HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Hauffa, B. P Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Hauffa, B. P

Central laboratory reassessment of IGF-I, IGF-binding protein-3, and GH serum concentrations measured at local treatment centers in growth-impaired children: implications for the agreement between outpatient screening and the results of somatotropic axis functional testing

¹ Division of Pediatric Endocrinology and Diabetology, University Children's Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
² Institute for Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany
³ University Children's Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
⁴ University Hospital for Children and Adolescents, Erlangen, Germany
⁵ Endokrinologikum, Hamburg, Germany
⁶ Pfizer Pharma GmbH, Karlsruhe, Germany
⁷ Pediatric Endocrinology Section, University Children's Hospital, Tuebingen, Germany

(Correspondence should be addressed to B P Hauffa who is now at Abteilung für Pädiatrische Endokrinologie und Diabetologie, Zentrum für Kinderheilkunde und Jugendmedizin, Universität Duisburg-Essen, Hufelandstr. 55, D-45122 Essen, Germany Email: berthold.hauffa{at}uk-essen.de)

Background: Childhood GH deficiency, suspected in the presence of decreased height velocity and short stature, is usually characterized by low IGF-I and IGF-binding protein-3 (IGFBP-3) serum concentrations and is conventionally confirmed by diminished GH peak responses to pharmacological stimuli.

Objective: We evaluated the agreement between different IGF-I (IGFBP-3) assays in predicting GH deficiency and tested whether variability between growth factor screening and pharmacological testing could be diminished by reassessment of growth factor and GH peak concentrations in a single laboratory.

Design: Using the Tuebingen IGF-I (IGFBP-3) RIA, 317 (321) sera from children evaluated for growth disorders in 19 centers were reanalyzed. In 103 children with insulin hypoglycemia and arginine tests, we evaluated how the association between the outcome of growth factor screening and functional testing would change if different assays were employed.

Results: Locally measured IGF-I correlated better than IGFBP-3 with the results of the central laboratory (Tuebingen) assay (slope of the regression curve 1.05; 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.01–1.1 versus 1.18; 95% CI 1.09–1.3). Agreement between local and central laboratory assays in predicting GH deficiency was better for IGF-I than for IGFBP-3 assays (=0.59 versus =0.47). The poor agreement between growth factor screening and GH pharmacological testing was not improved when hormone concentrations were remeasured in the central laboratory ( local=–0.0031, central=0.12).

Conclusions: In children with impaired growth, growth factor screening reflects different aspects of GH insufficiency than does functional testing. Agreement between these approaches is poor and could not be improved by reduction of assay-related variability.