Growth hormone (GH) response to GH-releasing hormone in depression

To explore the GHRH-GH-somatomedin axis integrity in major depressive disorder, 11 drug-free patients and normal subjects matched for age, sex, ovarian status, and body weight received 1 microgram/kg synthetic human GHRH-44 amide as an iv bolus dose. Compared to the normal subjects, the depressed patients had reduced mean basal serum GH levels [2.2 +/- 0.5 (+/- SE) vs. 1.1 +/- 0.2 ng/mL (micrograms/L); P less than 0.05] and a significant attenuation of the net GH response to GHRH [1346 +/- 499 vs. 217 +/- 46 ng.min/mL (micrograms.min/L); P less than 0.01]. The blunted GH responses occurred in the face of significantly increased plasma somatomedin C (Sm-C) levels [1.1 +/- 0.2 vs. 0.6 +/- 0.1 U/mL; P less than 0.05]. The magnitude of GH responses to GHRH did not differ between men and women and was not significantly correlated with age, body weight, baseline serum GH levels, or plasma Sm-C levels in either individual groups or both groups combined. The increased plasma Sm-C levels in the depressed patients could have resulted from diurnal hypersecretion of GH, and the diminished GH responses to GHRH may reflect normal Sm-C-mediated feedback at the level of the pituitary. The presumed GH hypersecretion may be due to decreased hypothalamic somatostatin release and/or hyperactivity of GHRH-containing neurons. Thus, the pathological process resulting in abnormal GH secretory patterns associated with depression may occur primarily at a suprapituitary site.     

Growth hormone (GH) and prolactin responses to repetitive administration of GH-releasing hormone in acromegaly

We investigated the pattern of GH secretion in response to repetitive GH-releasing hormone (GHRH) administration in patients with active acromegaly and in normal subjects. Twelve acromegalic patients (nine women and 3 men; aged 21-76 yr) were studied. Eight had never been treated, whereas four had undergone neurosurgery but still had active disease. All patients and eight normal subjects received three doses of 50 micrograms GHRH, iv, at 2-h intervals. Seven patients were retested 6-8 weeks after transsphenoidal removal of a pituitary adenoma. There was a marked serum GH rise in acromegalic patients and normal subjects after the first GHRH dose [area under the curve, 2070 +/- 532 (+/- SE) vs. 1558 +/- 612 ng/min X ml, respectively; P = NS]. Successive GHRH doses stimulated GH release only in acromegalic patients (second dose, 1123 +/- 421 ng/min X ml; third dose, 2293 +/- 1049 ng/min X ml). In normal subjects, the GH response to the second and third GHRH doses was blunted (second dose, 86 +/- 32 ng/min X ml; third dose, 210 +/- 63 ng/min X ml; P less than 0.01). PRL secretion did not change in normal subjects, whereas 6 of 12 acromegalic patients had PRL release after each GHRH dose (PRL responders to GHRH). Transsphenoidal surgery led to normalization (less than 5 ng/ml) of the preoperatively elevated GH levels in all but 2 patients, who, however, had reduction of somatomedin-C levels. The amount of GH released in the postoperative test was significantly lower than that released preoperatively (first dose, 722 +/- 209 vs. 2945 +/- 743 ng/min X ml; second dose, 358 +/- 117 vs. 1737 +/- 633 ng/min X ml; third dose, 320 +/- 144 vs. 1776 +/- 676 ng/min X ml, respectively; P less than 0.05 in all instances). Thus, patients with active acromegaly, but not normal subjects, respond to repetitive GHRH administration at 2-h intervals with an increase in GH levels. This increase may be due to a larger releasable GH pool and/or faster GH turnover in the adenomatous cell.     

Growth hormone (GH) responses to the hexapeptide GH-releasing peptide and GH-releasing hormone (GHRH) in the cynomolgus macaque: evidence for non-GHRH-mediated responses.

