help button home button Endocrine Society JCEM
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism , doi:10.1210/jc.2008-0713
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
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
Right arrow Citation Map
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 Reprints, Permissions and Rights
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Webb, S. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Webb, S. M.
Related Collections
Right arrow Neuroendocrinology and Pituitary
The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism Vol. 94, No. 2 392-399
Copyright © 2009 by The Endocrine Society

EXTENSIVE CLINICAL EXPERIENCE

Changing Patterns of the Adult Growth Hormone Deficiency Diagnosis Documented in a Decade-Long Global Surveillance Database

Susan M. Webb, Christian J. Strasburger, Daojun Mo, Mark L. Hartman, Shlomo Melmed, Heike Jung, Werner F. Blum, Andrea F. Attanasio on behalf of the HypoCCS International Advisory Board

Hospital Santa Creu i Sant Pau (S.M.W.), Autonomous University of Barcelona and Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red Unit 747, Barcelona, Spain; Charité-Universitätsmedizin (C.J.S.), Campus Mitte, D-10117 Berlin, Germany; Lilly Research Laboratories (D.M., M.L.H.), Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, Indiana 46285; Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (S.M.), Los Angeles, California 90048; Lilly Research GmbH (H.J., W.F.B.), Eli Lilly and Company, D-61350 Bad Homburg, Germany; and Cascina del Rosone (A.F.A.), 14041 Agliano Terme, Italy

Address all correspondence and requests for reprints to: Susan Webb, Department of Endocrinology, Hospital Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Autonomous University of Barcelona, Pare Claret 167, 08025 Barcelona, Spain. E-mail: swebb{at}santpau.cat.


   Abstract
Top
 Abstract
Introduction
 Patients and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Background: GH therapy in adult patients with GH deficiency (GHD) was approved over 10 yr ago, and the indication has subsequently gained broad acceptance. The HypoCCS surveillance database is a suitable means to examine the evolution of diagnostic patterns since 1996.

Methods: Baseline demographics, reported cause of GHD, and diagnostic tests were available from 5893 GH-treated patients. Trends for change over time in diagnosis, GH stimulation test data, and IGF-I measurements were analyzed at 2-yr intervals by linear regression models, with entry year as the predictive variable.

Results: Over the decade, there was a decrease in patients enrolled with diagnoses of pituitary adenoma (50.2 to 38.6%; P < 0.001), craniopharyngioma (13.3 to 8.4%; P = 0.005) and pituitary hemorrhage (5.8 to 2.8%; P = 0.001); increases in idiopathic GHD (13.9 to 19.3%; P < 0.001), less common diagnoses (7.4 to 15.8%; P < 0.001), and undefined/unknown diagnoses (1.3 to 8.6%; P < 0.001) were observed. Use of arginine, clonidine, and L-dopa tests declined, whereas use of the GHRH-arginine test increased. Median values for peak GH from all tests except GHRH-arginine and for IGF-I SD scores increased significantly (P < 0.001). Over the decade (1996–2005), idiopathic GHD was reported for 16.7% of patients, and more than half of these had adult onset GHD. In the idiopathic adult onset group, 40.2% had isolated GHD; 18.3 and 4.4% had a stimulation test GH peak of at least 3.0 and 5.0 µg/liter, respectively.

Conclusions: Significant shifts in diagnostic patterns have occurred since approval of the adult GHD indication, with a trend to less severe forms of GHD.


   Introduction
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
Patients and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
GH replacement therapy in adults with GH deficiency (GHD) was approved in 1995 in Europe, in 1996 in the United States, and in 2006 in Japan, and it is now an established treatment worldwide (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). Candidates for treatment, especially in pivotal studies (7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13), were initially chosen from a pool of patients having a typical cause of organic pituitary disease (e.g. pituitary adenoma) with deficiency of several pituitary hormones and severe GHD. However, with increasing acceptance of the adult GHD indication, it was expected that clinicians would also consider patients with the full spectrum of causes of hypopituitarism for GH replacement. In addition, various approaches to the biochemical diagnosis of adult GHD have emerged globally (14, 15), which is reflected by regulatory labeling (16, 17), reimbursement criteria (18, 19, 20, 21), and academic society recommendations (22, 23, 24, 25).

The Hypopituitary Control and Complications Study (HypoCCS) is a global observational study for adults with GHD that began in 1996 (2). Therefore, it offers a good opportunity to assess how the diagnosis of adult GHD has developed during the first 10 yr since the introduction of this indication for GH treatment into clinical practice. The objective of the present analysis of HypoCCS data was to describe the diagnostic patterns during the period from 1996 to 2005. Information from all patients who started GH treatment was evaluated to provide an unbiased picture of how adult GHD is assessed in clinical practice.


