Growth hormone (GH) has been used for over 35 years, and its safety and efficacy has been studied extensively. Experimental studies showing the permissive role of GH/insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-I) in carcinogenesis have raised concerns regarding the safety of GH replacement in children and adults who have received treatment for cancer and those with intracranial and pituitary tumours. A consensus statement was produced to guide decision-making on GH replacement in children and adult survivors of cancer, in those treated for intracranial and pituitary tumours and in patients with increased cancer risk. With the support of the European Society of Endocrinology, the Growth Hormone Research Society convened a Workshop, where 55 international key opinion leaders representing 10 professional societies were invited to participate. This consensus statement utilized: (1) a critical review paper produced before the Workshop, (2) five plenary talks, (3) evidence-based comments from four breakout groups, and (4) discussions during report-back sessions. Current evidence reviewed from the proceedings from the Workshop does not support an association between GH replacement and primary tumour or cancer recurrence. The effect of GH replacement on secondary neoplasia risk is minor compared to host- and tumour treatment-related factors. There is no evidence for an association between GH replacement and increased mortality from cancer amongst GH-deficient childhood cancer survivors. Patients with pituitary tumour or craniopharyngioma remnants receiving GH replacement do not need to be treated or monitored differently than those not receiving GH. GH replacement might be considered in GH-deficient adult cancer survivors in remission after careful individual risk/benefit analysis. In children with cancer predisposition syndromes, GH treatment is generally contraindicated but may be considered cautiously in select patients.

Growth hormone deficiency (GHD) is a clinical syndrome that can manifest either as isolated or associated with additional pituitary hormone deficiencies. Although diminished height velocity and short stature are useful and important clinical markers to consider testing for GHD in children, the signs and symptoms of GHD are not always so apparent in adults. Quality of life and metabolic health are often impacted in patients with GHD; thus, making an accurate diagnosis is important so that appropriate growth hormone (GH) replacement therapy can be offered to these patients. Screening and testing for GHD require sound clinical judgment that follows after obtaining a complete medical history of patients with a hypothalamic–pituitary disorder and a thorough physical examination with specific features for each period of life, while targeted biochemical testing and imaging are required to confirm the diagnosis. Random measurements of serum GH levels are not recommended to screen for GHD (except in neonates) as endogenous GH secretion is episodic and pulsatile throughout the lifespan. One or more GH stimulation tests may be required, but existing methods of testing might be inaccurate, difficult to perform, and can be imprecise. Furthermore, there are multiple caveats when interpreting test results including individual patient factors, differences in peak GH cut-offs (by age and test), testing time points, and heterogeneity of GH and insulin-like growth factor 1 assays. In this article, we provide a global overview of the accuracy and cut-offs for diagnosis of GHD in children and adults and discuss the caveats in conducting and interpreting these tests.

Context: The use of the combined GHRH and arginine (GHRH-ARG) test has gained increasing acceptance in the United States as a reliable alternative test to the insulin tolerance test (ITT) for diagnosing adult GH deficiency (GHD). In July 2008, the only manufacturer of recombinant GHRH in the United States, EMD Serono, Inc., announced the discontinuation of Geref, thus raising the question of which reliable alternative GH stimulation test should practicing endocrinologists be considering in place of the GHRH-ARG test. In this article, we review the existing published data and consensus guidelines and provide recommendations for alternative stimulation tests to the GHRH-ARG test. Evidence Acquisition: The major source of data acquisition included PubMed search strategies and personal experience of the authors from clinical experience. Evidence Synthesis: Previous consensus guidelines and previous data assessing the reliability and discriminatory value of the GHRH-ARG, glucagon, ARG, and GH secretagogues on assessing GH reserve are discussed. Our recommendations for performing the glucagon stimulation test, potential drawbacks in conducting this test, and caveats in interpreting this test are also discussed. Conclusions: The ITT should remain the test of choice in diagnosing adult GHD. However, when the ITT is not desirable and recombinant GHRH remains unavailable in the United States, we recommend the alternative to the GHRH-ARG test to be the glucagon stimulation test, based on its reliability and availability. Nevertheless, further studies into alternative GH stimulation tests that are available in the United States, comparable, and simpler to perform than the ITT in diagnosing adult GHD are still needed.

Daily recombinant human GH (rhGH) is currently approved for use in children and adults with GH deficiency (GHD) in many countries with relatively few side-effects. Nevertheless, daily injections can be painful and distressing for some patients, often resulting in non-adherence and reduction of treatment outcomes. This has prompted the development of numerous long-acting GH (LAGH) analogs that allow for decreased injection frequency, ranging from weekly, bi-weekly to monthly. These LAGH analogs are attractive as they may theoretically offer increased patient acceptance, tolerability, and therapeutic flexibility. Conversely, there may also be pitfalls to these LAGH analogs, including an unphysiological GH profile and differing molecular structures that pose potential clinical issues in terms of dose initiation, therapeutic monitoring, incidence and duration of side-effects, and long-term safety. Furthermore, fluctuations of peak and trough serum GH and IGF-I levels and variations in therapeutic efficacy may depend on the technology used to prolong GH action. Previous studies of some LAGH analogs have demonstrated non-inferiority compared to daily rhGH in terms of increased growth velocity and improved body composition in children and adults with GHD, respectively, with no significant unanticipated adverse events. Currently, two LAGH analogs are marketed in Asia, one recently approved in the United States, another previously approved but not marketed in Europe, and several others proceeding through various stages of clinical development. Nevertheless, several practical questions still remain, including possible differences in dose initiation between naïve and switch-over patients, methodology of dose adjustment/s, timing of measuring serum IGF-I levels, safety, durability of efficacy and cost-effectiveness. Long-term surveillance of safety and efficacy of LAGH analogs are needed to answer these important questions.

Growth hormone (GH) is the key regulator of insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I) generation in healthy states. However, portal insulin delivery is also an essential co-player in the regulation of the GH/IGF-I axis by affecting and regulating hepatic GH receptor synthesis, and subsequently altering hepatic GH sensitivity and IGF-I generation. Disease states of GH excess (e.g., acromegaly) and GH deficiency (e.g., congenital isolated GH deficiency) are characterized by increased and decreased GH, IGF-I and insulin levels, respectively, where the GH/IGF-I relationship is reflected by a “primary association”. When intra-portal insulin levels are increased (e.g., obesity, Cushing’s syndrome, or due to treatment with glucocorticoids and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists) or decreased (e.g., malnutrition, anorexia nervosa and type 1 diabetes mellitus), these changes secondarily alter hepatic GH sensitivity resulting in a “secondary association” with discordant GH and IGF-I levels (e.g., high GH/low IGF-I levels or low GH/high IGF-I levels, respectively). Additionally, intra-portal insulin regulates hepatic secretion of IGFBP-1, an inhibitor of IGF-I action. Through its effects on IGFBP-1 and subsequently free IGF-I, intra-portal insulin exerts its effects to influence endogenous GH secretion via the negative feedback loop. Therefore, it is important to understand the effects of changes in intra-portal insulin when interpreting the GH/IGF-I axis in disease states. This review summarizes our current understanding of how changes in intra-portal insulin delivery to the liver in health, disease states and drug therapy use and misuse that leads to alterations in GH/IGF-I secretion that may dictate management decisions in afflicted patients.