GH-releasing peptide (GHRP; His-D-Trp-Ala-Trp-D-Phe-Lys-NH2), a hexapeptide derived from enkephalin, has been shown to have GH-releasing activity in man and several animal species. To characterize the GHRP dose-response curve and compare it with that of GH-releasing hormone [GHRH-(1-44)NH2], six unanesthetized young adult cynomolgus macaques were tested with a range of iv doses of GHRP or GHRH in random order. Animals were fitted with vests and tethers. Blood samples were obtained before and at 15-min intervals after the administration of drugs. Doses ranged from 0.03-3 mg/kg for GHRP and from 1-30 micrograms/kg for GHRH. The dose-response curves for the two peptides were not parallel. GHRP had lower potency, but evoked a much higher peak GH response than GHRH (greater than 55 vs. 12 micrograms/L). Because one of the proposed mechanisms of action of GHRP is the inhibition of somatostatin (SS), we tested the effects of propranolol, which inhibits SS, on the GH responses to GHRH and GHRP. Propranolol was given at a dose of 14 micrograms/kg, iv, 10 min before the injection of saline, GHRH (10 micrograms/kg), or GHRP (1 mg/kg). GH responses to propranolol alone did not differ from those to placebo (peak, 6 +/- 2 vs. 8 +/- 2 micrograms/L). However, propranolol pretreatment doubled the GH responses to both GHRH and GHRP compared with those to GHRH or GHRP alone 28 +/- 5 micrograms/L vs. 14 +/- 5 (P less than 0.05) and 54 +/- 2 vs. 25 +/- 6 micrograms/L (P less than 0.001), respectively]. These results show that GHRP causes a potent dose-dependent release of GH in this primate species. Since GHRP can produce a greater maximal GH response than GHRH, mechanisms other than release of endogenous GHRH must be involved.     

Growth hormone (GH) response to GH-releasing hormone in children with subnormal integrated concentrations of GH

We determined the GH responses to human GH-releasing hormone-40 (GHRH) in poorly growing children who had either normal or deficient GH secretion, as measured by pharmacological stimulation and integrated concentration of GH (IC-GH). Ten patients had both normal pharmacologically stimulated GH and IC-GH (GH-normal), 15 patients had normal pharmacologically stimulated GH but deficient IC-GH [GH neurosecretory dysfunction (GHND)], and the remaining 7 patients had both subnormal stimulated GH and IC-GH [GH deficiency (GHD)]. The mean peak plasma GH response to GHRH was 11.7 +/- 8.5 (+/- SD) ng/ml in GHD patients, significantly lower than the responses of both the GHND (49.2 +/- 39.2 ng/ml; P less than 0.0001) and GH-normal (51.8 +/- 44 ng/ml; P less than 0.0001) groups. The range of peak GH responses to GHRH in GHD patients overlapped the lower end of the range of responses in the GHND and GH-normal patients. Three GH-normal and eight GHND patients had greatly enhanced GH responses to GHRH (greater than 50 ng/ml); no GHD patients had a response over 24.2 ng/ml. There was no difference between the GH responses of male and female patients within groups to GHRH. There was a significant correlation between the log of the peak GH response to GHRH and the log of the maximal GH response to standard pharmacological stimuli (r = 0.51; P less than 0.005). Because of the variability of GH responses to GHRH encountered among the patients, the response to GHRH cannot be used as a test for identifying patients with inadequate spontaneous GH secretion. The IC-GH is the only method that can identify children with GHND.     

