Estradiol supplementation modulates growth hormone (GH) secretory-burst waveform and recombinant human insulin-like growth factor-I-enforced suppression of endogenously driven GH release in postmenopausal women

The present study tests the mechanistic postulate that estrogen confers resistance to negative feedback by systemic IGF-I. To this end, eight postmenopausal women received a constant iv infusion of recombinant human (rh)IGF-I (10 micro g/kg.h x 6 h) and saline in randomized order on the 10th day of supplementation with oral estradiol (E(2)) and placebo (Pl). GH secretion was quantitated by 10-min blood sampling, immunochemiluminometry assay, and deconvolution analysis. Administration of E(2) compared with Pl followed by saline infusion: 1) stimulated pulsatile GH secretion ( micro g/liter.6 h), viz., 12 +/- 3.3 (Pl) and 18 +/- 4.6 (E(2)) (mean +/- SEM, paired comparison, P < 0.05); 2) halved the time latency (min) to achieve peak GH secretion after GHRH injection, 24 +/- 2.2 (Pl) and 12 +/- 2.1 (E(2)) (P < 0.01); and 3) did not alter the mass of GH secreted ( micro g/liter) in response to a maximally effective dose of GHRH, 30 +/- 7.2 (Pl) and 37 +/- 11 (E(2)). Exposure to E(2) compared with Pl followed by rhIGF-I infusion: 1) accelerated the rate of decline of GH concentrations by 3.3-fold, viz., absolute slope ( micro g/liter.1000 min), 3.8 (range, 2.5-5.0) (Pl) and 12 (range, 10-14) (E(2)) (P < 0.001); 2) augmented the algebraic decrement in GH concentrations ( micro g/liter) enforced by rhIGF-I infusion, 0.73 +/- 0.21 (Pl) and 1.6 +/- 0.25 (E(2)) (P < 0.01); 3) halved the time delay (min) to peak GHRH-induced GH secretion, 20 +/- 1.2 (Pl) vs. 10 +/- 1.3 (E(2)) min (P < 0.01). In contradistinction, E(2) did not alter: 1) the capability of rhIGF-I to suppress GHRH-stimulated GH secretory burst mass significantly, viz., by 50 +/- 8% (Pl) and 52 +/- 14% (E(2)) (P < 0.05 each vs. saline); 2) the hourly rate of rise of infused (total) IGF-I concentrations; and 3) total and ultrafiltratably free IGF-I concentrations ( micro g/liter) attained at the end of the two rhIGF-I infusions. In summary, compared with Pl, E(2) supplementation in postmenopausal women: 1) amplifies endogenously driven GH secretory-burst mass; 2) initiates rapid onset of GHRH-stimulated GH release; and 3) potentiates IGF-I-dependent suppression of unstimulated GH concentrations. Based upon companion modeling data, we postulate that E(2) facilitates the upstroke and IGF-I enforces the downstroke of high-amplitude GH secretory bursts in estrogen-replete individuals.     

Impact of estradiol supplementation on dual peptidyl drive of GH secretion in postmenopausal women

As an indirect probe of estrogen-regulated hypothalamic somatostatin restraint, the present study monitors the ability of short-term oral E2 supplementation to modulate GH secretion during combined continuous stimulation by recombinant human GHRH [GHRH-(1-44)-amide] and the potent and selective synthetic GH-releasing peptide, GHRP-2. According to a simplified tripeptidyl model of GH neuroregulation, the effects of estrogen in this dual secretagogue paradigm should mirror alterations in endogenous somatostatinergic signaling. To this end, seven healthy postmenopausal women underwent frequent (10-min) blood sampling for 24 h during simultaneous i.v. infusion of GHRH and GHRP-2 each at a rate of 1 microg/kg x h on d 10 of randomly ordered placebo or 17beta-estradiol (E2) (1 mg orally twice daily) replacement. Serum GH concentrations (n = 280/subject) were assayed by chemiluminescence. The resultant GH time series was evaluated by deconvolution analysis, the approximate entropy statistic, and cosine regression to quantitate pulsatile, entropic (feedback-sensitive), and 24-h rhythmic GH release, respectively. Statistical comparisons revealed that E2 repletion increased the mean (+/- SEM) serum E2 concentration to 222 +/- 26 pg/ml from 16 +/- 1.7 pg/ml during placebo (P < 0.001) and suppressed the serum LH by 48% (P = 0.0033), serum FSH by 64% (P < 0.001), and serum IGF-I by 44% (P = 0.021). Double peptidyl secretagogue stimulation elevated mean 24-h serum GH concentrations to 8.1 +/- 1.0 microg/liter (placebo) and 7.7 +/- 0.89 microg/liter (E2; P = NS) and evoked prominently pulsatile patterns of GH secretion. No primary measure of pulsatile or basal GH release was altered by the disparate sex steroid milieu, i.e. GH secretory burst amplitudes of 0.62 +/- 0.93 (placebo) and 0.72 +/- 0.16 (E2) microg/liter x min, GH pulse frequencies of 27 +/- 1.8 (placebo) and 23 +/- 1.9 (E2) events/24 h, GH half-lives of 12 +/- 0.74 (placebo) and 15 +/- 4.5 (E2) min, and basal (nonpulsatile) GH secretion 70 +/- 22 (placebo) and 57 +/- 18 (E2) ng/liter x min. The approximate entropy (ApEn) of serial GH release [1.297 +/- 0.061 (placebo) and 1.323 +/- 0.06 (E2)] and the mesor (cosine mean), amplitude, and acrophase (time of the maximum) of 24-h rhythmic GH secretion were likewise invariant of estrogen supplementation. Estimated statistical power exceeded 90% for detecting significant (P < 0.05) within-subject changes exceeding 30-50% in the mean serum GH concentration, GH ApEn, or GH mesor. In contrast, ApEn analysis of the evolution of successive GH secretory burst-mass values over 24 h disclosed that E2 replacement disrupts the serial regularity of pulsatile GH output (elevates the ApEn ratio) during combined GHRH/GHRP-2 stimulation (P = 0.004). In summary, short-term elevation of serum E2 concentrations in postmenopausal individuals into the midfollicular phase range observed in young women does not significantly alter 24-h basal, pulsatile, entropic, or nyctohemeral GH secretion monitored under continuous combined drive by GHRH and GHRP-2. As E2 repletion without enforced GHRH/GHRP-2 stimulation augments each of the foregoing regulated facets of GH release, we infer that one or both of the infused peptidyl secretagogues may itself participate in E2's short-term amplification of GH secretion in postmenopausal individuals. Estrogen's disruption of the orderliness of sequential GH pulse-mass values during fixed GHRH/GHRP-2 feedforward would be consistent with a subtle reduction in the release and/or actions of hypothalamic somatostatin or an (unexpected) direct pituitary action of the sex steroid. Whether comparable dynamics mediate the effects of endogenous estrogen on the GH axis in premenopausal women or pubertal girls is not known.     

