fragility of various tissues including blood vessels, skin, muscle, and bone, and psychological disturbances such as depression, anxiety, and insomnia.3 Untreated, the five-year survival rate is only approximately 50%.4

About Recorlev®

Recorlev® (levoketoconazole) is a cortisol synthesis inhibitor for the treatment of endogenous hypercortisolemia in adult patients with Cushing’s syndrome for whom surgery is not an option or has not been curative.1 Endogenous Cushing’s syndrome is a rare but serious and potentially lethal endocrine disease caused by chronic elevated cortisol exposure.2 Recorlev is the pure 2S,4R enantiomer of ketoconazole, a steroidogenesis inhibitor.1 Recorlev has demonstrated in two successful Phase 3 studies to significantly reduce mean urine free cortisol.1

The Phase 3 program for Recorlev included SONICS and LOGICS, two multinational studies designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of Recorlev when used to treat endogenous Cushing’s syndrome. The SONICS study met its primary and secondary endpoints, significantly reducing and normalizing mean urinary free cortisol concentrations without a dose increase.1,2 The LOGICS study, which met its primary endpoint and key secondary endpoint, was a double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized-withdrawal study of Recorlev that was designed to supplement the efficacy and safety information provided by SONICS.1 The ongoing open-label OPTICS study will gather further useful information related to the long-term use of Recorlev.

Recorlev was approved by the US FDA in December 2021 and received orphan drug designation from the FDA and the European Medicines Agency for the treatment of endogenous Cushing’s syndrome.

Indication & Important Safety Information for Recorlev®

BOXED WARNING: HEPATOTOXICITY AND QT PROLONGATION
HEPATOTOXICITY

Cases of hepatotoxicity with fatal outcome or requiring liver transplantation have been reported with oral ketoconazole. Some patients had no obvious risk factors for liver disease. Recorlev is associated with serious hepatotoxicity. Evaluate liver enzymes prior to and during treatment.

QT PROLONGATION

Recorlev is associated with dose-related QT interval prolongation. QT interval prolongation may result in life-threatening ventricular dysrhythmias such as torsades de pointes. Perform ECG and correct hypokalemia and hypomagnesemia prior to and during treatment.

INDICATION

Recorlev is a cortisol synthesis inhibitor indicated for the treatment of endogenous hypercortisolemia in adult patients with Cushing’s syndrome for whom surgery is not an option or has not been curative.

Limitations of Use

Recorlev is not approved for the treatment of fungal infections.

CONTRAINDICATIONS

  • Cirrhosis, acute liver disease or poorly controlled chronic liver disease, baseline AST or ALT > 3 times the upper limit of normal, recurrent symptomatic cholelithiasis, a prior history of drug induced liver injury due to ketoconazole or any azole antifungal therapy that required discontinuation of treatment, or extensive metastatic liver disease.
  • Taking drugs that cause QT prolongation associated with ventricular arrythmias, including torsades de pointes.
  • Prolonged QTcF interval > 470 msec at baseline, history of torsades de pointes, ventricular tachycardia, ventricular fibrillation, or prolonged QT syndrome.
  • Known hypersensitivity to levoketoconazole, ketoconazole or any excipient in Recorlev.
  • Taking certain drugs that are sensitive substrates of CYP3A4 or CYP3A4 and P-gp.

WARNINGS AND PRECAUTIONS

Hepatotoxicity

Serious hepatotoxicity has been reported in patients receiving Recorlev, irrespective of the dosages used or the treatment duration. Drug-induced liver injury (peak ALT or AST greater than 3 times upper limit of normal) occurred in patients using Recorlev. Avoid concomitant use of Recorlev with hepatotoxic drugs. Advise patient to avoid excessive alcohol consumption while on treatment with Recorlev. Routinely monitor liver enzymes and bilirubin during treatment.

QT Prolongation

Use Recorlev with caution in patients with other risk factors for QT prolongation, such as congestive heart failure, bradyarrythmias, and uncorrected electrolyte abnormalities, with more frequent ECG monitoring considered. Routinely monitor ECG and blood potassium and magnesium levels during treatment.

Hypocortisolism

Recorlev lowers cortisol levels and may lead to hypocortisolism with a potential for life-threatening adrenal insufficiency. Lowering of cortisol levels can cause nausea, vomiting, fatigue, abdominal pain, loss of appetite, and dizziness. Significant lowering of serum cortisol levels may result in adrenal insufficiency that can be manifested by hypotension, abnormal electrolyte levels, and hypoglycemia. Routinely monitor 24-hour urine free cortisol, morning serum or plasma cortisol, and patient’s signs and symptoms for hypocortisolism during treatment.

Hypersensitivity Reactions

Hypersensitivity to Recorlev has been reported. Anaphylaxis and other hypersensitivity reactions including urticaria have been reported with oral ketoconazole.

Risks Related to Decreased Testosterone

Recorlev may lower serum testosterone in men and women. Potential clinical manifestations of decreased testosterone concentrations in men may include gynecomastia, impotence and oligospermia. Potential clinical manifestations of decreased testosterone concentrations in women include decreased libido and mood changes.

