Abstract
Acromegaly is a rare disease caused by the elevated and autonomous secretion of growth hormone (GH) from a pituitary somatotroph tumor or neuroendocrine tumors, and the subsequent hypersecretion of insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I) in peripheral tissues. Excess GH and IGF-I cause several chronic and systemic complications that impact mortality, morbidity, and quality of life in patients with acromegaly. Excess GH and IGF-I play a crucial role in bone remodeling by increasing osteoclastogenesis and impairing osteoblastogenesis. Several studies have demonstrated an increased prevalence and incidence of fragility vertebral fractures (VFs) in patients with acromegaly. Long-term exposure to high levels of GH and IGF-I is recognized as a risk factor for fragility fractures in patients with acromegaly. Recent studies have shown that first- and second-generation somatostatin receptor ligands (SRLs) can reduce the incidence of vertebral fractures (i-VFs). However, a direct effect of these molecules on bone metabolism has not yet been reported. Aims: This review summarizes the results of studies investigating the frequency of i-VFs according to different GH/IGF-I-lowering drugs and the potential effects of these treatments on bone metabolism, as well as preclinical data on potential molecular pathways that interact between GH/IGF-I-lowering drugs and bone metabolism.
Keywords: Acromegaly; Bone; Vertebral fractures; GH; IGF-I; First generations somatostatin receptor ligands (octreotide, lanreotide); Second generation somatostatin receptor ligands (pasireotide); GH receptor antagonist (pegvisomant)
Introduction
Acromegaly is a rare neuroendocrine disease, due to the elevated and autonomous secretion of the growth hormone (GH) from pituitary adenoma/neuroendocrine tumor. GH excess is able to increase circulating levels of insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I), which is secreted by liver [1].
Acromegaly is a chronic disease with several comorbidities, including somatic alterations and cardiovascular disorders (systemic arterial hypertension, myocardial hypertrophy, mitral and aortic valvopathy, and arrhythmias). It also causes dyslipidemia (hypertriglyceridemia and reduced high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels) and disorders of glucose metabolism (hyperglycemia, impaired glucose tolerance, impaired fasting glucose, diabetes mellitus), hypopituitarism, an increased occurrence of second neoplasms, sleep apnea syndrome and musculoskeletal disorders [2–6]. Increased bone resorption and the impaired bone formation cause the deterioration of bone microarchitecture and the increased risk of fragility fractures in patients with acromegaly [7]. Incident vertebral fractures (i-VFs) are reported in 20-60% of patients with acromegaly [8].
Bone health in patients with acromegaly
GH and IGF-I play crucial roles in bone remodeling. GH both directly and indirectly through IGF-I, stimulates osteoblast proliferation and differentiation [9–11]. High levels of GH and IGF-I result in an increased osteoclastogenesis and bone resorption, also through the enhanced synthesis of receptor activator of nuclear factor-κB ligand (RANK-L) [12–16]. Furthermore, the same cytokines, such as the interleukin-6 (IL-6), RANK-L and the tumor necrosis factor (TNF) appear to be involved in bone resorption [10, 17, 18]. Other studies have demonstrated that in patients with acromegaly, increased bone resorption coexists with the increased bone neoformation, with a positive correlation between levels of circulating IGF-I and levels of bone formation markers (such as osteocalcin) and bone resorption markers (such as β cross laps) [19]. However, markers of bone formation appear to be less elevated than markers of bone resorption [20]. Therefore, in patients with acromegaly the increased osteoclastogenesis and the impaired osteoblastogenesis play crucial roles in developing abnormalities in bone microstructure, particularly in trabecular bone [9, 21], resulting in a loss of bone’s strength and an increased risk of fragility fractures [16].
Several studies have examined the prevalence and incidence of fragility fractures in patients with acromegaly. A cross-sectional study on 36 postmenopausal women showed that VFs occurred in 52.8% of cases, primarily among patients with active acromegaly (80% versus 33.3%) [22]. Another cross-sectional study on 40 male patients with acromegaly found that the prevalence of VFs was 57.5% [23]. In a case-control study by Wassenaar et al., on 89 patients, the prevalence of VFs was 59%, resulting quite higher in males (64%) then in females (54%) [24]. In other studies, the prevalence of VFs was lower, ranging from 10.6% to 39% of study cohorts [25–27]. A meta-analysis conducted by Mazziotti et al. on a total of 473 patients, reported a frequency of radiological VFs in acromegalic patients of about 38%, with a three times higher risk for the occurrence of VFs in patients with uncontrolled disease than in those who have achieved control of GH and/or IGF-I levels [20]. In fact, the impaired osteoblastogenesis persists also in patients with well-controlled acromegaly disease [12–16], as proven by the persistence of high serum concentrations of bone turnover markers, albeit at lower concentrations than in patients with biochemical active disease [20].
