Evaluation of final height and parentally adjusted height deficit in isolated growth hormone deficient children with or without short parents


ŞIKLAR Z., Berberoǧlu M., Öçal G., BİLİR P., SAVAŞ ERDEVE Ş.

Endocrinologist, cilt.19, sa.6, ss.285-287, 2009 (SCI-Expanded, Scopus)

  • Yayın Türü: Makale / Tam Makale
  • Cilt numarası: 19 Sayı: 6
  • Basım Tarihi: 2009
  • Doi Numarası: 10.1097/ten.0b013e3181c057a2
  • Dergi Adı: Endocrinologist
  • Derginin Tarandığı İndeksler: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus
  • Sayfa Sayıları: ss.285-287
  • Anahtar Kelimeler: final height, growth hormone deficiency, treatment
  • Sağlık Bilimleri Üniversitesi Adresli: Evet

Özet

Parental height is an important factor for predicting growth hormone (GH) effectiveness in children with GH deficiency (GHD). The aim of the study was to evaluate the effect of GH administration on final height in 2 groups of isolated GHD children, those with short parents or normal height parents.Forty-nine GHD patients with similar clinical characteristics were studied. Eighteen patients had familial short stature (group 1), while 31 of patients had normal familial stature (group 2).At the start of therapy, initial height, age of admission, bone age, GH dose, birth weight, and IGF-I, GH stimulating tests peak levels were similar in both groups. During GH treatment the year response to therapy was not different between the groups. The adjusted deficit of height was more profound in group 1 than group 2. Although the final height was similar in both groups, total height improvement was better in group 2 than group 1. Parentally adjusted final height was significantly worse in group 2 than group 1. While bone age advancement at the end of therapy was higher in group 1 than group 2, the duration of therapy, age, and IGF-I at cessation of therapy were similar.Children with low target height standard deviation score (TH SDS) attained better final height than expected. Although at the start of therapy the groups were very homogenous, height improvement was different between the groups, and this can be explained partly by the bone age advancement being much more in GHD children with low TH SDS. © 2009 by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.