Back

Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Medical Treatments for Cushing's Disease: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Kumar, S.; Rawat, A.; Sanapala, K.; K A, A.; Dhall, S.; Prajapati, S. D.; Patel, M. K.; Das, A.; Ramteke, H. D.; Khan, R.

2025-09-02 endocrinology
10.1101/2025.09.01.25334840
Show abstract

IntroductionCushings disease (CD) is a rare endocrine disorder characterized by excessive cortisol production due to a pituitary adenoma secreting ACTH, leading to a range of systemic effects including obesity, hypertension, and hyperglycemia. The condition is often underdiagnosed, with an incidence of 2-3 cases per million people annually. While surgery remains the first-line treatment, adjunctive medical therapies are essential for non-surgical candidates or those with recurrent disease. This systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of medical treatments for Cushings disease. MethodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted across PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies published between 2010 and 2023. Studies were included if they assessed the efficacy and/or safety of medical treatments for Cushings disease. Data extraction was performed independently by two reviewers. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for RCTs and ROBS 2.0 for observational studies. Network meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model to compare treatments across different outcomes. ResultsA total of 29 studies involving 1,736 patients were included in the analysis. The patient cohort comprised 600 males (34.5%) and 1,132 females (65.5%), with an average age of 41.09 years. Among the treatments, 960 patients (55.3%) received Pasireotide, 143 (8.2%) Osilodrostat, 126 (7.3%) Mifepristone, and 176 (10.1%) Levoketoconazole. In terms of 24-hour urinary free cortisol (UFC) reduction, Levoketoconazole showed a mean difference of -329 (95% CI: -2.33e+03, 1.70e+03), Mifepristone -381 (95% CI: -3.27e+03, 1.74e+03), Osilodrostat -214 (95% CI: -1.60e+03, 1.25e+03), and Pasireotide -331 (95% CI: -1.75e+03, 1.09e+03). Despite all treatments reducing UFC levels, the broad confidence intervals suggest substantial uncertainty in the efficacy estimates. Regarding the change in cortisol levels, Mifepristone showed a mean difference of 290 (95% CI: -285, 888), Osilodrostat 15.6 (95% CI: -806, 835), and Pasireotide -6.17 (95% CI: -821, 815), indicating considerable variability in treatment effects. The analysis of ACTH levels revealed similar trends, with Levoketoconazole and Mifepristone showing more pronounced reductions compared to Osilodrostat. In terms of overall survival, Levoketoconazole demonstrated a survival rate of 0.82 (95% CI: 0.72-0.91), while Mifepristone had a pooled survival rate of 0.94 (95% CI: 0.86-1.02). The analysis of disease-free survival indicated an overall pooled survival rate of 0.80 (95% CI: 0.70-0.90). Quality of life (QOL) improvements were variable, with Osilodrostat showing a mean difference of -11.72 (95% CI: -18.32, -5.12). There were no significant differences in the risk of gastrointestinal, cardiovascular, or neurological adverse events between treatments. ConclusionThis systematic review and network meta-analysis provide valuable insights into the comparative efficacy and safety of medical treatments for Cushings disease. While Pasireotide and Levoketoconazole consistently reduce UFC levels, Mifepristone and Osilodrostat also show potential, albeit with greater variability in clinical outcomes. The high heterogeneity observed across studies suggests the need for further research to refine treatment strategies and optimize patient management. Personalized treatment approaches, incorporating both efficacy and safety considerations, will be crucial for improving outcomes and minimizing the burden of this disease.

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism
based on 26 papers
Top 0.1%
47.5%
2
PLOS ONE
based on 1737 papers
Top 65%
5.5%
50% of probability mass above
3
Frontiers in Endocrinology
based on 20 papers
Top 1%
3.5%
4
Journal of Clinical Medicine
based on 77 papers
Top 3%
3.5%
5
Scientific Reports
based on 701 papers
Top 45%
3.5%
6
eLife
based on 262 papers
Top 14%
1.9%
7
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
based on 21 papers
Top 1%
1.5%
8
BMC Medicine
based on 155 papers
Top 13%
1.5%
9
Cureus
based on 64 papers
Top 11%
1.5%
10
Frontiers in Physiology
based on 18 papers
Top 2%
1.0%
11
European Respiratory Journal
based on 44 papers
Top 4%
1.0%
12
Journal of Affective Disorders
based on 72 papers
Top 5%
1.0%
13
Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety
based on 12 papers
Top 1%
0.8%
14
Nature Communications
based on 483 papers
Top 40%
0.8%
15
Metabolites
based on 10 papers
Top 0.9%
0.8%
16
Critical Care
based on 14 papers
Top 2%
0.8%
17
Journal of Medical Genetics
based on 22 papers
Top 2%
0.5%
18
BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care
based on 14 papers
Top 2%
0.5%
19
Communications Medicine
based on 63 papers
Top 5%
0.5%
20
Clinical and Translational Science
based on 14 papers
Top 3%
0.5%
21
Annals of Translational Medicine
based on 14 papers
Top 5%
0.5%
22
The Lancet Rheumatology
based on 11 papers
Top 1%
0.5%
23
Frontiers in Pharmacology
based on 27 papers
Top 5%
0.5%
24
Obesity
based on 11 papers
Top 2%
0.5%
25
Journal of Infection and Public Health
based on 15 papers
Top 3%
0.5%
26
Journal of Infection and Chemotherapy
based on 15 papers
Top 1.0%
0.5%
27
Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism
based on 14 papers
Top 2%
0.5%
28
Frontiers in Medicine
based on 99 papers
Top 22%
0.5%