Several studies have investigated the risk factors associated with the occurrence of VFs in patients with acromegaly. These studies identified as main risk factors the longer duration of biochemically active disease, the longer diagnostic delay, the presence of preexisting VFs, the untreated hypogonadism, the diabetes mellitus and the male gender, as reported in table 1 [8, 20, 28–32]. More recently, vitamin D deficiency, which is frequently observed in patients with acromegaly [33], was associated with a high frequency of i-VFs. [34]. Indeed, bioavailability of 25-hydroxy (OH)-vitamin D is reduced in patients with acromegaly. Excess GH and IGF-I modulate the secretion of vitamin D with genomic and not-genomic mechanisms: GH and IGF-I directly affect the liver microsomal enzyme system, regulate intestinal calcium and phosphate absorption, stimulate renal calcium reabsorption and 1,25(OH)2-D vitamin production and inhibit the parathyroid hormone (PTH) secretion [35]. IGF-I, phosphate, PTH and fibroblast growth factor 23 (FGF-23) stimulate renal production of 1,25OH2-D vitamin, which increases calcium and phosphate availability in the body and suppresses PTH secretion [35]. The 25-OH vitamin D levels are reduced in patients with biochemical active acromegaly, due to increased levels of circulating vitamin D binding protein (VDBP) [33, 36–40]. Additionally, some therapies, such as somatostatin receptor ligands (SRLs), decrease the intestinal lipid absorption and contribute to hypovitaminosis D in these patients [41, 42]. The vitamin D supplementation reduces the frequency of VF in patients with acromegaly [43].
Effects of medical therapies on bone metabolism: data from human real-life studies
Preliminary data on the effects of acromegaly treatments on bone metabolism are available. Considering that the therapeutic options for the treatment of acromegaly was significantly enlarged in the last 20 years [44–48], the potential effects of GH and IGF-I lowering drugs on bone health were investigated in patients with acromegaly. Although the data are limited, some studies have focused on assessing the frequency of i-VFs during treatment with first- generations and second- generation SRLs (respectively fg-SRLs and sg-SRLs), with GH receptor antagonist. This review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the available literature, according to different medical treatments, and to review the mechanisms of action and potential effects on bone metabolism, as well as laboratory assessments, that can help clarify the impact of these therapies on bone metabolism.
First generation somatostatin receptor ligands (fg-SRLs) and bone
Native somatostatin regulates hormones synthesis and secretion from the anterior pituitary gland, the pancreas and cells of the amine precursor uptake and decarboxylation (APUD) system. The peripheral effects of somatostatin are mediated by five different somatostatin receptor (SSTR) subtypes: the SSTR1, SSTR2, SSTR3, SSTR4 and SSTR5 [49]. Binding with somatostatin receptors, activates of the cytoplasmic intracellular signal transduction, which regulates apoptosis, cell proliferation and hormone secretion. The same mechanism is mediated by the synthetic analogues, such as fg-SRLs and sg-SRLs [49]. Binding of native or synthetic somatostatin to its receptors causes the inhibition of calcium (Ca2+) channels and the activation of potassium (K+) channels. This leads to a decrease in intracellular Ca2+ concentration (mainly via SSTR1, SSTR2 and SSTR5), inhibition of adenylyl cyclase, and a subsequent decrease in cyclic adenosine monophosphate (cAMP) and consequently in a reduction of hormone secretion [50, 51]. SRLs reduce cell proliferation by inhibiting the phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K)/protein kinase B (PKB or AKT) signaling pathway through SSTR2 or by modulating the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway mainly via SSTR1, SSTR2, and SSTR5 [51–53]. Furthermore, SRLs appear to increase apoptosis by binding to SSTR2 and SSTR3 and acting on the nuclear factor kappa-light-chain enhancer of activated B cells (NF-kB)- c-Jun N-terminal kinase (JNK) -caspase pathway [51, 52].
In GH-secreting pituitary adenomas, SSTR2 is detected in 95% of cases, SSTR5 in 85% of cases, SSTR1 and SSTR3 are identified in approximately 40% of cases, while SSTR4 is rarely detected [54, 55]. Fg-SRLs (octreotide and lanreotide) bind SSTR2 with high affinity and the SSTR3 and SSTR5 with weak to moderate affinity [51, 56–58]. Fg-SRLs are indicated for the treatment of patients who have undergone non-curative surgery or as a primary treatment (an alternative to surgery) in limited clinical scenarios, such as in patients with contraindications to general anesthesia or major surgery and in patients who decline surgery. Although several studies over the last 30 years have largely proved the efficacy of fg-SRLs in achieving the biochemical control of acromegaly in 45-55% of patients [59], few clinical and laboratory data are available on the effects of fg-SRLs on human bone metabolism [60]. Table 2 summarizes the sites of SSTR expression in animal experiments and in humans.
