IGF-I assay methods and biologic variability: evaluation of acromegaly treatment response
- PMID: 38916798
- DOI: 10.1093/ejendo/lvae065
IGF-I assay methods and biologic variability: evaluation of acromegaly treatment response
Abstract
Serum insulin-like growth factor (IGF-I) is the primary biochemical measure of disease activity in patients with acromegaly, and the 2014 Endocrine Society guidelines recommended normal age-adjusted serum IGF-I as the biochemical target of treatment. However, quantification and interpretation of IGF-I levels are subject to limitations that may affect therapeutic decisions. Techniques for measuring IGF-I have evolved greatly over the past 40 years and continue to do so. Results can vary substantially for different assays, procedures, and laboratories. For any assay, the interpretation of IGF-I values requires robust reference ranges. Using currently available large normative databases, the upper limit of normal (ULN) for IGF-I in middle-aged and elderly individuals is lower than historical reference ranges. Thus, the goal of achieving IGF-I < 1× ULN is more demanding than in the past, and some patients with acromegaly who were classified as "normal" (IGF-I < 1× ULN) in previous studies would be reclassified as above the ULN based on newer normative data. In addition, substantial intra-individual, week-to-week variation in serum IGF-I levels (unrelated to assay performance) has been observed. With changes over time in the measurement of IGF-I and the advent of updated reference ranges derived from large normative databases, it is difficult to justify rigid adherence to the goal of maintaining IGF-I below the ULN for all patients with acromegaly. Instead, symptoms, comorbidities, and quality of life should be considered, along with growth hormone and IGF-I levels, when evaluating the need for further treatment.
Keywords: IGF-I; acromegaly; assay; treatment.
© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Endocrinology.
Conflict of interest statement
Conflict of interest: DRC is a consultant for Crinetics Pharmaceuticals and Amyolyt Pharmaceuticals. He has also served on advisory boards for Novo Nordisk. MB reports receiving research support, consultancy, and/or lecture fees from Camurus, Chiasma, Crinetics Pharmaceuticals, DiaSorin, Genexine, Genescience, IDS, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Ipsen Pharma, Merck, Midatech Pharma, Novartis, Ono Pharma, OPKO Health, Pfizer, Recordati, Roche, Sandoz, and StrongBridge Biopharma.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Miscellaneous