Effect of growth hormone (GH) during puberty in GH-deficient children: preliminary results from an ongoing randomized trial with different dose regimens

Growth hormone (GH) dose-dependent IGF-I response relates to pubertal height gain

BACKGROUND

Responsiveness to GH treatment can be estimated by both growth and ∆IGF-I. The primary aim of the present study was to investigate if mimicking the physiological increase during puberty in GH secretion, by using a higher GH dose could lead to pubertal IGFs in short children with low GH secretion. The secondary aim was to explore the relationship between IGF-I, IGFBP-3 and the IGF-I/IGFBP-3 ratio and gain in height.

METHODS

A multicentre, randomized, clinical trial (TRN88-177) in 104 children (90 boys), who had received GH 33 μg/kg/day during at least 1 prepubertal year. They were followed from GH start to adult height (mean, 7.5 years; range, 4.6-10.7). At onset of puberty, children were randomized into three groups, to receive 67 μg/kg/day (GH(67)) given once (GH(67x1); n = 30) or divided into two daily injection (GH(33x2); n = 36), or to remain on a single 33 μg/kg/day dose (GH(33x1); n = 38). The outcome measures were change and obtained mean on-treatment IGF-I(SDS), IGFBP3(SDS) and IGF-I/IGFBP3 ratio(SDS) during prepuberty and puberty. These variables were assessed in relation to prepubertal, pubertal and total gain in heightSDS.

RESULTS

Mean prepubertal increases 1 year after GH start were: 2.1 IGF-I(SDS), 0.6 IGFBP3(SDS) and 1.5 IGF-I/IGFBP3ratio(SDS). A significant positive correlation was found between prepubertal ∆IGFs and both prepubertal and total gain in height(SDS). During puberty changes in IGFs were GH dose-dependent: mean pubertal level of IGF-I(SDS) was higher in GH(67) vs GH(33) (p = 0.031). First year pubertal ∆IGF-I(SDS) was significantly higher in the GH(67)vs GH(33) group (0.5 vs -0.1, respectively, p = 0.007), as well as ∆IGF-I(SDS) to the pubertal mean level (0.2 vs -0.2, p = 0.028). In multivariate analyses, the prepubertal increase in '∆IGF-I(SDS) from GH start' and the 'GH dose-dependent pubertal ∆IGF-I(SDS)' were the most important variables for explaining variation in prepubertal (21 %), pubertal (26 %) and total (28 %) gain in height(SDS).

TRIAL REGISTRATION

TRN 88-177, not applicable 1988.

CONCLUSION

The dose-dependent change in IGFs was related to a dose-dependent pubertal gain in height(SDS). The attempt to mimic normal physiology by giving a higher GH dose during puberty was associated with both an increase in IGF-I and a dose-dependent gain in height(SDS).

Seasonal variations in vitamin D in relation to growth in short prepubertal children before and during first year growth hormone treatment

PURPOSE

This study investigated the relationship between seasonal variations in 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) levels and growth in prepubertal children during both the pretreatment year and the first year of GH treatment.

METHODS

The study included 249 short prepubertal children with a broad range of GH secretion, GH(max) during a 24 h profile median 23; range 1-127 mU/L, 191 boys (mean age ± SD, 8.6 ± 2.6 years), 58 girls (7.5 ± 1.9 years) receiving GH treatment (mean 43 µg/kg/day; range 17-99 µg/kg/day). Serum 25(OH)D was measured using an automated IDS-iSYS immunoassay.

RESULTS

25(OH)D levels showed seasonal variation, and decreased significantly during GH treatment. 25(OH)D levels at start and first year reduction in 25(OH)D, correlated (-) with the first year growth response during treatment. The degree of GH secretion capacity within our study population of mainly non-GH deficient children and 25(OH)D sufficient (67 ± 29 nmol/L) had no influence on 25(OH)D levels. Growth during GH treatment were independent of seasonal variations in 25(OH)D. Multiple regression analysis showed that 25(OH)D levels at treatment start, together with auxological data and IGF-binding protein-(3)SDS, explained 61 % of the variation in first year gain in heightSDS.

CONCLUSION

25(OH)D levels were associated with first year growth response to GH and may be a useful contribution to future growth prediction models.

Growth hormone dose-dependent pubertal growth: a randomized trial in short children with low growth hormone secretion

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Growth hormone (GH) treatment regimens do not account for the pubertal increase in endogenous GH secretion. This study assessed whether increasing the GH dose and/or frequency of administration improves pubertal height gain and adult height (AH) in children with low GH secretion during stimulation tests, i.e. idiopathic isolated GH deficiency.

