Literature DB >> 10209565

Comparison of the diagnostic utility of the simplified and standard i.m. glucagon stimulation test (IMGST).

S M Orme1, A Price, A P Weetman, R J Ross.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the peak GH and cortisol responses to the simplified and standard i.m. glucagon stimulation test (IMGST) in order to determine whether the use of a simplified form of this test results in a loss of diagnostic utility. PATIENT AND
DESIGN: A retrospective study of 35 consecutive patients with pituitary disease who underwent a standard IMGST to measure GH (n = 34) or cortisol (n = 21) reserve at the programmed investigation unit of the Northern General Hospital, Sheffield. MEASUREMENTS: Cortisol, glucose and GH levels were measured at baseline and 30, 60, 90, 120, 150, 180, 210 and 240 min during the standard IMGST. We used the hormone levels at baseline, 150 and 180 min for the simplified IMGST and compared the cortisol and GH responses achieved.
RESULTS: The median (range) peak GH and cortisol responses to simplified and standard IMGST were comparable 4.2 (0.5-47.5) vs 5.4 (0.5-47.5) mU/l (P = 0.75) and 635 (306-1669) vs 647 (306-1669) nmol/l (P = 0.801), respectively. Using the standard 'cut-off' points to assess GH (9 mU/l) or cortisol deficiency (580 nmol/l) there was no significant loss of diagnostic utility (P = 0.98 and P = 1.00, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: The simplified and standard IMGST have a similar diagnostic utility. The simplified IMGST could replace the standard IMGST as a screening test for GH and cortisol reserve in pituitary disease. The insulin-induced hypoglycaemia stress test can be reserved for cases in which a second assessment of pituitary reserve is clinically indicated or because of an indeterminate biochemical result.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1998        PMID: 10209565     DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2265.1998.00610.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Endocrinol (Oxf)        ISSN: 0300-0664            Impact factor:   3.478


  7 in total

1.  Clinical characteristics, timing of peak responses and safety aspects of two dosing regimens of the glucagon stimulation test in evaluating growth hormone and cortisol secretion in adults.

Authors:  Kevin C J Yuen; Beverly M K Biller; Laurence Katznelson; Sharon A Rhoads; Michelle H Gurel; Olivia Chu; Valentina Corazzini; Kellie Spiller; Murray B Gordon; Roberto Salvatori; David M Cook
Journal:  Pituitary       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 4.107

2.  Revised GH and cortisol cut-points for the glucagon stimulation test in the evaluation of GH and hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axes in adults: results from a prospective randomized multicenter study.

Authors:  Amir H Hamrahian; Kevin C J Yuen; Murray B Gordon; Karen J Pulaski-Liebert; James Bena; Beverly M K Biller
Journal:  Pituitary       Date:  2016-06       Impact factor: 4.107

3.  Glucagon is an ACTH secretagogue as effective as hCRH after intramuscolar administration while it is ineffective when given intravenously in normal subjects.

Authors:  E Arvat; B Maccagno; J Ramunni; R Giordano; L DiVito; F Broglio; M Maccario; F Camanni; E Ghigo
Journal:  Pituitary       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 4.107

4.  Glucagon administration elicits blunted GH but exaggerated ACTH response in obesity.

Authors:  F Tassone; S Grottoli; R Rossetto; B Maccagno; C Gauna; R Giordano; E Ghigo; M Maccario
Journal:  J Endocrinol Invest       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 4.256

5.  Effects of gender, body weight, and blood glucose dynamics on the growth hormone response to the glucagon stimulation test in patients with pituitary disease.

Authors:  Jessica R Wilson; Andrea L Utz; Jessica K Devin
Journal:  Growth Horm IGF Res       Date:  2015-12-08       Impact factor: 2.372

6.  Glucagon stimulation testing in assessing for adult growth hormone deficiency: current status and future perspectives.

Authors:  Kevin C J Yuen
Journal:  ISRN Endocrinol       Date:  2011-08-11

7.  Copeptin as a marker of an altered CRH axis in pituitary disease.

Authors:  Krzysztof C Lewandowski; Andrzej Lewiński; Elżbieta Skowrońska-Jóźwiak; Katarzyna Malicka; Wojciech Horzelski; Georg Brabant
Journal:  Endocrine       Date:  2017-08-09       Impact factor: 3.633

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.