The Effects of Growth Hormone Treatment on Bone Mineral Density ...

21 downloads 135 Views 86KB Size Report
Aug 29, 2006 - The Effects of Growth Hormone Treatment on Bone. Mineral Density and Body Composition in Girls with. Turner Syndrome. Mim Ari, Vladimir K.
0021-972X/06/$15.00/0 Printed in U.S.A.

The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism 91(11):4302– 4305 Copyright © 2006 by The Endocrine Society doi: 10.1210/jc.2006-1351

The Effects of Growth Hormone Treatment on Bone Mineral Density and Body Composition in Girls with Turner Syndrome Mim Ari, Vladimir K. Bakalov, Suvimol Hill, and Carolyn A. Bondy Developmental Endocrinology Branch, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (M.A., V.K.B., C.A.B.), and Warren G. Magnuson Clinical Center Radiology Department (S.H.), National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland 20892 Background: Many girls with Turner syndrome (TS) are treated with GH to increase adult height. In addition to promoting longitudinal bone growth, GH has effects on bone and body composition. Objective: The objective was to determine how GH treatment affects bone mineral density (BMD) and body composition in girls with TS. Method: In a cross-sectional study, we compared measures of body composition and BMD by dual energy x-ray absorptiometry, and phalangeal cortical thickness by hand radiography in 28 girls with TS who had never received GH and 39 girls who were treated with GH for at least 1 yr. All girls were participants in a National Institutes of Health (NIH) Clinical Research Center (CRC) protocol between 2001 and 2006.

was taller (134 vs. 137 cm, P ⫽ 0.001). The average duration of GH treatment was 4.2 (SD 3.2) yr (range 1–14 yr). After adjustment for size and bone age, there were no significant differences in BMD at L1–L4, 1/3 radius or cortical bone thickness measured at the second metacarpal. However, lean body mass percent was higher (P ⬍ 0.001), whereas body fat percent was lower (P ⬍ 0.001) in the GH-treated group. These effects were independent of estrogen exposure and were still apparent in girls that had finished GH treatment at least 1 yr previously. Conclusions: Although GH treatment has little effect on cortical or trabecular BMD in girls with TS, it is associated with increased lean body mass and reduced adiposity. (J Clin Endocrinol Metab 91: 4302– 4305, 2006)

Results: The two groups were similar in age (12.3 yr, SD 2.9), bone age (11.5 yr, SD 2.6), and weight (42.8 kg, SD 16.6); but the GH-treated group

T

URNER SYNDROME (TS) is defined as complete or partial absence of one sex chromosome in a phenotypic female. It is the most common chromosomal disorder in women, occurring in approximately 1 of 2500 live female births (1). The most prevalent features are short stature and ovarian failure. The short stature in TS is attributed in large part to haploinsufficiency for the pseudoautosomal gene SHOX. Although girls with TS are not usually GH deficient, treatment with exogenous recombinant human GH is widely used to augment adult height (2). The most recent clinical study demonstrated an increase in final height of approximately 7 cm (3). Similar to idiopathic short stature, the dosages used to promote stature increase in TS are higher than used in GH-deficient states (2). Although it is well established that GH promotes longitudinal bone growth, its effects on bone density are less clear (4 –9). GH is known to increase bone turnover, but it is yet to be determined whether the increase in turnover increases bone density in growing children. Given that women with TS have cortical bone deficiency (10, 11), it is important to understand the effects of GH on bone density in this population. First Published Online August 29, 2006 Abbreviations: ANCOVA, Analysis of covariance; BBRI, Bending Breaking Resistance Index; BMD, bone mineral density; BMI, body mass index; CCT, combined cortical thickness; CR, computerized radiography; DXA, dual energy x-ray absorptiometry; LTM, lean tissue mass; MI, Metacarpal Index; TS, Turner syndrome. JCEM is published monthly by The Endocrine Society (http://www. endo-society.org), the foremost professional society serving the endocrine community.

