4.6 Article

Influence of hormonal control on LH pulsatility and secretion in women with classical congenital adrenal hyperplasia

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENDOCRINOLOGY
卷 167, 期 4, 页码 499-505

出版社

BIOSCIENTIFICA LTD
DOI: 10.1530/EJE-12-0454

关键词

-

资金

  1. Association Surrenales

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Women with classical congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) exhibit reduced fertility due to several factors including anovulation. This has been attributed to a disturbed gonadotropic axis as in polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), but there is no precise evaluation. Our aim was to evaluate the gonadotropic axis and LH pulsatility patterns and to determine factor(s) that could account for the potential abnormality of LH pulsatility. Design: Case/control study. Methods: Sixteen CAH women (11 with the salt-wasting form and five with the simple virilizing form), aged from 18 to 40 years, and 16 age-matched women, with regular menstrual cycles (28 +/- 3 days), were included. LH pulse patterns over 6 h were determined in patients and controls. Results: No differences were observed between patients and controls in terms of mean LH levels, LH pulse amplitude, or LH frequency. In CAH patients, LH pulsatility patterns were heterogeneous, leading us to perform a clustering analysis of LH data, resulting in a two-cluster partition. Patients in cluster 1 had similar LH pulsatility patterns to the controls. Patients in cluster 2 had: lower LH pulse amplitude and frequency and presented menstrual cycle disturbances more frequently; higher 17-OH progesterone, testosterone, progesterone, and androstenedione levels; and lower FSH levels. Conclusions: LH pulsatility may be normal in CAH women well controlled by hormonal treatment. Undertreatment is responsible for hypogonadotropic hypogonadism, with low LH pulse levels and frequency, but not PCOS. Suppression of progesterone and androgen concentrations during the follicular phase of the menstrual cycle should be a major objective in these patients.

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