METHODS

A multicenter, randomized, clinical trial (No. 88-177) followed 111 children (96 boys) at study start from onset of puberty to AH who had received GH 33 µg/kg/day for ≥1 year. They were randomized to receive 67 µg/kg/day (GH(67)) given as one (GH(67×1); n = 35) or two daily injections (GH(33×2); n = 36), or to remain on a single 33 µg/kg/day dose (GH(33×1); n = 40). Growth was assessed as heightSDSgain for prepubertal, pubertal and total periods, as well as AHSDS versus the population and the midparental height.

RESULTS

Pubertal heightSDSgain was greater for patients receiving a high dose (GH(67), 0.73) than a low dose (GH(33×1), 0.41, p < 0.05). AHSDS was greater on GH(67) (GH(67×1), -0.84; GH(33×2), -0.83) than GH(33) (-1.25, p < 0.05), and heightSDSgain was greater on GH(67) than GH(33) (2.04 and 1.56, respectively; p < 0.01). All groups reached their target heightSDS.

CONCLUSION

Pubertal heightSDSgain and AHSDS were dose dependent, with greater growth being observed for the GH(67) than the GH(33) randomization group; however, there were no differences between the once- and twice-daily GH(67) regimens. © 2014 S. Karger AG, Basel.

Short-term changes in bone formation markers following growth hormone (GH) treatment in short prepubertal children with a broad range of GH secretion

OBJECTIVES

Growth hormone (GH) promotes longitudinal growth and bone modelling/remodelling. This study investigated the relationship between levels of bone formation markers and growth during GH treatment in prepubertal children with widely ranging GH secretion levels.

METHODS

The study group comprised 113 short prepubertal children (mean age ± SD, 9·37 ± 2·13 years; 99 boys) on GH treatment (33·0 ± 0·06 μg/kg/day) for 1 year. Blood samples were taken at baseline and 1 and 2 weeks, 1 and 3 months, and 1 year after treatment start. Intact amino-terminal propeptide of type I procollagen (PINP), bone-specific alkaline phosphatase (BALP) and osteocalcin were measured using an automated IDS-iSYS immunoassay system.

RESULTS

Intact amino-terminal propeptide of type I procollagen (PINP), BALP and osteocalcin, increased in the short-term during GH treatment. PINP after 1 week (P = 0·00077), and BALP and osteocalcin after 1 month (P < 0·0001 and P = 0·0043, respectively). PINP levels at 1 and 3 months correlated positively, and osteocalcin levels at 1 week and percentage change after 1 month correlated negatively, with first year growth response. No significant correlations were found between BALP and first year growth. Multiple regression analysis showed that bone marker levels together with auxological data and insulin-like growth factor binding protein-3 explained the variation in first year growth response to 36% at start, 32% after 2 weeks and 48% at 3 months.

CONCLUSION

Short-term increases in levels of the bone formation markers PINP, BALP and osteocalcin showed different temporal patterns, but all correlated with first year growth response during GH treatment. These markers may be a useful addition to existing prediction models for growth response.

Personalized approach to growth hormone treatment: clinical use of growth prediction models

The goal of growth hormone (GH) treatment in a short child is to attain a fast catch-up growth toward the target height (TH) standard deviation score (SDS), followed by a maintenance phase, a proper pubertal height gain, and an adult height close to TH. The short-term response variable of GH treatment, first-year height velocity (HV) (cm/year or change in height SDS), can either be compared with GH response charts for diagnosis, age and gender, or with predicted HV based on prediction models. Three types of prediction models have been described: the Kabi International Growth Hormone Study models, the Gothenburg models and the Cologne model. With these models, 50-80% of the variance could be explained. When used prospectively, individualized dosing reduces the variation in growth response in comparison with a fixed dose per body weight. Insulin-like growth factor-I-based dose titration also led to a decrease in the variation. It is uncertain whether adding biochemical, genetic or proteomic markers may improve the accuracy of the prediction. Prediction models may lead to a more evidence-based approach to determine the GH dose regimen and may reduce the drug costs for GH treatment. There is a need for user-friendly software programs to make prediction models easily available in the clinic.

Different thresholds of tissue-specific dose-responses to growth hormone in short prepubertal children

BACKGROUND

In addition to stimulating linear growth in children, growth hormone (GH) influences metabolism and body composition. These effects should be considered when individualizing GH treatment as dose-dependent changes in metabolic markers have been reported.

HYPOTHESIS

There are different dose-dependent thresholds for metabolic effects in response to GH treatment.

METHOD

A randomized, prospective, multicentre trial TRN 98-0198-003 was performed for a 2-year catch-up growth period, with two treatment regimens (a) individualized GH dose including six different dose groups ranging from 17-100 μg/kg/day (n=87) and (b) fixed GH dose of 43 μg/kg/day (n=41). The individualized GH dose group was used for finding dose-response effects, where the effective GH dose (ED 50%) required to achieve 50% Δ effect was calculated with piecewise linear regressions.