Furthermore, there is little information on the effect of GH on body composition in girls with TS. The existing studies had small numbers and no untreated TS controls (12, 13). Therefore, in the present study we examined body composition and bone mineral density (BMD) by dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA), and also cortical thickness of the second metacarpal using hand radiographs, in GH-treated vs. untreated girls with TS. Subjects and Methods Study subjects Study subjects were participants in a TS natural history protocol, which was approved by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) institutional review board. All adult participants and parents of minor children gave written informed consent, and minors informed assent. The protocol includes studies of BMD, metabolic function, and cardiovascular imaging. Study subjects with TS were recruited through notices on the NIH web site: http://turners. nichd.nih.gov/. Inclusion criteria were: 1) phenotypic females greater than 6 yr of age; and 2) a 50-cell peripheral karyotype in which more than 70% of cells demonstrated loss of all or part of the second sex chromosome. For this study on the effect of GH on body composition and bone, all study participants aged 18 yr and under and their caregivers were queried about any history of GH use. There were 78 patients aged 7 to 18 yr for which we obtained information on history of GH use, including age of initiation and duration of treatment. In addition to a questionnaire and personal interview, medical records were reviewed to confirm GH history. As to the dose of GH used, we obtained reliable information mainly for those subjects currently using GH, and this was in the standard range for treating girls with TS, i.e. 0.03– 0.05 mg/kg䡠d.

4302

Ari et al. • GH Treatment and Body Composition in Turner Syndrome

J Clin Endocrinol Metab, November 2006, 91(11):4302– 4305

Hand radiography Posterior-anterior view images of the left hand of all patients were obtained using a computerized radiography (CR) cassette system (GP storage phosphor screen; Kodak, Rochester, NY) with Kodak direct view CR 950 reader. In some patients, the radiographs were obtained by direct digital system (Axiom Aristos; Siemens, Munich, Germany) (film focus distance, 40 in.; small focus, 0.6 mm; tube voltage, 55 kVp; exposure, 2.5–3 mAs). The digitized CR images of the hands were then transferred to picture archive communication system (PACS, Kodak system 5). The cortical thickness of the second metacarpal shaft of the left hand was measured (in millimeters) using Kodak PACS workstation viewer to perform linear measurement. The metacarpal shaft was divided at the point of the proximal 1/3, the midpoint, and the distal 1/3. At each of these levels (proximal 1/3, 1/2, distal 1/3), the total width and the medullary width were measured using computer-drawn lines with automatic length values displayed. Combined cortical thickness (CCT) was obtained by subtracting the medullary width from the total width. The measurements at each point were averaged to come up with an average CCT. An average ratio was also calculated as the cortical thickness divided by the total width of the metacarpal, averaged from the three locations. Additional dependent measures included Metacarpal Index (MI) and Bending Breaking Resistance Index (BBRI) (14, 15). MI is calculated as (TW2 ⫺ MW2/TW2), and BBRI is calculated as (TW4⫺MW4/TW), where TW is total width and MW is medullary width.

DXA All girls underwent measurement of areal BMD and body composition using a Hologic QDR-4500A DXA (Hologic, Inc., Bedford, MA) with fan-beam technology to obtain 1/3 radius, ultradistal radius, anteroposterior L1–L4, and total body BMD. Total BMC, total lean, total lean percent, total fat, and total fat percent were also used as measures of body composition. The lean tissue mass (LTM) ratio was also calculated as total BMC/total lean mass.

Statistics Data are presented as means with sd or as proportions. Comparisons of age, height, and body mass index (BMI) between groups were by ANOVA. Comparison of measures of cortical thickness, DXA BMD, and body composition was done by post hoc analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using as covariates the potentially confounding factors of bone age and BMI. Proportions were compared by ␹2 test. The effects of GH treatment duration were assessed by multiple linear regression analysis. All analyses were performed on StatView, version 5.0.1; or JMP, version 5 (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC).

