4.7 Article

Evaluation and Treatment of Adult Growth Hormone Deficiency: An Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM
Volume 96, Issue 6, Pages 1587-1609

Publisher

ENDOCRINE SOC
DOI: 10.1210/jc.2011-0179

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Eli Lilly, Co.
  2. American Diabetes Association
  3. American College of Physicians
  4. Pituitary Society
  5. Sanofi Aventis
  6. Ipsen
  7. Corcept
  8. Pfizer, Inc.
  9. Genentech, Inc.
  10. Lilly Inc.
  11. Ipsen Inc.
  12. America Neuroendocrine Society
  13. National Institutes of Health
  14. Washington State Health Department
  15. Novo Nordisk, Inc.
  16. Novartis Pharmaceuticals

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: The aim was to update The Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline on Evaluation and Treatment of Adult Growth Hormone Deficiency (GHD) previously published in 2006. Consensus Process: Consensus was guided by systematic reviews of evidence and discussions through a series of conference calls and e-mails. An initial draft was prepared by the Task Force, with the help of a medical writer, and reviewed and commented on by members of The Endocrine Society. A second draft was reviewed and approved by The Endocrine Society Council. At each stage of review, the Task Force received written comments and incorporated substantive changes. Conclusions: GHD can persist from childhood or be newly acquired. Confirmation through stimulation testing is usually required unless there is a proven genetic/structural lesion persistent from childhood. GH therapy offers benefits in body composition, exercise capacity, skeletal integrity, and quality of life measures and is most likely to benefit those patients who have more severe GHD. The risks associated with GH treatment are low. GH dosing regimens should be individualized. The final decision to treat adults with GHD requires thoughtful clinical judgment with a careful evaluation of the benefits and risks specific to the individual. (J Clin Endocrinol Metab 96: 1587-1609, 2011)

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available