RESULTS

Different thresholds for the GH dose were found for the metabolic effects. The GH dose to achieve half of a given effect (ED 50%, with 90% confidence interval) was calculated as 33(±24.4) μg/kg/day for Δ left ventricular diastolic diameter (cm), 39(±24.5) μg/kg/day for Δ alkaline phosphatase (μkat/L), 47(±43.5) μg/kg/day for Δ lean soft tissue (SDS), 48(±35.7) μg/kg/day for Δ insulin (mU/L), 51(±47.6) μg/kg/day for Δ height (SDS), and 57(±52.7) μg/kg/day for Δ insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I) SDS. Even though lipolysis was seen in all subjects, there was no dose-response effect for Δ fat mass (SDS) or Δ leptin ng/ml in the dose range studied. None of the metabolic effects presented here were related to the dose selection procedure in the trial.

CONCLUSIONS

Dose-dependent thresholds were observed for different GH effects, with cardiac tissue being the most responsive and level of IGF-I the least responsive. The level of insulin was more responsive than that of IGF-I, with the threshold effect for height in the interval between.

[Physiology of the GH-IGF axis]

Growth, the main characteristic of childhood and adolescence, has a similar pattern in the majority of the individuals. Genetic background and GH-IGF axis are the factors that directly influence this process. Pituitary GH acts on growth mainly through the regulation of IGF system. The IGFs (IGF-1 and IGF-2) are growth factors produced in the majority of the organs and body tissues. They have autocrine, paracrine and endocrine actions on metabolism and cell proliferation, growth and differentiation. The IGFs bind with high specificity and affinity to a family of 6 binding proteins, called IGFBPs (1 to 6) that modulate their bioactivity. Most of the known IGF actions are mediated via IGF type 1 receptor (IGF1R). In this article we are going to review the composition and regulation of the GH-IGF axis and the role of each component in the regulation of the growth process.

The first-year growth response to growth hormone treatment predicts the long-term prepubertal growth response in children

Background

Pretreatment auxological variables, such as birth size and parental heights, are important predictors of the growth response to GH treatment. For children with missing pretreatment data, published prediction models cannot be used.

The objective was to construct and validate a prediction model for children with missing background data based on the observed first-year growth response to GH. The accuracy and reliability of the model should be comparable with our previously published prediction model relying on pretreatment data. The design used was mathematical curve fitting on observed growth response data from children treated with a GH dose of 33 μg/kg/d.

Methods

Growth response data from 162 prepubertal children born at term were used to construct the model; the group comprised of 19% girls, 80% GH-deficient and 23% born SGA. For validation, data from 205 other children fulfilling the same inclusion and treatment criteria as the model group were used. The model was also tested on data from children born prematurely, children from other continents and children receiving a GH dose of 67 μg/kg/d.

Results

The GH response curve was similar for all children, but with an individual amplitude. The curve SD score depends on an individual factor combining the effect of dose and growth, the 'Response Score', and time on treatment, making prediction possible when the first-year growth response is known. The prediction interval (± 2 SD_res) was ± 0.34 SDS for the second treatment year growth response, corresponding to ± 1.2 cm for a 3-year-old child and ± 1.8 cm for a 7-year-old child. For the 1–4-year prediction, the SD_res was 0.13 SDS/year and for the 1–7-year prediction it was 0.57 SDS (i.e. < 0.1 SDS/year).

Conclusion

The model based on the observed first-year growth response on GH is valid worldwide for the prediction of up to 7 years of prepubertal growth in children with GHD/ISS, born AGA/SGA and born preterm/term, and can be used as an aid in medical decision making.

Phenotypic analysis and growth response to different growth hormone treatment schedules in two siblings with an inactivating mutation in the growth hormone-releasing hormone receptor gene

Mutations in the GHRH receptor (GHRHR) gene (GHRHR) are emerging as a common cause of familial isolated growth hormone deficiency (IGHD) type IB. The use of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues has been advocated as a tool to delay puberty in patients with isolated GH deficiency (IGHD), allowing longer time for the beneficial effect of exogenous human GH (hGH) treatment on growth. We describe two male siblings with IGHD due to a homozygous missense GHRHR mutation who, because they were started on hGH therapy at different ages, presented with different height SDS at the onset of puberty and therefore had different predicted target heights. The shorter brother was treated with GnRH analogue plus hGH for 3 years, whereas the other brother received only hGH. Despite different predicted heights at the onset of puberty, they attained similar final heights. We conclude that in patients with IGHD, GnRH analogue treatment should be considered to delay puberty and obtain a maximal growth response if hGH treatment is started in late childhood and the predicted height at puberty onset is below the genetic target.