   Patients and Methods
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Patients and Methods
Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Patients

The study protocol specified that patients entering into HypoCCS should meet the adult GHD indication for Humatrope [somatropin (rDNA origin) for injection; Eli Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, IN] use according to the approved package insert for each participating country. Entry is based on a diagnosis of GHD by clinical history and/or biochemical tests; the diagnostic approach was at the discretion of the investigating physician. Until 2002, patients were enrolled in two separate databases for Europe and the United States. In 2002, a new unified global protocol was initiated, and by 2004–2005 all data were merged into a single global database. As of August 2005, the global database contained information on 6843 patients, with 5893 in the GH-treated group, 903 in the GH-untreated (control) group, and 47 lacking information on treatment. For the present analysis, baseline information from all GH-treated patients (n = 5893) was analyzed.

Diagnostic methods

The HypoCCS case report form contains a total of 21 diagnostic codes. For the purpose of the analysis, diagnostic codes were grouped into the following seven categories: pituitary adenoma, craniopharyngioma, nonpituitary intracranial tumors, pituitary hemorrhage and brain trauma, idiopathic, less common diagnoses (including sarcoidosis, empty sella, hypophysitis, pituitary infection, known and unknown genetic defects and cranial irradiation), and undefined or unknown diagnoses (referring to those patients for whom a diagnosis was insufficiently described or missing).

In HypoCCS, the choice of the GH stimulation test for evaluation of GHD is at the discretion of the investigating physician, and a variety of tests, alone or in combination, have been reported. In the event that more than one stimulation test was reported, only one test was chosen for analysis according to the following predefined order: insulin tolerance test (ITT), GHRH-arginine, arginine, GHRH, glucagon, L-dopa, clonidine, and other tests, which included a variety of combination tests such as arginine/L-dopa, L-dopa/propranolol, and glucagon/propranolol, as well as nondefined tests. Serum IGF and GH concentrations may be measured either in a central laboratory or in local laboratories. The central laboratory for Europe is the University Children’s Hospital (Giessen, Germany), and the U.S. central laboratory is Esoterix Endocrinology (Calabasas Hills, CA). The central laboratories measured serum IGF-I and IGF binding protein-3, and in the United States, GH concentrations using methods previously described (26, 27, 28). Central IGF-I measurements were available from 3353 patients, and local IGF-I concentrations were provided for 426 patients. All IGF-I values were transformed into IGF-I SD scores (SDS) based on age- and gender-matched reference values provided by the central laboratories (29). Although differences in GH immunoassays certainly exist, for purposes of this analysis peak GH results from both central and local laboratories were pooled.

Statistical methods

Age, gender, GHD onset [onset during adulthood (AO) or childhood (CO)], body mass index (BMI), primary diagnosis, presence or absence of multiple pituitary hormone deficiencies, serum IGF-I SDS, and peak GH results from stimulation tests were assessed at 2-yr intervals from 1996–1997 until 2004–2005, based on the time when a patient entered HypoCCS and using data collected at the time of entry. Trends across the entire decade were analyzed and compared.

In addition, the percentage of patients in different diagnostic categories having peak GH concentration below 3.0 µg/liter and below 5.0 µg/liter was assessed. These cutoff values were chosen because they have been commonly used in clinical practice based on recommendations of regulatory bodies (16, 17, 18, 19), scientific societies (22, 23, 24), and third-party payers (21). In addition, the original U.S. HypoCCS protocol specified an entry criterion of a peak GH value below 5.0 µg/liter on a standard GH stimulation test because that was the value used in the original registration studies (10). For this analysis, results from all GH stimulation tests were included with the exception of the combined GHRH-arginine test, which was excluded because it was not frequently used in the early years of HypoCCS and validated cutoff values have been developed only recently (28, 30, 31).

Median, 25th, and 75th percentiles are presented to describe continuous variables, unless otherwise specified. Both the number of observations and percentages are presented to describe categorical variables. A linear regression model, with entry year as a predictive variable, was used to test the trend for continuous variables. Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics (modified ridit scores) were used to test the trend for categorical variables, and P values shown are for the trend for change over the decade, unless otherwise specified. Results were considered significant at a two-sided significance level of 0.05.


   Results
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Patients and Methods
 Results
Discussion
 References
 
Demography and baseline diagnosis

The data of the 5893 GH-treated patients were collected in HypoCCS from 16 countries in Europe and North America. The distribution between North America, i.e. United States and Canada, and the European Countries was 47.3%/52.7%, indicating a balanced contribution from the two geographic areas.

From 1996 to 2005, the average baseline age did not change (mean ± SD, 1996–1997, 46.1 ± 15.4 yr, n = 1112; 2004–2005, 45.7 ± 14.3 yr, n = 653; P value for trend = 0.323). There were, however, significant shifts in gender and onset distributions; the overall proportion of female patients increased from 44.2 to 53.3% (P < 0.001) and that of AO patients from 78.9 to 85.1% (P = 0.015).

