Dual growth hormone (GH) response to repeated GH releasing hormone stimulus in children and adults

Several authors have demonstrated that plasma growth hormone (GH) levels as response to acute GH releasing hormone (GHRH) stimulation in adults are decreased by a previous GHRH injection whereas they are maintained in children. Probably the most accepted hypothesis for this finding is the increase in the somatostatinergic tone. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the dual GH response to repeated GHRH stimuli to clarify the possible influence of somatostatinergic activity in the type of response. Eighteen healthy prepubertal children, mean age 9.2 years (range: 6.0-12.9 years) and 19 healthy adult volunteers, mean age 25.5 years (range: 17-35 years) were studied with the GHRH test. An additional group of 10 normal adults with similar characteristics (mean age 31 years, range 25-35 years) were also recruited as a control group for somatostatinergic assessment. The GH response to the first GHRH bolus was similar in both children and adults. However, while children showed a preserved response to the second stimulus, it was diminished in adults. As expected, thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) was within the normal range in all subjects. When the evolution of TSH was compared between the group of non-responders and the control group, no significant differences were found either at basal time or at 120 min, showing a similar decreasing trend for serum TSH level. The variation of TSH levels were also expressed as the proportion of TSH response after 2 hours compared to the basal level (TSH-120/TSH-0) but no significant differences were found (GHRH non-responders group mean: 73.6%, range: 51.3-93.7; control group mean: 70.7%, range: 62.9-92.5). In conclusion, the results confirm that in adults but not in children, the somatotrope responsiveness to GHRH is inhibited by a previous bolus of GHRH. The finding that the plasma TSH level diminishes in a similar manner in both non-responders and the control group is in agreement with the rejection of the hypothesis of the influence of somatostatin.     

Plasma growth hormone (GH) responses to growth hormone releasing factor (hp GRF 1-44) in familial GH deficiency

In four children with familial GH deficiency peak and integrated GH responses to an acute intravenous bolus of hp GRF 1-44 were lower than in 18 children with non-familial idiopathic GH deficiency and in 5 children with structural hypothalamic abnormalities. It is possible that the familial forms of GH deficiency described may be due to absence or biological inactivity of endogenous GRF or possibly GRF receptor or post receptor abnormalities.     

Oral administration of arginine enhances the growth hormone response to growth hormone releasing hormone in short children

We have evaluated the effect of oral administration of arginine chlorhydrate on the growth hormone response to growth hormone releasing hormone in a group of nine short prepubertal children (six boys and four girls). Arginine chlorhydrate 10 g, administered orally 60 min before an iv bolus injection of growth hormone releasing hormone 1–29, 1 μg/kg, significantly enhanced the growth hormone response to the neuropeptidc, confirming the results of previous studies which used the iv route. Furthermore, our data strengthen the view that the effects of arginine chlorhydrate on growth hormone secretion are mediated by inhibition of endogenous somatostatin release.     

Oral administration of arginine enhances the growth hormone response to growth hormone releasing hormone in short children

We have evaluated the effect of oral administration of arginine chlorhydrate on the growth hormone response to growth hormone releasing hormone in a group of nine short prepubertal children (six boys and four girls). Arginine chlorhydrate 10 g, administered orally 60 min before an iv bolus injection of growth hormone releasing hormone 1–29, 1 μg/kg, significantly enhanced the growth hormone response to the neuropeptidc, confirming the results of previous studies which used the iv route. Furthermore, our data strengthen the view that the effects of arginine chlorhydrate on growth hormone secretion are mediated by inhibition of endogenous somatostatin release.     

