Camilia Kamoun1, Colin Patrick Hawkes1,2,3, Hareesh Gunturi4, Andrew Dauber5,6, Joel N Hirschhorn7,8, Adda Grimberg1,2,9. 1. Division of Endocrinology and Diabetes, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. 2. Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. 3. Department of Paediatrics and Child Health, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland. 4. Department of Biomedical and Health Informatics, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. 5. Division of Endocrinology, Children's National Hospital, Washington, District of Columbia, USA. 6. Department of Pediatrics, George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, District of Columbia, USA. 7. Division of Endocrinology, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 8. Departments of Pediatrics and Genetics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 9. Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Males are twice as likely as females to receive pediatric growth hormone (GH) treatment in the USA, despite similar distributions of height z (HtZ)-scores in both sexes. Male predominance in evaluation and subspecialty referral for short stature contributes to this observation. This study investigates whether sex differences in GH stimulation testing and subsequent GH prescription further contribute to male predominance in GH treatment. METHODS: Retrospective chart review was conducted of all individuals, aged 2-16 years, evaluated for short stature or poor growth at a single large tertiary referral center between 2012 and 2019. Multiple logistic regression models were constructed to analyze sex differences. RESULTS: Of 10,125 children referred for evaluation, a smaller proportion were female (35%). More males (13.1%) than females (10.6%) underwent GH stimulation testing (p < 0.001) and did so at heights closer to average (median HtZ-score -2.2 [interquartile range, IQR -2.6, -1.8] vs. -2.5 [IQR -3.0, -2.0], respectively; p < 0.001). The proportion of GH prescriptions by sex was similar by stimulated peak GH level. Predictor variables in regression modeling differed by sex: commercial insurance predicted GH stimulation testing and GH prescription for males only, whereas lower HtZ-score predicted GH prescription for females only. CONCLUSIONS: Sex differences in rates of GH stimulation testing but not subsequent GH prescription based on response to GH stimulation testing seem to contribute to male predominance in pediatric GH treatment. That HtZ-score predicted GH prescription in females but not males raises questions about the extent to which sex bias - from children, parents, and/or physicians - as opposed to objective growth data, influence medical decision-making in the evaluation and treatment of short stature.
INTRODUCTION: Males are twice as likely as females to receive pediatric growth hormone (GH) treatment in the USA, despite similar distributions of height z (HtZ)-scores in both sexes. Male predominance in evaluation and subspecialty referral for short stature contributes to this observation. This study investigates whether sex differences in GH stimulation testing and subsequent GH prescription further contribute to male predominance in GH treatment. METHODS: Retrospective chart review was conducted of all individuals, aged 2-16 years, evaluated for short stature or poor growth at a single large tertiary referral center between 2012 and 2019. Multiple logistic regression models were constructed to analyze sex differences. RESULTS: Of 10,125 children referred for evaluation, a smaller proportion were female (35%). More males (13.1%) than females (10.6%) underwent GH stimulation testing (p < 0.001) and did so at heights closer to average (median HtZ-score -2.2 [interquartile range, IQR -2.6, -1.8] vs. -2.5 [IQR -3.0, -2.0], respectively; p < 0.001). The proportion of GH prescriptions by sex was similar by stimulated peak GH level. Predictor variables in regression modeling differed by sex: commercial insurance predicted GH stimulation testing and GH prescription for males only, whereas lower HtZ-score predicted GH prescription for females only. CONCLUSIONS: Sex differences in rates of GH stimulation testing but not subsequent GH prescription based on response to GH stimulation testing seem to contribute to male predominance in pediatric GH treatment. That HtZ-score predicted GH prescription in females but not males raises questions about the extent to which sex bias - from children, parents, and/or physicians - as opposed to objective growth data, influence medical decision-making in the evaluation and treatment of short stature.
Authors: Paulo F Collett-Solberg; Geoffrey Ambler; Philippe F Backeljauw; Martin Bidlingmaier; Beverly M K Biller; Margaret C S Boguszewski; Pik To Cheung; Catherine Seut Yhoke Choong; Laurie E Cohen; Pinchas Cohen; Andrew Dauber; Cheri L Deal; Chunxiu Gong; Yukihiro Hasegawa; Andrew R Hoffman; Paul L Hofman; Reiko Horikawa; Alexander A L Jorge; Anders Juul; Peter Kamenický; Vaman Khadilkar; John J Kopchick; Berit Kriström; Maria de Lurdes A Lopes; Xiaoping Luo; Bradley S Miller; Madhusmita Misra; Irene Netchine; Sally Radovick; Michael B Ranke; Alan D Rogol; Ron G Rosenfeld; Paul Saenger; Jan M Wit; Joachim Woelfle Journal: Horm Res Paediatr Date: 2019-09-12 Impact factor: 2.852
Authors: Talia Hitt; Kenneth R Ginsburg; Pamela Cousounis; Terri H Lipman; Andrew J Cucchiara; Virginia A Stallings; Adda Grimberg Journal: Horm Res Paediatr Date: 2020-03-31 Impact factor: 2.852
Authors: D B Allen; P Backeljauw; M Bidlingmaier; B M K Biller; M Boguszewski; P Burman; G Butler; K Chihara; J Christiansen; S Cianfarani; P Clayton; D Clemmons; P Cohen; F Darendeliler; C Deal; D Dunger; E M Erfurth; J S Fuqua; A Grimberg; M Haymond; C Higham; K Ho; A R Hoffman; A Hokken-Koelega; G Johannsson; A Juul; J Kopchick; P Lee; M Pollak; S Radovick; L Robison; R Rosenfeld; R J Ross; L Savendahl; P Saenger; H T Sorensen; K Stochholm; C Strasburger; A Swerdlow; M Thorner Journal: Eur J Endocrinol Date: 2015-11-12 Impact factor: 6.664