The distribution of the seven diagnostic categories by 2-yr intervals is presented in Fig. 1Go. In 1996–1997, approximately half (50.2%) of the patients had a diagnosis of pituitary adenoma, followed by idiopathic GHD (13.9%), craniopharyngioma (13.3%), nonpituitary intracranial tumors (8.2%), other less common diagnoses (7.4%), pituitary hemorrhage (5.8%), and unspecified or unknown diagnoses (1.3%). Across the decade, a gradual shift in diagnoses took place. In 2004–2005, the proportion of patients enrolled with pituitary adenoma, craniopharyngioma, and pituitary hemorrhage had significantly decreased to 38.6% (P < 0.001), 8.4% (P = 0.005), and 2.8% (P = 0.001), respectively. In contrast, the proportion of patients with idiopathic GHD, less common diagnoses, and undefined/unknown causes had significantly increased to 19.3% (P < 0.001), 15.8% (P < 0.001), and 8.6% (P < 0.001), respectively. Among patients enrolled over the entire decade (1996–2005), the diagnostic group of undefined/unknown causes accounted for 3.0% of patients; patients in this group were investigated further, and the case report forms were individually checked. Although the primary diagnosis was missing in most cases, many had multiple pituitary hormone deficiencies, were on multiple hormone replacement, and had biochemical findings confirming GHD. However, a few patients (n = 13) were identified who had received GH for conditions such as osteogenesis imperfecta, aging, chronic fatigue syndrome, rehabilitation after fractures, and anorexia.


Figure 1
View larger version (20K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		FIG. 1. Proportion of patients with various etiologies of GHD and P values for the trend over time. The mean percentages for each etiology are shown by 2-yr intervals across the decade and also for the entire decade (1996–2005).

 
Biochemical testing of GHD: overall trends

Eleven different types of GH stimulation tests were used by the HypoCCS investigators from 1996 to 2005. The most widely used tests in 1996–1997 were the ITT and the arginine test. Although the use of the ITT remained constant (1996–1997, 38.8%; 2004–2005, 35.1%), the arginine test was used progressively less, from 29.2% in 1996–1997 to 13.5% in 2004–2005 (P < 0.001). The use of the L-dopa and clonidine tests also declined from 11.1 to 5.8% (P < 0.001) and from 5.5 to 1.3% (P < 0.001), respectively. In contrast, the use of the GHRH-arginine test increased from 1.4 to 21.2% (P < 0.001).

Figure 2Go illustrates the median (with 25th to 75th percentile range) peak GH results for the ITT, the arginine test, the GHRH-arginine test, and pooled results from all other remaining stimulation tests, presented by 2-yr intervals. Across the decade, peak GH values increased significantly for all tests except the GHRH-arginine test. However, for all tests, median and 75th percentile values remained consistently below 3.0 µg/liter for all tests except the GHRH-arginine test, where the upper quartile range barely exceeded 3.0 µg/liter.


Figure 2
View larger version (28K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		FIG. 2. Median (and 25th to 75th percentile range) peak GH values for all stimulation tests except GHRH-arginine (A), the ITT (B), arginine test (C), and combined GHRH-arginine test (D). The box indicates the 25th to 75th percentile range, with median shown by the internal bar; numbers for each yearly interval give the number of tests analyzed; P values for trend over time are indicated for each panel.

 
The trend seen in GH stimulation test results was confirmed by the IGF-I data. Median values increased from –3.0 SDS in 1996–1997 to –2.1 SDS in 2004–2005, with a statistically significant trend across the decade (P < 0.001). In 1996–1997, an IGF-I value below –2 SDS was reported for 68% of patients, and this proportion decreased to 52% in 2004–2005.

Biochemical testing of GHD: trends by diagnostic category

Table 1Go presents the percentage of patients enrolled into HypoCCS in 1996–1997, in 2004–2005, and from 1996–2005 with a GH peak value below either 3.0 µg/liter or 5.0 µg/liter, for each diagnostic category. Over the decade, the percentage of patients with peak GH results below both cutoff values significantly declined for patients with pituitary adenoma, idiopathic GHD, and less common diagnoses. Although the change was small in the pituitary adenoma group (from 96.8 to 89.5% for the 3.0 µg/liter cutoff and from 99.4 to 95.8% for the 5.0 µg/liter cutoff), it was of greater magnitude in the idiopathic GHD group (from 92.4 to 81.0% and from 98.5 to 91.7%, respectively) and in the less common diagnosis group (from 94.4 to 67.6% and from 97.2 to 83.8%, respectively).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		TABLE 1. Percentage of GH-treated patients in different diagnostic categories enrolled in HypoCCS in 1996–1997, 2004–2005, and from 1996–2005 having peak GH concentration below 3.0 and 5.0 µg/liter