ADVERSE REACTIONS

Most common adverse reactions (incidence > 20%) are nausea/vomiting, hypokalemia, hemorrhage/contusion, systemic hypertension, headache, hepatic injury, abnormal uterine bleeding, erythema, fatigue, abdominal pain/dyspepsia, arthritis, upper respiratory infection, myalgia, arrhythmia, back pain, insomnia/sleep disturbances, and peripheral edema.

DRUG INTERACTIONS

  • Consult approved product labeling for drugs that are substrates of CYP3A4, P-gp, OCT2, and MATE prior to initiating Recorlev.
  • Sensitive CYP3A4 or CYP3A4 and P-gp Substrates: Concomitant use of Recorlev with these substrates is contraindicated or not recommended.
  • Atorvastatin: Use lowest atorvastatin dose possible and monitor for adverse reactions for dosages exceeding 20 mg daily.
  • Metformin: Monitor glycemia, kidney function, and vitamin B12 and adjust metformin dosage as needed.
  • Strong CYP3A4 Inhibitors or Inducers: Avoid use of these drugs 2 weeks before and during Recorlev treatment.
  • Gastric Acid Modulators: See Full Prescribing Information for recommendations regarding concomitant use with Recorlev.

USE IN SPECIFIC POPULATIONS

Lactation: Advise not to breastfeed during treatment and for one day after final dose.

To report SUSPECTED ADVERSE REACTIONS, contact Xeris Pharmaceuticals, Inc. at 1-877-937-4737 or FDA at 1-800-FDA-1088 or www.fda.gov/medwatch.

Please see Full Prescribing Information including Boxed Warning.

About Xeris

Xeris (Nasdaq: XERS) is a growth-oriented biopharmaceutical company committed to improving patient lives by developing and commercializing innovative products across a range of therapies. Xeris has three commercially available products; Gvoke®, a ready-to-use liquid glucagon for the treatment of severe hypoglycemia, Keveyis®, a proven therapy for primary periodic paralysis, and Recorlev® for the treatment of endogenous Cushing’s syndrome. Xeris also has a robust pipeline of development programs to extend the current marketed products into important new indications and uses and bring new products forward using its proprietary formulation technology platforms, XeriSol™ and XeriJect®, supporting long-term product development and commercial success.

Xeris Biopharma Holdings is headquartered in Chicago, IL. For more information, visit www.xerispharma.com, or follow us on XLinkedIn, or Instagram.

Forward-looking Statement

Any statements in this press release other than statements of historical fact are forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, statements about future expectations, plans and prospects for Xeris Biopharma Holdings, Inc. including statements regarding expectations for the release of clinical data, post hoc analyses or results from clinical trials, including the SONICS study, the market and therapeutic potential of its products and product candidates, including the levoketoconazole (Recorlev®), the potential utility of its formulation platforms and other statements containing the words “will,” “would,” “continue,” “expect,” “should,” “anticipate” and similar expressions, constitute forward-looking statements within the meaning of The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These forward-looking statements are based on numerous assumptions and assessments made in light of Xeris’ experience and perception of historical trends, current conditions, business strategies, operating environment, future developments, geopolitical factors, and other factors it believes appropriate. By their nature, forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks and uncertainties because they relate to events and depend on circumstances that will occur in the future. The various factors that could cause Xeris’ actual results, performance or achievements, industry results and developments to differ materially from those expressed in or implied by such forward-looking statements, include, but are not limited to, its financial position and need for financing, including to fund its product development programs or commercialization efforts, whether its products will achieve and maintain market acceptance in a competitive business environment, its reliance on third-party suppliers, including single-source suppliers, its reliance on third parties to conduct clinical trials, the ability of its product candidates to compete successfully with existing and new drugs, and its and collaborators’ ability to protect its intellectual property and proprietary technology. No assurance can be given that such expectations will be realized and persons reading this communication are, therefore, cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements. Additional risks and information about potential impacts of financial, operational, economic, competitive, regulatory, governmental, technological, and other factors that may affect Xeris can be found in Xeris’ filings, including its most recently filed Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the contents of which are not incorporated by reference into, nor do they form part of, this communication. Forward-looking statements in this communication are based on information available to us, as of the date of this communication and, while we believe our assumptions are reasonable, actual results may differ materially. Subject to any obligations under applicable law, we do not undertake any obligation to update any forward-looking statement whether as a result of new information, future developments or otherwise, or to conform any forward-looking statement to actual results, future events, or to changes in expectations.

1. Recorlev [prescribing information]. Chicago, IL: Xeris Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; 2021. 2. Fleseriu M, et al. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2019;7(11):855-865. 3. Pivonello R et al. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2016; 4: 611-29. 4. Plotz CM, et al. Am J Med. 1952 November;13(5):597-614.

Recorlev®, Xeris Pharmaceuticals®, Xeris CareConnectionTM, Keveyis®, Gvoke®, and Ogluo® are trademarks owned by or licensed to Xeris Pharmaceuticals, Inc. PANTHERx Rare Pharmacy is a service mark of PANTHERx Rare, LLC. All other trademarks referenced herein are the property of their respective owners. All rights reserved. US-PR-22-00001 1/22

From https://www.morningstar.com/news/business-wire/20240603311134/xeris-presents-new-post-hoc-analysis-on-effects-of-levoketoconazole-recorlev-in-cushings-syndrome-patients-at-endo-2024