Aim: The optimal GH regimen, in terms of cost-effectiveness, in children with normal GH immunoreactivity but reduced bioactivity is still debated. Methods: In 12 GH-deficient (GHD) and 12 bioinactive GH children undergoing GH treatment we evaluated the increase in growth velocity, the difference between target height and final stature and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Results: We found a significant (p < 0.05) increase in growth velocity in both groups during the first year of GH treatment (non-GHD: from -1.7 to 5.4 SDS; GHD: from -1.46 to 4.74 SDS). There was no statistically significant variation between the two groups in the difference between final height and target height. We did not find any significant difference in cost/height gain between GHD (1925.28 +/- 653.15 euro) and bioinactive GH children (1639.55 +/- 631.44 euro). There were also no significant differences in cost/year of therapy between GHD (12347.68 +/- 2018.1 euro) and bioinactive GH children (11355.08 +/- 1747.61 euro). Conclusion: In children with reduced GH biological activity, confirmed by the increase of serum IGF-I levels during generation test, the cost of GH treatment is justified by the positive results obtained in growth and adult height as in classical GHD patients.
Efficacy of long-term growth hormone (GH) therapy in short children with reduced GH biological activity
PAGANI, SARA;MEAZZA, CRISTINA;BOZZOLA, MAURO
2011-01-01
Abstract
Aim: The optimal GH regimen, in terms of cost-effectiveness, in children with normal GH immunoreactivity but reduced bioactivity is still debated. Methods: In 12 GH-deficient (GHD) and 12 bioinactive GH children undergoing GH treatment we evaluated the increase in growth velocity, the difference between target height and final stature and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Results: We found a significant (p < 0.05) increase in growth velocity in both groups during the first year of GH treatment (non-GHD: from -1.7 to 5.4 SDS; GHD: from -1.46 to 4.74 SDS). There was no statistically significant variation between the two groups in the difference between final height and target height. We did not find any significant difference in cost/height gain between GHD (1925.28 +/- 653.15 euro) and bioinactive GH children (1639.55 +/- 631.44 euro). There were also no significant differences in cost/year of therapy between GHD (12347.68 +/- 2018.1 euro) and bioinactive GH children (11355.08 +/- 1747.61 euro). Conclusion: In children with reduced GH biological activity, confirmed by the increase of serum IGF-I levels during generation test, the cost of GH treatment is justified by the positive results obtained in growth and adult height as in classical GHD patients.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.