Activation of somatostatin-receptor subtype-2/-5 suppresses the mass, frequency, and irregularity of growth hormone (GH)-releasing peptide-2-stimulated GH secretion in men

Somatostatin antagonizes the stimulatory actions of GHRH and GH-releasing peptides (GHRPs). However, precisely how the inhibitory susceptibilities of the two secretagogues differ is not clear. One interpretative difficulty is that native somatostatin activates six different receptor subtypes. The present study adopts the complementary strategy of enforcing feedback inhibition via the preferential somatostatin receptor subtype 2 and 5 (SSTR-2/-5) agonist, octreotide. We postulated that putative SSTR-2/-5 agonism would unmask secretagogue-selective interactions in the control of GH secretory burst mass, frequency, and/or regularity. To this end, 10 healthy men each underwent eight randomly ordered, separate-day, fasting morning infusion sessions. Interventions comprised sc administration of octreotide (1 microg/kg), followed by bolus iv injection of saline, GHRH (1 microg/kg), GHRP-2 (1 microg/kg), or both peptides. Compared with placebo, the SSTR-2/-5 agonist reduced fasting GH concentrations from 0.27 +/- 0.07 to 0.12 +/- 0.02 microg/liter (P = 0.020), GH secretory burst mass from 2.7 +/- 0.65 to 0.55 +/- 0.11 microg/liter (P = 0.013), and basal GH secretion from 0.24 +/- 0.043 to 0.11 +/- 0.015 microg/liter.100 min (P = 0.0063). The foregoing outcomes were selective, because octreotide did not alter GH secretory burst frequency (3.1 +/- 0.5 vs. 3.3 +/- 0.21 events/3 h) or the regularity of the GH release process (approximate entropy, 0.58 +/- 0.048 vs. 0.68 +/- 0.064). In the GHRP-2-stimulated setting, presumptive SSTR-2/-5 agonism suppressed all three GH secretory burst masses, from 28 +/- 3.2 to 18 +/- 2.0 (P = 0.045); GH pulse frequency, from 3.3 +/- 0.30 to 2.0 +/- 0.18 (P = 0.0025); and the irregularity (approximate entropy) of GH release, from 0.648 +/- 0.049 to 0.433 +/- 0.047 (P < 0.01). In contrast, in the GHRH and combined GHRH/GHRP-2-stimulated contexts, octreotide decreased only GH secretory burst mass (P = 0.047). In summary, the present data indicate that GH secretory burst mass, frequency, and orderliness are subject to interactive control by at least SSTR-2/-5-dependent feedback and GHRP-dependent feedforward signals.     

Complementary secretagogue pairs unmask prominent gender-related contrasts in mechanisms of growth hormone pulse renewal in young adults

The present study examines the thesis that pulsatile GH secretion is controlled simultaneously by three principal signals; viz., GHRH, GH-releasing peptide (GHRP, ghrelin), and somatostatin (SS). According to this ensemble notion, no single regulatory peptide acts alone or can be interpreted in isolation. Therefore, to investigate gender-specific control of pulsatile GH secretion, we designed dual-effector stimulation paradigms in eight young men and six women as follows: 1) L-arginine/GHRH (to clamp low SS and high GHRH input); 2) L-arginine/GHRP-2 (to clamp low SS and high GHRP drive); 3) GHRH/GHRP-2 (to clamp high GHRH and high GHRP feedforward); vs. 4) saline (unclamped). Statistical comparisons revealed that: 1) fasting pulsatile GH secretion was 7.6-fold higher in women than men (P < 0.001); 2) L-arginine/GHRH and L-arginine/GHRP-2 evoked, respectively, 4.6- and 2.2-fold greater burst-like GH release in women than men (P < 0.001 and P = 0.015); and 3) GHRH/GHRP-2 elicited comparable GH secretion by gender. In the combined cohorts, estradiol concentrations positively predicted responses to L-arginine/GHRP-2 (r2= 0.49, P = 0.005), whereas testosterone negatively predicted those to L-arginine/GHRH (r2= 0.56, P = 0.002). Based upon a simplified biomathematical model of three-peptide control, the current outcomes suggest that women maintain greater GHRH potency, GHRP efficacy, and opposing SS outflow than men. This inference upholds recent clinical precedence and yields valid predictions of sex differences in self-renewable GH pulsatility.     

