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

Introduction

Cushing’s 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 Cushing’s disease.

Methods

A 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 Cushing’s 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.

Results

A 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.

Conclusion

This systematic review and network meta-analysis provide valuable insights into the comparative efficacy and safety of medical treatments for Cushing’s 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.