Growth hormone responses to GH-releasing peptide (GHRP-6) in hypothyroidism

OBJECTIVE Both spontaneous and stimulated GH secretion are reduced in patients with hypothyroidism. The mechanisms involved in these alterations are not yet fully understood. GHRP-6 is a synthetic hexapeptide that releases GH both in vivo and in vitro. Its mechanism of action is unknown, but there is evidence that this peptide acts as a functional somatostatin antagonist at pituitary level. The aim of this study was to evaluate the GH response to GHRP-6 in patients with primary hypothyroidism and in normal controls. DESIGN Patients with hypothyroidism and normal controls were randomly submitted to 3 tests with GHRH (100 μg i.v.), GHRP-6 (1 μg/kg i.v.) and GHRH + GHRP-6, on separate days. PATIENTS Eleven patients with primary hypothyroidism were compared with 10 control subjects. MEASUREMENTS GH, TSH and free T4 were measured by immunofluorometric assay and IGF-I by radioimmunoassay. RESULTS Hypothyroid patients had markedly lower peak GH values (mean ± SE μg/l) after GHRH administration (4.1 ± 0.9) compared to control subjects (24.9 ± 5.1). After GHRP-6 injection hypothyroid patients had a significantly higher GH release (12.6 ± 1.9) than that obtained with GHRH, while in control subjects GH values were similar (22.1 ± 3.6). No significant differences in peak GH responses were observed following the administration of either GHRP-6 alone (controls 22.1 ± 3.6; patients 12.6 ± 1.9) or in combination with GHRH (controls 77.4 ± 15.0; patients 52.8 ± 10.9), despite the trend to smaller responses in hypothyroid patients. CONCLUSION We have shown that patients with primary hypothyroidism have higher GH responses to GHRP-6 than to GHRH, which are markedly blunted. When GHRP-6 was associated with GHRH, a significant increase in the GH response was observed in these patients, which could suggest a role for somatostatin in this process. Our data suggest that thyroid hormones modulate GH release induced by GHRH and GHRP-6 through different mechanisms. However, additional studies are necessary to further elucidate this hypothesis.     

Growth hormone (GH) responses to GH-releasing hormone during pubertal development in normal boys and girls: comparison to idiopathic short stature and GH deficiency

The normal ranges for GH responses to GH-releasing hormone (GHRH) have previously been defined for adult men and women. To determine whether the GHRH responses of normal children differ from those of adults and whether children with GH deficiency (GHD) and children who are growing below the first percentile but are otherwise normal (ISS) have GH responses comparable to those of normal children, we studied 90 normal children, 46 girls and 44 boys, with heights between the 10th and 95th percentiles for age, at different pubertal stages. Their responses were compared to those of 24 children with ISS and 32 children with GHD and to values previously measured in young adult men and women. Girls were grouped by Tanner breast stages and boys by testicular volumes. Plasma somatomedin-C, estradiol or testosterone, and bone age were measured in all children. All received a 1 microgram/kg iv bolus dose of GHRH-(1-44)NH2, and GH responses were measured during a 2-h sampling period. Incremental serum GH responses in girls did not change throughout pubertal development and were similar to those of adult women. The responses in boys at midpuberty were somewhat lower (P less than 0.05) than those in either prepubertal boys or adult men. ISS children had mean GH responses [23 +/- 4 (+/- SE) ng/ml] similar to those of normal children. GHD children had significantly lower mean GH responses (11 +/- 3.7 ng/ml) than normal prepubertal children (35 +/- 4.0 ng/ml; P less than 0.01), but the responses of 17 of the 32 GHD children overlapped with the normal range. GH responses to GHRH were not correlated with bone age, weight, height, SmC levels, or estradiol or testosterone concentrations. These results indicate that GH responses to GHRH testing are relatively constant throughout puberty and young adulthood, that ISS children respond normally to GHRH, and that the GHRH test is not a reliable discriminator between individual normal and GHD children.     

Growth hormone (GH) response to GH-releasing peptide-6 and GH-releasing hormone in normal-weight and overweight patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus

