Purpose: A previous study found high rates of proptosis regression after teprotumumab treatment for thyroid eye disease, though having been published relatively early in the teprotumumab era, it had gaps in follow-up frequency and duration. This study extends on the previously reported cohort to better understand teprotumumab’s durability. Methods: Retrospective analysis of all patients who completed all 8 teprotumumab infusions at 1 institution from January 1, 2020 to December 31, 2022. Primary outcomes were proptosis regression at most recent follow-up compared with immediately posttreatment and pretreatment. Results: Of 113 patients, 150 (66.4%) eyes of 83 patients had regression at most recent follow-up (mean 20.4 months posttreatment) compared with immediately posttreatment, averaging 2.8 mm (range 0.5–10.0). Ninety-five eyes of 55 patients (42.0%) regressed by ≥2 mm (mean 3.8, range 2.0–10.0). Mean time to first documentation of regression was 10.2 months (range 2.7–39.0); 67.2% of eyes continued to worsen after initial regression. Compared with pretreatment, 137 eyes of 77 patients (60.6%) had net improvement, averaging 2.7 mm (range 0.5–10.0), while 71 eyes of 43 patients (31.4%) regressed to become worse than pretreatment by 1.8 mm (range 0.5–5.0). Thyroid eye disease flare occurred in 61 (54.0%) patients, defined as a clinical activity score increase ≥2 (n = 6, 5.3%), proptosis regression ≥2 mm (n = 37, 32.7%), or both (n = 18, 15.9%). Conclusions: This extended follow-up analysis demonstrated proptosis regression after teprotumumab in two-thirds of eyes at long-term follow-up, with one-third worsening beyond pretreatment proptosis. Two-thirds continued to worsen after initial regression, and over half of patients developed a thyroid eye disease flare. Though most patients maintained net improvement, these results suggest that proptosis effects are not durable in most patients after standard teprotumumab dosing.
Rosenblatt et al. (Mon,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: