| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
Clinical Pharmacology (P.M.), Clinical Research Unit, Assistance Pubique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Henri Mondor University Hospital, F-94010 Créteil, France; Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale U258 (P.M., M.N.-B., N.H., B.B.), F-94807 Villejuif, France; Institute of Public Health (S.G.), CB2 2SR Cambridge, United Kingdom; and Endocrinology and Reproductive Diseases (P.C.), Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Bicêtre University Hospital, and University Paris XI, F-94275 Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France
Address all correspondence and requests for reprints to: P. Chanson, M.D., Endocrinology, Bicêtre University Hospital, 78 rue du Général Leclerc, F-94275 Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France. E-mail: philippe.chanson{at}bct.ap-hop-paris.fr.
| Abstract |
|---|
|
|
|---|
We conducted a systematic review of blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled trials of GH treatment in adult patients with GH deficiency published up to August 2003. Thirty-seven trials were identified. We combined the results for effects on lean and fat body mass; body mass index; triglyceride and cholesterol [high-density lipoprotein, low-density lipoprotein (LDL), and total] levels; blood pressure; glycemia; and insulinemia. Overall effect size was used to evaluate significance, and weighted differences between GH and placebo were used to appreciate the size of the effect.
GH treatment significantly reduced LDL cholesterol [0.5 (SD 0.3) mmol/liter], total cholesterol [0.3 (0.3) mmol/liter], fat mass [3.1 (3.3) kg], and diastolic blood pressure [1.8 (3.8) mm Hg] and significantly increased lean body mass [+2.7 (2.6) kg], fasting plasma glucose [+0.2 (0.1) mmol/liter], and insulin [+8.7 (7.0) pmol/liter]. All effect sizes remained significant in trials with low doses and long-duration GH treatment.
Thus, GH treatment has beneficial effects on lean and fat body mass, total and LDL cholesterol levels, and diastolic blood pressure but reduces insulin sensitivity. The global cardiovascular benefit remains to be determined in large trials with appropriate clinical endpoints.
| Introduction |
|---|
|
|
|---|
To obtain a more reliable picture of the effects of GH treatment on the main cardiovascular risk factors in GH-deficient adults (body mass, lipids, blood pressure, plasma glucose, and insulin), we conducted a systematic review of all blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled trials of GH in adults with GHD published up to August 2003.
| Subjects and Methods |
|---|
|
|
|---|
We searched the Medline (Ovid), Experta Medica (EMBASE), and Biosis electronic databases, from their year of inception to August 2003. The medical literature was searched for all reports containing the key words, growth hormone (or somatotropin), trial, and human. The search strategy was not limited by study design or language.
A manual search of the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism since 1985 was used to assess the sensitivity of our electronic search. Additional information was requested from GH manufacturers, references cited in published articles, and clinical trials investigators.
Inclusion criteria
We included all randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled trials involving patients aged over 17 yr with GHD corresponding to less than 5 µg/liter after stimulation, as recommended by the consensus guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of adults with GHD (8).
Included trials had at least one of the following outcome measures: diastolic blood pressure, systolic blood pressure, fasting blood glucose, fasting insulinemia, triglyceridemia, cholesterolemia [high-density lipoprotein, low-density lipoprotein (LDL), or total], lean body mass, fat mass (when expressed in absolute terms), and body mass index (BMI). These outcomes are the main cardiovascular risk factors in this setting and are the most frequently reported in clinical trials. Lean body mass is not, strictly speaking, a direct cardiovascular risk factor, but, because of the relationship between BMI, fat mass, and lean body mass, the effects of GH on these three parameters are of interest. From more than 3000 published reports, one of the authors (P.M.) selected the abstracts of trials that potentially met the inclusion criteria. The corresponding articles were then checked for the inclusion criteria, independently by three authors (N.H., M.N.-B., and P.M.). Discrepancies were resolved through discussion with all the authors. To detect a possible publication bias, we asked GH manufacturers what proportion of randomized, placebo-controlled trials were finally published.