Few studies in literature have investigated the frequency of VFs in patients with acromegaly undergoing treatment with fg-SRLs. In a retrospective and longitudinal multicenter study, conducted on 42 patients with acromegaly, the incidence of VFs during treatment with fg-SRLs was around 44% in patients with active acromegaly and around 26% in patients with controlled disease [60]. However, clinical and laboratory data on the potential direct effects of fg-SRLs on bone metabolism are limited to preclinical studies. Vitali et al. recently investigated the effects of octreotide on the proliferation of murine osteoblastic and pre-osteblastic cells [61], demonstrating that octreotide reduced cell proliferation in pre-osteoblastic and osteoblastic cells and increased apoptosis in pre-osteoblastic cells. After silencing the SSTR5 and SSTR2 genes in pre-osteoblastic cells, the authors proved that the anti-proliferative effect of octreotide was abrogated in SSTR2- and SSTR5-silenced cells, and that the pro-apoptotic effect of octreotide was abrogated only in SSTR2-silenced pre-osteoblastic cells [61]. Therefore, the results of this study suggested that the anti-proliferative effect of octreotide was mediated through SSTR2 and SSTR5; however, the pro-apoptotic effect was mediated only through SSTR2 [61]. Octreotide did not impact on the expression of the genes Runt-related transcription factor 2 (Runx2), Alkaline phosphatase (Alp), secreted phosphoprotein 1 (Spp1), Bone Gamma-Carboxyglutamate Protein (Bglap), Rankl, osteoprotegerin (Opg), Sclerostin (Sost) genes, but it reduced the expression of the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) gene [61]. However, data on humans instead are lacking as reported in the genomic database, the SSTR gene has not yet been identified in human bone cells [62].
Pasireotide Long Acting Release (Pasireotide LAR) and bone
Pasireotide LAR is a multireceptor-targeted SRLs, able to bind to four SSTRs, mainly subtypes 1,2,3 and 5 of the SSTR, with the highest affinity for the SSTR5 [51]. Prospective, randomized trials and several post-marketing real-life studies confirmed data on the efficacy of pasireotide LAR in managing acromegaly patients who do not respond to fg-SRLs [63, 64]. In a recent metanalysis, the rate of IGF-I control was 56% and the rate of tumor shrinkage was of 41% [65]. Pasireotide has been shown to have a greater biochemical effect on tumors that express a higher level of SSTR5, consistent with its high binding affinity for this SSTR subtype. In a study conducted by Iacovazzo et al., no patients with SSTR5-negative tumors were responsive to pasireotide LAR [66]. However, although preliminary studies showed that pasireotide acts via SSTR5 [51, 66], recent evidence showed that pasireotide LAR acts also via SSTR2 [67]. In a recent study conducted by Muhammed et al., an inverse correlation was proved between the immunoreactive score (IRS) and the reduction of IGF-I levels, in a cohort of 14 patients treated with pasireotide LAR and with available data on the pituitary tumor SSTR2A expression. This suggests that the high SSTR2A expression predicts a good response to pasireotide LAR treatment, and that the response to pasireotide is also driven by SSTR2, in patients who have not been treated with fg-SRLs [67]. Pasireotide LAR modulates SSTR activity differently from octreotide, maintaining SSTR expression on the cell membrane [68, 69].
Studies investigating the potential effects of pasireotide LAR on bone metabolism are limited. A longitudinal, retrospective international study examined the frequency of incidental VFs in a group of 24 patients with acromegaly who were treated with pasireotide LAR [70]. This study proved that 25% of patients with active acromegaly experienced incidental VFs, compared to 10% of patients with biochemical controlled disease. Furthermore, this study demonstrated also that the only risk factors for the occurrence of new VFs was the presence of pre-existing VFs, rather than the IGF-I levels, despite in the study population, eight patients were affected by active disease at last-evaluation [70]. Recently, the association between GH receptor (GHR) polymorphisms and the occurrence of incidental VFs was investigated in patients treated with Pasireotide LAR [71].
Different GHR isoforms have been reported with different sensibility to the GH stimulation [19]. In fact, the exon 3 delated isoform is more sensitive to GH stimulation [19]. Conversely, acromegaly patients with the exon 3 deleted GHR (d3-GHR) isoform have a higher prevalence of VFs, regardless of disease activity. This is possibly due to the increased receptor affinity and sensitivity to GH stimulation [19, 72, 73]. Furthermore, GH receptor isoforms influence the efficacy of medical therapies. Patients with the d3-GHR isoform had a poor response to pasireotide LAR [19, 74] and an increased risk of VFs [71]. In fact, a recent study found that VFs mainly occurred in patients treated with pasireotide LAR who carried the d3-GHR isoform [71].
Pegvisomant and bone
Pegvisomant, a GH receptor antagonist, was derived from modifications to the human GH molecule [75–78]. Pegvisomant differs from human GH due to a glycine substitution in the third alpha-helix (the receptor-binding site), which prevents its interaction with one of the GH receptor subunits [79, 80]. Additional substitutions were added to enhance the affinity of pegvisomant for the receptor in the other binding site [79, 80]. Finally, four to six polyethylene glycol (PEG) moieties were added to increase its half-life [75]. Thus, pegvisomant antagonizes endogenous GH, blocks the receptor, and reduces IGF-I production, thereby improving clinical outcomes [48].
The efficacy of pegvisomant in controlling acromegaly is well recognized and reported in several studies. In a recent analysis of the ACRO-STUDY registry conducted on 2.221 patients, over 79% of patients reached the biochemical control [81]. The effects of pegvisomant treatment on human bone health have been also investigated, but clinical and laboratory data are limited. During treatment with pegvisomant monotherapy or in combination with fg-SRLs, the frequency of i-VFs ranged from 25% to 78% in patients with active disease and from 16.7% to 29% in patients with well-controlled disease [70, 82].
