Cargando…

OR32-4 Diagnostic Performance of Macimorelin vs the Insulin Tolerance Test (ITT) in 140 Patients at Varying Growth Hormone (GH) Cutpoints: A Post Hoc Analysis

Background: Macimorelin (MAC), an orally active ghrelin receptor agonist, is indicated for the diagnosis of adult growth hormone deficiency (AGHD) in the United States. The efficacy of MAC for AGHD diagnosis was previously demonstrated; comparing MAC at cutpoint values of 2.8 and 5.1 ng/mL with ITT...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Garcia, Jose, Biller, Beverly, Korbonits, Marta, Popovic-Brkic, Vera, Luger, Anton, Strasburger, Christian, Chanson, Philippe, Swerdloff, Ronald, Wang, Christina, Fleming, Rosa Rosanna, Cohen, Fredric, Yuen, Kevin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Endocrine Society 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6554861/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1210/js.2019-OR32-4
_version_ 1783425036614369280
author Garcia, Jose
Biller, Beverly
Korbonits, Marta
Popovic-Brkic, Vera
Luger, Anton
Strasburger, Christian
Chanson, Philippe
Swerdloff, Ronald
Wang, Christina
Fleming, Rosa Rosanna
Cohen, Fredric
Yuen, Kevin
author_facet Garcia, Jose
Biller, Beverly
Korbonits, Marta
Popovic-Brkic, Vera
Luger, Anton
Strasburger, Christian
Chanson, Philippe
Swerdloff, Ronald
Wang, Christina
Fleming, Rosa Rosanna
Cohen, Fredric
Yuen, Kevin
author_sort Garcia, Jose
collection PubMed
description Background: Macimorelin (MAC), an orally active ghrelin receptor agonist, is indicated for the diagnosis of adult growth hormone deficiency (AGHD) in the United States. The efficacy of MAC for AGHD diagnosis was previously demonstrated; comparing MAC at cutpoint values of 2.8 and 5.1 ng/mL with ITT at cutpoint values of 3.0 and 5.1 ng/mL.(1,2)Objective: This post hoc analysis evaluated the percent agreement and sensitivity and specificity of MAC vs ITT over a range of GH cutpoints. Methods: This analysis included data from a phase 3, open-label, randomized, 2-way crossover study of MAC vs ITT in subjects with high (Group A, n=38), intermediate (Group B, n=37), and low (Group C, n=40) likelihood for AGHD and healthy, matched controls (Group D, n=25).(1) Percent agreement (negative, positive, and overall) and estimated sensitivity and specificity were determined using GH cutpoint values of 2.8, 4, 5.1, and 6.5 ng/mL for both MAC and ITT. Results: 74 subjects were classified as GH deficient, and 66 subjects were classified as GH sufficient. These subjects were classified based on the ITT using a cutpoint of 5.1 ng/mL.(1) The highest negative, positive, and overall agreements between tests were observed when GH cutpoints chosen for MAC and ITT were identical to each other and were either 2.8 or 5.1 ng/mL. With a GH cutpoint value of 2.8 ng/mL for both tests, negative agreement was 94% (95% CI: 86%, 98%), positive agreement was 87% (95% CI: 76%, 94%), and overall agreement was 91% (95% CI: 85%, 95%). At a GH cutpoint value of 5.1 ng/mL for both tests, negative agreement was 92% (95% CI: 83%, 97%), positive agreement was 82% (95% CI: 72%, 90%), and overall agreement was 87% (95% CI: 80%, 92%). Assuming all Group A participants were cases and all Group D participants were controls, estimated specificities of MAC and ITT were identical (96%) at GH cutpoint values of 2.8, 4, or 5.1 ng/mL. Estimated sensitivity for ITT at GH cutpoint value of 5.1 ng/mL (97%) was higher than for MAC at cutpoint value of 2.8 ng/mL (87%); increasing the test cutpoint to 6.5 ng/mL increased sensitivity to 97% and 100% for MAC and ITT, respectively, but at the expense of specificity decreases to 92% (MAC) and 88% (ITT). Conclusions: Among the cutpoints examined, agreement between MAC and ITT was highest at either 2.8 or 5.1 ng/mL, with positive agreement declining modestly at the higher cutpoint. Sensitivity of MAC was maximal at 6.5 ng/mL but at the expense of a decline in specificity from 96% to 92%, which may be undesirable if the primary consideration is minimization of false-positive diagnosis of AGHD. A MAC cutpoint of 5.1 ng/mL provides maximal specificity (96%) and high sensitivity (92%) with good overall agreement to ITT at the same cutpoint (87%), making it clinically useful for the diagnosis of AGHD. Reference: 1. Garcia JM, et al. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2018;103(8):3083-3093. 2. Garcia JM, et al. Presented at ENEA; 17-20 October 2018; Wroclaw, Poland.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6554861
