help button home button Endocrine Society JCEM JCEM Call for Nominations for EIC
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS

This Article
Right arrow Submit a related Letter to the Editor
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Request Copyright Permission
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Cozzi, R.
Right arrow Articles by Chiodini, P. G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Cozzi, R.
Right arrow Articles by Chiodini, P. G.

Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, Vol 62, 601-604, Copyright © 1986 by Endocrine Society


ARTICLES

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

R Cozzi, D Dallabonzana, G Oppizzi, G Verde, A Liuzzi and PG Chiodini

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.





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Endocrinology Endocrine Reviews J. Clin. End. & Metab.
Molecular Endocrinology Recent Prog. Horm. Res. All Endocrine Journals
Copyright © 1986 by The Endocrine Society