A longitudinal, retrospective, international study investigated the frequency of i-VFs in a cohort of 31 patients treated with pegvisomant in association with fg-SRLs with a minimum follow-up period of 15 months [70]. Among patients with active acromegaly at last follow-up 77.8% developed i-VFs. In contrast, among patients with biochemical controlled disease, i-VFs occurred in 29.4% of cases. This study also proved that in patients treated with pegvisomant who had pre-existing or prevalent VFs, active disease, or high levels of IGF-I were at an increased risk of new or i-VFs [70]. These clinical data were recently confirmed in a retrospective cross-sectional study, showing that patients with acromegaly experienced a significant reduction in trabecular bone density, after nine years of pegvisomant treatment [83].
A study by Vitali et al. suggested that pegvisomant alone cannot directly modulate the proliferation, differentiation, or apoptosis of murine preosteblastic or human osteoblastic cells. In the same study, the authors proved that pegvisomant appear to modulate osteoblastic cell proliferation and differentiation after GH stimulation. Activation of the GH signaling pathway enhances the pegvisomant action on pre-osteblastic and osteoblastic cells. This study also demonstrated a GH-induced reduction in cell apoptosis, and showed that the addition of pegvisomant can reverse this process [84]. Furthermore, GH and pegvisomant did not affect local IGF-I secretion in murine pre-osteoblastic cells [84]. This phenomenon could explain why the bone remodeling process persists also in patients with well-controlled acromegaly [84, 85]. The study also evaluated the effect of pegvisomant on the expression of Alp, Runx2, Opg and Spp1 genes. There was no difference in gene expression between cells exposed to pegvisomant and those not exposed. Additionally, pegvisomant alone or in combination with GH did not affect the expression of genes IGF-I, Insulin-like growth factor binding protein 2 (IGF-BP2) and Insulin-like growth factor binding protein 4 (IGF-BP4) [84].
Moreover, as already mentioned in previous paragraph, GH receptor isoforms influence the outcome of medical therapies. Patients carrying full length GHR isoform have an increased fracture risk when treated with Pegvisomant in combination with fg-SRLs and a reduced risk of i-VFs when treated with Pasireotide LAR, reflecting the different affinity for GH of the full length and d3-GHR isoforms [71, 86].
Combination therapy pegvisomant plus pasireotide LAR and bone
Data on the potential effects on bone health of the combination therapy pegvisomant plus pasireotide LAR are limited to a small case series, derived from the real-world retrospective and longitudinal experience. This combination therapy is limited to patients not responsive to conventional therapeutic regimens. In a recent real-world case series of six patients on combination pasireotide LAR plus pegvisomant, no patients experienced i-VFs, despite the expected aggressive and multi-drugs acromegaly history [82].
Clinical perspective
Evidence from these retrospective, real-life studies may be of clinical interest and may guide personalized medical therapy for patients with acromegaly, because medical therapy with SRLs and pegvisomant were proved to correct high bone turnover, partially recovery the bone quality, although microstructural abnormalities persisted and the risk of i-VFs remained increased [87]. These studies suggest that the choice of second-line drugs can be guided from molecular profile of the tumors, and patient clinical assessment, such as the presence of dyslipidemia, hyperglycemia, and skeletal fragility. Although available studies have not demonstrated a direct effect of GH/IGF-I-lowering therapy on bone metabolism, the treatment with fg-SRLs, pegvisomant and pasireotide LAR seem to have a neutral effect in patients with controlled disease. However, patients with active disease seem to benefit from the treatment with pasireotide LAR alone or in combination with pegvisomant, if clinically indicated. Therefore, as we summarized in Fig. 1, in patients with biochemical active disease during treatment with fg-SRLs, the occurrence of incidental VFs should orient the choice of second- and third-line medical therapies, also according to SSTR tumor expression. Patients not responsive to fg-SRLs, with somatotroph tumors with SSTR2A and/or SSTR5 expression may response to treatment with Pasireotide LAR [88]. Instead, patients with somatotroph tumors without SSTR2A and SSTR5 expression and/or with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes should be treated with pegvisomant in monotherapy or in combination with fg-SRLs. Therefore, in patients with active disease during pasireotide LAR therapy, the occurrence of i-VFs may suggest treating the patient with the combination therapy pasireotide LAR plus pegvisomant; instead, the absence of i-VFs may suggest treating the patient with the combination therapy fg-SRLs plus pegvisomant, according to previous studies [82]. Patients not-responsive to the pegvisomant alone or in combination with fg-SRLs and with absence expression of SSTR2A and SSTR5 may be treated with the combination pasireotide LAR plus pegvisomant independently of the occurrence of i-VFs, according to the protective role of pasireotide LAR on bone in patients with biochemical active disease.
Fig. 1.
Flow chart for the choice of GH/IGF-I medical therapies in patients with acromegaly, according to molecular tumor profile and vertebral fractures occurrence. Abbreviations: fg-SRLs: first-generation somatostatin receptor ligands, SSTR: somatostatin receptor; T2D: type 2 diabetes; i-VF: incidental vertebral fracture
These patients with difficult-to-treat acromegaly and with skeletal fragility should be referred to a team of bone expert in a pituitary tumor center of excellence (PTCOE), to assess the risk of skeletal fragility, and schedule the most appropriate diagnostic workflow, follow-up and treatment options. This is according to the limited evidence on bone active drugs and on GH/IGF-I lowering treatments in acromegaly [89, 90] .