Adult height after growth hormone (GH) treatment for GH deficiency due to cranial irradiation

BACKGROUND: The indications and factors affecting the growth in response to treatment with growth hormone (GH) of patients with cranial irradiation-induced GH deficiency remain unclear. PROCEDURE: The adult heights of 56 patients treated with GH (0.4-0.6 U/kg/week) as daily sc injections were analysed. They had been given 18 or 24 Grays (Gy) cranial irradiation for leukemia (group 1, 26 cases), 50 +/- 1 Gy for various tumors (group 2, 13 cases), 46 +/- 1 Gy for retinoblastoma (group 3, 8 cases), or 34 +/- 2 Gy with spinal irradiation for medulloblastoma (group 4, 9 cases). Twenty- five of these 56 patients had early puberty and were also treated with gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analog. RESULTS: The standing (-1.0 +/- 0.2 in group 1, -0.7 +/- 0.3 in group 2, -1.1 +/- 0.3 in group 3, and -2.0 +/- 0.4 SD in group 4) and sitting (-1.8 +/- 0.2 in group 1, -0.4 +/- 0.4 in group 2, -1.2 +/- 0.4 in group 3, and -3. 4 +/-0.4 SD in group 4) adult heights were shor ter (P < 0.05 for standing and P < 0.001 for sitting heights) for group 4 than for each of the other groups. Of the 47 patients given cranial (and not craniospinal) irradiation, sitting adult height was shorter (P = 0. 02) and the difference between standing adult and target heights greater (P = 0.03) in those patients in whom puberty occurred at a normal age than in those treated with GnRH analog. Conclusion. The incomplete catch-up of growth seems to be mainly due to the reduction in sitting height of patients given spinal irradiation and in whom puberty occurred at a normal age. This suggests that GnRH analog treatment should be more widely used to treat children with early and/or rapidly progressing puberty after cranial irradiation.     

Circulating immunoreactive growth hormone releasing hormone concentrations and growth hormone response to growth hormone releasing hormone in short children

To study the role of peripheral immunoreactive growth hormone releasing hormone (ir-GHRH) concentrations and the GHRH test in the evaluation of growth hormone (GH) secretion in short stature, 46 children with a mean age of 9.4 years (range 1.6–16.3 years) and a mean relative height score of –3.2 SD (range –5.0–2.1 SD) were investigated. The children were divided into prepubertal (n=35) and pubertal (n=11) and the prepubertal children further into three groups based on their maximal GH responses to insulin-induced hypoglycaemia (IIH) and clonidine: (1) GH deficient subjects (maximal GH<10 g/l in both test); (2) discordant responders (maximal GH<10 g/l in one test and 10 g/l in the other); and (3) normal responders (maximal GH10 g/l in both test). Peripheral ir-GHRH concentrations were measured during the IIH test by radioimmunoassay after purification of plasma samples on Sep-pak cartridges. Among the prepubertal children 10 fell into group 1, 16 into group 2 and 9 into group 3. Children in group 1 were older, than those in group 3. There were no significant differences in relative heights and weights or absolute and relative growth velocities between the groups. Subjects in groups 1 and 2 had lower maximal GH responses to GHRH than those in group 3. There were no significant differences in the basal plasma ir-GHRH concentrations between the groups. Nine children (19.6%) had somatotrophs with a poor response to a single dose of exogenous GHRH (maximal GH<10 g/l). These subjects had increased basal plasma ir-GHRH concentrations. All of them had a decreased GH response to IIH and/or clonidine. Pubertal children had higher circulating ir-GHRH levels than the prepubertal subjects. There was an inverse correlation (r=–0.46;P<0.001) between the maximal GH response to GHRH and calendar age in the whole series. These observations suggest that: (1) a substantial proportion of short children have a heterogenous GH response to pharmacological stimuli necessitating complementary evaluation of their spontaneous GH secretion; (2) a poor response to exogenous GHRH is associated with increased ir-GHRH levels in the peripheral circulation; (3) all children with normal GH responses in pharmacological tests respond normally to GHRH and (4) the pituitary sensitivity to GHRH decreases with increasing age. Peripheral ir-GHRH concentrations do not differentiate between short children with growth hormone deficiency (GHD) and those with undefined short stature. The GHRH test is of limited value in the diagnosis of GHD, since a normal GH response does not exclude GHD, although a subnormal response appears to reflect dysfunctional GH secretion.     