Results Study subjects

The GH-treated and untreated groups were similar in age, although the treated group was significantly taller (Table 1). Most subjects not taking GH had a very recent diagnosis of

TS and planned to start GH treatment. The average duration of GH treatment was 4.2 (sd 3.2) yr, range 1–14 yr. The proportion of girls exposed to estrogen was 31% in the GHtreated group and 21% in the nontreated group. The karyotype distribution was similar in both groups: greater than 80% had either 45,X or 45,X with a second abnormal cell line with a fragmented X or Y chromosome. There was one subject in the untreated group and four subjects in the treated group with 45,X/46,XX karyotype, but the proportion of cells with normal karyotype was less than 30% in these girls. The remainder had karyotypes including 46,XiXq; 46,XdelXp; or 46,XdelXq. The majority of girls in both groups were Caucasian; however, the study did include Hispanic, AfricanAmerican, and Asian girls. Effects of GH treatment on bone

Because girls with TS seem to have a selective reduction in cortical bone (10, 11), and GH treatment was reported to increase cortical BMD in girls with TS (4), we first compared cortical bone thickness and BMD in our two groups (Table 2). The absolute phalangeal cortical thickness was greater in the GH-treated group, but after adjusting for the larger digital size in GH-treated girls by use of the cortical thickness to metacarpal diameter ratio and the MI, we found no significant difference between treated and untreated groups. We analyzed the contribution of duration of GH use in a multiple regression analysis including cortical thickness, age, and BMI. Cortical bone thickness was positively correlated to age (P ⫽ 0.03) but not duration of GH treatment (P ⫽ 0.44) or BMI. The BBRI was calculated as another parameter of cortical bone, and this index was greater in GH-treated vs. untreated groups, but the difference did not achieve statistical significance. DXA densitometry was similar in the two groups at the largely cortical 1/3 radius and at the mainly trabecular bone lumbar (anteroposterior L1–L4) spine. We also compared lumbar BMD after correction for somatic size difference using body surface area (16), and there was still no significant difference between GH-treated and untreated groups (P ⫽ 0.7). The untreated group, however, had slightly greater bone density at the ultradistal radius (Tables 2 and 3). TABLE 2. Effects of GH treatment on bone

TABLE 1. Study subject characteristics

Age (yr)a Bone age (yr)a Height (cm)a Weight (kg)a BMI (kg/m2)a Estrogen exposureb % Caucasianb

Untreated (n ⫽ 28)

GH treated (n ⫽ 39)

P

12.8 (3.1) 11.9 (3.0) 134 (13.9) 46.0 (20.2) 24.5 (7.3) 6/28 (21%) 17/28 (61%)

11.9 (2.8) 11.3 (2.4) 137 (13.6) 40.6 (13.4) 20.9 (4.3) 12/39 (31%) 32/39 (82%)

0.23 0.91 0.001 0.54 0.04 ns ns

ns, Not significant. a Mean values compared by ANCOVA, with age as covariate for height, weight, and BMI. b Proportions were compared by ␹2.

4303

CCT (mm) CCT/metacarpal diameter MI BBRI Ultradistal BMD (g/cm2) 1/3 radius BMD (g/cm2) AP L1–L4 BMD (g/cm2)

Untreated (n ⫽ 28)

GH treated (n ⫽ 39)

P

3.41 (0.62) 0.49 (0.06) 0.73 (0.07) 326 (119) 0.33 (0.07) 0.48 (0.07) 0.70 (0.15)

3.59 (0.50) 0.50 (0.05) 0.75 (0.05) 364 (124) 0.31 (0.05) 0.47 (0.06) 0.67 (0.13)

0.095 0.445 0.354 0.146 0.028 0.383 0.426

Cortical thickness measurements (CCT, metacarpal index, BBRI) for each subject were averages of values taken at three points on the second metacarpal. MI was derived as (TW2 ⫺ MW2/TW2). The BBRI was calculated as (TW4 ⫺ MW4/TW), where TW is total width and MW is medullary width. Means were compared by ANCOVA, with bone age and BMI as covariates, followed by Fisher’s projected least significant difference (PLSD) test. AP, Anteroposterior.