Conclusion
Skeletal fragility is a significant complication of acromegaly, that requires a prompt screening and treatment. In the era of the personalized therapy, the effects of GH/IGF-I lowering therapies on bone health may also be considered when choosing the most effective treatment for the management of a chronic and systemic disease, such as acromegaly. Additional basic, translational, and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are needed to validate current evidence and understand the molecular mechanisms involved in the drug-mediated effects on bone health in patients with acromegaly.
Author contribution
S.C and C.P wrote the main manuscript text. A.G and A.B developed and designed of methodology, A.G, LDM, and AP: critically revised the manuscript. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript.
Funding
Open access funding provided by Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore within the CRUI-CARE Agreement. This research was spontaneous and not supported by grant.
Data availability
No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.
Declarations
Ethical approval
Ethical approval was not required for this study.
Conflicts of interest
SC, AB, AG, LDM have served as investigators for clinical trials funded by Novartis, Pfizer, Ipsen and Crinetics. SC and AB received grants from Pfizer. SC won the 2022 Arrigo Recordati Research Grant. The remaining 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. A.G. is a consultant for Amolyt, Ipsen, Pfizer and Recordati Rare Diseases, Abiogen. A.G is Editor in Chief of Pituitary.
Competing interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Footnotes
Sabrina Chiloiro and Chiara Palumbo shared first authorship.
Andrea Giustina and Alfredo Pontecorvi shared last autorship.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
- 1.Colao A, Grasso LFS, Giustina A et al (2019) Acromegaly. Nat Rev Dis Primers 5:20. 10.1038/s41572-019-0071-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Melmed S, Kaiser UB, Lopes MB et al (2022) Clinical biology of the pituitary adenoma. Endocr Rev 43:1003–1037 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Giustina A, Barkan A, Beckers A et al (2020) A consensus on the diagnosis and treatment of acromegaly comorbidities: an update. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 105:E937–E946. 10.1210/clinem/dgz096 [Google Scholar]
- 4.Kasuki L, Rocha PdaS, Lamback EB, Gadelha MR (2019) Determinants of morbidities and mortality in acromegaly. Arch Endocrinol Metab 63:630–637 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Frara S, Maffezzoni F, Mazziotti G, Giustina A (2016) Current and emerging aspects of diabetes mellitus in acromegaly. Trends Endocrinol Metab 27:470–483 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Mazziotti G, Marzullo P, Doga M et al (2015) Growth hormone deficiency in treated acromegaly. Trends Endocrinol Metab 26:11–21 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Frara S, Melin Uygur M, Di Filippo L et al (2022) High prevalence of vertebral fractures associated with preoperative GH levels in patients with recent diagnosis of acromegaly. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 107:E2843–E2850. 10.1210/clinem/dgac183 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Mazziotti G, Bianchi A, Porcelli T et al (2013) Vertebral fractures in patients with acromegaly: a 3-year prospective study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 98:3402–3410 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Claessen KMJA, Mazziotti G, Biermasz NR, Giustina A (2016) Bone and joint disorders in acromegaly. Neuroendocrinology 103:86–95. 10.1159/000375450 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Giustina A, Mazziotti G, Canalis E (2008) Growth hormone, insulin-like growth factors, and the skeleton. Endocr Rev 29:535–559 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Mazziotti G, Maffezzoni F, Frara S, Giustina A (2017) Acromegalic osteopathy. Pituitary 20:63–69 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Belaya Z, Grebennikova T, Melnichenko G et al (2018) Effects of active acromegaly on bone mRNA and microRNA expression patterns. Eur J Endocrinol 178:353–364. 10.1530/EJE-17-0772 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Valenti MT, Mottes M, Cheri S et al (2018) Runx2 overexpression compromises bone quality in acromegalic patients. Endocr Relat Cancer 25:269–277. 10.1530/ERC-17-0523 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Carbonare LD, Micheletti V, Cosaro E et al (2018) Bone histomorphometry in acromegaly patients with fragility vertebral fractures. Pituitary 21:56–64. 10.1007/s11102-017-0847-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Kuker AP, Agarwal S, Shane E et al (2023) Persistent deficits in bone quality in treated acromegaly: evidence from assessments of microstructure. J Endocr Soc. 10.1210/jendso/bvad121 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Mazziotti G, Frara S, Giustina A (2018) Pituitary diseases and bone. Endocr Rev 39:440–488 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Renier G, Clément I, Desfaits AC, Lambert A (1996) Direct stimulatory effect of insulin-like growth factor-I on monocyte and macrophage tumor necrosis factor-alpha production. Endocrinology 137(11):4611–8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Uronen-Hansson H, Allen ML, Lichtarowicz-Krynska E et al (2003) Growth hormone enhances proinflammatory cytokine production by monocytes in whole blood. Growth Horm IGF Res 13:282–286. 10.1016/S1096-6374(03)00034-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Mormando M, Nasto LA, Bianchi A et al (2014) GH receptor isoforms and skeletal fragility in acromegaly. Eur J Endocrinol 171:237–245. 