High-dose growth hormone (GH) treatment in prepubertal GH-deficient children

Two clinical studies were conducted to determine the effect of different doses of growth hormone (GH) on prepubertal growth in GH-deficient boys. In one study, GH doses of 1.0 and 1.5 IU/kg/week (0.33 and 0.5 mg/kg/week) were given to groups of five children and compared with a conventional Japanese dose of 0.5 IU/kg/week (0.17 mg/kg/week) in 15 children. A significant dose-dependent increase in height velocity occurred in the first year of treatment, but differences between doses were not significant thereafter. In a second study, GH was administered to ten boys at a dose of 0.5 IU/kg/week for the first year, 0.75 IU/kg/week for the second year, 1.0 IU/kg/week for the third year and 0.5 IU/kg/week for the fourth and subsequent years (0.17, 0.25, 0.33 and 0.17 mg/kg/week, respectively). During the second and third years of GH treatment, these boys had significantly higher growth rates than controls, who were given GH at 0.5 IU/kg/week (0.17 mg/kg/week) throughout, indicating successful reduction in 'waning' of the treatment effect. At the end of the fourth year, the different protocols from the two studies had both resulted in a greater height SDS than the controls, and did not advance bone maturation. In conclusion, these protocols may be effective in increasing prepubertal height gain in children with GH deficiency.     

High-dose growth hormone (GH) treatment in prepubertal GH-deficient children

Yokoya S, Araki K, Igarashi Y, Kohno H, Nishi Y, Hasegawa Y, Fujita K, Iwatani N, Tachibana K, Ohyama Y, Seino Y, Satoh M, Fujieda K, Tanaka T. High-dose growth hormone (GH) treatment in prepubertal GH-deficient children. Acta Pædiatr 1999; Suppl 428: 76–9. Stockholm. ISSN 0803–5326
Two clinical studies were conducted to determine the effect of different doses of growth hormone (GH) on prepubertal growth in GH-deficient boys. In one study, GH doses of 1.0 and 1.5 IU/kg/week (0.33 and 0.5 mg/kg/week) were given to groups of five children and compared with a conventional Japanese dose of 0.5 IU/kg/week (0.17 mg/kg/week) in 15 children. A significant dose-dependent increase in height velocity occurred in the first year of treatment, but differences between doses were not significant thereafter. In a second study, GH was administered to ten boys at a dose of 0.5 IU/kg/week for the first year, 0.75 IU/kg/week for the second year, 1.0 IU/kg/week for the third year and 0.5 IU/kg/week for the fourth and subsequent years (0.17, 0.25, 0.33 and 0.17 mg/kg/week, respectively). During the second and third years of GH treatment, these boys had significantly higher growth rates than controls, who were given GH at 0.5 IU/kg/week (0.17 mg/kg/week) throughout, indicating successful reduction in'waning'of the treatment effect. At the end of the fourth year, the different protocols from the two studies had both resulted in a greater height SDS than the controls, and did not advance bone maturation. In conclusion, these protocols may be effective in increasing prepubertal height gain in children with GH deficiency. □ Growth hormone, growth hormone deficiency, high dose     

Comparison of growth hormone releasing hormone therapy and growth hormone therapy in growth hormone deficiency

Seven children with growth hormone deficiency of hypothalamic origin responded to an i.v. bolus of growth hormone releasing hormone (GHRH) (1–29)-NH2 with a mean serum increase of 10.7 ng/ml growth hormone (GH) (range 2.5–29.3 ng/ml). Continuous s.c. administration of GHRH of 4–6 g/kg twice daily for at least 6 months did not improve the growth rate in five of the patients. One patient increased his growth rate from 1.9 to 3.8 cm/year and another from 3.5 to 8.2 cm/year; however, the growth rate of the latter patient then decreased to 5.4 cm/year. When treatment was changed to recombinant human growth hormone (rhGH) in a dose of 2 U/m² daily, given s.c. at bedtime, the growth rate improved in all patients to a mean of 8.5 cm/year (range: 6.2 to 14.6). Presently GHRH cannot be recommended for the routine therapy of children with growth hormone deficiency since a single daily dose of rhGH produced catch-up growth which GHRH therapy did not.Abbreviations GH growth hormone - GHD growth hormone deficiency - GHRH growth hormone releasing hormone - hGH human growth hormone - rhGH recombinant human growth hormone - SM C/IGF I somatomedin C/insulin-like growth factor I On the occasion of the 85th birthday of Prof. Dr.Dr.h.c. mult. Adolf Butenandt     