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Endocrine Society
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-65548612019-06-13 OR32-4 Diagnostic Performance of Macimorelin vs the Insulin Tolerance Test (ITT) in 140 Patients at Varying Growth Hormone (GH) Cutpoints: A Post Hoc Analysis Garcia, Jose Biller, Beverly Korbonits, Marta Popovic-Brkic, Vera Luger, Anton Strasburger, Christian Chanson, Philippe Swerdloff, Ronald Wang, Christina Fleming, Rosa Rosanna Cohen, Fredric Yuen, Kevin J Endocr Soc Neuroendocrinology and Pituitary Background: Macimorelin (MAC), an orally active ghrelin receptor agonist, is indicated for the diagnosis of adult growth hormone deficiency (AGHD) in the United States. The efficacy of MAC for AGHD diagnosis was previously demonstrated; comparing MAC at cutpoint values of 2.8 and 5.1 ng/mL with ITT at cutpoint values of 3.0 and 5.1 ng/mL.(1,2)Objective: This post hoc analysis evaluated the percent agreement and sensitivity and specificity of MAC vs ITT over a range of GH cutpoints. Methods: This analysis included data from a phase 3, open-label, randomized, 2-way crossover study of MAC vs ITT in subjects with high (Group A, n=38), intermediate (Group B, n=37), and low (Group C, n=40) likelihood for AGHD and healthy, matched controls (Group D, n=25).(1) Percent agreement (negative, positive, and overall) and estimated sensitivity and specificity were determined using GH cutpoint values of 2.8, 4, 5.1, and 6.5 ng/mL for both MAC and ITT. Results: 74 subjects were classified as GH deficient, and 66 subjects were classified as GH sufficient. These subjects were classified based on the ITT using a cutpoint of 5.1 ng/mL.(1) The highest negative, positive, and overall agreements between tests were observed when GH cutpoints chosen for MAC and ITT were identical to each other and were either 2.8 or 5.1 ng/mL. With a GH cutpoint value of 2.8 ng/mL for both tests, negative agreement was 94% (95% CI: 86%, 98%), positive agreement was 87% (95% CI: 76%, 94%), and overall agreement was 91% (95% CI: 85%, 95%). At a GH cutpoint value of 5.1 ng/mL for both tests, negative agreement was 92% (95% CI: 83%, 97%), positive agreement was 82% (95% CI: 72%, 90%), and overall agreement was 87% (95% CI: 80%, 92%). Assuming all Group A participants were cases and all Group D participants were controls, estimated specificities of MAC and ITT were identical (96%) at GH cutpoint values of 2.8, 4, or 5.1 ng/mL. Estimated sensitivity for ITT at GH cutpoint value of 5.1 ng/mL (97%) was higher than for MAC at cutpoint value of 2.8 ng/mL (87%); increasing the test cutpoint to 6.5 ng/mL increased sensitivity to 97% and 100% for MAC and ITT, respectively, but at the expense of specificity decreases to 92% (MAC) and 88% (ITT). Conclusions: Among the cutpoints examined, agreement between MAC and ITT was highest at either 2.8 or 5.1 ng/mL, with positive agreement declining modestly at the higher cutpoint. Sensitivity of MAC was maximal at 6.5 ng/mL but at the expense of a decline in specificity from 96% to 92%, which may be undesirable if the primary consideration is minimization of false-positive diagnosis of AGHD. A MAC cutpoint of 5.1 ng/mL provides maximal specificity (96%) and high sensitivity (92%) with good overall agreement to ITT at the same cutpoint (87%), making it clinically useful for the diagnosis of AGHD. Reference: 1. Garcia JM, et al. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2018;103(8):3083-3093. 2. Garcia JM, et al. Presented at ENEA; 17-20 October 2018; Wroclaw, Poland. Endocrine Society 2019-04-30 /pmc/articles/PMC6554861/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1210/js.2019-OR32-4 Text en Copyright © 2019 Endocrine Society https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This article has been published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial, No-Derivatives License (CC BY-NC-ND; https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Neuroendocrinology and Pituitary
Garcia, Jose
Biller, Beverly
Korbonits, Marta
Popovic-Brkic, Vera
Luger, Anton
Strasburger, Christian
Chanson, Philippe
Swerdloff, Ronald
Wang, Christina
Fleming, Rosa Rosanna
Cohen, Fredric
Yuen, Kevin
OR32-4 Diagnostic Performance of Macimorelin vs the Insulin Tolerance Test (ITT) in 140 Patients at Varying Growth Hormone (GH) Cutpoints: A Post Hoc Analysis
title OR32-4 Diagnostic Performance of Macimorelin vs the Insulin Tolerance Test (ITT) in 140 Patients at Varying Growth Hormone (GH) Cutpoints: A Post Hoc Analysis
title_full OR32-4 Diagnostic Performance of Macimorelin vs the Insulin Tolerance Test (ITT) in 140 Patients at Varying Growth Hormone (GH) Cutpoints: A Post Hoc Analysis
title_fullStr OR32-4 Diagnostic Performance of Macimorelin vs the Insulin Tolerance Test (ITT) in 140 Patients at Varying Growth Hormone (GH) Cutpoints: A Post Hoc Analysis
title_full_unstemmed OR32-4 Diagnostic Performance of Macimorelin vs the Insulin Tolerance Test (ITT) in 140 Patients at Varying Growth Hormone (GH) Cutpoints: A Post Hoc Analysis
title_short OR32-4 Diagnostic Performance of Macimorelin vs the Insulin Tolerance Test (ITT) in 140 Patients at Varying Growth Hormone (GH) Cutpoints: A Post Hoc Analysis
title_sort or32-4 diagnostic performance of macimorelin vs the insulin tolerance test (itt) in 140 patients at varying growth hormone (gh) cutpoints: a post hoc analysis
topic Neuroendocrinology and Pituitary
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6554861/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1210/js.2019-OR32-4
work_keys_str_mv AT garciajose or324diagnosticperformanceofmacimorelinvstheinsulintolerancetestittin140patientsatvaryinggrowthhormoneghcutpointsaposthocanalysis
AT billerbeverly or324diagnosticperformanceofmacimorelinvstheinsulintolerancetestittin140patientsatvaryinggrowthhormoneghcutpointsaposthocanalysis
AT korbonitsmarta or324diagnosticperformanceofmacimorelinvstheinsulintolerancetestittin140patientsatvaryinggrowthhormoneghcutpointsaposthocanalysis
AT popovicbrkicvera or324diagnosticperformanceofmacimorelinvstheinsulintolerancetestittin140patientsatvaryinggrowthhormoneghcutpointsaposthocanalysis
AT lugeranton or324diagnosticperformanceofmacimorelinvstheinsulintolerancetestittin140patientsatvaryinggrowthhormoneghcutpointsaposthocanalysis
AT strasburgerchristian or324diagnosticperformanceofmacimorelinvstheinsulintolerancetestittin140patientsatvaryinggrowthhormoneghcutpointsaposthocanalysis
AT chansonphilippe or324diagnosticperformanceofmacimorelinvstheinsulintolerancetestittin140patientsatvaryinggrowthhormoneghcutpointsaposthocanalysis
AT swerdloffronald or324diagnosticperformanceofmacimorelinvstheinsulintolerancetestittin140patientsatvaryinggrowthhormoneghcutpointsaposthocanalysis
AT wangchristina or324diagnosticperformanceofmacimorelinvstheinsulintolerancetestittin140patientsatvaryinggrowthhormoneghcutpointsaposthocanalysis
AT flemingrosarosanna or324diagnosticperformanceofmacimorelinvstheinsulintolerancetestittin140patientsatvaryinggrowthhormoneghcutpointsaposthocanalysis
AT cohenfredric or324diagnosticperformanceofmacimorelinvstheinsulintolerancetestittin140patientsatvaryinggrowthhormoneghcutpointsaposthocanalysis
AT yuenkevin or324diagnosticperformanceofmacimorelinvstheinsulintolerancetestittin140patientsatvaryinggrowthhormoneghcutpointsaposthocanalysis