 
The diagnosis of idiopathic GHD

In the entire HypoCCS database (1996–2005), 16.7% (n = 981) of all patients enrolled were reported to have idiopathic GHD. In Table 2Go, the demographic and diagnostic data of AO and CO patients reported within this diagnostic category are presented. Of the 981 subjects, 397 (40.5%) were CO, and 584 (59.5%) were AO. From 1996–1997 to 2004–2005, there was a significant (P < 0.001) increase in the proportion of females in the AO group, whereas BMI did not change. The percentage of patients with isolated GHD increased in both onset groups, but the increase was only significant in the AO group (from 22.1 to 67.0%; P < 0.001) and not in CO patients (from 21.8 to 40.0%; P = 0.292). In parallel, from 1996–1997 to 2004–2005, the proportion of AO patients with a peak GH value (all stimulation tests except the GHRH-arginine test) above the two specified cutoff values increased significantly from 8.1 to 21.9% (P = 0.024) and from 1.6 to 9.6% (P = 0.001) for the 3.0 µg/liter and 5.0 µg/liter cutoffs, respectively. In contrast, the change was opposite in CO patients: whereas 7.1 and 1.4% of patients had stimulated GH values above the cutoff levels of 3.0 and 5.0 µg/liter, respectively, in 1996–1997, none had a peak value higher than either cutoff in 2004–2005. No changes were seen in IGF-I SDS in AO patients, but in CO patients the mean IGF-I SDS increased from –5.3 ± 2.5 to –3.3 ± 3.0 (P = 0.001).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		TABLE 2. Clinical data of patients with idiopathic GHD at enrollment into HypoCCS in 1996–1997, 2004–2005, and 1996–2005, according to diagnosis of GHD as AO or CO

 

   Discussion
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Patients and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
References
 
These results are the first analysis of global observational data regarding the evolution of the diagnosis of adult GHD in both the United States and Europe since the approval of this indication for GH treatment by regulatory bodies in 1995 and 1996. For the present analysis, all GH-treated patients enrolled into the global HypoCCS database during the period 1996–1997 to 2004–2005 were analyzed, providing a complete overview of diagnostic practices used to select adult patients with GHD for GH replacement. Due to the large number of investigators participating in this study, these results are highly likely to reflect the trends in endocrine clinical practice over the decade in the United States, Canada, and Europe.

Overall, pituitary adenoma was the predominant baseline diagnosis in the HypoCCS database, and the distribution of other causes of GHD was consistent with that seen in other international surveillance databases of adult GHD. For example, according to very recent data in the KIMS international database (32), pituitary adenoma accounted for 39.6%, craniopharyngioma for 12.1%, Sheehan syndrome and traumatic brain injury for 5.3%, and idiopathic GHD for 15.5% of all diagnoses. In the HypoCCS database, percentages for these diagnoses were 45.6, 11.4, 5.6, and 16.7%, respectively.

However, several relevant changes in patient characteristics and diagnoses have taken place over the decade, demonstrating an evolution in physicians’ practices for selecting patients for adult GH replacement. Although the mean age of the patient population did not change, progressively more female and less CO patients were enrolled. Fewer patients with typical organic causes of adult pituitary disease were enrolled, and more patients with less common causes of GHD have started GH replacement. These changes in demography and baseline diagnosis quite likely reflect the fact that patients who were enrolled in early proof of principle (7, 8, 9) and registration phase studies (10), as well as treated in clinical practice soon after approval of the indication, had been specifically selected from among patients with organic pituitary disease and severe hypopituitarism. Subsequently, with increasing awareness among a broader number of endocrinologists, patients with a wider spectrum of causes for GHD were considered for GH treatment. Such a phenomenon is not unexpected because, as with any new drug therapy, treatment is initially confined to the most typical cases and is progressively extended as it gains acceptance in clinical practice.

In addition, we observed a proportional increase over time in the number of patients with an undefined or unknown diagnosis. This group contains a number of patients in whom a diagnosis could not be assigned because of missing or insufficient specific information. These patients, who accounted for less than 3.0% of the entire HypoCCS database (1996–2005) population, are usually excluded when specific analyses are performed on surveillance databases (2, 33, 34) but provide important information in the context of the present assessment of trends in clinical practice. Although most of these patients had documented multiple pituitary deficiencies, a careful database search identified a very small number of subjects (n = 13) in whom the primary reason for GH treatment was not GHD but a different disease entity.

A GH stimulation test is required to establish the biochemical diagnosis of GHD. As documented in the HypoCCS database, a large variety of provocative agents, alone or in combination, are used to establish the biochemical diagnosis in clinical practice. In the GH Research Society (GRS) guidelines published first in 1998 (22), the ITT was recommended as the test of choice, followed by the glucagon and arginine tests as alternatives, with the GHRH-arginine test suggested as a future option. The 2007 updated GRS guidelines confirm the value of the ITT, but also recommend the GHRH-arginine test as a primary choice (14, 24). The present data from HypoCCS demonstrate that, whereas the ITT is still the most widely used test (14, 15), the GHRH-arginine test has gained increasing acceptance, essentially at the expense of the arginine test but also of less validated tests such as the GHRH and L-dopa tests. The GHRH-arginine test is also recommended by the recent Endocrine Society guidelines (23). The clonidine test, a poorly reproducible and not recommended test, has been used less and less over the decade.