Growth response, pubertal growth and final height in Greek children with growth hormone (GH) deficiency on long-term GH therapy and factors affecting outcome

The growth data of 156 children (100 boys, 56 girls) with growth hormone deficiency (GHD), treated with human growth hormone (GH) for 5.7+/-3.7 years, from 1970-1997, were retrospectively analyzed to assess the efficacy of GH treatment and the factors involved. 62.2% of the studied population had idiopathic GHD (IGHD) and 35.2% had organic GHD (OGHD). At initiation of treatment, chronological age (CA) was 10.1+/-4.0 years in children with IGHD and 9.7+/-4.0 years in those with OGHD, while bone age (BA) was 7.0+/-3.7 and 7.7+/-3.2 years, respectively. The SDS of the growth velocity during the first year of therapy (GV1) was negatively related to CA at start of therapy (r = -0.53, p = 0.01). 109 children have reached final height (FH): 67 boys (FH = 165.3+/-6.3 cm) and 42 girls (FH = 153.9+/-5.4 cm). FH SDS was not significantly different from target height (TH) SDS. In the total group, FH SDS was positively related to height SDS for CA and BA at start of therapy (p = 0.01, p = 0.001, respectively), to TH SDS (r = 0.40, p = 0.001), and to GV1 (r = 0.33, p = 0.001). TH SDS was not different between the IGHD and OGHD groups (-1.02+/-0.8 vs. -0.94+/-6.9). The height gain at puberty did not differ between the groups with induced or spontaneous puberty in boys (23.7+/-8.6 vs. 25.4+/-6.9, not significant), while in girls it was higher in the group with spontaneous puberty (12.7+/-7.3 vs. 20.0+/-9.0, p = 0.008). The age and height at start of puberty was higher in girls and boys with induced puberty. In the total group, the FH SDS of children with induced puberty was higher in comparison with those with spontaneous puberty (-1.0+/-0.8 vs. -1.7+/-0.9, p = 0.001) and it was positively related to the height at start of puberty. When the two sexes were analyzed separately, the difference reached significance only in boys. In conclusion, children with GHD on GH treatment achieved a final height which was comparable to their genetic potential. The FH of children with OGHD was not different from those with IGHD. The age and height at start of puberty were the most significant determining factors for FH. Hence, a better FH might be expected by delaying or arresting puberty.     

A comparative study of growth hormone (GH) and GH-releasing hormone(1–29)-NH2 for stimulation of growth in children with GH deficiency

In this study, 60 patients with proven growth hormone deficiency (GHD) of hypothalamic origin were randomized into three equal groups, and received growth hormone-releasing hormone(1–29)-NH, (GHRH(1–29)-NH,), 30 or 60 μg/kg/day, or growth hormone (GH), 0.1 IU/kg/day, for 6 months. There were no significant differences in growth between the two groups given GHRH(1–29)-NH, but growth in the GH group was significantly better than in the other two groups ( p < 0.01). Mean height velocities at 6 months were 9.2, 9.3 and 14.6 cm/year for the three groups, respectively. Plasma GHRH concentrations increased steadily over the 6-month treatment period, with higher levels in the group on the higher dose. During GHRH(1–29)-NH₂ treatment, serum concentrations of insulin-like growth factor I rose initially, but then fell to values similar to those before treatment. No GH antibodies were detected, but all 20 patients on high-dose GHRH(1–29)-NH, and 19 of 20 patients on low-dose GHRH(1–29)-NH₂ developed GHRH antibodies. These had almost disappeared by 9 months after stopping treatment. There was no correlation between antibody titres and increase in height. No serious side-effects were seen, but three patients receiving GHRH(1–29)-NH, reported mild irritation at the injection site. These results from the continuous infusion of GHRH(1–29)-NH₂ over 6 months suggest that this treatment, or the related use of a depot preparation, is unlikely to be as effective as GH for the promotion of growth in GHD.     