The growth hormone (GH) response to GH-releasing hormone (GHRH) in patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (NIDDM) was found to be either decreased or normal. The recent introduction of a new and potent GH stimulus, GH-releasing peptide-6 (GHRP-6), allowed further investigation of the functional properties of somatotropes in a variety of metabolic diseases. The aim of the present study was to investigate the response of GH to GHRP-6, GHRH, and GHRP-6 + GHRH in NIDDM patients. Twenty-one patients with NIDDM were divided into two groups: group A, normal weight (body mass index [BMI], 23.31+/-0.62 kg/m2); and group B, overweight (BMI, 27.62+/-0.72 kg/m2). Eight normal-weight control subjects (group C) were studied. Each subject received GHRP-6 (90 microg intravenously [i.v.]), GHRH (100 microg i.v.), and GHRP-6 + GHRH on three separate occasions. There was no difference between the GH response after GHRP-6 in groups A, B, and C in terms of the GH peak (50.95+/-11.55, 51.96+/-7.71, and 70.07+/-15.59 mU/L, P>.05) and the area under the curve (AUC) for GH (2,340.06+/-617.36, 2,684.54+/-560.57, 3,462.78+/-1,223.53 mU/L/120 min, P>.05). A decreased GH response to GHRH was found in group B in comparison to group A (B v A: peak GH response, 8.25+/-1.90 v 22.19+/-8.81, P<.05; AUC GH, 479.62+/-84.0 v 1,443.21+/-743.76, P<.05). There was no difference in the GH response between group A and group C (peak GH response, 22.19+/-8.81 v 26.42+/-6.71, P>.05; AUC, 1,443.21+/-743.76 v 1,476.51+/-386.56, P>.05). There was a significant difference between the same parameters in group B versus group C (8.25+/-1.90 v 26.42+/-6.71, P<.05; AUC, 479.62+/-84.0 v 1,476.51+/-386.56, P<.05). The combined administration of GHRP-6 + GHRH elicited a synergistic GH response in NIDDM patients and controls. There was a significant difference between groups A and B for the GH peak (96.49+/-9.80 v 68.38+/-8.25, P<.05), whereas there was no difference for the AUC (5,111.13+/-703.77 v 3,425.95+/-459.67, P>.05). There was no difference in the peak GH after the combined test between group A and group C (96.49+/-9.80 v 139.82+/-24.16, P>.05), whereas the peak GH in the same test was significantly decreased in group B in comparison to group C (68.38+/-8.25 v 139.82+/-24.16, P<.05). The AUC for GH after combined GHRP-6 + GHRH in group A versus group C was not significantly different (5,111.13+/-703.77 v 9,274.71+/-1,541.46, P>.05), whereas there was a significant difference for the same test between group B and group C (3,425.95+/-459.67 v 9,274.71+/-1,541.46, P<.05). Our results demonstrate that normal-weight NIDDM patients have a preserved GH response to GHRP-6, GHRH, and GHRP-6 + GHRH, and overweight NIDDM patients have a blunted response to GHRH and GHRP-6 + GHRH. The preserved GH response to GHRP-6 in both diabetic groups suggests that the secretory potential of somatotropes is preserved in NIDDM patients. The impairment of the GH response to GHRH in overweight NIDDM patients could be a functional defect due to the obesity, since it could be overridden by administration of GHRP-6.     

Impaired growth hormone (GH) response to GH-releasing hormone in thalassemia major

The response of GH to acute administration of GH-releasing hormone (GHRH) was evaluated in 19 patients with thalassemia major and 8 normal children. In 13 of the 19 patients, GHRH induced a definite increase (greater than 5 ng/ml) in plasma GH levels, with peaks occurring 5-45 min postinjection. In 6 patients there was little or no GH rise after GHRH treatment. Overall, the mean GH response to GHRH of patients with thalassemia was lower than that of normal children. These data indicate that in thalassemia major, in addition to the described defect at the hepatic GH receptor or postreceptor level which impedes generation of somatomedins, there may be a marked impairment in somatotroph function. In one patient in whom the GH response to GHRH was superimposable on that of normal subjects, there was a blunted GH response to insulin hypoglycemia. This finding indicates that functional damage in hypothalamic structures for GH control can also occur in thalassemic patients.     

Growth hormone (GH)-releasing peptide stimulates GH release in normal men and acts synergistically with GH-releasing hormone

The acute GH release stimulated by the synthetic hexapeptide, His-DTrp-Ala-Trp-DPhe-Lys-NH2 [GH releasing peptide (GHRP)], was determined in 18 normal men and compared with the effects of GH-releasing hormone, GHRH-(1-44)-NH2. Specificity of effect was assessed by measurement of serum PRL, LH, TSH, and cortisol. GHRP was administered at doses of 0.1, 0.3, and 1.0 microgram/kg by iv bolus. GHRH at a dose of 1.0 microgram/kg was administered alone and together with various does of GHRP. No adverse clinical effects of laboratory abnormalities were observed in response to GHRP. A side-effect of mild facial flushing of 1- to 3-min duration occurred in 16 of the 18 subjects who received GHRH-(1-44)-NH2. Mean (+/- SEM) peak serum GH levels after injection of placebo and 0.1, 0.3, and 1.0 microgram/kg GHRP were 1.2 +/- 0.3, 7.6 +/- 2.5, 16.5 +/- 4.1, and 68.7 +/- 15.5 micrograms/L, respectively. The submaximal dosages of 0.1 and 0.3 microgram/kg GHRP plus 1 microgram/kg GHRH stimulated GH release synergistically. Serum PRL and cortisol levels rose about 2-fold above basal levels only at the 1 microgram/kg dose of GHRP, and there were no changes in serum LH and TSH over the first hour after administration of the peptide(s). GHRP is a potent secretagogue of GH in normal men. Since GHRP and GHRH together stimulate GH release synergistically, these results suggest that GHRP and GHRH act independently. This supports our hypothesis that the GH-releasing activity of GHRP reflects a new physiological system in need of further characterization in animals and man.     