4304

J Clin Endocrinol Metab, November 2006, 91(11):4302– 4305

Ari et al. • GH Treatment and Body Composition in Turner Syndrome

TABLE 4. Effect of GH treatment on BMD and body composition in prepubertal girls with TS

TABLE 3. Effect of GH treatment on body composition Untreated (n ⫽ 28)

GH treated (n ⫽ 39)

Bone mineral content (g) 1110 (341) 1083 (299) Lean body mass (%) 65.1 (8.0) 70.5 (7.7) Fat body mass (%) 32.5 (8.5) 26.6 (8.0) 0.80 (0.12) 0.79 (0.09) Total BMD (g/cm2) LTM ratio 0.04 (0.01) 0.04 (0.01)

P

0.577 ⬍0.0001 ⬍0.0001 0.577 0.746

The LTM ratio is total bone mineral content divided by lean mass. Comparisons were made by Fisher’s projected least significant difference post hoc ANCOVA, with bone age and BMI as covariates.

Effects of GH treatment on muscle and adipose tissue

GH-treated individuals had on average 15% less adipose tissue (P ⬍ 0.001) and approximately 8% more lean mass compared with untreated girls (Table 3 and Fig. 1). These salutary effects were similar in groups with no estrogen exposure (i.e. excluding girls with spontaneous puberty or estrogen treatment) (Table 4). To investigate the longevity of the effects of GH on body composition, we compared girls that had been off GH treatment for over 1 yr (n ⫽ 14, mean age 15.2 yr, sd 2.4) with age-matched girls that had never been treated with GH (n ⫽ 20, mean age 14.1 yr, sd 2.2). The percent lean body mass was 68.9 (sd 7.4) in the previously treated vs. 63.3 (sd 7.9) in the never-treated girls (P ⬍ 0.0001), whereas the percent body fat was 29.8 (sd 9.1) in the previously treated vs. 34.3 (sd 8.3) in the never-treated girls (P ⫽ 0.0004). Discussion

GH is thought to be important for optimal bone mineralization during normal pubertal development because BMD is reduced in GH-deficient individuals and is restored with GH repletion (17). GH treatment is reported to increase vertebral BMD (18) and phalangeal cortical thickness (14) in children with idiopathic short stature. Data regarding the effect of GH treatment on skeletal mineralization in girls with TS include a longitudinal dose response study in Dutch girls with TS, which found increased phalangeal (mainly cortical) BMD after 7 yr of treatment, with a greater increase in the higher dose group (4). Several small studies have found no apparent effect of GH on the largely trabecular lumbar spine

FIG. 1. Effects of GH treatment on body composition measurements. Figure shows average percentage of lean body mass (gray), fat body mass (white), and bone mineral content (striped) in untreated and GH-treated groups.

Age (yr) Lean body mass (%) Fat body mass (%) CCT (mm) CCT/metacarpal diameter Total BMD (g/cm2) LTM ratio

Untreated (n ⫽ 22)

GH treated (n ⫽ 27)

P

12.0 (3.0) 65.5 (7.3) 32.1 (8.3) 3.28 (0.56) 0.48 (0.06) 0.77 (0.10) 0.04 (0.01)

10.9 (2.6) 73.3 (7.9) 23.8 (7.5) 3.50 (0.52) 0.49 (0.05) 0.76 (0.08) 0.04 (0.01)

0.178 ⬍0.0001 ⬍0.0001 0.064 0.479 0.601 0.657

These data exclude girls who were estrogen exposed (spontaneous menses or estrogen replacement). Comparison was done by Fisher’s projected least significant difference post hoc ANCOVA, with bone age and BMI as covariates.