Growth hormone (GH) provocation tests and the response to GH treatment in GH deficiency

Objective: To identify factors, particularly the growth hormone (GH) provocation test result, affecting growth response to GH treatment in children with GH deficiency (GHD). Subjects: A total of 337 prepubertal GHD patients aged <10 years from the UK Pharmacia KIGS database (GH response to provocation test <20 mU/l). Outcome measure: Annual change in height standard deviation score (SDS) (revised UK reference) in the first and second years of treatment. Results: Height increased by 0.74 SDS units (SD 0.39) in the first year of treatment and 0.37 units (SD 0.27) in the second. Adjusting for age, height, weight, midparent height, and injection frequency, the strongest predictor of first year growth response was the GH provocation test result; halving the result predicted an extra height increment of 0.09 units (p<0.0001). It predicted the second year response less well (p<0.0002) and after adjusting for the first year response was not predictive at all. Conclusions: Among patients referred for possible GHD, the GH provocation test, though not a gold standard for diagnosis, is a valuable predictor of growth response in the first year of treatment. A year''s treatment is recommended for cases with a marginal provocation test result, with the option to continue treatment if the response is adequate. The value of unified protocols for single or repeated provocation tests needs to be assessed.     

Diagnosis of growth hormone (GH) deficiency: comparison of pituitary stalk interruption syndrome and transient GH deficiency

Background  

Most patients with childhood non-organic growth hormone (GH) deficiency (GHD) produce a normal GH peak as young adults. Our objectives were to better define this transient GHD and evaluate the factors influencing the growth response of patients with pituitary stalk interruption syndrome (PSIS).     

Usefulness of growth hormone (GH) stimulation tests and IGF-I concentration measurement in GH deficiency diagnosis

The diagnosis of growth hormone (GH) deficiency (GHD) is still problematic for the clinician. There is no gold standard for estimating GH secretion. The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic usefulness of spontaneous GH secretion test, pharmacological tests with insulin, clonidine, L-dopa, and glucagon, and IGF-I measurement in GHD. We studied 180 prepubertal, short children. Predictive values were calculated for different GH cutoff levels for each diagnostic test. ROC curves were used to estimate the diagnostic usefulness of the tests. The results show that sleep is the strongest stimulatory agent for GH secretion. The estimation of GH secretion after onset of sleep can be used as a screening test in GHD diagnosis. The insulin test has the highest discrimination. A combination of insulin test with another provocative test allows high discrimination and accuracy for standard cut-off GH level. Measurement of IGF-I is characterized by low predictive values. IGF-I level below the mean according to age indicates high probability of GHD. Auxological parameters should be the most important factor in diagnosing GHD.     

Growth hormone releasing hormone receptor (GHRH-r) gene mutation in Indian children with familial isolated growth hormone deficiency: a study from western India

BACKGROUND: Various mutations of the growth hormone releasing hormone receptor (GHRH-R) gene have been recently described to cause familial isolated growth hormone (GH) deficiency (FIGHD), with the GHRH-R nonsense mutation E72X reported in patients with FIGHD from South Asia. The molecular genetic basis of FIGHD in Indian children is not known. Objective: To look for the GHRH-R E72X non-sense mutation in our patients with FIGHD and describe its clinical phenotype. PATIENTS AND METHOD: A total of 31 patients from 22 families diagnosed 4-20 years previously, 20 patients with familial IGHD-IB from 11 families and 11 patients with non-familial isolated GH deficiency (NFIGHD) (phenotypes IGHD-IB in eight patients and -IA in three) were included. Twenty-eight of 31 patients with IGHD-IB came from two states of Western India, 27 of them Hindus from 18 families (three consanguineous) and one from an inbred Moslem kindred. RESULTS: Twenty-two of the patients (71%) (18 FIGHD and four NFIGHD) had a homozygous G-->T transversion in exon 3, with this GHRH-R gene mutation E72X in 90% (18/20) of patients with FIGHD, 36% (4/11) of NFIGHD, altogether 78% (22/28) with phenotype IB. One parent pair with IGHD had homozygous E72X mutation, the rest were heterozygous carriers. Two siblings with IGHD due to homozygous E72X mutation were also heterozygous carriers for GH-1 gene 6.7 kb deletion, inherited from their mother, heterozygous for both GH-1 and GHRH-R mutations. Initial chronological age was 10.89 +/- 3.69 years, bone age 6.4 +/- 3.4 years, and mean height SDS was -5.83 +/- 1.41. The clinical phenotype, with sharp features, lean habitus, lack of frontal bossing or hypoglycemia, was characteristic. The mean peak GH was 1.25 +/- 0.75 ng/ml, IGF-I and IGFBP-3 below -2 SDS with no response to GHRH in those tested. MRI (n = 10) showed pituitary hypoplasia, mean vertical height 2.61 +/- 0.76 mm. Among the other 7/11 NFIGHD patients, four with phenotype IB were negative for genotypes tested in this study; of three patients with phenotype IA, two had the GH-1 gene 6.7 kb deletion, and one was a compound heterozygote with 6.7 and 7.6 kb deletions. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients with FIGHD from different communities belonged to non-consanguineous Hindu families from Western India. The GHRH-R gene E72X mutation was found in 71% of this series, in 90% of FIGHD, 36% of NFIGHD, and in 78% with phenotype IB. The characteristic phenotype helped in suspecting this mutation. GHRH-R gene mutations may be the most reasonable candidate for IGHD-IB with the E72X mutation predominating in the Indian subcontinent. More extensive studies need to be undertaken.     

