HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (1) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Land, C Articles by Schoenau, E Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Land, C Articles by Schoenau, E

Seasonality of growth response to GH therapy in prepubertal children with idiopathic growth hormone deficiency

Children’s Hospital, University of Cologne, Joseph-Stelzmann-Strasse 9, D-50924 Cologne, Germany, ¹ Children’s Hospital, University of Giessen, Giessen, Germany and ² Eli Lilly and Company, Bad Homburg, Germany

(Correspondence should be addressed to E Schoenau; Email: Eckhard.Schoenau{at}medizin.uni-koeln.de)

Objective: Longitudinal growth of children exhibits seasonal variation. In both healthy children and in children with growth hormone (GH) deficiency (GHD) receiving GH therapy, growth rate is maximal during spring and summer. In the present study, we analyzed the growth response to GH therapy in children with GHD as a function of the season when therapy was started.

Subjects and methods: Anthropometric measurements and biochemical analyses of GH secretion status and bone formation were longitudinally assessed in a cohort of 52 prepubertal children with GHD (14 girls, mean age 7.6 years) who were treated with a fixed dose of GH (0.025 mg/kg/day).

Results: Auxological assessments over the 2-year observation period revealed a significantly better growth response to GH therapy in children who started therapy between the spring and summer (group 1) compared with children who started in the autumn or winter (group 2). The difference was largest in the initial 3-month treatment period (35%; P < 0.01). The initial better gain in height of group 1 was sustained during the study period. Baseline peak GH levels during stimulation tests and insuin-like growth factor-I levels did not differ between the two groups. However, group 1 had significantly higher bone resorption and formation markers, either at the start or shortly after initiation of GH treatment. This suggests that children with GHD have higher bone turnover during spring and early summer, irrespective of GH therapy.

Conclusions: In summary, this study suggests that the season of GH initiation is a determinant of the initial growth response to GH replacement in prepubertal children with GHD.