Testosterone blunts feedback inhibition of growth hormone secretion by experimentally elevated insulin-like growth factor-I concentrations

The present study tests the hypothesis that a high dose of testosterone (Te) drives GH and IGF-I production, in part, by blunting autonegative feedback by the end-product peptide. To this end, we infused saline or recombinant human IGF-I (10 microg/kg.h iv for 6 h) in seven healthy men ages 51-72 yr after administration of placebo (Pl) and Te in randomized order. GH release was quantitated fasting before and after injection of GHRH (1 microg/kg). Statistical analyses disclosed that Te vs. Pl: 1) increased the mean concentration of GH from 0.15 +/- 0.045 to 0.48 +/- 0.11 microg/liter (P = 0.007) and IGF-I from 108 +/- 5.0 to 124 +/- 4.1 (P = 0.047) without altering GHRH-induced GH release; 2) elevated the GH nadir from 0.13 +/- 0.03 to 0.23 +/- 0.06 microg/liter (P < 0.05) in the control session and from 0.06 +/- 0.02 to 0.14 +/- 0.04 microg/liter (P = 0.038) during IGF-I infusion; 3) augmented GHRH-stimulated GH release from 3.0 +/- 0.56 (Pl) to 3.7 +/- 0.52 microg/liter (Te) (P < 0.05) during IGF-I infusion; and 4) did not influence estimated IGF-I kinetics. In summary, supplementation of a high dose of Te in middle-aged and older men attenuates IGF-I feedback-dependent inhibition of nadir and peak GH secretion. Both effects of Te differ from those reported recently for estradiol in postmenopausal women. Accordingly, we postulate that Te and estrogen modulate IGF-I negative feedback differentially.     

The GH-releasing effect of ghrelin,a natural GH secretagogue,is only blunted by the infusion of exogenous somatostatin in humans

OBJECTIVE: Ghrelin, a 28-amino-acid peptide purified from the stomach and showing a unique structure with an n-octanoyl ester at the serine 3 residue, is a natural ligand of the GH secretagogue (GHS) receptor (GHS-R). Ghrelin strongly stimulates GH secretion in both animals and humans, showing a synergistic effect with GH-releasing hormone (GHRH) but no interaction with synthetic GHS. However, the activity of ghrelin as well as that of non-natural GHS is not fully specific for GH; ghrelin also induces a stimulatory effect on lactotroph and corticotroph secretion, at least in humans. DESIGN: To further clarify the mechanisms underlying the GH-releasing activity of this natural GHS, we studied the effects of somatostatin (SS, 2.0 microg/kg/h from -30 to +90 min) on the endocrine responses to ghrelin (1.0 microg/kg i.v. at 0 min) in seven normal young male volunteers [age (mean +/- SEM) 28.6 +/- 2.9 years; body mass index (BMI) 22.1 +/- 0.8 kg/m2]. In the same subjects, the effect of SS on the GH response to GHRH (1.0 microm/kg i.v. at 0 min) was also studied. MEASUREMENTS: Blood samples were taken every 15 min from -30 up to +120 min. GH levels were assayed at each time point in all sessions; PRL, ACTH and cortisol levels were assayed after ghrelin administration alone and during SS infusion. RESULTS: The GH response to ghrelin (hAUC0'-->120' 2695.0 +/- 492.6 microg min/l) was higher (P < 0.01) than that after GHRH (757.1 +/- 44.1 microg min/l). SS infusion almost abolished the GH response to GHRH (177.0 +/- 37.7 microg min/l, P < 0.01); the GH response to ghrelin was inhibited by SS (993.8 +/- 248.5 microg min/l, P < 0.01) but GH levels remained higher (P < 0.05) than with GHRH. Ghrelin induced significant increases in PRL, ACTH and cortisol levels and these responses were not modified by SS. CONCLUSIONS: Ghrelin, a natural GHS-R ligand, exerts a strong stimulatory effect on GH secretion in humans and this effect is only blunted by an exogenous somatostatin dose which almost abolishes the GH response to GHRH. The stimulatory effect of ghrelin on lactotroph and corticotroph secretion is refractory to exogenous somatostatin, indicating that these effects occur through pathways independent of somatostatinergic influence.     

Determinants of dual secretagogue drive of burst-like growth hormone secretion in premenopausal women studied under a selective estradiol clamp

The present study tests the hypothesis that estradiol (E(2)), compared with placebo (Pl), amplifies combined-secretagogue stimulation of GH secretion in premenopausal women studied at comparable IGF-I and testosterone concentrations. To this end, 13 women underwent GnRH agonist-induced gonadal down-regulation followed by graded transdermal addback of E(2) or Pl and randomly ordered iv infusions of saline or paired secretagogues on separate morning fasting. GH secretion was assessed by frequent blood sampling, immunochemiluminometry, and variable-waveform deconvolution analysis. Two-way ANOVA revealed that specific secretagogue combination (P < 0.001), E(2) status (P = 0.012), and their interaction (P = 0.038) jointly determined GH secretory-burst mass. Compared with Pl, the E(2)-clamped milieu elevated mean fasting GH concentrations (P = 0.032), the mass of GH secreted in bursts (P = 0.037), and maximal stimulation by paired l-arginine/GH-releasing peptide (GHRP)-2 (P = 0.028). E(2) also markedly accelerated the initial release of GH induced by GHRH/GHRP-2 (P < 0.001) and l-arginine/GHRH (P < 0.01). By linear regression analysis, E(2) concentrations positively forecast 41% of intersubject variability in GH secretion stimulated by combined l-arginine/GHRP-2 (P = 0.018), whereas abdominal visceral-fat mass negatively predicted 49% of that due to l-arginine/GHRH (P = 0.012). These data indicate that pulsatile GH secretion in young women studied at constant IGF-I and testosterone concentrations is dictated 3-fold jointly by secretagogue pair, E(2) availability, and intraabdominal adiposity. Moreover, the rapidity of GH release is controlled 2-fold jointly by E(2) and GHRH.     

