2 resultados para Hormone Growth Promotants
Resumo:
CONTEXT GH treatment is effective in children born small for gestational age (SGA); however, its effectiveness and safety in very young SGA children is unknown. OBJECTIVE The aim was to analyze the outcome of very young SGA children treated with GH and followed for 2 yr. The results after 24 months of treatment, compared with a control group without treatment during 12 months followed by 12 months of treatment, are shown. DESIGN We performed a multicenter, controlled, randomized, open trial. SETTINGS The pediatric endocrinology departments of 14 public hospitals in Spain participated in the study. PATIENTS Seventy-six children, aged 2-5 yr born SGA and without catch-up growth, were studied. INTERVENTION Children received GH at 0.06 mg/kg.d for 2 yr (group I) or were followed for 12 months with no treatment and then treated for 12 months (group II). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Age, general health status, pubertal stage, bone age, height, weight, biochemical and hormonal analyses, and adverse side effects were determined at biannual check-ups. RESULTS The mean height sd score gain for chronological age in children treated for 24 months (group I) was 2.10, whereas in those treated only during the last 12 months (group II) was 1.43. In both groups, children under 4 yr of age had the greatest gain in growth velocity. No significant acceleration of bone age or side effects related to treatment was seen. CONCLUSION Very young SGA children without spontaneous catch-up growth could benefit from GH treatment because growth was accelerated and no negative side effects were observed.
Resumo:
Background: Androgens are key regulators of prostate gland maintenance and prostate cancer growth, and androgen deprivation therapy has been the mainstay of treatment for advanced prostate cancer for many years. A long-standing hypothesis has been that inherited variation in the androgen receptor (AR) gene plays a role in prostate cancer initiation. However, studies to date have been inconclusive and often suffered from small sample sizes. Objective and Methods: We investigated the association of AR sequence variants with circulating sex hormone levels and prostate cancer risk in 6058 prostate cancer cases and 6725 controls of Caucasian origin within the Breast and Prostate Cancer Cohort Consortium. We genotyped a highly polymorphic CAG microsatellite in exon 1 and six haplotype tagging single nucleotide polymorphisms and tested each genetic variant for association with prostate cancer risk and with sex steroid levels. Results: We observed no association between AR genetic variants and prostate cancer risk. However, there was a strong association between longer CAG repeats and higher levels of testosterone (P = 4.73 × 10−5) and estradiol (P = 0.0002), although the amount of variance explained was small (0.4 and 0.7%, respectively). Conclusions: This study is the largest to date investigating AR sequence variants, sex steroid levels, and prostate cancer risk. Although we observed no association between AR sequence variants and prostate cancer risk, our results support earlier findings of a relation between the number of CAG repeats and circulating levels of testosterone and estradiol.