Amir H Hamrahian1,2, Kevin C J Yuen3, Murray B Gordon4, Karen J Pulaski-Liebert5, James Bena6, Beverly M K Biller5. 1. Department of Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, 44022, USA. hamraha@clevelandclinicabudhabi.ae. 2. Department of Endocrinology, Medical Subspecialty Institute, Cleveland Clinic Abu Dhabi, 7th Floor, Swing Wing, Al Maryah Island, PO Box 112412, Abu Dhabi, UAE. hamraha@clevelandclinicabudhabi.ae. 3. Swedish Pituitary Center, Swedish Neuroscience Institute, Seattle, WA, 98122, USA. 4. Department of Medicine and Neurosurgery, Allegheny Neuroendocrinology Center, Allegheny General Hospital, Pittsburgh, PA, 15212, USA. 5. Neuroendocrine Unit, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, 02114, USA. 6. Quantitatve Health Sciences, Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA.
Abstract
CONTEXT: Recent studies suggest using lower GH cut-points for the glucagon stimulation test (GST) in diagnosing adult GH deficiency (GHD), especially in obese patients. There are limited data on evaluating GH and hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axes using weight-based dosing for the GST. OBJECTIVE: To define GH and cortisol cut-points to diagnose adult GHD and secondary adrenal insufficiency (SAI) using the GST, and to compare fixed-dose (FD: 1 or 1.5 mg in patients >90 kg) with weight-based dosing (WB: 0.03 mg/kg). Response to the insulin tolerance test (ITT) was considered the gold standard, using GH and cortisol cut-points of ≥3 ng/ml and ≥18 µg/dL, respectively. DESIGN:28 Patients with hypothalamic-pituitary disease and 1-2 (n = 14) or ≥3 (n = 14) pituitary hormone deficiencies, and 14 control subjects matched for age, sex, estrogen status and body mass index (BMI) underwent the ITT, FD- and WB-GST in random order. RESULTS: Age, sex ratio and BMI were comparable between the three groups. The best GH cut-point for diagnosis of GHD was 1.0 (92 % sensitivity, 100 % specificity) and 2.0 ng/mL (96 % sensitivity and 100 % specificity) for FD- and WB-GST, respectively. Age negatively correlated with peak GH during FD-GST (r = -0.32, P = 0.04), but not WB-GST. The best cortisol cut-point for diagnosis of SAI was 8.8 µg/dL (92 % sensitivity, 100 % specificity) and 11.2 µg/dL (92 % sensitivity and 100 % specificity) for FD-GST and WB-GST, respectively. Nausea was the most common side effect, and one patient had a seizure during the FD-GST. CONCLUSION: The GST correctly classified GHD using GH cut-points of 1 ng/ml for FD-GST and 2 ng/ml for WB-GST, hence using 3 ng/ml as the GH cut-point will misclassify some GH-sufficient adults. The GST may also be an acceptable alternative to the ITT for evaluating the HPA axis utilizing cortisol cut-points of 9 µg/dL for FD-GST and 11 µg/dL for WB-GST.
RCT Entities:
CONTEXT: Recent studies suggest using lower GH cut-points for the glucagon stimulation test (GST) in diagnosing adult GH deficiency (GHD), especially in obesepatients. There are limited data on evaluating GH and hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axes using weight-based dosing for the GST. OBJECTIVE: To define GH and cortisol cut-points to diagnose adult GHD and secondary adrenal insufficiency (SAI) using the GST, and to compare fixed-dose (FD: 1 or 1.5 mg in patients >90 kg) with weight-based dosing (WB: 0.03 mg/kg). Response to the insulin tolerance test (ITT) was considered the gold standard, using GH and cortisol cut-points of ≥3 ng/ml and ≥18 µg/dL, respectively. DESIGN: 28 Patients with hypothalamic-pituitary disease and 1-2 (n = 14) or ≥3 (n = 14) pituitary hormone deficiencies, and 14 control subjects matched for age, sex, estrogen status and body mass index (BMI) underwent the ITT, FD- and WB-GST in random order. RESULTS: Age, sex ratio and BMI were comparable between the three groups. The best GH cut-point for diagnosis of GHD was 1.0 (92 % sensitivity, 100 % specificity) and 2.0 ng/mL (96 % sensitivity and 100 % specificity) for FD- and WB-GST, respectively. Age negatively correlated with peak GH during FD-GST (r = -0.32, P = 0.04), but not WB-GST. The best cortisol cut-point for diagnosis of SAI was 8.8 µg/dL (92 % sensitivity, 100 % specificity) and 11.2 µg/dL (92 % sensitivity and 100 % specificity) for FD-GST and WB-GST, respectively. Nausea was the most common side effect, and one patient had a seizure during the FD-GST. CONCLUSION: The GST correctly classified GHD using GH cut-points of 1 ng/ml for FD-GST and 2 ng/ml for WB-GST, hence using 3 ng/ml as the GH cut-point will misclassify some GH-sufficient adults. The GST may also be an acceptable alternative to the ITT for evaluating the HPA axis utilizing cortisol cut-points of 9 µg/dL for FD-GST and 11 µg/dL for WB-GST.
Authors: E Arvat; B Maccagno; J Ramunni; M Maccario; R Giordano; F Broglio; F Camanni; E Ghigo Journal: Eur J Endocrinol Date: 2000-07 Impact factor: 6.664
Authors: Christian Berg; Timo Meinel; Harald Lahner; Ali Yuece; Klaus Mann; Stephan Petersenn Journal: Eur J Endocrinol Date: 2009-12-08 Impact factor: 6.664
Authors: Mark E Molitch; David R Clemmons; Saul Malozowski; George R Merriam; Mary Lee Vance Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2011-06 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Ana Beatriz Winter Tavares; Ignácio Antônio Seixas-da-Silva; Diego H S Silvestre; Maria Fernanda Castelar Pinheiro; Mario Vaisman; Flávia Lucia Conceição Journal: Endocrine Date: 2017-03-11 Impact factor: 3.633
Authors: Margaret C S Boguszewski; Cesar L Boguszewski; Wassim Chemaitilly; Laurie E Cohen; Judith Gebauer; Claire Higham; Andrew R Hoffman; Michel Polak; Kevin C J Yuen; Nathalie Alos; Zoltan Antal; Martin Bidlingmaier; Beverley M K Biller; George Brabant; Catherine S Y Choong; Stefano Cianfarani; Peter E Clayton; Regis Coutant; Adriane A Cardoso-Demartini; Alberto Fernandez; Adda Grimberg; Kolbeinn Guðmundsson; Jaime Guevara-Aguirre; Ken K Y Ho; Reiko Horikawa; Andrea M Isidori; Jens Otto Lunde Jørgensen; Peter Kamenicky; Niki Karavitaki; John J Kopchick; Maya Lodish; Xiaoping Luo; Ann I McCormack; Lillian Meacham; Shlomo Melmed; Sogol Mostoufi Moab; Hermann L Müller; Sebastian J C M M Neggers; Manoel H Aguiar Oliveira; Keiichi Ozono; Patricia A Pennisi; Vera Popovic; Sally Radovick; Lars Savendahl; Philippe Touraine; Hanneke M van Santen; Gudmundur Johannsson Journal: Eur J Endocrinol Date: 2022-04-21 Impact factor: 6.558