Management of acromegaly in Latin America: expert panel recommendations

Although there are international guidelines orienting physicians on how to manage patients with acromegaly, such guidelines should be adapted for use in distinct regions of the world. A panel of neuroendocrinologists convened in Mexico City in August of 2007 to discuss specific considerations in Latin America. Of major discussion was the laboratory evaluation of acromegaly, which requires the use of appropriate tests and the adoption of local institutional standards. As a general rule to ensure diagnosis, the patient`s GH level during an oral glucose tolerance test and IGF-1 level should be evaluated. Furthermore, to guide treatment decisions, both GH and IGF-1 assessments are required. The treatment of patients with acromegaly in Latin America is influenced by local issues of cost, availability and expertise of pituitary neurosurgeons, which should dictate therapeutic choices. Such treatment has undergone profound changes because of the introduction of effective medical interventions that may be used after surgical debulking or as first-line medical therapy in selected cases. Surgical resection remains the mainstay of therapy for small pituitary adenomas (microadenomas), potentially resectable macroadenomas and invasive adenomas causing visual defects. Radiotherapy may be indicated in selected cases when no disease control is achieved despite optimal surgical debulking and medical therapy, when there is no access to somatostatin analogues, or when local issues of cost preclude other therapies. Since not all the diagnostic tools and treatment options are available in all Latin American countries, physicians need to adapt their clinical management decisions to the available local resources and therapeutic options.

Management of Common Bile Duct Stones in Cirrhotic Patients with Coagulopathy: A Comparison of Supra-Papillary Puncture and Standard Cannulation Technique

Bleeding is not uncommon following endoscopic sphincterotomy. Supra-papillary puncture (SPP) might be safer than standard cannulation (SC) techniques in patients with coagulopathy. The aim of the study was to compare the safety and effectiveness of SPP and SC. This was a prospective case control intervention study. Decompensated cirrhotic patients with coagulopathy and choledocolithiasis underwent SC and SPP methods for biliary access. One hundred five patients (56 [53.3%] men, mean [SD] age 56 [15.8]) underwent ERCP. SC and SPP were performed in 63 and 42 patients, respectively. Biliary access was achieved in 56/63 (89%) and 40/42 (95%) of patients undergoing SC and SPP, respectively (P = 0.13; 95% CI [-0.16; 0.03]). Complications occurred in 10/63 (15.8%) patients undergoing SC and 5/42 (11.9%) SPP (P = 0.28; 95% CI [-0.17, 0.16]). Five (7.9%) and two (3.2%) episodes of post-sphincterotomy bleeding was seen in the SC and SPP groups, respectively (P = 0.36; 95% CI [-0.16, 0.05]). In contrast, three (4.8%) episodes of pancreatitis were seen in the SC and none in the SPP group (P = 0.05; 95% CI [0.001; 0.004]). A cost-effectiveness analysis demonstrated that SPP is an acceptable alternative at an ICER of US$ 5,974.92 per additional successful procedure. SPP is a safe and effective technique for the management of common bile duct stones in decompensated cirrhotic patients. Conditional to the willingness-to-pay and to the local ERCP-related costs, SPP is also a cost-effective alternative to the SC methods. SPP is associated with a lower rate of complications but larger studies to validate these findings are necessary.