Effect of withdrawal of somatostatin plus GH-releasing hormone as a stimulus of GH secretion in obesity

OBJECTIVES: Somatostatin (SS) may not merely be inhibitory to GH secretion but, under appropriate temporal conditions, may act in a paradoxically positive manner to sensitize somatotroph responsiveness to GH-releasing hormone (GHRH). SS infusion withdrawal (SSIW) produces a rebound GH rise in humans and increases GHRH-induced GH release. Theoretically, SSIW leaves the somatotroph cell in a situation of low endogenous SS. In obesity, there is markedly decreased GH secretion. In both children and adults, the greater the body mass index (BMI), the lower the GH response to provocative stimuli. It has been postulated that increased hypothalamic somatostatin secretion is the main mechanism responsible for the blunted GH secretion of obesity. There are no data evaluating GH responsiveness to SSIW plus GHRH in obese adults. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the GH response to SSIW plus GHRH in a group of control subjects and a group of obese patients. PATIENTS AND MEASUREMENTS: Seven obese patients (six female, one male) with a BMI of 36.1 +/- 7.7 kg/m2 were studied. As a control group, seven normal subjects (six female, one male) with a BMI of 20.3 +/- 0.9 kg/m2 were also studied. Two tests were performed. On one day, somatostatin (SS) i.v. infusion (500 microg from 0-90 min) was performed followed by a placebo i.v. bolus 90 min after SS withdrawal (SSIW). On another day, SS i.v. infusion (500 microg from 0-90 min) was performed followed by a GHRH (100 microg) i.v. bolus 90 min after SS withdrawal. A second group of seven obese patients (six female, one male) with a BMI of 32.2 +/- 2.3 kg/m2 were studied. As a second control group, seven normal healthy subjects (six female, one male) with a BMI of 20.1 +/- 0.6 kg/m2 were also studied. On one day, saline infusion was performed followed by a placebo i.v. bolus at 90 min. On another day, saline infusion was performed followed by a GHRH (100 microg) i.v. bolus at 90 min. Blood samples were taken at appropriate intervals for determination of GH. Serum GH was measured by chemiluminescent immunometric assay. Statistical analysis was performed by Wilcoxon and Mann-Whitney tests. RESULTS: GHRH-induced GH secretion in normal subjects showed a mean peak of 15.8 +/- 2.1 microg/l. Normal control subjects had a mean peak of 3.1 +/- 1.5 microg/l after SSIW-induced GH secretion. When GHRH was administered after SSIW there was an increased GH secretion with a mean peak of 23.3 +/- 4.4 microg/l, significantly greater than the response after SSIW alone (P < 0.05) and GHRH alone (P < 0.05). GHRH-induced GH secretion in obese patients was decreased with a mean peak of 3.9 +/- 1.5 microg/l. In obese patients, GH secretion after SSIW was markedly decreased with a mean peak of 1.0 +/- 0.4 microg/l. When GHRH was administered after SSIW, an increase in GH secretion was observed with a mean peak of 4.3 +/- 0.9 microg/l, significantly greater than SSIW alone (P < 0.05) but not GHRH alone (P = NS), and significantly less than in normal subjects (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates a significantly blunted peak GH response to somatostatin infusion withdrawal plus GHRH in obese patients compared to normal subjects. In this theoretical situation of decreased somatostatinergic tone, there is persistence of GH hyposecretion in obesity, suggesting the existence of multiple defects responsible for decreased GH secretion in obesity. We also found that in obese patients, in contrast to normal subjects, SSIW did not increase GHRH-induced GH secretion.     

Activation of the somatotropic axis by testosterone in adult men: evidence for a role of hypothalamic growth hormone-releasing hormone

Testosterone (T) is known to affect the growth hormone (GH) axis. However, the mechanisms underlying the activation of GH secretion by T still remain to be clarified. Available data in animals and humans have shown that withdrawal of somatostatin (SRIH) infusion induces a GH-releasing hormone (GHRH)-mediated rebound release of GH, and there is accumulating evidence that SRIH infusion withdrawal may be a useful test to probe the GHRH function in vivo. With the aim of investigating whether the stimulatory effect of androgens on GH release in man could be accounted for by activation of the hypothalamic GHRH tone, we evaluated the plasma GH response to SRIH withdrawal in 10 patients aged 29.6 +/- 2.4 years (mean +/- SEM), diagnosed with hypergonadotropic hypogonadism, before and after a 6-month replacement therapy with T enanthate (250 mg every 3 weeks, i.m.), and in 10 healthy men, aged 26.7 +/- 2.8 years. To verify whether the modulation of GH secretion by T could also be mediated through changes in SRIH tone and/or pituitary releasable pool, we examined GH secretory responses to combined GHRH and L-arginine (ARG) in the same individuals. Basal plasma concentrations of GH (0.48 +/- 0.11 microg/l) and IGF-I (23.79 +/- 1.83 nmol/l) were significantly lower in untreated hypogonadal patients than in healthy men, and significantly increased after T replacement therapy (GH 1.13 +/- 0.28 microg/l; IGF-I 28.71 +/- 1.46 nmol/l). The mean Delta GH peak after SRIH withdrawal recorded in untreated hypogonadal men (2.65 +/- 0.86 microg/l) was significantly (p < 0.05) lower than that observed in healthy men (6.53 +/- 1.33 microg/l) and significantly increased after T replacement therapy (5.52 +/- 1.25 microg/l). The GH responses to GHRH combined with ARG (a functional SRIH antagonist) were not significantly different between healthy men and untreated hypogonadal patients, and were not significantly affected by T treatment. Plasma T and estradiol (E(2)) levels significantly correlated with Delta GH peak after SRIH withdrawal in healthy men and in T-treated hypogonadal patients, whereas in untreated patients they did not. No significant correlation was found between GH areas under the curve after GHRH + ARG test and T and E(2) plasma levels in either healthy men or in hypogonadal patients (both before and after T replacement). These findings are consistent with the view that in humans the stimulatory action of T on the GH axis appears to be mediated at the hypothalamic level primarily by promoting GHRH function.     

