Intermittent versus continuous administration of growth hormone treatment

Is a Two-Year Growth Response to Growth Hormone Treatment a Better Predictor of Poor Adult Height Outcome Than a First-Year Growth Response in Prepubertal Children With Growth Hormone Deficiency?

OBJECTIVE

The first year response to growth hormone (GH) treatment is related to the total height gain in GH treated children, but an individual poor first year response is a weak predictor of a poor total GH effect in GH deficient (GHD) children. We investigated whether an underwhelming growth response after 2 years might be a better predictor of poor adult height (AH) outcome after GH treatment in GHD children.

DESIGN AND METHODS

Height data of GHD children treated with GH for at least 4 consecutive years of which at least two prepubertal and who attained (near) (n)AH were retrieved from the Belgian Register for GH treated children (n = 110, 63% boys). In ROC analyses, the change in height (ΔHt) SDS after the first and second GH treatment years were tested as predictors of poor AH outcome defined as: (1) nAH SDS <-2.0, or (2) nAH SDS minus mid-parental height SDS <-1.3, or (3) total ΔHt SDS <1.0. The cut-offs for ΔHt SDS and its sensitivity at a 95% specificity level to detect poor AH outcome were determined.

RESULTS

Eleven percent of the cohort had a total ΔHt SDS <1.0. ROC curve testing of first and second years ΔHt SDS as a predictor for total ΔHt SDS <1.0 had an AUC >70%. First-year ΔHt SDS <0.41 correctly identified 42% of the patients with poor AH outcome at a 95% specificity level, resulting in respectively 5/12 (4.6%) correctly identified poor final responders and 5/98 (4.5%) misclassified good final responders (ratio 1.0). ΔHt SDS after 2 prepubertal years had a cut-off level of 0.65 and a sensitivity of 50% at a 95% specificity level, resulting in respectively 6/12 (5.5%) correctly identified poor final responders and 5/98 (4.5%) misclassified good final responders (ratio 1.2).

CONCLUSION

In GHD children the growth response after 2 prepubertal years of GH treatment did not meaningfully improve the prediction of poor AH outcome after GH treatment compared to first-year growth response parameters. Therefore, the decision to re-evaluate the diagnosis or adapt the GH dose in case of poor response after 1 year should not be postponed for another year.

The use of somatropin (recombinant growth hormone) in children of short stature

The availability of somatropin [recombinant human growth hormone (GH)] has revolutionized the treatment of short stature resulting from GH deficiency. It is also widely used as an adjunct in the treatment of other disorders which do not fit the definition of classic GH deficiency, such as intrauterine growth restriction, Turner syndrome, healthy children with short stature and skeletal dysplasias. The widespread use and ready availability of GH treatment has prompted questions about its tolerability, rationality, and the psychological effects of long-term treatment, leading to several trials. Early treatment of GH deficiency will allow the child to reach his or her genetic potential, although there continues to be marked variability in the criteria used to diagnose the deficiency, and in the treatment schedule, especially during puberty. Treatment has also been shown to have a beneficial effect on growth in children with chronic renal failure, with no adverse effects on the renal function. There are, however, no long-term data to determine final height, or randomized controlled studies to justify routine use of GH in conditions such as intrauterine growth restriction. It remains controversial in conditions such as Turner syndrome and achondroplasia, where the response to treatment is only moderate. Healthy children with short stature have not been shown to have a psychological disadvantage, again proving difficult to justify prolonged GH treatment for idiopathic short stature. Meticulous monitoring, long-term follow-up to adult or near-adult final height, and well-defined endpoints of treatment need to be better clarified. The metabolic effects of treatment on the patient's lipid profile, bone mineral density, and muscle mass need careful documentation, especially with the high doses used in an already susceptible population such as low birthweight children and those with Turner syndrome. Lastly, the psychosocial impact of GH treatment, financial implications, and cost efficacy of treatment in an ever-increasing list of indications should be taken into consideration for rationalizing its use in future.