Growth hormone (GH) release after administration of GH-releasing hormone in relation to endogenous 24-h GH secretion in short children

Endogenous GH secretion was measured every 20 min for 24 h in 36 short children. This was immediately followed by an i.v. injection of GH-releasing hormone (GHRH)(1-29)-NH2 (1 microgram/kg), and GH was estimated every 15 min for the following 2 h. The aim was to determine whether endogenous pulsatile GH secretion had any relation to, or influence on, the GH release induced by GHRH. A high variability was found both in the 24-h GH secretion expressed as area under the curve above the baseline (0-1588 mU/l x 24 h) and the maximal GH response to GHRH (5-296 mU/l), as well as after an arginine-insulin tolerance test (4-59 mU/l). We found a positive correlation (correlation coefficient of Spearman (rs) = 0.49; P less than 0.01) between the GH response to GHRH and the spontaneous GH secretion over a 24-h period, in spite of a negative correlation (rs = -0.80; P less than 0.01) with the GH secretion during the preceding 3 h. We conclude that the GH response to a GHRH test correlates with endogenous GH secretion in short children, and may be helpful in estimating the ability to release GH. It is important, however, to be aware of the influence of the spontaneous GH secretion during the 3 h immediately preceding administration of GHRH.     

Growth hormone (GH) autofeedback on GH response to GH-releasing hormone. Role of free fatty acids and somatostatin.

Methionyl-GH (met-GH) infusions inhibit the GH response to GH-releasing hormone (GHRH). Met-GH infusions induce lipolysis with a rise of plasma FFA that are known to suppress GH release, but the met-GH inhibition of the GH response to GHRH occurs also when lipolysis is pharmacologically blocked by acipimox. In addition, the inhibition of GH release might be due to an enhanced release of hypothalamic somatostatin. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of a met-GH infusion on the GH response to GHRH when lipolysis and hypothalamic somatostatin release are pharmacologically blocked. Twelve normal subjects, randomly allocated to two groups (A and B), received GHRH (50 micrograms, iv) at 1300 h after a 4-h saline infusion or met-GH infusion (80 ng/kg.min). To block lipolysis and hypothalamic somatostatin release, subjects in group B received acipimox, an antilipolytic agent (500 mg), and pyridostigmine, an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor (60 mg), during the 6 h before iv GHRH. GHRH induced a clear GH release during saline infusion in both groups, significantly higher in group B (43.6 +/- 4.8 micrograms/L) than in group A (20.1 +/- 6.1 micrograms/L; P less than 0.02 vs. A), and only a slight increase during met-GH infusions (10.4 +/- 4.1 micrograms/L in group A; 16.7 +/- 4.2 micrograms/L in group B; P = NS). These data indicate that the GH response to GHRH is inhibited by met-GH infusions when peripheral lipolysis and hypothalamic somatostatin release are pharmacologically blocked, suggesting the possibility of autoinhibition of GH at the pituitary level.     

Repetitive growth hormone-releasing hormone administration restores the attenuated growth hormone (GH) response to GH-releasing hormone testing in normal aging

The plasma GH response to human pituitary GH (hpGH)-releasing hormone-40 (hpGHRH-40; 1 microgram/kg BW) was significantly lower in seven healthy aged men (age range, 65-78 yr) than in seven healthy young men (age range, 18-31 yr) 30, 60, and 90 min after acute hpGHRH-40 administration (P less than 0.0001, by Student's unpaired t test). To verify whether a priming regimen might be able to reverse the reduced GH response to GHRH, elderly subjects underwent repetitive administration of hpGHRH-40 and placebo in a double blind design (100 micrograms hpGHRH-40 or volume-matched saline iv as a single morning dose, every 2 days for 12 days). After the hpGHRH-40-priming regimen, plasma GH values 30, 60, and 90 min after the acute GHRH test were significantly higher than values at the corresponding time points after placebo treatment. These findings suggest that somatotroph cells become less sensitive to GHRH with normal aging and demonstrate that repetitive administration of GHRH restores the attenuated response.     