(6 – 8, 19). In our previous study on adults with TS (9), a history of GH treatment did not predict higher BMD in trabecular or cortical bone. The present study has shown that GH treatment for an average duration of approximately 4 yr has little apparent effect on cortical or trabecular bone mineralization in girls with TS, but it does increase muscle mass and decrease adiposity. Because of the selective cortical bone deficit in TS (10, 11), we were particularly interested in the effects of GH on cortical bone. Cortical bone was measured by two methods: hand radiography and DXA of the radius. Metacarpal cortical thickness was slightly greater in the GH group, but after adjusting for metacarpal size, the difference was not significant. Also, the BBRI, a calculation of bone breaking point, indicated similar strength in the bones of the treated and untreated groups. DXA BMD measurements of the largely cortical radial shaft (1/3 radius) were also very similar in treated vs. untreated groups. Our sample size was sufficient enough to allow detection of an 8% difference in cortical bone thickness between groups, hence it is unlikely that we missed any clinically significant effect. These data suggest that GH treatment is without strong effect on cortical bone in TS. The earlier Dutch study (4) that reported an increase of phalangeal bone density used significantly higher doses of GH (0.0675 mg/kg䡠d) compared with doses used in our patients, which ranged from 0.03 to 0.05 mg/kg䡠d. Also, the duration of treatment in the Dutch study was 7 yr, whereas our average duration was approximately 4 yr. Thus it is possible that GH does increase cortical bone density when used at higher doses over a longer period. Our present finding of no effect of GH treatment on lumbar spine BMD confirms previous small studies that also found no difference in lumbar spine with GH treatment (6 – 8). GH treatment is well known to promote anabolism of lean tissue and reduce adiposity in adults, with or without GH deficiency (20). Our data confirm and extend two small longitudinal studies showing that GH treatment increased lean mass and decreased adiposity in girls with TS. Leger et al. (12) found increased thigh muscle volume in eight girls with TS over 12 months of GH treatment, and Gravholt et al. (13) observed increased muscle and decreased fat after 2 months of GH treatment. Although the salutary effects of GH on body composition “melt away” after a few months in adults (20), it is not known whether treatment of growing children may have more long-lasting effects. The present study is

Ari et al. • GH Treatment and Body Composition in Turner Syndrome

encouraging in this regard because the fat-to-lean ratio in the group of girls that had discontinued GH treatment at least 1 yr ago was still quite favorable compared with untreated girls. Further longitudinal study of these patient groups will be more informative on this important question. A major limitation of the present study is that study subjects were not randomized as to treatment, and thus it is possible that the relation between GH use and lean body habitus does not represent cause and effect but only an association. This seems unlikely, however, because GH treatment has been shown to promote lean tissue and reduce adiposity in previous prospective studies. Moreover, the lack of GH treatment in our untreated group was due in most cases to a late diagnosis, and most of these girls were planning to begin GH treatment. Another limitation is that because IGF-I levels were not measured in the girls on GH treatment, we cannot exclude the possibility of supraphysiological exposure in some girls. Acknowledgments Received June 22, 2006. Accepted August 21, 2006. Address all correspondence and requests for reprints to: Carolyn Bondy, M.D., Chief Developmental Endocrinology Branch, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, BG10, Room 1E-3330, Rockville, Maryland 20892. E-mail: [email protected]. This work was entirely supported by the intramural research programs of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the Clinical Center Radiology Department of the National Institutes of Health. Disclosure Statement: The authors have nothing to disclose.

References 1. Nielsen J, Wohlert M 1990 Sex chromosome abnormalities found among 34,910 newborn children: results from a 13-year incidence study in Arhus, Denmark. Birth Defects Orig Artic Ser 26:209 –223 2. Davenport ML, Punyasavatsut N, Stewart PW, Gunther DF, Sa¨vendahl L, Sybert VP 2002 Growth failure in early life: an important manifestation of Turner syndrome. Horm Res 57:157–164 3. Canadian Growth Hormone Advisory Committee 2005 Impact of growth hormone supplementation on adult height in Turner syndrome: results of the Canadian randomized controlled trial. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 90:3360 –3366 4. Sas TC, de Muinck Keizer-Schrama SM, Stijnen T, van Teunenbroek A, van Leeuwen WJ, Asarfi A, van Rijn RR, Drop SL 2001 Bone mineral density assessed by phalangeal radiographic absorptiometry before and during long-

J Clin Endocrinol Metab, November 2006, 91(11):4302– 4305

5. 6. 7. 8.

9. 10.

11.

12.

13.

