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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |