The Growth Hormone Research Society (GRS) convened a Workshop in March 2019 to evaluate the diagnosis and therapy of short stature in children. Forty-six international experts participated at the invitation of GRS including clinicians, basic scientists, and representatives from regulatory agencies and the pharmaceutical industry. Following plenary presentations addressing the current diagnosis and therapy of short stature in children, breakout groups discussed questions produced in advance by the planning committee and reconvened to share the group reports. A writing team assembled one document that was subsequently discussed and revised by participants. Participants from regulatory agencies and pharmaceutical companies were not part of the writing process. Short stature is the most common reason for referral to the pediatric endocrinologist. History, physical examination, and auxology remain the most important methods for understanding the reasons for the short stature. While some long-standing topics of controversy continue to generate debate, including in whom, and how, to perform and interpret growth hormone stimulation tests, new research areas are changing the clinical landscape, such as the genetics of short stature, selection of patients for genetic testing, and interpretation of genetic tests in the clinical setting. What dose of growth hormone to start, how to adjust the dose, and how to identify and manage a suboptimal response are still topics to debate. Additional areas that are expected to transform the growth field include the development of long-acting growth hormone preparations and other new therapeutics and diagnostics that may increase adult height or aid in the diagnosis of growth hormone deficiency.

Objective: The Growth Hormone (GH) Research Society (GRS) convened a workshop to address important issues regarding trial design, efficacy, and safety of long-acting growth hormone preparations (LAGH). Participants: A closed meeting of 55 international scientists with expertise in GH, including pediatric and adult endocrinologists, basic scientists, regulatory scientists, and participants from the pharmaceutical industry. Evidence: Current literature was reviewed for gaps in knowledge. Expert opinion was used to suggest studies required to address potential safety and efficacy issues. Consensus process: Following plenary presentations summarizing the literature, breakout groups discussed questions framed by the planning committee. Attendees reconvened after each breakout session to share group reports. A writing team compiled the breakout session reports into a draft document that was discussed and revised in an open forum on the concluding day. This was edited further and then circulated to attendees from academic institutions for review after the meeting. Participants from pharmaceutical companies did not participate in the planning, writing, or in the discussions and text revision on the final day of the workshop. Scientists from industry and regulatory agencies reviewed the manuscript to identify any factual errors. Conclusions: LAGH compounds may represent an advance over daily GH injections because of increased convenience and differing phamacodynamic properties, providing the potential for improved adherence and outcomes. Better methods to assess adherence must be developed and validated. Long-term surveillance registries that include assessment of efficacy, cost-benefit, disease burden, quality of life, and safety are essential for understanding the impact of sustained exposure to LAGH preparations.

Context: Long-acting GH (LAGH) preparations are currently being developed in an attempt to improve adherence. The profile of GH action following administration of LAGH raises practical questions about clinical monitoring and long-term safety and efficacy of these new therapeutic agents.Methods: Recent literature and meeting proceedings regarding LAGH preparations are reviewed.Results: Multiple LAGH preparations are currently at various stages of development, allowing for decreased GH injection frequency from daily to weekly, biweekly, or monthly. Following administration of LAGH, the serum peak and trough GH and IGF-I levels vary depending upon the mechanism used to prolong GH action. Randomized, controlled clinical trials of some LAGH preparations have reported non-inferiority compared with daily recombinant human GH (rhGH) for improved growth velocity and body composition in children and adults with GH deficiency (GHD), respectively. No significant LAGH-related adverse events have been reported during short-term therapy.Conclusion: Multiple LAGH preparations are proceeding through clinical development with some showing promising evidence of short-term clinical efficacy and safety in children and adults with GHD. The relationship of transient elevations of GH and IGF-I following administration of LAGH to efficacy and safety remain to be elucidated. For LAGH to replace daily rhGH in the treatment of individuals with GHD, a number of practical questions need to be addressed including methods of dose adjustment, timing of monitoring of IGF-I, safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness. Long-term surveillance of efficacy and safety of LAGH preparations will be needed to answer these clinically relevant questions.

Context: Somatrogon is a long-acting recombinant human growth hormone (rhGH) in development for once-weekly treatment of children with growth hormone deficiency (GHD). Objective: We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of once-weekly somatrogon with once-daily somatropin in prepubertal children with GHD. Methods: In this 12-month, open-label, randomized, active-controlled, parallel-group, phase 3 study, participants were randomized 1:1 to receive once-weekly somatrogon (0.66 mg/kg/week) or once-daily somatropin (0.24 mg/kg/week) for 12 months. A total of 228 prepubertal children (boys aged 3-11 years, girls aged 3-10 years) with GHD, impaired height and height velocity (HV), and no prior rhGH treatment were randomized and 224 received ≥1 dose of study treatment (somatrogon: 109; somatropin: 115). The primary endpoint was annualized HV at month 12. Results: HV at month 12 was 10.10 cm/year for somatrogon-treated subjects and 9.78 cm/year for somatropin-treated subjects, with a treatment difference (somatrogon-somatropin) of 0.33 (95% CI: −0.24, 0.89). The lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was higher than the prespecified noninferiority margin (−1.8 cm/year), demonstrating noninferiority of once-weekly somatrogon vs daily somatropin. HV at month 6 and change in height standard deviation score at months 6 and 12 were similar between both treatment groups. Both treatments were well tolerated, with a similar percentage of subjects experiencing mild to moderate treatment-emergent adverse events in both groups (somatrogon: 78.9%, somatropin: 79.1%). Conclusion: The efficacy of once-weekly somatrogon was noninferior to once-daily somatropin, with similar safety and tolerability profiles. (ClinicalTrials.gov no. NCT02968004).

GH and IGF-1 have been shown to affect tumor growth in vitro and in some animal models. This report summarizes the available evidence on whether GH therapy in childhood is associated with an increased risk of neoplasia during treatment or after treatment is completed. A PubMed search conducted through February 2014 retrieved original articles written in English addressing GH therapy and neoplasia risk. Subsequent searches were done to include additional relevant publications. In children without prior cancer or known risk factors for developing cancer, the clinical evidence does not affirm an association between GH therapy during childhood and neoplasia. GH therapy has not been reported to increase the risk for neoplasia in this population, although most of these data are derived from postmarketing surveillance studies lacking rigorous controls. In patients who are at higher risk for developing cancer, current evidence is insufficient to conclude whether or not GH further increases cancer risk. GH treatment of pediatric cancer survivors does not appear to increase the risk of recurrence but may increase their risk for subsequent primary neoplasms. In children without known risk factors for malignancy, GH therapy can be safely administered without concerns about an increased risk for neoplasia. GH use in children with medical diagnoses predisposing them to the development of malignancies should be critically analyzed on an individual basis, and if chosen, appropriate surveillance for malignancies should be undertaken. GH can be used to treat GH-deficient childhood cancer survivors who are in remission with the understanding that GH therapy may increase their risk for second neoplasms.