4.2 Article

Biochemical diagnosis and assessment of disease activity in acromegaly: a two-decade experience

Journal

PITUITARY
Volume 15, Issue 2, Pages 215-221

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11102-011-0313-4

Keywords

Acromegaly; OGTT; Growth hormone; IGF-I

Funding

  1. MIUR [2002067251-001, 2007RFFFFN_005]
  2. University of Genova
  3. Italian Minister of Instruction, University and Research [2008LFK7J5_004]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The objective of this study is to assess the secretory pattern of GH after Oral Glucose Tolerance Test (OGTT) or day-curve (DC), in relation with IGF-I and to evaluate the influence of therapy on OGTT. A retrospective analysis in 279 OGTTs performed in 93 acromegalic patients in our unit from January 1988 to December 2005, in 77 patients also DC data were retrived. GH concentration was evaluated by 3 different systems (RIA, IRMA and chemiluminescence assays), and IGF-I by two RIAs. About 12% of OGTT samples were discordant with the baseline, while discordance between nadir and 120th minute was much lower (5%), with all discordant values, except one, near the cut-off lines. Correlation between DC and OGTT data was around 0.99 among all values, discordance rate between nadir and minimum DC was much lower than that with mean DC. In almost 80% of cases there was a complete concordance between OGTT and DC results, and in about 30% IGF-I was discordant with GH. Correlation analysis between IGF-I and GH was highest with DC data and lowest with OGTT baseline (T0). Considering different treatments discrepancy rates between GH and IGF-I were comparable. The best GH parameter is the minimum GH DC, although in the clinical practice the evaluation of OGTT GH in association with IGF-I is the most practical approach. In this case, the basal and T120 GH values can replace multiple sampling. Different treatment modalities do not influence the discordance rate between GH and IGF-I.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available