10.1530/EJE-14-0205 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Mazziotti G, Biagioli E, Maffezzoni F et al (2015) Bone turnover, bone mineral density, and fracture risk in acromegaly: a meta-analysis. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 100:384–394 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Maffezzoni F, Maddalo M, Frara S et al (2016) High-resolution-cone beam tomography analysis of bone microarchitecture in patients with acromegaly and radiological vertebral fractures. Endocrine 54:532–542. 10.1007/s12020-016-1078-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Bonadonna S, Mazziotti G, Nuzzo M et al (2005) Increased prevalence of radiological spinal deformities in active acromegaly: a cross-sectional study in postmenopausal women. J Bone Miner Res 20:1837–1844. 10.1359/JBMR.050603 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Mazziotti G, Bianchi A, Bonadonna S et al (2008) Prevalence of vertebral fractures in men with acromegaly. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 93:4649–4655. 10.1210/jc.2008-0791 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Wassenaar MJE, Biermasz NR, Hamdy NAT et al (2011) High prevalence of vertebral fractures despite normal bone mineral density in patients with long-term controlled acromegaly. Eur J Endocrinol 164:475–483. 10.1530/EJE-10-1005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Padova G, Borzì G, Incorvaia L et al (2011) Prevalence of osteoporosis and vertebral fractures in acromegalic patients. Clin Cases Miner Bone Metab 8(3):37–43 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Madeira M, Neto LV, Torres CH et al (2013) Vertebral fracture assessment in acromegaly. J Clin Densitom 16:238–243. 10.1016/j.jocd.2012.06.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Brzana J, Yedinak CG, Hameed N, Fleseriu M (2014) FRAX score in acromegaly: does it tell the whole story? Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 80:614–616. 10.1111/cen.12262 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Chiloiro S, Mirra F, Federico D et al (2020) The role of growth hormone receptor isoforms and their effects in bone metabolism and skeletal fragility. Protein Pept Lett 27:1260–1267. 10.2174/0929866527666200616151105 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Bima C, Chiloiro S, Mormando M et al (2016) Understanding the effect of acromegaly on the human skeleton. Expert Rev Endocrinol Metab 11:263–270. 10.1080/17446651.2016.1179108 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Chiloiro S, Giampietro A, Gagliardi I et al (2022) Impact of the diagnostic delay of acromegaly on bone health: data from a real life and long term follow-up experience. Pituitary 25:831–841. 10.1007/s11102-022-01266-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Claessen KMJA, Kroon HM, Pereira AM et al (2013) Progression of vertebral fractures despite long-term biochemical control of acromegaly: a prospective follow-up study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 98:4808–4815 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Uygur MM, Frara S, di Filippo L, Giustina A (2023) New tools for bone health assessment in secreting pituitary adenomas. Trends Endocrinol Metab 34:231–242 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.di Filippo L, Bilezikian JP, Canalis E et al (2024) New insights into the vitamin D/PTH axis in endocrine-driven metabolic bone diseases. Endocrine 85:1007–1019. 10.1007/s12020-024-03784-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Chiloiro S, Costanza F, Riccardi E et al (2024) Vitamin D in pituitary driven osteopathies. Pituitary 27:847–859. 10.1007/s11102-024-01439-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Ameri P, Giusti A, Boschetti M et al (2013) Interactions between vitamin D and IGF-I: from physiology to clinical practice. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 79:457–463. 10.1111/cen.12268 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Frara S, Acanfora M, Franzese V et al (2024) Novel approach to bone comorbidity in resistant acromegaly. Pituitary 27:813–823. 10.1007/s11102-024-01468-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Mazziotti G, Maffezzoni F, Giustina A (2016) Vitamin D-binding protein: one more piece in the puzzle of acromegalic osteopathy? Endocrine 52:183–186. 10.1007/s12020-016-0890-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Giustina A (2020) Acromegaly and vertebral fractures: facts and questions. Trends Endocrinol Metab 31:274–275. 10.1016/j.tem.2020.01.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Giustina A, di Filippo L, Uygur MM, Frara S (2023) Modern approach to resistant acromegaly. Endocrine 80:303–307. 10.1007/s12020-023-03317-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Gola M, Bonadonna S, Mazziotti G et al (2006) Resistance to somatostatin analogs in acromegaly: an evolving concept? J Endocrinol Invest 29:86–93. 10.1007/BF03349183 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Giustina A (2023) Acromegaly and bone: an update. Endocrinol Metab 38:655–666. 10.3803/EnM.2023.601 [Google Scholar]
- 42.Halupczok-Żyła J, Jawiarczyk-Przybyłowska ABM (2015) Patients with active acromegaly are at high risk of 25(OH)D deficiency. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) 6. 10.3389/fendo.2015.00089
