CONTEXT: GH and IGF-I are important regulators of metabolism and body composition. In acromegaly, a state of GH and IGF-I excess, the lipolytic and insulin antagonistic effects of GH may alter adipose tissue (AT) distribution. OBJECTIVES: Our objective was to test the hypothesis that in acromegaly whole-body AT mass is less and to examine for the first time the relationship between GH/IGF-I excess and intermuscular AT (IMAT), an AT depot associated with insulin resistance in other populations. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: We conducted a cross-sectional study in 24 adults with active acromegaly compared with predicted models developed in 315 healthy non-acromegaly subjects. OUTCOME MEASURES: Mass of AT in the visceral AT (VAT), sc AT (SAT), and IMAT compartments from whole-body magnetic resonance imaging and serum levels of GH, IGF-I, insulin, and glucose were measured. RESULTS: VAT and SAT were less in active acromegaly (P < 0.0001); these were 68.2 +/- 27% and 79.5 +/- 15% of predicted values, respectively. By contrast, IMAT was greater (P = 0.0052) by 185.6 +/- 84% of predicted. VAT/trunk AT ratios were inversely related to IGF-I levels (r = 0.544; P = 0.0054). Acromegaly subjects were insulin resistant. CONCLUSIONS: VAT and SAT, most markedly VAT, are less in acromegaly. The proportion of trunk AT that is VAT is less with greater disease activity. IMAT is greater in acromegaly, a novel finding, which suggests that increased AT in muscle could be associated with GH-induced insulin resistance. These findings have implications for understanding the role of GH in body composition and metabolic risk in acromegaly and other clinical settings of GH use.
CONTEXT: GH and IGF-I are important regulators of metabolism and body composition. In acromegaly, a state of GH and IGF-I excess, the lipolytic and insulin antagonistic effects of GH may alter adipose tissue (AT) distribution. OBJECTIVES: Our objective was to test the hypothesis that in acromegaly whole-body AT mass is less and to examine for the first time the relationship between GH/IGF-I excess and intermuscular AT (IMAT), an AT depot associated with insulin resistance in other populations. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: We conducted a cross-sectional study in 24 adults with active acromegaly compared with predicted models developed in 315 healthy non-acromegaly subjects. OUTCOME MEASURES: Mass of AT in the visceral AT (VAT), sc AT (SAT), and IMAT compartments from whole-body magnetic resonance imaging and serum levels of GH, IGF-I, insulin, and glucose were measured. RESULTS: VAT and SAT were less in active acromegaly (P < 0.0001); these were 68.2 +/- 27% and 79.5 +/- 15% of predicted values, respectively. By contrast, IMAT was greater (P = 0.0052) by 185.6 +/- 84% of predicted. VAT/trunk AT ratios were inversely related to IGF-I levels (r = 0.544; P = 0.0054). Acromegaly subjects were insulin resistant. CONCLUSIONS: VAT and SAT, most markedly VAT, are less in acromegaly. The proportion of trunk AT that is VAT is less with greater disease activity. IMAT is greater in acromegaly, a novel finding, which suggests that increased AT in muscle could be associated with GH-induced insulin resistance. These findings have implications for understanding the role of GH in body composition and metabolic risk in acromegaly and other clinical settings of GH use.
Authors: Jens O L Jørgensen; Niels Jessen; Steen B Pedersen; Esben Vestergaard; Lars Gormsen; Sten A Lund; Nils Billestrup Journal: Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab Date: 2006-06-06 Impact factor: 4.310
Authors: Morten B Krag; Lars C Gormsen; Zengkui Guo; Jens S Christiansen; Michael D Jensen; Søren Nielsen; Jens O L Jørgensen Journal: Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab Date: 2006-11-28 Impact factor: 4.310
Authors: Bret H Goodpaster; Shanthi Krishnaswami; Helaine Resnick; David E Kelley; Catherine Haggerty; Tamara B Harris; Ann V Schwartz; Steven Kritchevsky; Anne B Newman Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Jeanine B Albu; Sonjia Kenya; Qing He; Marsha Wainwright; Evan S Berk; Stanley Heshka; Donald P Kotler; Ellen S Engelson Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2007-07 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Tirissa J Reid; Zhezhen Jin; Wei Shen; Carlos M Reyes-Vidal; Jean Carlos Fernandez; Jeffrey N Bruce; Jane Kostadinov; Kalmon D Post; Pamela U Freda Journal: Pituitary Date: 2015-12 Impact factor: 4.107
Authors: Carlos M Reyes-Vidal; Hamed Mojahed; Wei Shen; Zhezhen Jin; Fernando Arias-Mendoza; Jean Carlos Fernandez; Dympna Gallagher; Jeffrey N Bruce; Kalmon D Post; Pamela U Freda Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2015-06-02 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Elena Valassi; Iris Crespo; Jorge Malouf; David Vilades; Ruben Leta; Jaume Llauger; Eulàlia Urgell; Anna Aulinas; Ana Maria Marín; Betina Biagetti; Susan M Webb Journal: Endocrine Date: 2016-04-07 Impact factor: 3.633
Authors: Carlo A Rossi; Michela Pozzobon; Andrea Ditadi; Karolina Archacka; Annalisa Gastaldello; Marta Sanna; Chiara Franzin; Alberto Malerba; Gabriella Milan; Mara Cananzi; Stefano Schiaffino; Michelangelo Campanella; Roberto Vettor; Paolo De Coppi Journal: PLoS One Date: 2010-01-01 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: C Dimopoulou; C Sievers; H U Wittchen; L Pieper; J Klotsche; J Roemmler; J Schopohl; H J Schneider; G K Stalla Journal: Pituitary Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 4.107
Authors: Christopher J Romero; Andrew Wolfe; Yi Ying Law; ChenChen Z Costelloe; Ryan Miller; Fredric Wondisford; Sally Radovick Journal: Metabolism Date: 2015-12-08 Impact factor: 8.694
Authors: Pamela U Freda; Wei Shen; Carlos M Reyes-Vidal; Eliza B Geer; Fernando Arias-Mendoza; Dympna Gallagher; Steven B Heymsfield Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2009-06-02 Impact factor: 5.958