BACKGROUND: Changes in pharmacological agents and advancements in laboratory assays have changed the gonadotropin-releasing hormone analog stimulation test. OBJECTIVE: To determine the best predictive model for detecting puberty in girls. SUBJECTS: Thirty-five girls, aged 2 years 7 months to 9 years 3 months, with central precocious puberty (CPP) (n=20) or premature thelarche/premature adrenarche (n=15). METHODS: Diagnoses were based on clinical information, baseline hormones, bone age, and pelvic sonogram. Gonadotropins and E2 were analyzed using immunochemiluminometric assay. Logistic regression for CPP was performed. RESULTS: The best predictor of CPP is the E2-change model based on 3- to 24-h values, providing 80% sensitivity and 87% specificity. Three-hour luteinizing hormone (LH) provided 75% sensitivity and 87% specificity. Basal LH lowered sensitivity to 65% and specificity to 53%. CONCLUSIONS: The E2-change model provided the best predictive power; however, 3-h LH was more practical and convenient when evaluating puberty in girls.
BACKGROUND: Changes in pharmacological agents and advancements in laboratory assays have changed the gonadotropin-releasing hormone analog stimulation test. OBJECTIVE: To determine the best predictive model for detecting puberty in girls. SUBJECTS: Thirty-five girls, aged 2 years 7 months to 9 years 3 months, with central precocious puberty (CPP) (n=20) or premature thelarche/premature adrenarche (n=15). METHODS: Diagnoses were based on clinical information, baseline hormones, bone age, and pelvic sonogram. Gonadotropins and E2 were analyzed using immunochemiluminometric assay. Logistic regression for CPP was performed. RESULTS: The best predictor of CPP is the E2-change model based on 3- to 24-h values, providing 80% sensitivity and 87% specificity. Three-hour luteinizing hormone (LH) provided 75% sensitivity and 87% specificity. Basal LH lowered sensitivity to 65% and specificity to 53%. CONCLUSIONS: The E2-change model provided the best predictive power; however, 3-h LH was more practical and convenient when evaluating puberty in girls.
Authors: V N Brito; M C Batista; M F Borges; A C Latronico; M B Kohek; A C Thirone; B H Jorge; I J Arnhold; B B Mendonca Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 1999-10 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Daniel D Elsholz; Vasantha Padmanabhan; Robert L Rosenfield; Pamela R Olton; David J Phillips; Carol M Foster Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2004-10-28 Impact factor: 6.918
Authors: E A M R Resende; B H J Lara; J D Reis; B P Ferreira; G A Pereira; M F Borges Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2007-02-06 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: K L Eckert; D M Wilson; L K Bachrach; H Anhalt; R L Habiby; R C Olney; R L Hintz; E K Neely Journal: Pediatrics Date: 1996-04 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Jean-Claude Carel; Erica A Eugster; Alan Rogol; Lucia Ghizzoni; Mark R Palmert; Franco Antoniazzi; Sheri Berenbaum; Jean-Pierre Bourguignon; George P Chrousos; Joël Coste; Sheri Deal; Liat de Vries; Carol Foster; Sabine Heger; Jack Holland; Kirsi Jahnukainen; Anders Juul; Paul Kaplowitz; Najiba Lahlou; Mary M Lee; Peter Lee; Deborah P Merke; E Kirk Neely; Wilma Oostdijk; Moshe Phillip; Robert L Rosenfield; Dorothy Shulman; Dennis Styne; Maïthé Tauber; Jan M Wit Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2009-03-30 Impact factor: 7.124