Source comparison
Tesamorelin Lipodystrophy Results Timeline: Comparison by Patient Subgroup
HIV lipodystrophy (protease inhibitor regimen) 180–220 cm² 18–22% (32–48 cm² loss) −4.2 to −5.1 cm Protease inhibitors suppress endogenous GH; tesamorelin restores pulsatility more effectively in this group HIV lipodystrophy (integrase inhibitor regimen) 160–1
This comparison does not assign a generated winner or score.
- HIV lipodystrophy (protease inhibitor regimen)
- 180–220 cm²
- 18–22% (32–48 cm² loss)
- −4.2 to −5.1 cm
- Protease inhibitors suppress endogenous GH; tesamorelin restores pulsatility more effectively in this group
- HIV lipodystrophy (integrase inhibitor regimen)
- 160–190 cm²
- 14–18% (22–34 cm² loss)
- −3.5 to −4.0 cm
- Lower baseline GH suppression; tesamorelin effect is less pronounced but still clinically meaningful
- Non-HIV central obesity (off-label use)
- 140–170 cm²
- 10–14% (14–24 cm² loss)
- −2.8 to −3.5 cm
- Lack of FDA approval; limited long-term safety data outside HIV cohorts; less dramatic response than lipodystrophy patients
- Women vs men (HIV lipodystrophy)
- Women: 155–185 cm² / Men: 190–230 cm²
- Women: 16–19% / Men: 17–21%
- Women: −3.6 to −4.0 cm / Men: −4.0 to −4.8 cm
- Women show slightly lower absolute VAT loss but similar percentage reductions; hormonal differences affect GH receptor density
- Professional Assessment
- Baseline VAT determines absolute loss magnitude; percentage reductions remain consistent across subgroups. Protease inhibitor patients show most dramatic improvement due to severe baseline GH suppression. Off-label use lacks robust Phase 3 data.