Advertisement

Hypophysen- und Hypothalamushormone

  • Ulrich Schwabe

Zusammenfassung

Hauptvertreter der Hypophysen- und Hypothalamushormone sind Wachstumshormon, Somatostatin, Gonadotropinpräparate und Vasopressinanaloga. Wachstumshormonpräparate haben ihre bisherige Aufwärtsentwicklung nicht weiter fortgesetzt, sind aber mit Kosten von 190 Mio. € weiterhin die umsatzstärkste Gruppe der Hypophysen-und Hypothalamushormone. Leichte Zunahmen zeigen Somatostatinanaloga (86 Mio. €) und Follitropinpräparate (48 Mio. €). Die Verordnungskosten der Vasopressinanaloga für die Behandlung des zentralen Diabetes insipidus waren annähernd konstant (17 Mio. €).

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  1. Al-Inany HG, Abou-Setta AM, Aboulghar M (2006): Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonists for assisted conception. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006 Jul 19; 3: CD00175–0Google Scholar
  2. Andrejak M, Tribouilloy C (2013): Drug-induced valvular heart disease: an update. Arch Cardiovasc Dis 106: 333–339PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. de Mouzon J, Allavena E, Schmitt C, Frappe M (2004): In vitro fertilization in France: economic aspects and influence of the gonadotropin choice (urinary vs. recombinant) on cost. Gynecol Obstet Fertil 32: 508–518. [Article in French]PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Fleseriu M (2011): Clinical efficacy and safety results for dose escalation of somatostatin receptor ligands in patients with acromegaly: a literature review. Pituitary 14: 184–193PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. International Recombinant Human Chorionic Gonadotropin Study Group (2001): Induction of ovulation in World Health Organization group II anovulatory women undergoing follicular stimulation with recombinant human follicle-stimulating hormone: a comparison of recombinant human chorionic gonadotropin (rhCG) and urinary hCG. Fertil Steril 75: 1111–1118Google Scholar
  6. Liu H, Bravata DM, Olkin I, Nayak S, Roberts B, Garber AM, Hoffman AR (2007): Systematic review: the safety and efficacy of growth hormone in the healthy elderly. Ann Intern Med 146: 104–115PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Löndahl M, Nilsson A, Lindgren H, Katzman P (2008): A case of constrictive pericarditis during cabergoline treatment for hyperprolactinaemia. Eur J Endocrinol 158: 583–585PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Melmed S (2006): Acromegaly. N Engl J Med 355: 2558–2573PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) (2002): Guidance on the use of human growth hormone (somatropin) in children with growth failure. Technology Appraisal No. 42. Internet: www.nice.org.uk/page.aspx?o= TA042guidanceGoogle Scholar
  10. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) (2003): Human growth hormone (somatropin) in adults with growth hormone deficiency. Technology Appraisal 64. Internet: www.nice.org.uk/page.aspx?o=TA064guidanceGoogle Scholar
  11. Pacchiarotti A, Sbracia M, Frega A, Selman H, Rinaldi L, Pacchiarotti A (2010): Urinary hMG (Meropur) versus recombinant FSH plus recombinant LH (Pergoveris) in IVF: a multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril 94: 2467–2469PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Perales-Puchalt A, Legro RS (2013): Ovulation induction in women with polycystic ovary syndrome. Steroids 78: 767–772PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Savage MO, Drake WM, Carroll PV, Monson JP (2004): Transitional care of GH deficiency: when to stop GH therapy. Eur J Endocrinol 151 Suppl 1: S61–65Google Scholar
  14. Striegel H, Simon P (2007): Doping: High-Tech-Betrug im Sport. Internist: 48: 737–742PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. van der Lely AJ, Biller BM, Brue T, Buchfelder M, Ghigo E, Gomez R, Hey-Hadavi J, Lundgren F, Rajicic N, Strasburger CJ, Webb SM, Koltowska-Häggström M (2013): Long-term safety of pegvisomant in patients with acromegaly: comprehensive review of 1288 subjects in ACROSTUDY. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 97: 1589–1597Google Scholar
  16. van Wely M, Kwan I, Burt AL, Thomas J, Vail A, Van der Veen F, Al-Inany HG (2011): Recombinant versus urinary gonadotrophin for ovarian stimulation in assisted reproductive technology cycles. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Feb 16; 2: CD00535–4Google Scholar
  17. van Wely M, Kwan I, Burt AL, Thomas J, Vail A, Van der Veen F, Al-Inany HG (2012): Recombinant versus urinary gonadotrophin for ovarian stimulation in assisted reproductive technology cycles. A Cochrane review. Hum Reprod Update 18: 11–1CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ulrich Schwabe
    • 1
  1. 1.Pharmakologisches InstitutUniversität HeidelbergHeidelberg

Personalised recommendations