Data extraction and outcomes
Three metaanalysts (N.H., M.N.-B., and P.M.) extracted data from published reports to a standard form. Authors were contacted to verify the extracted data where necessary. Discrepancies were resolved by discussion among all the authors of the present paper. The following data were extracted: population characteristics (setting, age, sex, number, weight, BMI, and disease onset), treatment (dose, duration, and frequency), study quality (design, randomization method, blinding, placebo vials, and statistical methods), losses to follow-up (for each outcome measure), baseline and follow-up values and changes (means and SD or SEM), and methods used to measure outcomes. All data extracted were summary data.
Statistical methods
For primary analyses of continuous outcome measures, we first calculated standardized effect sizes for each trial and then the global effect size for each outcome (9). The effect size is a measure of the overlap in the distribution of outcome scores between two treatment groups. The effect size was calculated differently for parallel-group and cross-over studies, to reflect intergroup and intragroup comparisons (9). For parallel groups, the effect size was computed as the mean difference (GH minus placebo) in the changes (follow-up minus baseline) for each outcome divided by the estimated variance of changes in the two groups. For cross-over trials, the effect size was calculated as the mean difference in values at the end of each period divided by the variance in the placebo group at follow-up. In some instances, these values had to be estimated from graphs in the articles [four for lean body mass (10, 11, 12, 13, 14), two for insulin (10, 11), one for glucose (10), and three for blood pressure (15, 16, 17). To calculate the overall effect size, the effect size in each study was weighted by the reciprocal of the variance. We present these scores with their 95% confidence intervals. A positive effect size implies an increase in the frequency of the outcome with GH treatment, and a negative effect size implies a decrease.
Because the variances for changes were not directly reported in all articles, they were calculated from t statistics, probability values, or confidence intervals (variances) for the GH and placebo groups (parallel design) or the study period (cross-over design) (9). We used a Q test to explore heterogeneity between studies. The analyses were repeated using a random-effects model when the effect size was significant in a fixed model (18). Because the random-effects model incorporates statistical heterogeneity (results, methodology, and publication bias) and provides a more conservative estimate of the pooled effect size than a fixed model, we present all the results of effect-size according to a random model. Funnel plots were drawn and their asymmetry was assessed to determine the possible influence of publication and location biases (19). The intercept of the weighted and unweighted linear regression lines, when the effect size divided by the SE is regressed against the reciprocal of the SE, provides a measure of asymmetry. Because the effect size may be significant because of a single trial (e.g. large trials or trials with large effects), we also conducted a sensitivity analysis. When the effect was carried by one or two trials, these studies were dropped from the analysis to verify whether the same trend was observed with the remaining trials. To quantify the size of the effect, we present the weighted (by the variance) mean difference (and SD) between the GH and placebo groups for each outcome measure.
The effects of the GH dose, GH treatment duration, percentage of patients with adult onset, and study design on overall estimates were assessed by stratification or metaregression. Weighted least-squares regression analysis was used for metaregression, individual study effects being weighted by the reciprocal of the estimated variance. The ß-coefficient and its significance are presented, along with the adjusted R2 value, to show the overall variability explained by the model. Analyses were conducted using the SPSS (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL) for Windows package.
| Results |
|---|
|
|
|---|
|
|
|
| Body mass |
|---|
|
|
|---|
The overall effect size was significantly negative for fat mass [0.62 (0.78; 0.48)], with a weighted mean dif-ference of 3.05 kg (3.29). No effect was found on BMI (Table 3
).
| Lipids |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| Blood pressure |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| Glucose/insulin |
|---|
|
|
|---|
With 11 trials involving 378 patients, a significant overall effect of GH treatment on fasting insulin was observed [+0.42 (0.23; 0.61)] (Table 3
). The mean weighted difference in plasma insulin was 8.7 (7.0) pmol/liter between GH and placebo. This difference remained significant after exclusion of one large trial (7).
| Effects of the GH dose and treatment duration, gender, age, age at GHD onset, and trial designs |
|---|
|
|
|---|
No significant relationship was observed between the GH dose and the effect size in meta-regression analysis. This result could be explained by a narrow dose distribution. A subgroup analysis was then done with trials using target doses of no more than 0.35 U/kg·wk and a target dose of 0.5 U/kg·wk. All effect sizes remained significant in the analysis of low-dose trials (Table 4
). A smaller number of trials used high doses, and the effect size in this subgroup was significant only for fat mass, glucose, and insulin. A dose-dependent effect of GH was found on fat mass, with a lower effect size with low-dose GH [0.2 (0.4; 0.0)] than with high-dose GH [0.6 (1.0; 0.1)].
|
No significant relationship was observed between the treatment duration and the effect sizes in metaregression analysis. Thus, Table 4
shows only the results of subgroup analyses. All effect sizes remained significant in the analysis of trials with long-duration treatment. There were few short-term trials, explaining the smaller number of significant parameters. Overall, the results pointed to a greater effect of prolonged treatment on lean mass and diastolic blood pressure.