Recent studies have demonstrated that different peak GH cutoff values for establishing the biochemical diagnosis of adult GHD are needed to optimize the sensitivity and specificity of each GH stimulation test (28, 30, 31). However, in clinical practice, the peak GH cutoff that is employed often differs based on regulatory requirements (16, 17), society guidelines (22, 23, 24, 25), local reimbursement criteria (18, 19, 20, 21), and practical considerations such as the local availability of specific provocative agents. In the United States, a peak GH value of less than 5.0 µg/liter, which was used for selection of adult GHD patients for the pivotal registration studies (10), was specified by the original U.S. HypoCCS protocol in 1996, based on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved product labeling at the time. This standard was reinforced by the guidelines of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists who recommended that this threshold be used for all GH stimulation tests (25). A recent U.S. study (28) validated cutoffs of 5.1 and 4.1 µg/liter for the ITT and GHRH-arginine test, respectively, and these diagnostic thresholds were subsequently endorsed in 2006 by The Endocrine Society guidelines (23). In Europe, product labeling requires patients with adult GHD to be severely GH deficient (16), but a defined peak GH cutoff is not specified. However, the GRS-recommended cutoff of 3.0 µg/liter (22, 24) is widely applied and has also become an official criterion for reimbursement in some countries (18, 19).

Over the decade, a small but significant increase in GH peak values was observed for all stimulation tests in the HypoCCS database, with the exception of the GHRH-arginine test. Similarly, a concomitant significant decrease in the proportion of patients with peak GH results below the specified cutoff values (<3 µg/liter and <5 µg/liter) was seen for patients with pituitary adenoma, idiopathic GHD, and less common diagnoses. This may reflect, in part, the significant variance in the biochemical diagnosis of adult GHD globally. In recent publications, validated cutoff values for GH stimulation tests range from approximately 1 µg/liter for weaker provocative tests such as the arginine and L-dopa test (28) to 11.5 µg/liter for lean patients undergoing the GHRH-arginine test (30). Recently, diagnosis of partial GHD in adults has been proposed based on a range of peak GH values in the ITT between 3.0 and 7.0 µg/liter (35, 36, 37), although this diagnosis was not endorsed by recent guidelines (23, 24). More pragmatically, the trends observed in the present observational study database may reflect the outcomes of GH stimulation tests within the broader diagnostic spectrum of GHD and the tendency for physicians to consider the individual case presentation in addition to the biochemical test result. Overall, based on the range of peak GH values seen in the HypoCCS database, it can be concluded that in clinical practice the biochemical diagnosis of GHD is usually made in a manner consistent with product labeling and society guidelines.

Although a well-defined history of pituitary disease gives the appropriate weight to biochemical findings consistent with GHD, GH stimulation test results alone may not be sufficient to establish a diagnosis of GHD in the absence of any specific sign of hypothalamic or pituitary pathology. This applies in particular to the diagnosis of idiopathic GHD, which has been considered rare or even nonexistent in adulthood (23, 24) but is reported in 16.7% of patients in the HypoCCS database, of whom more than 50% were of AO. Although in most patients with CO idiopathic GHD peak GH values and IGF-I values suggest severe GHD, this is not the case in patients with AO idiopathic GHD in whom the proportion of patients having a test result above the specified cutoff has increased severalfold from 1996–1997 to 2004–2005. The proportion of AO idiopathic patients with isolated GHD has also increased from 22.1 to 67.0% during the decade. From the information available in the database, we cannot further ascertain the cause of GHD in these patients. Possibly, in those with multiple pituitary hormone deficiencies (60% in AO patients), the etiology of pituitary disease was not sufficiently investigated. Alternatively, in the remainder, and specifically in those with isolated GHD, confounders influencing the outcome of biochemical testing such as obesity (38, 39), aging (40, 41), or the use of weaker provocative agents (such as L-dopa or arginine) may play a role (22, 23, 24).

In conclusion, the data gathered over 10 yr in a surveillance database demonstrate that adult GHD has been an evolving diagnosis as new aspects emerged and clinical experience accumulated. Specifically, the observed broadening of the diagnostic spectrum is reflected both in the causes of GHD reported as well as the biochemical test results. Some of the heterogeneity observed in this global observational study most likely reflects the varying biochemical criteria for establishing the diagnosis of GHD. In addition, the increase over the decade in the number of patients reported as AO idiopathic GHD, particularly those without other pituitary hormone deficiencies, suggests that in some patients the diagnosis of GHD may have been based on the GH stimulation test results alone in the absence of any clinical signs or a history of pituitary disease. For these patients the diagnosis of GHD and the decision for GH replacement remains unclear.


   Acknowledgments
 
The authors express their gratitude to all HypoCCS investigators and study coordinators for their commitment to this long-term study and to the patients who participated. The members of the HypoCCS International Advisory Board are: PD Dr. A. F. Attanasio, Agliano Terme, Italy; Prof. P. Beck-Peccoz, Milan, Italy; Prof. W. F. Blum, Bad Homburg, Germany; Prof. R. Bouillon, Leuven, Belgium; Prof. P. Chanson, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France; Prof. K. Chihara, Kobe, Japan; Prof. D. R. Clemmons, Chapel Hill, North Carolina; Dr. G. B. Cutler, Indianapolis, Indiana; Prof. E. M. Erfurth, Lund, Sweden; Dr. M. Hartman, Indianapolis, Indiana; Prof. K. Y. Ho, Sydney, Australia; Dr. H. Jung, Bad Homburg, Germany; Prof. D. Kleinberg, New York, NY; Prof. S. W. J. Lamberts, Rotterdam, The Netherlands; Prof. S. Melmed, Los Angeles, California; Prof. L. L. Robinson, Memphis, Tennessee; Prof. R. J. Ross, Sheffield, United Kingdom; Prof. A. Shimatsu, Kyoto, Japan; Prof. C. J. Strasburger, Berlin, Germany; Prof. S. M. Webb, Barcelona, Spain; Dr. W. Woodmansee, Denver, Colorado; and Dr. A. Zimmermann, Indianapolis, Indiana. The authors also thank Peter Bates and Influence Medical Communication, UK, for help in preparation of the manuscript.