E2 supplementation selectively relieves GH's autonegative feedback on GH-releasing peptide-2-stimulated GH secretion.

Female gender confers resistance to GH autonegative feedback in the adult rat, thereby suggesting gonadal or estrogenic modulation of autoregulation of the somatotropic axis. Here we test the clinical hypothesis that short-term E2 replacement in ovariprival women reduces GH's repression of spontaneous, GHRH-, and GH-releasing peptide (GHRP)-stimulated GH secretion. To this end, we appraised GH autoinhibition in nine healthy postmenopausal volunteers during a prospective, randomly ordered supplementation with placebo vs. E [1 mg micronized 17 beta-E2 orally twice daily for 6-23 d]. The GH autofeedback paradigm consisted of a 6-min pulsed i.v. infusion of recombinant human GH (10 microg/kg square-wave injection) or saline (control) followed by i.v. bolus GHRH (1 microg/kg), GHRP-2 (1 microg/kg), or saline 2 h later. Blood was sampled every 10 min and serum GH concentrations were measured by chemiluminescence. Poststimulus GH release was quantitated by multiparameter deconvolution analysis using published biexponential kinetics and by the incremental peak serum GH concentration response (maximal poststimulus value minus prepeak nadir). Outcomes were analyzed on the logarithmic scale by mixed-effects ANOVA at a multiple-comparison type I error rate of 0.05. E2 supplementation increased the (mean +/- SEM) serum E2 concentration from 43 +/- 1.8 (control) to 121 +/- 4 pg/ml (E2) (158 +/- 6.6 to 440 +/- 15 pmol/liter; P < 0.001), lowered the 0800 h (preinfusion) serum IGF-I concentration from 127 +/- 7.7 to 73 +/- 3.6 microg/liter (P < 0.01), and amplified spontaneous pulsatile GH production from 7.5 +/- 1.1 to 13 +/- 2.3 microg/liter per 6 h (P = 0.020). In the absence of exogenously imposed GH autofeedback, E2 replacement enhanced the stimulatory effect of GHRP-2 on incremental peak GH release by 1.58-fold [95% confidence interval, 1.2- to 2.1-fold] (P = 0.0034) but did not alter the action of GHRH (0.83-fold [0.62- to 1.1-fold]). In the E2-deficient state, bolus GH infusion significantly inhibited subsequent spontaneous, GHRH-, and GHRP-induced incremental peak GH responses by, respectively, 33% (1-55%; P = 0.044 vs. saline), 79% (68-86%; P < 0.0001), and 54% (32-69%; P = 0.0002). E2 repletion failed to influence GH autofeedback on either spontaneous or GHRH-stimulated incremental peak GH output. In contrast, E2 replenishment augmented the GHRP-2-stimulated incremental peak GH response in the face of GH autoinhibition by 1.7-fold (1.2- to 2.5-fold; P = 0.009). Mechanistically, the latter effect of E2 mirrored its enhancement of GH-repressed/GHRP-2-stimulated GH secretory pulse mass, which rose by 1.5-fold (0.95- to 2.5-fold over placebo; P = 0.078). In summary, the present clinical investigation documents the ability of short-term oral E2 supplementation in postmenopausal women to selectively rescue GHRP-2 (but not spontaneous or GHRH)-stimulated GH secretion from autonegative feedback. The secretagogue specificity of E's relief of GH autoinhibition suggests that this sex steroid may enhance activity of the hypothalamopituitary GHRP-receptor/effector pathway.     

The impact of cranial irradiation on GH responsiveness to GHRH plus GH-releasing peptide-6

Patients treated with cranial radiation are at risk of GH deficiency (GHD). We evaluated somatotroph responsiveness to maximal provocative tests exploring the GH releasable pool in relation to the impact of radiation damage to the hypothalamic-pituitary unit. The GH-releasing effect of GHRH plus GH secretagogue [GH-releasing peptide (GHRP)-6] (GHRH+GHRP-6) was studied in 22 adult patients (age, 23.2 +/- 1.4 yr; 8 female and 14 male; mean body mass index, 22.6 +/- 0.7 kg/m(2)) who received cranial radiation for primary brain tumor distant from hypothalamic-pituitary region 7.6 +/- 0.7 yr before GH testing. Two stimulatory tests for GH secretion were employed: insulin tolerance test (ITT, 0.15 IU/kg regular insulin i.v. bolus); and GHRH+GHRP-6 test: GHRH (Geref Serono, Madrid, Spain; l microg/kg) plus GHRP-6 (CLINALFA, Laufelingen, Switzerland; 1 microg/kg) as i.v. bolus. Serum GH was measured (Delphia; Perkin Elmer, Wallac, Turku, Finland) at -30, -15, 0, 15, 30, 45, 60, 90, and 120 min. Anterior pituitary function was normal in all except in 1 female with hyperprolactinemia. Twelve out of 22 irradiated patients were GH-deficient (GHD) with both tests. Eleven out of 22 (50%) irradiated patients were severely GHD, according to the ITT (GH < 3 microg/liter; mean GH peak, 1.5 +/- 0.5 microg/liter). In 9 irradiated patients, in whom ITT was performed as well, mean peak GH after the GHRH+GHRP-6 test was 6.2 +/- 0.8 microg/liter, which is considered as severe GHD, according to our own cut-off for the test (peak GH < 10 microg/liter). GH responses to both tests were highly concordant, but the differential in the GH peak concentrations between GHD and non-GHD irradiated patients was significantly larger for the GHRH+GHRP-6 test than that for the ITT. The 2 discordant responses, i.e. poor response to the ITT and good response to the GHRH+GHRP-6 test, were found in 1 hyperprolactinemic female patient and in 1 other female. One irradiated patient was diagnosed as GHD only with the combined test, because ITT was contraindicated because of epilepsy. PRL and cortisol responses to ITT were normal in all irradiated patients and did not depend on the GH status. IGF-I levels were not informative or discriminative between the GHD and non-GHD irradiated adult patients. In conclusion, the use of GH secretagogues plus GHRH is an easy, reliable and accurate way of assessing GH secretion in cranially irradiated patients. Impairment of the GH releasable pool in the irradiated patients, with a maximal provocative test, reflects alterations in the hypothalamic-pituitary unit caused by radiotherapy.     