- 43.Chiloiro S, Frara S, Gagliardi I et al (2023) Cholecalciferol use is associated with a decreased risk of incident morphometric vertebral fractures in acromegaly. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 109:e58–e68. 10.1210/clinem/dgad493 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Melmed S, di Filippo L, Fleseriu M et al (2025) Consensus on acromegaly therapeutic outcomes: an update. Nat Rev Endocrinol. 10.1038/s41574-025-01148-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Giustina A, Biermasz N, Casanueva FF et al (2024) Consensus on criteria for acromegaly diagnosis and remission. Pituitary 27:7–22. 10.1007/s11102-023-01360-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Uygur MM, Villanova M, Frara S, Giustina A (2024) Clinical Pharmacology of Oral Octreotide Capsules for the Treatment of Acromegaly. Touch Rev Endocrinol 20. 10.17925/EE.2024.20.1.9
- 47.Giustina A, Mazziotti G, Cannavò S et al (2017) High-dose and high-frequency lanreotide autogel in acromegaly: a randomized, multicenter study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 102:2454–2464. 10.1210/jc.2017-00142 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Giustina A, Arnaldi G, Bogazzi F et al (2017) Pegvisomant in acromegaly: an update. J Endocrinol Invest 40:577–589 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Sesti F, La Salvia A, Grinzato C et al (2021) L’approccio con analoghi della somatostatina nelle neoplasie neuroendocrine associate a sindromi neoplastiche multi-endocrine ereditarie. L’Endocrinologo 22:423–428. 10.1007/s40619-021-00952-y [Google Scholar]
- 50.Ben-Shlomo A, Melmed Shlomo S (2010) Pituitary somatostatin receptor signaling. Trends Endocrinol Metab 21(3):123–133 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51.Gadelha MR, Wildemberg LE, Bronstein MD et al (2017) Somatostatin receptor ligands in the treatment of acromegaly. Pituitary 20:100–108 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52.Barbieri F, Bajetto A, Pattarozzi A et al (2013) Peptide receptor targeting in cancer: the somatostatin paradigm. Int J Pept. 2013:926295 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53.Theodoropoulou M, Stalla GK, Spengler D (2010) ZAC1 target genes and pituitary tumorigenesis. Mol Cell Endocrinol 326:60–65 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54.Hofland LJ, Lamberts SWJ (2003) The pathophysiological consequences of somatostatin receptor internalization and resistance. Endocr Rev 24:28–47 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55.Cuevas-Ramos D, Fleseriu M (2014) Somatostatin receptor ligands and resistance to treatment in pituitary adenomas. J Mol Endocrinol. 10.1530/JME-14-0011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56.Bauer W, Briner U, Doepfner W et al (1982) SMS 201–995: a very potent and selective octapeptide analogue of somatostatin with prolonged action. Life Sci 31:1133–1140. 10.1016/0024-3205(82)90087-X [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57.Taylor JE, Bogden AE, Moreau J-P, Coy DH (1988) In vitro and in vivo inhibition of human small cell lung carcinoma (NCl-H69) growth by a somatostatin analogue. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 153:81–86. 10.1016/S0006-291X(88)81192-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 58.Ben-Shlomo A, Melmed S (2008) Somatostatin agonists for treatment of acromegaly. Mol Cell Endocrinol 286:192–198. 10.1016/j.mce.2007.11.024 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 59.Colao A, Auriemma RS, Pivonello R et al (2016) Interpreting biochemical control response rates with first-generation somatostatin analogues in acromegaly. Pituitary 19:235–247. 10.1007/s11102-015-0684-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 60.Chiloiro S, Mazziotti G, Giampietro A et al (2018) Effects of pegvisomant and somatostatin receptor ligands on incidence of vertebral fractures in patients with acromegaly. Pituitary 21:302–308. 10.1007/s11102-018-0873-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 61.Vitali E, Palagano E, Schiavone ML et al (2022) Direct effects of octreotide on osteoblast cell proliferation and function. J Endocrinol Invest 45:1045–1057. 10.1007/s40618-022-01740-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 62.GeneCards - The human gene database. https://www.genecards.org/. Accessed 15 Jun 2025
- 63.Colao A, Bronstein MD, Freda P et al (2014) Pasireotide versus octreotide in acromegaly: a head-to-head superiority study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 99:791–799. 10.1210/jc.2013-2480 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 64.Gadelha MR, Bronstein MD, Brue T et al (2014) Pasireotide versus continued treatment with octreotide or lanreotide in patients with inadequately controlled acromegaly (PAOLA): a randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2:875–884. 10.1016/S2213-8587(14)70169-X [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 65.Biagetti B, Araujo-Castro M, Tebe C et al (2025) Real-world evidence of effectiveness and safety of pasireotide in the treatment of acromegaly: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Rev Endocr Metab Disord 26:97–111. 10.1007/s11154-024-09928-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 66.Iacovazzo D, Carlsen E, Lugli F et al (2016) Factors predicting pasireotide responsiveness in somatotroph pituitary adenomas resistant to first-generation somatostatin analogues: an immunohistochemical study. Eur J Endocrinol 174:241–250. 10.1530/EJE-15-0832 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 67.Muhammad A, Coopmans EC, Gatto F et al (2018) Pasireotide responsiveness in acromegaly is mainly driven by somatostatin receptor subtype 2 expression. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 104:915–924. 10.1210/jc.2018-01524 [Google Scholar]