   Footnotes
 
Author Disclosure Summary: S.M.W. consults for and has received lecture fees from Lilly and Novartis. C.J.S. consults for and has received lecture fees from Lilly and Pfizer. D.M. is employed by Lilly. S.M. consults for Lilly. M.L.H., H.J., and W.F.B. are employed by and have equity interests in Lilly. A.F.A. consults for and has received lecture fees from Lilly.

First Published Online November 11, 2008

Abbreviations: AO, Adult onset; BMI, body mass index; CO, childhood onset; GHD, GH deficiency; ITT, insulin tolerance test; SDS, SD score.

Received April 1, 2008.

Accepted October 30, 2008.


   References
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Patients and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 

  1. Carroll PV, Christ ER, Bengtsson BA, Carlsson L, Christiansen JS, Clemmons D, Hintz R, Ho K, Laron Z, Sizonenko P, Sonksen PH, Tanaka T, Thorner M 1998 Growth hormone deficiency in adulthood and the effects of growth hormone replacement: a review. Growth Hormone Research Society Scientific Committee. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 83:382–395[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  2. Attanasio AF, Bates PC, Ho KK, Webb SM, Ross RJ, Strasburger CJ, Bouillon R, Crowe B, Selander K, Valle D, Lamberts SW 2002 Hypopituitary Control and Complications Study International Advisory Board. Human growth hormone replacement in adult hypopituitary patients: long-term effects on body composition and lipid status—3-year results from the HypoCCS database. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 87:1600–1606[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  3. Johansson G 2007 Management of adult growth hormone deficiency. Endocr Metab Clin North Am 36:203–220[CrossRef]
  4. van der Klaauw AA, Romijn JA, Biermasz NR, Smit JW, van Doorn J, Dekkers OM, Roelfsema F, Pereira AM 2006 Sustained effects of recombinant GH replacement after 7 years of treatment in adults with GH deficiency. Eur J Endocrinol 155:701–708[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  5. Gibney J, Wallace JD, Spinks T, Schnorr L, Ranicar A, Cuneo RC, Lockhart S, Burnand KG, Salomon F, Sonksen PH, Russell-Jones D 1999 The effects of 10 years of recombinant human growth hormone in adult GH deficient patients. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 84:2596–2602[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  6. Götherström G, Bengtsson BA, Bosaeus BA, Johannsson G, Svensson J 2007 A 10-year, prospective study of the metabolic effects of growth hormone replacement in adults. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 92:1442–1445[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  7. Salomon F, Cuneo RD, Hesp R, Sönksen PH 1989 The effects of treatment with recombinant human growth hormone on body composition and metabolism in adults with growth hormone deficiency. N Engl J Med 321:1797–1803[Abstract]
  8. Binnerts A, Swart GR, Wilson JH, Hoogerbrugge N, Pols HA, Birkenhager JC 1992 The effect of growth hormone administration in growth hormone deficient adults on bone, protein, carbohydrate and lipid homeostasis, as well as on body composition. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 37:79–87[Medline]
  9. Bengtsson BA, Eden S, Lonn L, Kvis H, Stokland A, Lindstedt G, Bosaeus I, Tolli J, Sjostrom E, Isaksson OG 1993 Treatment of adults with growth hormone deficiency with recombinant human GH. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 76:309–317[Abstract]
  10. Attanasio AF, Lamberts SWJ, Matranga AMC, Birkett MA, Bates PC, Valk NK, Hilsted J, Bengtsson BA, Strasburger CJ 1997 Adult growth hormone (GH)-deficient patients demonstrate heterogeneity between childhood onset and adult onset before and during human GH treatment. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 82:82–88[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  11. Hoffman AR, Kuntze JE, Baptista J, Baum HBA, Baumann GP, Biller BMK, Clark RV, Cook D, Inzucchi SE, Kleinberg D, Klibanski A, Phillips LS, Ridgway EC, Robbins RJ, Schlechte J, Sharma M, Thorner MO, Vance ML 2004 Growth hormone (GH) replacement therapy in adult-onset GH deficiency: effects on body composition in men and women in a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 89:2048–2056[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  12. Chihara K, Koledova E, Shimatsu A, Kato Y, Kohno H, Tanaka T, Teramoto A, Bates PC, Attanasio AF 2004 Adult GH deficiency in Japanese patients: effects of GH treatment in a randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Eur J Endocrinol 151:343–350[Abstract]
  13. Chihara K, Koledova E, Shimatsu A, Kato Y, Kohno H, Tanaka T, Teramoto A, Bates PC, Attanasio AF 2005 An individualized GH dose regimen for long-term GH treatment in Japanese patients with adult GH deficiency. Eur J Endocrinol 153:57–65[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  14. Ghigo E, Aimaretti G, Corneli G 2008 Diagnosis of adult GH deficiency. Growth Horm IGF Res 18:1–16[CrossRef][Medline]