Accelerated escape from GH autonegative feedback in midpuberty in males: evidence for time-delimited GH-induced somatostatinergic outflow in adolescent boys

A single injected pulse of GH inhibits the time-delayed secretion of GH in the adult by way of central mechanisms that drive somatostatin and repress GHRH outflow. The marked amplification of spontaneous GH pulse amplitude in puberty poses an autoregulatory paradox. We postulated that this disparity might reflect unique relief of GH-induced autonegative feedback during this window of development. The present study contrasts GH autonegative feedback in: 1) normal prepubertal boys (PP) (n = 6; Tanner genital stage I, chronologically aged 8 yr, 9 months to 10 yr, 1 month; median bone age 8.5 yr); 2) longitudinally identified midpubertal boys (MP) (n = 6; Tanner genital stages III/IV, aged 12 yr, 6 months to 15 yr, 6 months; median bone age 15 yr); and 3) healthy young men (YM) (n = 6, aged 18-24 yr; bone age >18 yr). Subjects each underwent four randomly ordered tandem peptide infusions on separate mornings while fasting: i.e. 1) saline/saline infused iv bolus at 0830 h and 1030 h; 2) saline/GHRH (0.3 microg/kg i.v. bolus) at the foregoing times; 3) recombinant human (rh) GH (3 microg/kg as a 6-min square-wave i.v. pulse)/saline; and 4) rhGH and GHRH. To monitor GH autofeedback effects, blood samples were obtained every 10 min for 5.5 h beginning at 0800 h (30 min before GH or saline infusion). Serum GH concentrations were quantitated by ultrasensitive chemiluminometry (threshold 0.005 microg/liter). On the day of successive saline/saline infusion, MP boys maintained higher serum concentrations of: 1) GH ( microg/liter), 2.2 +/- 0.25, compared with PP (0.61 +/- 0.10) or YM (0.88 +/- 0.36) (P = 0.011); 2) IGF-I ( micro g/liter), 493 +/- 49 vs. PP (134 +/- 16) and YM (242 +/- 22) (P < 0.001); 3) T (ng/dl), 524 +/- 58 vs. PP (<20) (P < 0.001); and 4) E2 (pg/ml),19 +/- 3 vs. PP (< 10) (P = 0.030) (mean +/- SEM). Consecutive saline/GHRH infusion elicited comparable peak (absolute maximal) serum GH concentrations (micrograms per liter) in the three study groups, i.e. 18 +/- 5.0 (PP), 9.6 +/- 1.7 (MP), and 14 +/- 5.3 (YM) (each P < 0.01 vs. saline; P = NS cohort effect). Injection of rhGH attenuated subsequent GHRH-stimulated peak serum GH concentrations (micrograms per liter) to 7.8 +/- 1.9 (PP), 5.8 +/- 1.2 (MP), and 4.8 +/- 1.1 (YM) (each P < 0.01 vs. saline; P = NS pubertal effect). GH autofeedback reduced non-GHRH-stimulated (basal) serum GH concentrations by 0.74 +/- 0.28 (PP), 5.7 +/- 1.7 (MP) and 1.4 +/- 0.27 (YM) fold, compared with saline (P = 0.016 for MP vs. PP or YM). In addition to greater fractional autoinhibition, MP boys exhibited markedly accentuated postnadir escape (4.6-fold steeper slope) of suppressed GH concentrations (P < 0.001 vs. PP or YM). Linear regression analysis of data from all 18 subjects revealed that the fasting IGF-I concentration negatively predicted fold-autoinhibition of GHRH-stimulated peak GH release (r = -0.847, P = 0.006) and positively forecast fold-autoinhibition of basal GH release (r = +0.869, P < 0.001). In contrast, the kinetics of rhGH did not differ among the three study cohorts. In summary, boys in midpuberty manifest equivalent responsiveness to exogenous GHRH-stimulated GH secretion; heightened susceptibility to rhGH-induced fractional inhibition of endogenous secretagogue-driven GH release, compared with the prepubertal or adult male; and accelerated recovery of GH output after acute autonegative feedback. This novel tripartite mechanism could engender recurrent high-amplitude GH secretory bursts that mark sex hormone-dependent activation of the human somatotropic axis.     

Effect of acute and chronic administration of clonidine on hypothalamic content of growth hormone-releasing hormone and somatostatin in the rat.