Effect of gender.
When comparing effects according to gender, a significant negative relationship was found only between proportion of women and the effect size for blood glucose (ß = 0.59, P = 0.03, adjusted R2 = 0.30), suggesting a lesser effect in women than in men.
Effect of age.
A significant relationship was observed between mean age and the effect size for LDL cholesterol (ß = 0.60, P = 0.03, R2 = 0.36) and total cholesterol (ß = 0.64, P < 0.04, R2 = 0.41): the younger the patient, the stronger the effect.
Effect of age at GHD onset.
The relationship between the proportion of patients with adult-onset (vs. childhood-onset) GHD and the effect of GH treatment was significant for diastolic blood pressure (ß = 0.88, P = 0.02, R2 = 0.71) and plasma insulin (ß = 0.76, P = 0.03, R2 = 0.50), suggesting a greater beneficial effect on blood pressure and a lesser negative impact on insulin in patients with adult-onset GHD.
Effect of the trial design.
The overall effect size in subgroup analyses of parallel-group studies remained similar for all outcomes. There were few cross-over studies (one for cholesterol and lean body mass, two for insulin and glucose, and four for blood pressure), and the global effect sizes were not significant.
| Discussion |
|---|
|
|
|---|
A major potential source of bias in systematic reviews is that trials with positive results are more likely to be published than trials with neutral or negative results. In our metaanalysis, this bias seems unlikely with regard to blood pressure and total and LDL cholesterol (rare significant results) and blood glucose and insulin (negative results). Furthermore, information provided to us by GH manufacturers suggests that most GH trials in this setting are published. Another limitation of metaanalyses is the variable quality of the selected trials. To minimize this problem, we selected only studies with protocols meeting strict methodological quality criteria. This, of course, does not rule out quality problems arising during the trials progress.
Lean body mass increased and fat mass decreased after GH treatment, whereas total body weight remained constant. These results support a beneficial effect of GH on the cardiovascular risk and were observed, whatever the method used to measure lean mass.
Effects on LDL cholesterol and total cholesterol were variable. Half the trials showed no significant difference between placebo and GH. However, the overall effect size suggests a beneficial effect of GH on these cardiovascular risk factors. In contrast, no effect on high-density lipoprotein cholesterol or triglyceride levels was observed.
In most studies, mild fluid retention was observed and led to a reduction in the GH dose or withdrawal of patients from the trial. In one trial, GH treatment was associated with hypertension (10). On the contrary, another trial (23) showed a significant beneficial effect of GH on diastolic blood pressure. The overall effect size supports this result, with a decrease in diastolic blood pressure and no change in systolic blood pressure on GH. The relationship between blood pressure and GH therapy may be due to stimulation of the renin-aldosterone system (55), an increase in nitric oxide formation (15), or a decrease in intima-media thickness (56). However, this effect was observed during long-term treatment (at a time when fluid homeostasis had normalized) rather than during shorter treatment, suggesting that an effect of GH on blood vessels is more likely (57). It is noteworthy that GH effects on blood pressure were mentioned in only eight trial reports, even though blood pressure is probably monitored in all trials, suggesting that no significant effect was noted in most studies.