Growth hormone (GH) release in response to GH-releasing hormone in man is 3-fold enhanced by galanin

The effect of GHRH in a dose (120 micrograms) thought to produce a maximal GH response was compared with the GH response to insulin-induced hypoglycemia, iv infusion of the hypothalamic neuropeptide galanin (40 pmol/kg.min for 40 min), and a combination of GHRH and galanin in normal men. The median peak serum GH level was 29 mU/L in response to GHRH, 28.9 mU/L in response to insulin hypoglycemia, 17.3 mU/L in response to galanin, and 115.0 mU/L in response to the combination of galanin and GHRH. GH release induced by galanin was completely inhibited by a concomitant somatostatin infusion (50 pmol/kg.min). Thus, galanin increased the peak GH response to GHRH, previously thought to be one of the most powerful stimulants to GH release, more than 3-fold. Since the dose of GHRH used was thought to be maximal and since galanin is reported not to have direct effects on the pituitary, one possible mode of action of galanin would be inhibition of tonic endogenous hypothalamic somatostatin release.     

Discordance between growth hormone (GH) responses after GH-releasing hormone and insulin hypoglycemia in myotonic dystrophy

Plasma GH responses to human GHRH, arginine, L-dopa, and insulin-induced hypoglycemia were determined in seven myotonic dystrophy (MD) patients. An iv bolus injection of GHRH-(1-44)-NH2 (1 microgram/kg BW) only slightly increased plasma GH concentrations in MD patients. The mean peak plasma GH level after GHRH injection [4.2 +/- 0.8 (+/- SE) micrograms/L] was significantly lower than that in 10 age-matched normal subjects (26.7 +/- 4.3 micrograms/L) or that in 6 patients with progressive muscular dystrophy (22.8 +/- 6.6 micrograms/L) whose nutritional status was similar to that of the MD patients. Even with a larger dose of GHRH (3 micrograms/kg BW), the plasma GH rises were minimal in the MD patients (mean peak, 5.9 +/- 1.8 micrograms/L). The plasma GH responses to a 30-min iv infusion of arginine (0.5 g/kg BW) and oral ingestion of L-dopa (0.5 g) were attenuated to a similar extent, whereas insulin-induced hypoglycemia caused a significant increase in plasma GH in all seven MD patients [mean peak, 17.4 +/- 4.1 (+/- SE) microgram/L]. The plasma TSH responses to TRH and plasma insulin-like growth factor I levels were similar in the MD patients and normal subjects. These findings suggest that 1) the impaired GH release after GHRH, arginine, and L-dopa administration in MD patients is not due to somatotroph deficiency, since the GH response to hypoglycemia is well preserved; and 2) insulin-induced hypoglycemia may stimulate GH release at least in part via inhibition of somatostatin release.     

Sex difference in human growth hormone (GH) response to intravenous human pancreatic GH-releasing hormone administration in young adults

Intravenous administration of a 100-micrograms dose of human pancreatic GH-releasing hormone (human pancreatic GHRH1-44, indicated by GHRH) disclosed a sex difference in GH responsiveness. The maximum GH increments [41 +/- 11 (SEM) vs. 15 +/- 4 ng/ml, P* less than 0.05] and the areas under the curves (419 +/- 105 vs. 148 +/- 53 area U, P* less than 0.05) were significantly higher in 12 men than in 10 women. No significant correlation was found in either group between the basal plasma estradiol or testosterone levels and the maximum or integrated GH response to GHRH. Serum PRL levels significantly increased in both groups within 5 min after GHRH injection (men, P less than 0.001 vs. t = 0; women, P less than 0.05 vs. t = 0). The areas under the curves of the PRL responses (355 +/- 184 vs. 189 +/- 73 area U) and the maximum PRL increments (58 +/- 18 vs. 36 +/- 6 mU/l, P* greater than 0.10) were similar. In conclusion, a sex difference in GH responsiveness to GHRH was found between young adult men and women. Recent in vivo and in vitro data reveal a similar sex difference in rodents and an enhancing effect of androgens, but not estrogens, on the GH response to GHRH. These findings support the theory that in humans testosterone also plays a key role in the genesis of this sex difference.     

