4.6 Article

Long-term, mortality in the united states cohort of pituitary-derived growth hormone recipients

期刊

JOURNAL OF PEDIATRICS
卷 144, 期 4, 页码 430-436

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2003.12.036

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective Patients who received pituitary-derived growth hormone (GH) are at excess risk of mortality from Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. We investigated whether they were at increased risk of death from other conditions, particularly preventable conditions. Study design A cohort (N = 6107) from known US pituitary-derived GH recipients (treated 1963-1985) was studied. Deaths were identified by reports from physicians and parents and the National Death Index. Rates were compared with the expected rates for the US population standardized for race, age, and sex. Results There were 433 deaths versus 114 expected (relative risk [RR], 3.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.4-4.2; P < .0001) from 1963 through 1996. Risk was increased in subjects with GH deficiency caused by any tumor (RR, 10.4; 95% CI, 9.1-12.0; P < .0001). Surprisingly, subjects with hypoglycemia treated within the first 6 months of life were at extremely high risk (RR, 18.3; 95% CI, 9.2-32.8; P < .0001), as were all subjects with adrenal insufficiency (RR, 7.1; 95% CI, 6.2-8.2; P < .0001). A quarter of all deaths were sudden and unexpected. Of the 26 cases of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, four cases have died since 2000. Conclusions The death rate in pituitary-derived GH recipients was almost four times the expected rate. Replacing pituitary derived GH with recombinant GH has eliminated only the risk of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. Hypoglycemia and adrenal insufficiency accounted for far more mortality than Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. The large number of potentially preventable deaths in patients with adrenal insufficiency and hypo glycemia underscores the importance of early intervention when infection occurs in patients with adrenal insufficiency, and aggressive treatment of panhypopituitarism.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据