It has been suggested that GH treatment may impair glucose tolerance and even lead to diabetes (58). In one trial (14), two cases of incident diabetes were reported. However, the effect of GH on fasting insulin and glucose concentrations varied among the studies. The overall effect sizes in this review suggest significant increases in both insulin and glucose concentrations during GH treatment. The insulin-antagonistic effect of GH likely explains this finding (58). However, it must be emphasized that the mean glucose concentration remained in the normal range. Our results do not support previous suggestions that insulin resistance falls during low-dose and long-term GH therapy (31, 59). Men were more sensitive to the effect of GH on insulin sensitivity in our analysis. A similar gender difference in the response to GH treatment has been described with regard to lean body mass and fat mass (60) and is in keeping with the higher GH dose requirements in women than in men. However, very few studies with a prolonged follow-up (
12 months) were included in this metaanalysis, and it must be pointed out that in the only trial reporting the effect of GH on this outcome, deleterious effects on insulin were not maintained at 12 and 18 months (14). Thus, studies with direct measurement of insulin sensitivity in patients treated on long-term with GH are needed before drawing firm conclusions about the effect (or absence of effect) of GH on this parameter in patients with GHD, despite a clear reduction in visceral fat.
Lower target doses are required to prevent adverse effects such as fluid retention and glucose elevation. However, our results suggest that, even at low doses, GH treatment is associated with elevated glucose and insulin concentrations, which are considered as cardiovascular risk factors. On the contrary, significant beneficial GH effects on cardiovascular risk factors such as lipid parameters and fat mass persisted at lower doses, even though the effect on fat mass tended to be weaker. Thus, the overall cardiovascular benefit of low-dose GH remains uncertain. However, taking into account the risk of cancer with GH treatment (61), the currently recommended use of low doses seems fully justified. Another important issue in all the trials reporting the effects of GH is the fact that many patients reduced the GH doses (due to side effects or according to IGF-I measurement), the final doses they achieved being lower than the target doses in a substantial number of patients. The issue of physiologic or pharmacological response to treatment is important. In this setting, it would have been interesting to study the dose-effect relationship in terms of IGF-I Z score, which takes into account the variance of age. Unfortunately, in the majority of studies, IGF-I was given in absolute terms, without any reference to normal age-adjusted ranges, which could have permitted a calculation of a SD score.
Our results suggest that young patients may be more sensitive than older patients to GH treatment. This negative relationship with age emerged for total and LDL cholesterol and has previously been described for lean body mass (33, 34).
Beneficial effects on body mass, cholesterol, and blood pressure increased with the duration of treatment, whereas adverse effects (on insulin and glucose) remained at a similar level. However, the results of subgroup analyses must be interpreted with caution because they involved a lower number of trials. Furthermore, long-term treatment usually corresponded to trials that did not exceed 6 months in duration.
We observed a difference between patients with adult-onset and childhood-onset GHD with regard to insulin and blood pressure. In contrast to previous studies (7, 20), GH treatment seemed to be more beneficial in adults with adult-onset GHD than in adults with childhood-onset GHD. We found no difference in GH effects between patients with multiple hormone deficiency and those with isolated GHD. However, the very small number of patients with isolated GH deficiency in most trials rules out firm conclusions.
In conclusion, this metaanalysis of blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trials shows that GH treatment has beneficial effects on lean body mass, fat mass, total and LDL cholesterol, and diastolic blood pressure in GH-deficient adults. GH may also have beneficial effects on other cardiovascular risk factors, such as fibrinogen (33), inflammatory parameters (14), cardiac function (62, 63), and intima-media thickness (56). As expected, GH reduced insulin sensitivity, whatever the dose and duration of treatment. Overall, however, the global cardiovascular benefit of GH treatment in adults remains to be determined in large, long-term trials with appropriate clinical end points.
| Acknowledgments |
|---|
| Footnotes |
|---|
Received May 14, 2003.
Accepted February 18, 2004.