14. 15. 16. 17. 18.

19. 20.

4305

term growth hormone treatment in girls with Turner’s syndrome participating in a randomized dose-response study. Pediatr Res 50:417– 422 Neely EK, Marcus R, Rosenfeld RG, Bachrach LK 1993 Turner syndrome adolescents receiving growth hormone are not osteopenic. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 76:861– 866 Shaw NJ, Rehan VK, Husain S, Marshall T, Smith CS 1997 Bone mineral density in Turner’s syndrome–a longitudinal study. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 47:367–370 Carrascosa A, Gussinye M, Terradas P, Yeste D, Audi L, Vicens-Calvet E 2000 Spontaneous, but not induced, puberty permits adequate bone mass acquisition in adolescent Turner syndrome patients. J Bone Miner Res 15:2005–2010 Suganuma N, Furuhashi M, Hirooka T, Moriwaki T, Hasegawa Y, Mori O, Ogawa M 2003 Bone mineral density in adult patients with Turner’s syndrome: analyses of the effectiveness of GH and ovarian steroid hormone replacement therapies. Endocr J 50:263–269 Bakalov VK, Van PL, Baron J, Reynolds JC, Bondy CA 2004 Growth hormone therapy and bone mineral density in Turner syndrome. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 89:4886 – 4889 Bakalov VK, Axelrod L, Baron J, Hanton L, Nelson LM, Reynolds JC, Hill S, Troendle J, Bondy CA 2003 Selective reduction in cortical bone mineral density in Turner syndrome independent of ovarian hormone deficiency. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 88:5717–5722 Bechtold S, Rauch F, Noelle V, Donhauser S, Neu CM, Schoenau E, Schwarz HP 2001 Musculoskeletal analyses of the forearm in young women with Turner syndrome: a study using peripheral quantitative computed tomography. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 86:5819 –5823 Leger J, Carel C, Legrand I, Paulsen A, Hassan M, Czernichow P 1994 Magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of adipose tissue and muscle tissue mass in children with growth hormone (GH) deficiency, Turner’s syndrome, and intrauterine growth retardation during the first year of treatment with GH. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 78:904 –909 Gravholt CH, Naeraa RW, Brixen K, Kastrup KW, Mosekilde L, Jorgensen JOL, Christiansen JS 2002 Short-term growth hormone treatment in girls with Turner syndrome decreases fat mass and insulin sensitivity: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study. Pediatrics 110:889 – 896 Radetti G, D’Addato G, Gatti D, Bozzola M, Adami S 2006 Influence of two different GH dosage regimens on final height, bone geometry and bone strength in GH-deficient children. Eur J Endocrinol 154:479 – 482 Zamberlan N, Radetti G, Paganini C, Gatti D, Rossini M, Braga V, Adami S 1996 Evaluation of cortical thickness and bone density by roentgen microdensitometry in growing males and females. Eur J Pediatr 155:377–382 Bakalov V, Chen M, Baron J, Hanton L, Reynolds J, Stratakis C, Axelrod L, Bondy C 2003 Bone mineral density and fractures in Turner syndrome. Am J Med 115:259 –264 Monson JP, Drake WM, Carroll PV, Weaver JU, Rodriguez-Arnao J, Savage MO 2002 Influence of growth hormone on accretion of bone mass. Horm Res 58:52–56 Lanes R, Gunczler P, Esaa S, Weisinger JR 2002 The effect of short- and long-term growth hormone treatment on bone mineral density and bone metabolism of prepubertal children with idiopathic short stature: a 3-year study. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 57:725–730 Lanes R, Gunczler P, Paoli M, Weisinger JR 1995 Bone mineral density of prepubertal age girls with Turner’s syndrome while on growth hormone therapy. Horm Res 44:168 –171 Bengtsson BA, Johannsson G 1998 The use of growth hormone in adults: a review of the last 10 years, the present and a perspective for the future. Growth Horm IGF Res 8(Suppl B):27–35

JCEM is published monthly by The Endocrine Society (http://www.endo-society.org), the foremost professional society serving the endocrine community.