Clinical Applicability of Patient- and Clinician-Reported Outcome Tools in the Management of Patients With Acromegaly

Rok Herman; Katja Goričar; Andrej Janež; Mojca Jensterle

doi:10.1016/j.eprac.2022.04.002

Clinical Applicability of Patient- and Clinician-Reported Outcome Tools in the Management of Patients With Acromegaly

Endocr Pract. 2022 Jul;28(7):678-683. doi: 10.1016/j.eprac.2022.04.002. Epub 2022 Apr 11.

Authors

Rok Herman¹, Katja Goričar², Andrej Janež¹, Mojca Jensterle³

Affiliations

¹ Department of Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolic Diseases, University Medical Center Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia; Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
² Pharmacogenetics Laboratory, Institute of Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
³ Department of Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolic Diseases, University Medical Center Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia; Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia. Electronic address: mojcajensterle@yahoo.com.

PMID: 35421593
DOI: 10.1016/j.eprac.2022.04.002

Abstract

Objective: We aimed to assess treatment outcomes and disease control status in patients with acromegaly using patient- and clinician-reported outcome tools and to analyze correlations among different components of both tools.

Methods: This cross-sectional study included 72 patients from a national referral center with a median follow-up of 8 (5-12) years. The baseline SAGIT score at diagnosis was determined retrospectively, whereas the follow-up SAGIT and acromegaly quality of life questionnaire (AcroQoL) results were assessed at the most recent visit and by additional telephone interviews.

Results: All SAGIT subscores decreased significantly from baseline to follow-up (global score from 14 to 4 [P < .001]). The SAGIT scores at baseline did not discriminate the current disease control status. However, a higher baseline SAGIT score and subscore T were associated with uncontrolled disease after the first-line treatment. Diagnostic delay was correlated with baseline S, A, G, and global SAGIT scores. At the follow-up, the global SAGIT score discriminated between cured/controlled and uncontrolled groups (4 vs 6 [P = .007]). The AcroQoL score was 69.3, with the personal relations subscale being the least affected and the physical scale being the most affected. There was no difference in the AcroQoL score between patients classified as uncontrolled or cured/controlled. At baseline and follow-up, there were significant negative correlations between S and A subscores and AcroQoL score. A higher body mass index, the presence of swelling, joint symptoms, headaches, sleep apnea, and hypertension significantly impaired quality of life.

Conclusion: Our results emphasize the complementary nature of the patient- and clinician-reported outcome tools in acromegaly management. We identified modifiable signs, symptoms, and comorbidities as treatment targets that might help clinicians improve quality of life in this population.

Keywords: AcroQoL; SAGIT instrument; acromegaly; disease status; quality of life.

MeSH terms

Acromegaly* / drug therapy
Acromegaly* / therapy
Cross-Sectional Studies
Delayed Diagnosis
Humans
Patient Reported Outcome Measures
Quality of Life
Retrospective Studies
Surveys and Questionnaires