Kennedy, Laurence

Abstract Objective The objective of this study is to report results from the open-label extension (OLE) of the OPTIMAL trial of oral octreotide capsules (OOC) in adults with acromegaly, evaluating the long-term durability of therapeutic response. Design The study design is an OLE of a double-blind placebo-controlled (DPC) trial. Methods Patients completing the 36-week DPC period on the study drug (OOC or placebo) or meeting predefined withdrawal criteria were eligible for OLE enrollment at 60 mg/day OOC dose, with the option to titrate to 40 or 80 mg/day. The OLE is ongoing; week 48 results are reported. Results Forty patients were enrolled in the OLE, 20 each having received OOC or placebo, with 14 and 5 patients completing the DPC period as responders, respectively. Ninety percent of patients completing the DPC period on OOC and 70% of those completing on placebo completed 48 weeks of the OLE. Maintenance of response in the OLE (i.e. insulin-like growth factor I (IGF1) ≤ 1.0 × upper limit of normal (ULN)) was achieved by 92.6% of patients who responded to OOC during the DPC period. Mean IGF1 levels were maintained between the end of the DPC period (0.91 × ULN; 95% CI: 0.784, 1.045) and week 48 of the OLE (0.90 × ULN; 95% CI: 0.750, 1.044) for those completing the DPC period on OOC. OOC safety was consistent with previous findings, with no increased adverse events (AEs) associated with the higher dose and improved gastrointestinal tolerability observed over time. Conclusions Patients with acromegaly maintained long-term biochemical response while receiving OOC, with no new AEs observed with prolonged OOC exposure.

Background— The economic outcomes of clinical management strategies are important in assessing their value to patients. Methods and Results— Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation 2 Diabetes (BARI 2D) randomized patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and angiographically documented, stable coronary disease to strategies of (1) prompt revascularization versus medical therapy with delayed revascularization as needed to relieve symptoms and (2) insulin sensitization versus insulin provision. Before randomization, the physician declared whether coronary artery bypass grafting or percutaneous coronary intervention would be used if the patient were assigned to revascularization. We followed 2005 patients for medical utilization and costs and assessed the cost-effectiveness of these management strategies. Medical costs were higher for revascularization than medical therapy, with a significant interaction with the intended method of revascularization ( P <0.0001). In the coronary artery bypass grafting stratum, 4-year costs were $80 900 for revascularization versus $60 600 for medical therapy ( P <0.0001). In the percutaneous coronary intervention stratum, costs were $73 400 for revascularization versus $67 800 for medical therapy ( P <0.02). Costs also were higher for insulin sensitization ($71 300) versus insulin provision ($70 200). Other factors that significantly ( P <0.05) and independently increased cost included insulin use and dose at baseline, female sex, white race, body mass index ≥30, and albuminuria. Cost-effectiveness based on 4-year data favored the strategy of medical therapy over prompt revascularization and the strategy of insulin provision over insulin sensitization. Lifetime projections of cost-effectiveness showed that medical therapy was cost-effective compared with revascularization in the percutaneous coronary intervention stratum ($600 per life-year added) with high confidence. Lifetime projections suggest that revascularization may be cost-effective in the coronary artery bypass grafting stratum ($47 000 per life-year added) but with lower confidence. Conclusions— Prompt coronary revascularization significantly increases costs among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and stable coronary disease. The strategy of medical therapy (with delayed revascularization as needed) appears to be cost-effective compared with the strategy of prompt coronary revascularization among patients identified a priori as suitable for percutaneous coronary intervention. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique Identifier: NCT00006305.