| References |
|---|
|
|
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
N. Moller and J. O. L. Jorgensen Effects of Growth Hormone on Glucose, Lipid, and Protein Metabolism in Human Subjects Endocr. Rev., April 1, 2009; 30(2): 152 - 177. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. Colao, C. Di Somma, S. Spiezia, S. Savastano, F. Rota, M. C. Savanelli, and G. Lombardi Growth Hormone Treatment on Atherosclerosis: Results of a 5-Year Open, Prospective, Controlled Study in Male Patients with Severe Growth Hormone Deficiency J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., September 1, 2008; 93(9): 3416 - 3424. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. A van der Klaauw, A. M Pereira, T. J Rabelink, E. P M Corssmit, A.-J. Zonneveld, H. Pijl, H. C de Boer, J. W A Smit, J. A Romijn, and E. J P de Koning Recombinant human GH replacement increases CD34+ cells and improves endothelial function in adults with GH deficiency Eur. J. Endocrinol., August 1, 2008; 159(2): 105 - 111. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. A. van der Klaauw, T. van der Straaten, R. Baak-Pablo, N. R. Biermasz, H.-J. Guchelaar, A. M. Pereira, J. W. A. Smit, and J. A. Romijn Influence of the d3-Growth Hormone (GH) Receptor Isoform on Short-Term and Long-Term Treatment Response to GH Replacement in GH-Deficient Adults J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., July 1, 2008; 93(7): 2828 - 2834. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. L. Utz, A. Yamamoto, L. Hemphill, and K. K. Miller Growth Hormone Deficiency by Growth Hormone Releasing Hormone-Arginine Testing Criteria Predicts Increased Cardiovascular Risk Markers in Normal Young Overweight and Obese Women J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., July 1, 2008; 93(7): 2507 - 2514. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
C. Beauregard, A. L. Utz, A. E. Schaub, L. Nachtigall, B. M. K. Biller, K. K. Miller, and A. Klibanski Growth Hormone Decreases Visceral Fat and Improves Cardiovascular Risk Markers in Women with Hypopituitarism: A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Study J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., June 1, 2008; 93(6): 2063 - 2071. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. L. M. Oliveira, M. H. Aguiar-Oliveira, A. D'Oliveira Jr, R. M. C. Pereira, C. R. P. Oliveira, C. T. Farias, J. A. Barreto-Filho, F. D. Anjos-Andrade, C. Marques-Santos, A. C. Nascimento-Junior, et al. Congenital Growth Hormone (GH) Deficiency and Atherosclerosis: Effects of GH Replacement in GH-Naive Adults J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., December 1, 2007; 92(12): 4664 - 4670. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. Slawik, B. Klawitter, E. Meiser, M. Schories, O. Zwermann, K. Borm, M. Peper, B. Lubrich, M. J. Hug, M. Nauck, et al. Thyroid Hormone Replacement for Central Hypothyroidism: A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Two Doses of Thyroxine (T4) with a Combination of T4 and Triiodothyronine J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., November 1, 2007; 92(11): 4115 - 4122. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
H. Holmer, J. Svensson, L. Rylander, G. Johannsson, T. Rosen, B.-A. Bengtsson, M. Thoren, C. Hoybye, M. Degerblad, M. Bramnert, et al. Nonfatal Stroke, Cardiac Disease, and Diabetes Mellitus in Hypopituitary Patients on Hormone Replacement Including Growth Hormone J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., September 1, 2007; 92(9): 3560 - 3567. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. A van der Klaauw, N. R Biermasz, E. J M Feskens, M. B Bos, J. W A Smit, F. Roelfsema, E. P M Corssmit, H. Pijl, J. A Romijn, and A. M Pereira The prevalence of the metabolic syndrome is increased in patients with GH deficiency, irrespective of long-term substitution with recombinant human GH Eur. J. Endocrinol., April 1, 2007; 156(4): 455 - 462. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. Rizzo, R. Trepp, K. Berneis, and E. R Christ Atherogenic lipoprotein phenotype and low-density lipoprotein size and subclasses in patients with growth hormone deficiency before and after short-term replacement therapy Eur. J. Endocrinol., March 1, 2007; 156(3): 361 - 367. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
P. Le Corvoisier, L. Hittinger, P. Chanson, O. Montagne, I. Macquin-Mavier, and P. Maison Cardiac Effects of Growth Hormone Treatment in Chronic Heart Failure: A Meta-Analysis J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., January 1, 2007; 92(1): 180 - 185. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A A van der Klaauw, J A Romijn, N R Biermasz, J W A Smit, J van Doorn, O M Dekkers, F Roelfsema, and A M Pereira Sustained effects of recombinant GH replacement after 7 years of treatment in adults with GH deficiency. Eur. J. Endocrinol., November 1, 2006; 155(5): 701 - 708. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
R. Abs, U. Feldt-Rasmussen, A. F Mattsson, J. P Monson, B.-A. Bengtsson, M. I Goth, P. Wilton, and M. Koltowska-Haggstrom Determinants of cardiovascular risk in 2589 hypopituitary GH-deficient adults - a KIMS database analysis. Eur. J. Endocrinol., July 1, 2006; 155(1): 79 - 90. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. L. Menezes Oliveira, C. Marques-Santos, J. A. Barreto-Filho, R. Ximenes Filho, A. V. de Oliveira Britto, A. H. Oliveira Souza, C. M. Prado, C. R. Pereira Oliveira, R. M. C. Pereira, T. de Almeida Ribeiro Vicente, et al. Lack of Evidence of Premature Atherosclerosis in Untreated Severe Isolated Growth Hormone (GH) Deficiency due to a GH-Releasing Hormone Receptor Mutation J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., June 1, 2006; 91(6): 2093 - 2099. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
Y. Wei, Z. Rhani, and C. G. Goodyer Characterization of Growth Hormone Receptor Messenger Ribonucleic Acid Variants in Human Adipocytes J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., May 1, 2006; 91(5): 1901 - 1908. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. E. Molitch, D. R. Clemmons, S. Malozowski, G. R. Merriam, S. M. Shalet, M. L. Vance, and for The Endocrine Society's Clinical Guidelines Su Evaluation and Treatment of Adult Growth Hormone Deficiency: An Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., May 1, 2006; 91(5): 1621 - 1634. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. Baessler, A. E. Kwitek, M. Fischer, M. Koehler, W. Reinhard, J. Erdmann, G. Riegger, A. Doering, H. Schunkert, and C. Hengstenberg Association of the Ghrelin Receptor Gene Region With Left Ventricular Hypertrophy in the General Population: Results of the MONICA/KORA Augsburg Echocardiographic Substudy Hypertension, May 1, 2006; 47(5): 920 - 927. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. Bollerslev, T. Ueland, A. P Jorgensen, K. J Fougner, R. Wergeland, T. Schreiner, and P. Burman Positive effects of a physiological dose of GH on markers of atherogenesis: a placebo-controlled study in patients with adult-onset GH deficiency. Eur. J. Endocrinol., April 1, 2006; 154(4): 537 - 543. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. K. Paulsen, S. B. Pedersen, J. O. L. Jorgensen, S. Fisker, J. S. Christiansen, A. Flyvbjerg, and B. Richelsen Growth Hormone (GH) Substitution in GH-Deficient Patients Inhibits 11{beta}-Hydroxysteroid Dehydrogenase Type 1 Messenger Ribonucleic Acid Expression in Adipose Tissue J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., March 1, 2006; 91(3): 1093 - 1098. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. R. Hoffman, B. M. K. Biller, D. Cook, J. Baptista, B. L. Silverman, L. Dao, K. M. Attie, P. Fielder, T. Maneatis, B. Lippe, et al. Efficacy of a Long-Acting Growth Hormone (GH) Preparation in Patients with Adult GH Deficiency J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., December 1, 2005; 90(12): 6431 - 6440. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. Bollerslev, J. Hallen, K. J Fougner, A. P. Jorgensen, C. Kristo, H. Fagertun, O. Gudmundsen, P. Burman, and T. Schreiner Low-dose GH improves exercise capacity in adults with GH deficiency: effects of a 22-month placebo-controlled, crossover trial Eur. J. Endocrinol., September 1, 2005; 153(3): 379 - 387. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. Colao, C. Di Somma, A. Cuocolo, L. Spinelli, W. Acampa, S. Spiezia, F. Rota, M. C. Savanelli, and G. Lombardi Does a Gender-Related Effect of Growth Hormone (GH) Replacement Exist on Cardiovascular Risk Factors, Cardiac Morphology, and Performance and Atherosclerosis? Results of a Two-Year Open, Prospective Study in Young Adult Men and Women with Severe GH Deficiency J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., September 1, 2005; 90(9): 5146 - 5155. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
K. Chihara, E. Koledova, A. Shimatsu, Y. Kato, H. Kohno, T. Tanaka, A. Teramoto, P. C Bates, and A. F Attanasio An individualized GH dose regimen for long-term GH treatment in Japanese patients with adult GH deficiency Eur. J. Endocrinol., July 1, 2005; 153(1): 57 - 65. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. Gola, S. Bonadonna, M. Doga, and A. Giustina Growth Hormone and Cardiovascular Risk Factors J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., March 1, 2005; 90(3): 1864 - 1870. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 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 |