- 68.Lesche S, Lehmann D, Nagel F et al (2009) Differential effects of octreotide and pasireotide on somatostatin receptor internalization and trafficking in vitro. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 94:654–661. 10.1210/jc.2008-1919 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 69.Pöll F, Lehmann D, Illing S et al (2010) Pasireotide and octreotide stimulate distinct patterns of sst2A somatostatin receptor phosphorylation. Mol Endocrinol 24:436–446. 10.1210/me.2009-0315 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 70.Chiloiro S, Giampietro A, Frara S et al (2020) Effects of pegvisomant and pasireotide LAR on vertebral fractures in acromegaly resistant to first-generation SRLs. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 10.1210/clinem/dgz054 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 71.Chiloiro S, Costanza F, Giampietro A et al (2024) GH receptor polymorphisms guide second-line therapies to prevent acromegaly skeletal fragility: preliminary results of a pilot study. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) 15. 10.3389/fendo.2024.1414101
- 72.Binder G, Baur F, Schweizer R, Ranke MB (2006) The d3-growth hormone (GH) receptor polymorphism is associated with increased responsiveness to GH in turner syndrome and short small-for- gestational-age children. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 91:659–664. 10.1210/jc.2005-1581 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 73.Bianchi A, Giustina A, Cimino V et al (2009) Influence of growth hormone receptor d3 and full-length isoforms on biochemical treatment outcomes in acromegaly. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 94:2015–2022. 10.1210/jc.2008-1337 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 74.Chiloiro S, Giampietro A, Mirra F et al (2021) Pegvisomant and pasireotide LAR as second line therapy in acromegaly: clinical effectiveness and predictors of response. Eur J Endocrinol 184:217–229. 10.1530/EJE-20-0767 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 75.MacFarlane J, Korbonits M (2024) Growth hormone receptor antagonist pegvisomant and its role in the medical therapy of growth hormone excess. Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab 38:101910. 10.1016/j.beem.2024.101910 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 76.Chen WY, Wight DC, Chen NY et al (1991) Mutations in the third alpha-helix of bovine growth hormone dramatically affect its intracellular distribution in vitro and growth enhancement in transgenic mice. J Biol Chem 266:2252–2258. 10.1016/S0021-9258(18)52236-5 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 77.Chen WY, Chen NY, Yun J et al (1994) In vitro and in vivo studies of antagonistic effects of human growth hormone analogs. J Biol Chem 269:15892–15897. 10.1016/S0021-9258(17)40764-2 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 78.Souza SC, Cioffi JA, Wang X et al (1995) A 40-amino acid segment of the Growth Hormone Receptor cytoplasmic domain is essential for GH-induced tyrosine-phosphorylated cytosolic proteins. J Biol Chem 270:6261–6266. 10.1074/jbc.270.11.6261 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 79.Pradhananga S, Wilkinson I, Ross R (2002) Pegvisomant: structure and function. J Mol Endocrinol 29:11–14. 10.1677/jme.0.0290011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 80.Kopchick J (2003) Discovery and mechanism of action of pegvisomant. Eur J Endocrinol 148:S21–S25. 10.1530/eje.0.148s021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 81.Fleseriu M, Führer-Sakel D, van der Lely AJ et al (2021) More than a decade of real-world experience of pegvisomant for acromegaly: ACROSTUDY. Eur J Endocrinol 185:525–538. 10.1530/EJE-21-0239 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 82.Chiloiro S, Giampietro A, Infante A et al (2024) Bone health and skeletal fragility in second- and third-line medical therapies for acromegaly: preliminary results from a pilot single center experience. Pituitary 27:303–309. 10.1007/s11102-024-01398-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 83.Kuker AP, Agarwal S, Shane E et al (2024) Long-term pegvisomant therapy of acromegaly: effects on bone density, turnover and microstructure using HRpQCT. J Endocr Soc 8. 10.1210/jendso/bvae079
- 84.Vitali E, Grasso A, Schiavone ML et al (2024) The direct impact of pegvisomant on osteoblast functions and bone development. J Endocrinol Invest 47:1385–1394. 10.1007/s40618-023-02281-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 85.Cianferotti L, Cipriani C, Corbetta S et al (2023) Bone quality in endocrine diseases: determinants and clinical relevance. J Endocrinol Invest 46:1283–1304 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 86.Giustina A, Barkhoudarian G, Beckers A et al (2020) Multidisciplinary management of acromegaly: a consensus. Rev Endocr Metab Disord. 10.1007/s11154-020-09588-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 87.Freda PU (2024) Impact of medical therapy for hormone-secreting pituitary tumors on bone. Pituitary 27:860–873. 10.1007/s11102-024-01421-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 88.Chiloiro S, Bianchi A, Giampietro A et al (2022) Second line treatment of acromegaly: Pasireotide or pegvisomant? Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab 36:101684. 10.1016/j.beem.2022.101684 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 89.Giustina A, Uygur MM, Frara S et al (2024) Standards of care for medical management of acromegaly in pituitary tumor centers of excellence (PTCOE). Pituitary 27:381–388. 10.1007/s11102-024-01397-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 90.Giustina A, Uygur MM, Frara S et al (2023) Pilot study to define criteria for Pituitary Tumors Centers of Excellence (PTCOE): results of an audit of leading international centers. Pituitary 26:583–596. 10.1007/s11102-023-01345-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