  15. Toogood A 2007 Growth hormone tests: are they all the same? Horm Res 68(Suppl 5):66–67
  16. 2008 Humatrope. Summary of product characteristics United Kingdom. http://emc.medicines.org.uk/emc/assets/c/html/displaydoc.asp?DocumentID=601 [accessed 20 March 2008]
  17. 2006 Humatrope [package insert]. Indianapolis: Eli Lilly, Co.
  18. 2004 Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA). Health Ministries guidelines for treatment of adults with GHD, Ministry of Health, Italy. Nota 39:53
  19. 2008 Criterios para la utilizacion racional de la hormona de crecimiento en adultos. Health Ministries guidelines for treatment of adults with GHD, Ministry of Health, Spain. www.msc.es/profesionales/farmacia/pdf/CriteriosHCAdultos.pdf [accessed 20 March 2008]
  20. National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) 2003 Growth hormone deficiency (adults)—human growth hormone. Guidelines of the British National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Technology appraisal August 2003. http://guidance.nice.org.uk/TA64 [accessed 20 March 2008]
  21. Biller BMK, Vance ML, Kleinberg DL, Cook DM, Gordon T 2000 Clinical and reimbursement issues in growth hormone use in adults. Am J Manag Care 6(15 Suppl):S817–S827
  22. 1998 Consensus guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of adult with growth hormone deficiency: summary statement of the Growth Hormone Research Society Workshop on adult growth hormone deficiency. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 83:379–381
  23. Molitch ME, Clemmons DR, Malozowski S, Merriam GR, Shalet SM, Vance ML 2006 Evaluation and treatment of adult growth hormone deficiency: an Endocrine Society clinical practice guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 91:1621–1634[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  24. Ho KK 2007 GH Deficiency Consensus Workshop Participants. 2007 Consensus guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of adults with GH deficiency II: a statement of the GH Research Society in association with the European Society for Pediatric Endocrinology, Lawson Wilkins Society, European Society of Endocrinology, Japan Endocrine Society, and Endocrine Society of Australia. Eur J Endocrinol 157:695–700[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  25. Gharib H, Cook DM, Saenger PH, Bengtsson BA, Feld S, Nippoldt TB, Rodbard HW, Seibel JA, Vance ML, Zimmerman D, Palumbo PJ, Bergman DA, Garber JR, Hamilton Jr CR, Petal SM, Rettinger HI, Service FJ, Shankar TP, Stoffer SS, Tourletot JB, AACE Growth Hormone Task Force 2003 American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists medical guidelines for clinical practice for growth hormone use in adults and children-2003 update. Endocr Pract 9:64–76[Medline]
  26. Blum WF, Breier BH 1994 Radioimmunoassays for IGFs and IGFBPs. Growth Regul 4(Suppl 1):11–19
  27. Hartman ML, Crowe BJ, Biller BMK, Ho KKY, Clemmons DR, Chipman JJ 2002 Which patients do not require a growth hormone (GH) stimulation test for the diagnosis of adult GH deficiency? J Clin Endocrinol Metab 87:477–485[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  28. Biller BMK, Samuels MH, Zagar A, Cook DM, Arafah BM, Bonert V, Stavrou S, Kleinberg DL, Chipman JJ, Hartman ML 2002 Sensitivity and specificity of six tests for the diagnosis of adult GH deficiency. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 87:2067–2079[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  29. Blum WF, Schweizer R 2003 Insulin-like growth factors and their binding proteins. In: Ranke M, ed. Diagnostics of endocrine function in children and adolescents. Basel, Switzerland: Karger Publishers; 166–199
  30. Corneli G, Di Somma C, Baldelli R, Rovere S, Gasco V, Croce CG, Grottoli S, Maccario M, Colao A, Lombardi G, Ghigo E, Camanni F, Aimaretti G 2005 The cut-off limits of the GH response to GH-releasing hormone-arginine test related to body mass index. Eur J Endocrinol 153:257–264[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  31. Corneli G, Di Somma C, Prodam F, Bellone J, Bellone S, Gasco V, Baldelli R, Rovere S, Schneider HJ, Gargantini L, Gastaldi R, Ghizzoni L, Valle D, Salerno M, Colao A, Bona G, Ghigo E, Maghnie M, Aimaraetti G 2007 Cut-off limits of the GH response to GHRH plus arginine test and IGF-I levels for the diagnosis of GH deficiency in late adolescents and young adults. Eur J Endocrinol 157:701–708[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  32. Mattsson AF, Koltowska-Häggström M, Saller B, Gaillard R 2008 Total and cause specific mortality in patients from the KIMS database: direct evidence for a beneficial effect of GH replacement therapy on mortality in adult GH deficient patients. 10th European Congress of Endocrinology, Endocrine Abstracts. www.endocrine-abstracts.org 16:P404
