Differential diagnosis between constitutional delay of growth and puberty, idiopathic growth hormone deficiency and congenital hypogonadotropic hypogonadism: a clinical challenge for the pediatric endocrinologist

Key features of puberty onset and progression can help distinguish self-limited delayed puberty from congenital hypogonadotrophic hypogonadism

Introduction

Delayed puberty (DP) is a frequent concern for adolescents. The most common underlying aetiology is self-limited DP (SLDP). However, this can be difficult to differentiate from the more severe condition congenital hypogonadotrophic hypogonadism (HH), especially on first presentation of an adolescent patient with DP. This study sought to elucidate phenotypic differences between the two diagnoses, in order to optimise patient management and pubertal development.

Methods

This was a study of a UK DP cohort managed 2015-2023, identified through the NIHR clinical research network. Patients were followed longitudinally until adulthood, with a definite diagnosis made: SLDP if they had spontaneously completed puberty by age 18 years; HH if they had not commenced (complete, cHH), or had commenced but not completed puberty (partial, pHH), by this stage. Phenotypic data pertaining to auxology, Tanner staging, biochemistry, bone age and hormonal treatment at presentation and during puberty were retrospectively analysed.

Results

78 patients were included. 52 (66.7%) patients had SLDP and 26 (33.3%) patients had HH, comprising 17 (65.4%) pHH and 9 (34.6%) cHH patients. Probands were predominantly male (90.4%). Male SLDP patients presented with significantly lower height and weight standard deviation scores than HH patients (height p=0.004, weight p=0.021). 15.4% of SLDP compared to 38.5% of HH patients had classical associated features of HH (micropenis, cryptorchidism, anosmia, etc. p=0.023). 73.1% of patients with SLDP and 43.3% with HH had a family history of DP (p=0.007). Mean first recorded luteinizing hormone (LH) and inhibin B were lower in male patients with HH, particularly in cHH patients, but not discriminatory. There were no significant differences identified in blood concentrations of FSH, testosterone or AMH at presentation, or in bone age delay.

Discussion

Key clinical markers of auxology, associated signs including micropenis, and serum inhibin B may help distinguish between SLDP and HH in patients presenting with pubertal delay, and can be incorporated into clinical assessment to improve diagnostic accuracy for adolescents. However, the distinction between HH, particularly partial HH, and SLDP remains problematic. Further research into an integrated framework or scoring system would be useful in aiding clinician decision-making and optimization of treatment.  .

Considerations when treating male pubertal delay pharmacologically

INTRODUCTION

Delayed puberty, defined as the appearance of pubertal signs after the age of 14 years in males, usually affects psychosocial well-being. Patients and their parents show concern about genital development and stature. The condition is transient in most of the patients; nonetheless, the opportunity should not be missed to diagnose an underlying illness.

AREAS COVERED

The aetiologies of pubertal delay in males and their specific pharmacological therapies are discussed in this review.

EXPERT OPINION

High-quality evidence addressing the best pharmacological therapy approach for each aetiology of delayed puberty in males is scarce, and most of the current practice is based on small case series or unpublished experience. Male teenagers seeking attention for pubertal delay most probably benefit from medical treatment to avoid psychosocial distress. While watchful waiting is appropriate in 12- to 14-year-old boys when constitutional delay of growth and puberty (CGDP) is suspected, hormone replacement should not be delayed beyond the age of 14 years in order to avoid impairing height potential and peak bone mass. When primary or central hypogonadism is diagnosed, hormone replacement should be proposed by the age of 12 years provided that a functional central hypogonadism has been ruled out. Testosterone replacement regimens have been used for decades and are fairly standardised. Aromatase inhibitors have arisen as an interesting alternative for boy with CDGP and short stature. Gonadotrophin therapy seems more physiological in patients with central hypogonadism, but its relative efficacy and most adequate timing still need to be established.

Sex steroid priming in short stature children unresponsive to GH stimulation tests: Why, who, when and how

Despite decades of experience, the diagnosis of growth hormone deficiency (GHD) remains challenging, especially in peripubertal children. Failure to respond to GH stimulation tests (GHSTs) is needed to confirm GHD, but long-standing controversies regarding the number of tests needed and the interpretation of GH peaks are still a matter of debate worldwide. Diagnostic workup is even more problematic in short children with slow growth and delayed sexual development: they often exhibit low GH peaks under GHST, which often normalize as puberty progresses. Consequently, this transient suboptimal response to GHST may result in GH overtreatment, carrying both health and economic concerns. Considering the complex and bound link between GH axis and sex steroids, the use of sex steroid priming prior to GHST might be helpful in peripubertal setting. However, its use is still controversial. There is no consensus regarding patient selection, timing, dose, and preparation of sex steroids. In this review, we aim to overview the use of sex steroid priming in clinical practice, highlighting the need to develop appropriate guidelines in order to overcome diagnostic pitfalls in peripubertal age.