Acute growth hormone (GH) response to GH-releasing hexapeptide in humans is independent of endogenous GH-releasing hormone.

The synthetic GH-releasing hexapeptide (GHRP: His-DTrp-Ala-Trp-DPhe-Lys-NH2) releases GH in man by an undetermined mechanism. To investigate whether acute GH response to GHRP is mediated by endogenous GHRH, we examined the effect of GHRP on GH release during pituitary desensitization to GHRH induced by short-term GHRH infusion. In five healthy men on six occasions, we infused saline (sal) or 1 microgram/kg.h GHRH-44 for 6 h. After 4 h, a bolus of sal, GHRH-44 1 microgram/kg body weight, or GHRP 1 microgram/kg body weight was given iv. GH concentration, measured by RIA, was analyzed by mean area under the curve (AUC) of GH released over the 2 h immediately after bolus injection. Infusion of GHRH had a biphasic effect on GH release; plasma GH increased to 12.7 +/- 3.3 micrograms/L within the first hour, with subsequent decrease to 2.9 +/- 0.3 micrograms/L during the last 2 h of infusion. GH AUC (hours 4-6 of infusion) microgram/L.2 h [table: see text] GH response to bolus GHRH was abolished by GHRH infusion, whereas GH response to GHRP persisted under the same conditions. Thus, we conclude that acute GH response to GHRP in humans is not mediated by endogenous GHRH.     

Suppression of the growth hormone (GH) response to clonidine and GH-releasing hormone by exogenous GH

GH release in response to clonidine and human GH-releasing hormone-(1-44) (hGHRH-44) was assessed in 11 boys (aged 7-14 yr) with short stature, who had normal GH secretion. The response to these 2 provocative stimuli was repeated after, respectively, 2 and 3 days of treatment with human GH (0.1 U/kg, im). Exogenous GH significantly blunted the response to both clonidine [the mean 2-h integrated serum GH concentration falling from 1050 +/- 350 (+/- SEM) to 749 +/- 297 ng/ml X min; P = 0.03] and hGHRH-44, the 2-h integrated GH concentration falling from 1553 +/- 358 to 547 +/- 202 ng/ml X min; (P = 0.03). Plasma insulin-like growth factor (IGF-II) concentrations did not change after GH administration. In contrast, plasma IGF-I (somatomedin-C) concentrations increased from 97 +/- 16 ng/ml before administration of GH to 142 +/- 32 ng/ml (P = 0.05) after two days and 149 +/- 23 ng/ml (P less than 0.01) after the third treatment day. However, no correlation was found between the changes in response to clonidine or hGHRH-44 and changes in circulating levels of IGF-I. Our data confirm the existence of GH-dependent feedback inhibition of GH release during childhood and suggest that this inhibition operates, at least in part, at the level of the pituitary. While participation of the IGFs/somatomedins in this feedback loop cannot be excluded, the inhibitory effects of exogenous GH do not depend directly on circulating plasma IGF-I or IGF-II levels.     

Bromocriptine does not alter growth hormone (GH) responsiveness to GH-releasing hormone in acromegaly