Growth hormone (GH) provocation tests and the response to GH treatment in GH deficiency.

OBJECTIVE: To identify factors, particularly the growth hormone (GH) provocation test result, affecting growth response to GH treatment in children with GH deficiency (GHD). SUBJECTS: A total of 337 prepubertal GHD patients aged <10 years from the UK Pharmacia KIGS database (GH response to provocation test <20 mU/l). OUTCOME MEASURE: Annual change in height standard deviation score (SDS) (revised UK reference) in the first and second years of treatment. RESULTS: Height increased by 0.74 SDS units (SD 0.39) in the first year of treatment and 0.37 units (SD 0.27) in the second. Adjusting for age, height, weight, midparent height, and injection frequency, the strongest predictor of first year growth response was the GH provocation test result; halving the result predicted an extra height increment of 0.09 units (p<0.0001). It predicted the second year response less well (p<0.0002) and after adjusting for the first year response was not predictive at all. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients referred for possible GHD, the GH provocation test, though not a gold standard for diagnosis, is a valuable predictor of growth response in the first year of treatment. A year's treatment is recommended for cases with a marginal provocation test result, with the option to continue treatment if the response is adequate. The value of unified protocols for single or repeated provocation tests needs to be assessed.     

A practical approach to the diagnosis of growth hormone (GH) deficiency in patients transitioning to adulthood using GH stimulation testing

To establish the diagnosis of adult growth hormone deficiency (GHD), GH-deficient children transitioning to adulthood are evaluated by two separate stimuli 2 or more weeks after ceasing GH therapy. While 20-88% of children diagnosed with idiopathic GHD retest with normal values, those with proven genetic defects in GH production/secretion/bioactivity and patients with panhypopituitarism consistently test deficient. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) defines GHD in adults by stimulated peak serum GH concentrations <5 ng/ml if measured by polyclonal radioimmunoassays (RIA) or lower if measured by monoclonal assays. Some investigators define severe GHD by a peak GH concentration <3 ng/ml. Adult responses to arginine and glucagon testing are similar to the responses to insulin tolerance testing; clonidine, pyridostigmine, and galanin cause lesser peaks of GH. Growth hormone-releasing hormone (GHRH) combined with arginine, GH releasing peptide-6 (GHRP-6), or hexarelin leads to higher peak responses than GHRH alone. Thus the choice of testing methods impacts the diagnosis of GHD in transition patients.     

Effectiveness of growth hormone (GH) therapy in GH-deficient children and non-GH-deficient short children

The growth response during short-term growth hormone (GH) treatment was evaluated in eight prepubertal non-GH-deficient (non-GHD) children and compared with six prepubertal GH-deficient (GHD) patients. Standard doses of GH can improve growth rate in GHD and in some non-GHD patients. In neither group the growth response can be predicted by the acute increase in Thymidine Activity or Somatomedin-C levels. A diagnostic trial of GH treatment may be the only certain method of selecting the short non-GHD patients who may benefit from long-term GH therapy.Abbreviations GH growth hormone - GHD growth hormone deficient - Sm-C somatomedin C - TA thymidine activity