Related Experiment Videos
Growth hormone releasing hormone or growth hormone treatment in growth hormone insufficiency?
Insights
Growth hormone-releasing hormone (GHRH) peptides showed modest growth responses in children with growth hormone insufficiency. Conventional growth hormone therapy proved more effective, remaining the preferred treatment for this condition.
Area of Science:
- Pediatric Endocrinology
- Hormone Therapy
- Growth Disorders
Background:
- Growth hormone insufficiency affects prepubertal children, impacting linear growth.
- Growth hormone-releasing hormone (GHRH) analogs are explored as potential therapeutic agents.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate the efficacy of GHRH 1-40 and GHRH 1-29 in promoting growth in prepubertal children with growth hormone insufficiency.
- To compare the growth response to GHRH peptides with conventional growth hormone (GH) therapy.
Main Methods:
- A study involving 16 prepubertal children with growth hormone insufficiency.
- Treatment with GHRH 1-40 (pulsatile subcutaneous nocturnal pulses) and GHRH 1-29 (twice daily).
- Comparison with a matched group receiving conventional GH treatment.
Main Results:
- 73% of children on GHRH 1-40 and 63% on GHRH 1-29 showed a growth response.
- Higher doses of GHRH 1-29 were needed for equivalent growth compared to GHRH 1-40.
- Conventional GH therapy demonstrated significantly better results than GHRH treatment.
- Children transferred to GH replacement showed significant height velocity improvement.
Conclusions:
- Growth hormone remains the primary treatment for growth hormone insufficiency.
- GHRH treatment may offer benefits for children with milder insufficiency and pulsatile endogenous GH secretion.
Abstract:
Sixteen prepubertal children who were insufficient for growth hormone were treated with growth hormone releasing hormone (GHRH) 1-40 and GHRH 1-29 for a mean time of nine months (range 6-12 months) with each peptide. Eleven children received GHRH 1-40 in four subcutaneous nocturnal pulses (dose 4-8 micrograms/kg/day) and eight (three of whom were also treated with GHRH 1-40) received GHRH 1-29 twice daily (dose 8-16 micrograms/kg/day). Altogether 73% of the children receiving GHRH 1-40 and 63% receiving GHRH 1-29 showed a growth response. Double the daily dose of GHRH 1-29 was required to obtain equivalent growth response to pulsatile GHRH 1-40. A significant linear correlation was shown between growth hormone secretion and height velocity on GHRH 1-40 but not on GHRH 1-29 and there was a significant correlation between plasma GHRH and serum growth hormone concentrations during GHRH 1-40 administration. Response to conventional growth hormone treatment in a matched group of children was significantly better than the response after GHRH. A significant improvement in height velocity was observed in the children transferred to growth hormone replacement. Growth hormone remains the treatment of choice in growth hormone insufficiency. GHRH treatment may be of benefit in children with less severe growth hormone insufficiency in the presence of pulsatile endogenous growth hormone secretion.