GHRH (100 micrograms) and TRH (200 micrograms) were administered to 24 active acromegalic patients before and during chronic bromocriptine (Br) treatment (Br, 10-15 mg/day for 3-5 months) to evaluate the possible effects of the dopamine agonist on GH release induced by these releasing hormones. Mean daily plasma GH levels were reduced by Br treatment from 34 +/- 40 (SD) to 16 +/- 19 ng/ml (P less than 0.01). No significant changes were found when comparing the GH response to GHRH as mean area under the response curve (nanograms per min/ml above the basal) (pretreatment, 5453 +/- 7843; during Br, 7017 +/- 12763 ng/ml . min), and as mean individual peak GH values (pretreatment, 130 +/- 148; during Br, 126 +/- 187 ng/ml) before and during treatment. The percentage GH increase (pretreatment, 340 +/- 354; during Br, 617 +/- 539%) was however significantly higher during Br. Br treatment significantly reduced the GH response to TRH in terms of mean of individual peak levels (from 136 +/- 134 to 60 +/- 52 ng/ml; P less than 0.01) and area under the response curve (from 3142 +/- 3998 to 1331 +/- 1646 ng/min . ml; P less than 0.01). However, the percentage GH increase was not significantly different (pretreatment, 486 +/- 729; during Br, 1059 +/- 1862%). When the patients were divided into Br responders, i.e. mean daily GH reduction during Br of at least 50% below baseline, and nonresponders, the initial response to GHRH was significantly higher in the latter group, but was unaffected by Br treatment in either group. On the contrary, the response to TRH, statistically significant initially only in the Br responder group, was reduced by Br treatment. We suggest that cells sensitive to Br and TRH but not to GHRH (lactotroph-like) and cells sensitive to GHRH but not to Br (pure somatotrophs) may coexist in GH-secreting adenomas.     

Growth hormone (GH) responses to GH-releasing hormone alone or combined with arginine in patients with adrenal incidentaloma: evidence for enhanced somatostatinergic tone

Spontaneous and stimulated GH secretion is blunted in hypercortisolemic states due to increased hypothalamic somatostatinergic tone. However, no data are available on the characteristics of GH secretion in patients with incidentally discovered adrenal adenomas. They represent an interesting model for studying GH secretion, as a slight degree of cortisol excess may frequently be observed in such patients who do not present with any clear Cushingoid sign. In the present study, 10 patients (3 men and 7 women, aged 48-63 yr) with an adrenal mass discovered serendipitously underwent, on separate occasions, a GHRH injection alone or combined with an infusion of the functional somatostatin antagonist, arginine. Thirteen age-matched healthy volunteers served as controls. Briefly, arginine (30 g) was infused from -30 to 0 min, and GHRH (100 microg) was injected as a bolus at 0 min, with measurement of serum GH [immunoradiometric assay (IRMA)] every 15 min for 150 min. Plasma IGF-I (RIA after acid-ethanol extraction) was measured in a morning sample. The diagnosis of cortical adenoma was based on computed tomography features and pattern of uptake on adrenal scintigraphy. Patients with obesity and/or diabetes were excluded. The study design included also an endocrine work-up aimed to study the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis [urinary free cortisol (UFC) excretion, serum cortisol at 0800 h, plasma ACTH at 0800 h, morning cortisol after overnight 1 mg dexamethasone]. Five of 10 patients showed abnormalities of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, including borderline or increased UFC excretion in 4 of them accompanied by blunted ACTH in 2 cases and failure of cortisol to suppress after dexamethasone in 1; the fifth patient displayed low ACTH and resistance to dexamethasone suppression. However, all patients had a unilateral uptake of the tracer on the side of the mass with suppression of the contralateral normal adrenal gland. As a group, the patients displayed greater UFC excretion and lower ACTH concentrations than the controls. GH release after GHRH treatment was blunted in patients bearing adrenal incidentaloma compared with controls (GH peak, 5.7 +/- 5.2 vs. 18.0 +/- 7.0 microg/L; P < 0.0001), whereas GHRH plus arginine was able to elicit a comparable response in the 2 groups (GH peak, 33.5 +/- 20.3 vs. 33.7 +/- 17.5 microg/L; P = NS). The ratio between GH peaks after GHRH plus arginine and after GHRH plus saline was significantly greater in patients than in controls (751 +/- 531% vs. 81 +/- 45%; P = 0.0001). Similar data were obtained when comparing GH area under the curve after GHRH plus saline or GHRH plus arginine between the 2 groups. In summary, the present data suggest that in patients with incidental adrenal adenomas the GH response to GHRH is blunted due to increased somatostatinergic tone, as it can be restored to normal by pretreatment with the functional somatostatin antagonist arginine. The blunted GH release to GHRH may be an early and long lasting sign of autonomous cortisol secretion by the adrenal adenoma.