CONTEXT: The relative contribution of central adiposity vs. weight on GH response to stimulation testing in obesity is not known. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess the contribution of weight and specific measures of central and peripheral adiposity to GH response to GHRH-arginine testing in lean, overweight, and obese men. DESIGN: A total of 75 men [mean age, 44.3+/-1.1 yr; body mass index (BMI), 28.8+/-0.7 kg/m2] were investigated. Subjects were classified as lean (BMI<25 kg/m2; n=23), overweight (BMI>or=25 and <30 kg/m2; n=28), or obese (BMI>or=30 kg/m2; n=24). Subjects were also stratified by waist circumference (WC) (<102 cm, n=47; >or=102 cm, n=28). Body composition and regional adiposity were assessed by anthropometrics, dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA), and abdominal computed tomography (CT) scans. RESULTS: Peak stimulated GH was 36.4+/-5.4, 16.6+/-2.9, and 7.6+/-0.9 microg/liter among lean, overweight, and obese subjects, respectively (P<0.001 for all comparisons). Peak stimulated GH was 26.9+/-3.4 microg/liter among subjects with WC less than 102 cm compared to 7.9+/-0.9 microg/liter among subjects with WC of 102 cm or greater (P<0.0001). Separate multivariate models using anthropometric, DEXA, and CT-derived measures of central adiposity demonstrated strong associations between peak stimulated GH and measures of central adiposity including WC, trunk fat by DEXA, and visceral adiposity by CT, controlling for age, BMI, and more general measures of adiposity. WC was independently associated with peak GH response to GHRH-arginine in a model including age, BMI, and hip circumference. In this model, BMI was no longer significant, and peak GH was reduced 1.02 microg/liter for each 1 cm increase in WC (P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: GH response to GHRH-arginine testing is reduced in both overweight and obese subjects and negatively associated with indices of central abdominal obesity including WC, trunk fat, and visceral adipose tissue. The use of waist circumference, as a surrogate for central adiposity, adds predictive information to the determination of GH response, independent of BMI.
CONTEXT: The relative contribution of central adiposity vs. weight on GH response to stimulation testing in obesity is not known. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess the contribution of weight and specific measures of central and peripheral adiposity to GH response to GHRH-arginine testing in lean, overweight, and obesemen. DESIGN: A total of 75 men [mean age, 44.3+/-1.1 yr; body mass index (BMI), 28.8+/-0.7 kg/m2] were investigated. Subjects were classified as lean (BMI<25 kg/m2; n=23), overweight (BMI>or=25 and <30 kg/m2; n=28), or obese (BMI>or=30 kg/m2; n=24). Subjects were also stratified by waist circumference (WC) (<102 cm, n=47; >or=102 cm, n=28). Body composition and regional adiposity were assessed by anthropometrics, dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA), and abdominal computed tomography (CT) scans. RESULTS: Peak stimulated GH was 36.4+/-5.4, 16.6+/-2.9, and 7.6+/-0.9 microg/liter among lean, overweight, and obese subjects, respectively (P<0.001 for all comparisons). Peak stimulated GH was 26.9+/-3.4 microg/liter among subjects with WC less than 102 cm compared to 7.9+/-0.9 microg/liter among subjects with WC of 102 cm or greater (P<0.0001). Separate multivariate models using anthropometric, DEXA, and CT-derived measures of central adiposity demonstrated strong associations between peak stimulated GH and measures of central adiposity including WC, trunk fat by DEXA, and visceral adiposity by CT, controlling for age, BMI, and more general measures of adiposity. WC was independently associated with peak GH response to GHRH-arginine in a model including age, BMI, and hip circumference. In this model, BMI was no longer significant, and peak GH was reduced 1.02 microg/liter for each 1 cm increase in WC (P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS:GH response to GHRH-arginine testing is reduced in both overweight and obese subjects and negatively associated with indices of central abdominal obesity including WC, trunk fat, and visceral adipose tissue. The use of waist circumference, as a surrogate for central adiposity, adds predictive information to the determination of GH response, independent of BMI.
Authors: H Pijl; J G Langendonk; J Burggraaf; M Frölich; A F Cohen; J D Veldhuis; A E Meinders Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2001-11 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: P Rietschel; C Hadigan; C Corcoran; T Stanley; G Neubauer; J Gertner; S Grinspoon Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2001-02 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Fernando Cordido; Paula Alvarez-Castro; Maria Luisa Isidro; Felipe F Casanueva; Carlos Dieguez Journal: Eur J Endocrinol Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 6.664
Authors: Eveline W C M Van Dam; Ferdinand Roelfsema; Frans H Helmerhorst; Marijke Frölich; A Edo Meinders; Johannes D Veldhuis; Hanno Pijl Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Roger Bouillon; Daniel J Drucker; Ele Ferrannini; Steven Grinspoon; Clifford J Rosen; Paul Zimmet Journal: Nat Rev Endocrinol Date: 2015-09-01 Impact factor: 43.330
Authors: Hideo Makimura; Meghan N Feldpausch; Alison M Rope; Linda C Hemphill; Martin Torriani; Hang Lee; Steven K Grinspoon Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2012-09-26 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Takara L Stanley; Lindsay T Fourman; Meghan N Feldpausch; Julia Purdy; Isabel Zheng; Chelsea S Pan; Julia Aepfelbacher; Colleen Buckless; Andrew Tsao; Anela Kellogg; Karen Branch; Hang Lee; Chia-Ying Liu; Kathleen E Corey; Raymond T Chung; Martin Torriani; David E Kleiner; Colleen M Hadigan; Steven K Grinspoon Journal: Lancet HIV Date: 2019-10-11 Impact factor: 12.767
Authors: Hideo Makimura; Takara Stanley; David Mun; Cindy Chen; Jeffrey Wei; Jean M Connelly; Linda C Hemphill; Steven K Grinspoon Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2009-10-16 Impact factor: 5.958