Can some growth hormone (GH)-deficient children benefit from combined therapy with gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogs and GH? Results of a retrospective study

Recombinant GH (rGH) treatment does not invariably correct height deficits in GH-deficient children once puberty has begun. The addition of GnRH analogs (GnRHa) to delay puberty has been advocated, but published results are few and sometimes conflicting. We retrospectively compared GH-deficient children treated with rGH and GnRHa for at least 1 yr after entering puberty and having attained their final height (n = 23) with a matched control group treated only with rGH. Overall, combined therapy did not significantly increase final height relative to rGH alone. However, the shortest girls at the onset of puberty (<25th percentile) benefited more than the tallest (>75th percentile) in both final height relative to predicted height and pubertal catch-up growth. In the control group, patients having experienced intrauterine growth retardation (IUGR) attained a lower mean final height than patients without IUGR (difference significant in boys, but not in girls). In the combined therapy group, IUGR did not affect the final height of either sex. Our results suggest that two populations might benefit most from combined GnRHa and rGH therapy: girls particularly short at the onset of puberty and patients who had experienced IUGR. Further prospective studies are required to confirm these preliminary hypothesis.

Effects of dose and gender on the growth and growth factor response to GH in GH-deficient children: implications for efficacy and safety

We evaluated the dose-response effects of GH on the growth and growth factor levels of GH-deficient patients. One hundred eleven short (-3.0 +/- 0.9 height SD score), prepubertal GH-deficient children were randomized to receive low- (L; 0.025 mg/kg per day), medium- (M; 0.05 mg/kg per day), or high- (H; 0.1 mg/kg per day) dose GH. One hundred four children completed the 2-yr study. At 2 yr, the three groups displayed increases in height SD scores of 1.4 +/- 0.1 for L, 2.2 +/- 0.1 for M, and 2.3 +/- 0.1 for H (P < 0.001 relative to L, P = NS relative to M). The serum levels of IGF-I and IGF binding protein-3 during treatment also demonstrated dependency on the GH dose and were independently correlated with the increase in height SD scores attained. Bone age advancement, the occurrence of puberty, fasting glucose, and hemoglobin A1c did not change during therapy, but fasting insulin levels rose in a dose-dependent manner. Surprisingly, the GH dose-response curve for both auxological and biochemical parameters differed between prepubertal females (n = 33) and males (n = 71). Males had a linear GH dose response, whereas females had an apparent plateau of both linear growth and IGF-I SD score responses at 0.05 mg/kg per day. In this large, randomized, 2-yr study, we observed a dose-response effect of GH on growth and serum growth factor levels and a prepubertal gender difference in GH sensitivity. These results suggest that the efficacy and theoretical safety of GH therapy can be optimized by modulating the GH dose in a gender-specific manner, based on the growth response and serum growth factor levels.

Optimizing gh therapy in adults and children

Until the advent of modern neuroradiological imaging techniques in 1989, a diagnosis of GH deficiency in adults carried little significance other than as a marker of hypothalamo-pituitary disease. The relatively recent recognition of a characteristic clinical syndrome associated with failure of spontaneous GH secretion and the potential reversal of many of its features with recombinant human GH has prompted a closer examination of the physiological role of GH after linear growth is complete. The safe clinical practice of GH replacement demands a method of judging overall GH status, but there is no biological marker in adults that is the equivalent of linear growth in a child by which to judge the efficacy of GH replacement. Assessment of optimal GH replacement is made difficult by the apparent diverse actions of GH in health, concern about the avoidance of iatrogenic acromegaly, and the growing realization that an individual's risk of developing certain cancers may, at least in part, be influenced by cumulative exposure to the chief mediator of GH action, IGF-I. As in all areas of clinical practice, strategies and protocols vary between centers, but most physicians experienced in the management of pituitary disease agree that GH is most appropriately begun at low doses, building up slowly to the final maintenance dose. This, in turn, is best determined by a combination of clinical response and measurement of serum IGF-I, avoiding supraphysiological levels of this GH-dependent peptide. Numerous studies have helped define the optimum management of GH replacement during childhood. The recent requirement to measure and monitor GH status in adult life has called into question the appropriateness of simplistic weight- and surface area-based dosing regimens for the management of GH deficiency in childhood, with reliance on linear growth as the sole marker of GH action. It is clear that the monitoring of parameters other than linear growth to help refine GH therapy should now be incorporated into childhood GH treatment protocols. Further research will be required to define the optimal management of the transition from pediatric to adult GH replacement; this transition will only be possible once the benefits of GH in mature adults are defined and accepted by pediatric and adult endocrinologists alike.