Effects of gender, body weight, and blood glucose dynamics on the growth hormone response to the glucagon stimulation test in patients with pituitary disease. (February 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Wilson, Jessica R.; Utz, Andrea L.; Devin, Jessica K.
• Is Part Of: Growth hormone & IGF research. Volume 26(2016)
• Page Start: 24
• Page End: 31
• Publication Date: 2016-02
• Subjects: Glucagon stimulation -- Growth hormone deficiency; Growth regulators -- Periodicals; Growth -- Regulation -- Periodicals; Somatomedin -- Periodicals; Somatomedins -- Periodicals; Growth Hormone -- Periodicals; Growth Substances -- Periodicals; Croissance -- Régulation -- Périodiques; Croissance -- Régulateurs -- Périodiques; Somatotrophine -- Périodiques; Somatomédine -- Périodiques; Growth -- Regulation; Growth regulators; Electronic journals; Periodicals; Electronic journals; 612.4
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ghir.2015.12.005
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1096-6374

Abstract

Abstract: Objective: Body weight blunts the growth hormone (GH) response to provocative stimuli. The appropriate GH cut-off to confirm GH deficiency in obese and overweight patients undergoing the glucagon stimulation test (GST) has recently been questioned. We hypothesized that the peak GH would be inversely related to the nadir blood glucose (BG) after glucagon and that this may be a mechanism influencing peak GH in overweight patients. This retrospective study examined effects of gender, body weight, and BG dynamics on GH response to GST in patients evaluated in our Pituitary Center. Design: Adult patients who underwent GST from September 2009–2014 were included. Continuous variable comparisons were analyzed using the Mann–Whitney U-test and categorical data by Fisher's Exact Test. Spearman correlation was used to determine associations between continuous variables. Results: 42 patients (N = 28, 66.7% female) had sufficient data for analysis. Obese patients (N = 26) had a reduced GH response, summarized as GH area under the curve (AUC) (p = 0.03 vs. non-obese patients) and higher BG during GST, summarized as AUC (p < 0.01 vs. non-obese patients). Obese women (N = 19), in particular, stimulated lower (p = 0.03 vs. non-obese women) and had a higher nadir BG (p = 0.03 vs. non-obese women). While weight correlated with extent (rs = 0.35; p = 0.02) and timing (rs = 0.31; p = 0.05) of nadir BG reached, there was no significant correlation between BG dynamics and the GH response in the total population (N = 42). Ten patients (7 with pan anterior hypopituitarism, defined as 3 anterior pituitary deficiencies) had a peak GH ≤ 0.1 ng/mL during GST. When these subjects with a negligible peak GH response were excluded from the analysis, weight was associated with GH AUC (rs = − 0.45; p = 0.01), peak GH response (rs = − 0.42; p = 0.02) and nadir BG (rs = 0.48; p < 0.01). Furthermore, the nadir BG achieved during GST was inversely related to GH AUC (rs = − 0.38; p = 0.03) and peak GH (rs = − 0.37; p = 0.04) such that patients (N = 32) with higher nadir BG had lower peak GH in response to glucagon. Conclusions: Obese patients, particularly women, do not respond as robustly to glucagon stimulation. These data suggest that there exists an altered BG profile during GST in obese individuals, and that a less robust hypoglycemic stimulus may contribute to an impaired GH response. We suggest measuring BG levels during glucagon stimulation testing to assist with clinical interpretation of GH dynamics. The diagnostic accuracy of the GST in patients with known disorders in glucose metabolism and those taking anti-diabetic medications deserves further study. Highlights: Obese patients demonstrate a decreased GH response to glucagon stimulation. Obese patients demonstrate increased BG values during GST. Increased weight and higher BG nadir correlate with lower peak GH response.