  33. Abs R, Feldt-Rasmussen U, Mattson AF, Monson JP, Bengtsson BA, Goth MI, Wilton P, Koltowska-Haggstrom M 2006 Determinants of cardiovascular risk factors in 2589 hypopituitary GH-deficient adults—a KIMS database analysis. Eur J Endocrinol 155:79–80[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  34. Filipsson H, Monson JP, Koltowska-Haggstrom M, Mattsson A, Johannsson G 2006 The impact of glucocorticoid replacement regimens on metabolic outcome and comorbidity in hypopituitary patients. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 91:3954–3961[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  35. Murray RD, Adams JE, Shalet SM 2004 Adults with partial growth hormone deficiency have an adverse body composition. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 89:1586–1591[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  36. Murray RD, Bidlingmeier M, Strasburger CJ, Shalet SM 2007 The diagnosis of partial GH deficiency in adults with a putative insult to the hypothalamo-pituitary axis. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2007 92:1705–1709[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  37. Colao A, Di Somma C, Spiezia S, Rota F, Pivonello R, Savastano S, Lombardi G 2006 The natural history of partial growth hormone deficiency in adults: a prospective study on the cardiovascular risk and atherosclerosis. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 91:2191–2200[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  38. Bonert VS, Elashoff JD, Barnettt P, Melmed S 2004 Body mass index determines evoked growth hormone (GH) responsiveness in normal healthy male subjects: diagnostic caveat for adult GH deficiency. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 89:3397–3401[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  39. Williams T, Berelowitz M, Joffe SN, Thorner MO, Rivier J, Vale W, Frohman LA 1984 Impaired growth hormone responses to growth hormone releasing factor in obesity. A pituitary defect reversed with weight reduction. N Engl J Med 311:1403–1407[Abstract]
  40. Melmed S 2006 Supplemental growth hormone in healthy adults: the endocrinologist’s responsibility. Nat Clin Pract Endocrinol Metab 2:119
  41. Zadik Z, Chalew SA, McCarter Jr RJ, Meistas M, Kowarski AA 1985 The influence of age on the 24-hour integrated concentration of growth hormone in normal individuals. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 60:513–516[Abstract/Free Full Text]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab.Home page
S. M. Webb, D. Mo, S. W. J. Lamberts, S. Melmed, F. Cavagnini, F. Pecori Giraldi, C. J. Strasburger, A. G. Zimmermann, W. W. Woodmansee, and on behalf of the International HypoCCS Advisory Bo
Metabolic, Cardiovascular, and Cerebrovascular Outcomes in Growth Hormone-Deficient Subjects with Previous Cushing's Disease or Non-Functioning Pituitary Adenoma
J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., February 1, 2010; 95(2): 630 - 638.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab.Home page
A. F. Attanasio, D. Mo, E. M. Erfurth, M. Tan, K. Y. Ho, D. Kleinberg, A. G. Zimmermann, P. Chanson, and on behalf of the International Hypopituitary Contr
Prevalence of Metabolic Syndrome in Adult Hypopituitary Growth Hormone (GH)-Deficient Patients Before and After GH Replacement
J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., January 1, 2010; 95(1): 74 - 81.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab.Home page
A. Secco, N. di Iorgi, F. Napoli, E. Calandra, A. Calcagno, M. Ghezzi, C. Frassinetti, N. Fratangeli, S. Parodi, M. Benassai, et al.
Reassessment of the Growth Hormone Status in Young Adults with Childhood-Onset Growth Hormone Deficiency: Reappraisal of Insulin Tolerance Testing
J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., November 1, 2009; 94(11): 4195 - 4204.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Eur J EndocrinolHome page
G Brabant, E M Poll, P Jonsson, D Polydorou, and I Kreitschmann-Andermahr
Etiology, baseline characteristics, and biochemical diagnosis of GH deficiency in the adult: are there regional variations?
Eur. J. Endocrinol., November 1, 2009; 161(suppl_1): S25 - S31.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Eur J EndocrinolHome page
J. D J Thomas and J. P Monson
Adult GH deficiency throughout lifetime
Eur. J. Endocrinol., November 1, 2009; 161(suppl_1): S97 - S106.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab.Home page
K. C. J. Yuen, B. M. K. Biller, M. E. Molitch, and D. M. Cook
Is Lack of Recombinant Growth Hormone (GH)-Releasing Hormone in the United States a Setback or Time to Consider Glucagon Testing for Adult GH Deficiency?
J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., August 1, 2009; 94(8): 2702 - 2707.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
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
Right arrow Citation Map
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 Reprints, Permissions and Rights
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Webb, S. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Webb, S. M.
Related Collections
Right arrow Neuroendocrinology and Pituitary

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