Hypothalamic GH-releasing hormone (GHRH) and somatostatin contents were determined in male rats at pre- and mid-pubertal stages following acute (0.15 mg/kg) or chronic (0.1 mg/kg twice daily for 7 days) administration of clonidine. Hypothalamic GHRH content increased markedly during transition from pre- to mid- and late-pubertal stages (2.05 +/- 0.17 vs 3.13 +/- 0.26 and 3.46 +/- 0.20 ng/hypothalamus respectively, means +/- S.E.M.). Hypothalamic GHRH content was markedly decreased 1 h after clonidine administration in mid-pubertal but not in prepubertal rats (3.67 +/- 0.23 vs 2.65 +/- 0.22 ng/hypothalamus). Hypothalamic somatostatin content, on the other hand, decreased in both age groups, although the decrease in the mid-pubertal group was more pronounced (51% and 38% respectively). In addition, the GH responsiveness to clonidine was higher at mid-puberty than at prepuberty. Determination of hypothalamic somatostatin and GHRH content in the chronic experiment 4 h after the last drug administration revealed a marked decrease in GHRH in the mid-pubertal rats and a slight decrease in the prepubertal rats (1.78 +/- 0.32 vs 3.15 +/- 0.31 and 2.01 +/- 0.30 vs 2.35 +/- 0.15 ng/hypothalamus; P less than 0.005 and P less than 0.05 respectively) whereas somatostatin levels were not altered. It is suggested that the clonidine-induced GH secretion is modulated by a chain of events which involves primary stimulation of GHRH release resulting in increased GH secretion which, via a negative-feedback mechanism, triggers an enhancement of somatostatin release which ultimately normalizes the system. This mechanism is age-dependent and reaches full maturity only at the onset of puberty.     

Comparisons among old and new provocative tests of GH secretion in 178 normal adults

Classical provocative stimuli of GH secretion such as insulin-induced hypoglycaemia, arginine, clonidine, glucagon and levodopa have been widely used in clinical practice for approximately 30 years. On the other hand, in the last 10 years new potent stimuli of GH secretion have been proposed, but an extensive comparison with the classical ones has rarely been performed, at least in adults. In order to compare the GH-releasing activity of old and new provocative stimuli of GH secretion, and to define the normative values of the GH response, in 178 normal adults (95 males, 83 females; age range: 20-50 years, all within +/-15% of their ideal body weight), we studied the GH response to: insulin-induced hypoglycaemia (ITT, 0.1IU/kg i.v.), arginine (ARG, 0.5g/kg i.v.), clonidine (CLO, 300 microg/kg p.o.), glucagon (GLU, 1mg i.m.), pyridostigmine (PD, 120mg p.o.), galanin (GAL, 80pmol/kg per min), GH-releasing hormone (GHRH, 1 microg/kg i.v.), GHRH+ARG, GHRH+PD, hexarelin, a GH-releasing protein (HEX, 2 microg/kg i.v.) and GHRH+HEX (0.25 microg/kg i.v.). The mean (+/-s.e.m.) peak GH response to ITT (21.8+/-2.8, range: 3.0-84.0 microg/l) was similar to those to ARG (18.0+/-1.6, range: 2.9-39.5 microg/l) or GLU (20. 5+/-2.2, range: 10.6-36.9 microg/l) which, in turn, were higher (P<0. 001) than those to CLO (8.2+/-1.6, range: 0.3-21.5 microg/l), PD (9. 6+/-1.1, range: 2.2-33.0 microg/l) and GAL (9.3+/-1.1, range: 3.9-18. 3 microg/l). The GH response to GHRH (19.1+/-1.5, range: 2.7-55.0 microg/l) was similar to those after ITT, ARG or GLU but clearly lower than those after GHRH+ARG (65.9+/-5.5, range: 13.8-171.0 microg/l) and GHRH+PD (50.2+/-4.6, range: 17.7-134.5 microg/l) which, in turn, were similar. The GH response to HEX (55.3+/-5.5, range: 13.9-163.5 microg/l) was similar to those after GHRH+ARG and GHRH+PD but lower (P<0.001) than that after GHRH+HEX (86.0+/-4.3, range: 49. 0-125.0 microg/l) which was the most potent stimulus of GH secretion. In this adult population the third centile limits of peak GH response to various stimuli were the following: ITT: 5.3; ARG: 2.9; CLO: 1.5; GLU: 7.6; PD: 2.2; GAL: 4.0; GHRH: 5.0; GHRH+ARG: 17.8; GHRH+PD: 17.9; HEX: 21.6; GHRH+HEX: 57.1. These results confirm that, among classical provocative tests of GH secretion, ITT followed by ARG and GLU are the most potent ones and possess clear limits of normality. GHRH+ARG or PD and HEX are strong stimuli of GH secretion which, however, is maximally stimulated by a combination of GHRH and a low dose of HEX. It is recommended that each test is used with appropriate cut-off limits.     

Arginine counteracts the inhibitory effect of recombinant human insulin-like growth factor I on the somatotroph responsiveness to growth hormone-releasing hormone in humans

Insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I) exerts a negative feedback effect on GH secretion via either direct actions at the pituitary level or indirect ones at the hypothalamic level, through stimulation of somatostatin (SS) and/or inhibition of GHRH release. In fact, recombinant human IGF-I (rhIGF-I) in humans inhibits spontaneous GH secretion as well as the GH response to GHRH and even more to GH/GH-releasing peptides, whose main action is on the hypothalamus, antagonizing SS and enhancing GHRH activity. The aim of the present study was to further clarify in humans the mechanisms underlying IGF-I-induced inhibition of somatotroph secretion. In six normal young volunteers (all women; mean +/- SEM: age, 28.3+/-1.2 yr; body mass index, 21.3+/-1.2 kg/m2) we studied the GH response to GHRH (1 microg/kg, iv, at 0 min), both alone and combined with arginine (ARG; 0.5 g/kg, iv, from 0-30 min), which probably acts via inhibition of hypothalamic SS release, after pretreatment with rhIGF-I (20 microg/kg, sc, at -180 min) or placebo. rhIGF-I increased circulating IGF-I levels (peak at -60 vs. -180 min: 54.9+/-3.9 vs. 35.9+/-3.3 mmol/L; P < 0.05) to a reproducible extent, and these levels remained stable and within the normal range until 90 min. The mean GH concentration over 3 h (from -180 to 0 min) before ARG and/or GHRH was not modified by placebo or rhIGF-I. After placebo, the GH response to GHRH (peak, 23.6+/-2.9 microg/L) was strikingly enhanced (P < 0.05) by ARG coadministration (69.6+/-9.9 microg/L). rhIGF-I blunted the GH response to GHRH (13.1+/-4.5 microg/L; P < 0.05), whereas that to GHRH plus ARG was not modified (59.5+/-8.9 microg/L), although it occurred with some delay. Mean glucose and insulin concentrations were not modified by either placebo or rhIGF-I. In conclusion, ARG counteracts the inhibitory effect of rhIGF-I on somatotroph responsiveness to GHRH in humans. These findings suggest that the acute inhibitory effect of rhIGF-I on the GH response to GHRH takes place on the hypothalamus, possibly via enhancement of SS release, and that ARG overrides this action.     

Pyridostigmine does not reverse dexamethasone-induced growth hormone inhibition

Glucocorticoids inhibit the growth hormone (GH) response to a variety of stimuli, including GH-releasing hormone (GHRH) in vivo, but they increase GHRH-stimulated GH secretion when added, in vitro, to animal and human pituitary cells. This discrepancy has led to the hypothesis that glucocorticoids act in vivo by increasing somatostatin secretion from the hypothalamus. To examine this hypothesis, we used a cholinergic drug, pyridostigmine (PD), which reduces hypothalamic somatostatin secretion. Eight normal volunteers were studied. They underwent four tests: (1) GHRH test; (2) Dex + GHRH (GHRH test after treatment the night before, with dexamethasone (Dex)); (3) PD + GHRH; (4) Dex + PD + GHRH. Dex significantly inhibited the GH response to GHRH expressed as area under the GH/time curve (AUC, microgram/1/min) (mean +/- SEM = 895.2 +/- 196.6 vs 1970.9 +/- 600.1, P less than 0.05). PD significantly increased the AUC of GH secretion in PD + GHRH compared with GHRH alone (3541.2 +/- 571.3 vs 1970.9 +/- 600.1, P less than 0.01) but by no means restored completely the normal GH response to GHRH, when given to Dex-pretreated subjects. Furthermore, the mean AUC of Dex + PD + GHRH was significantly lower than that of PD + GHRH (1621.7 +/- 500.6 vs 3541.2 +/- 571.3, P less than 0.01), demonstrating that Dex continues to exert its inhibitory effect on GH secretion in the presence of PD. These results suggest that glucocorticoid-induced GH inhibition does not act solely through an increase in hypothalamic somatostatin secretion.     

Effects of galanin on growth hormone and prolactin secretion in anorexia nervosa

Galanin (GAL) elicits growth hormone (GH) release in normal subjects through interaction with hypothalamic somatostatin. GAL also stimulates GH-releasing hormone (GHRH) secretion in vitro. In rats, GAL is able to stimulate prolactin (PRL) release, but this effect is not clear in humans. We have thus investigated GAL effects on GH and PRL release in patients with anorexia nervosa (AN), known to have altered regulation of the GH-insulin-like growth factor axis and PRL dynamics, and compared the effects of GHRH and GAL on GH and PRL secretion in AN and normal healthy subjects. Eight women with AN (15 to 27 years; body mass index [BMI], 17 to 19.5 kg/m2) were treated with (1) GHRH 50 microg intravenous (IV) injection, (2) porcine GAL 500 microg infusion from -10 to +30 minutes, and (3) 135-minutes saline infusion as a control, respectively. Both peptides induced a significant increase in plasma GH in AN patients (peak level, 27.41 +/- 5.50 microg/L after GAL and 18.97 +/- 2.67 microg/L after GHRH). When data for AN patients and the control group were compared, GH peak levels after GAL were significantly higher in AN patients (27.41 +/- 5.50 v 13.64 +/- 2.32 microg/L), while GH peak levels after GHRH were not different between the 2 groups (18.97 +/- 2.67 v 15.98 +/- 3.88 microg/L). PRL levels significantly increased after both GHRH (peak, 11.70 +/- 2.80 microg/L) and GAL (peak, 18.02 +/- 5.10 microg/L) treatment in AN patients, but not in normal subjects. We conclude that GAL stimulates exaggerated GH release in AN patients as compared with normal controls, suggesting a dual hypothalamic interaction via both an increase in endogenous GHRH and a decrease in somatostatin secretion. Finally, GAL may act as a PRL secretagogue in AN patients.     

Endocrine activities of cortistatin-14 and its interaction with GHRH and ghrelin in humans

Cortistatin (CST)-14, a neuropeptide with high homology with somatostatin (SS)-14, binds all sst subtypes but, unlike SS, also ghrelin's receptor. In six normal adults, we studied the effects of CST-14 or SS-14 administration (2.0 micro g/kg/h iv) on: 1) GH and insulin secretion; 2) the GH response to GHRH (1.0 microg/kg i.v.); and 3) the GH, prolactin (PRL), ACTH, cortisol, insulin, and glucose responses to ghrelin (1.0 microg/kg i.v.). CST-14 inhibited GH and insulin secretion (P < 0.01) to the same extent of SS-14. The GH response to GHRH was similarly inhibited (P < 0.01) by either CST-14 or SS-14. Ghrelin released more GH than GHRH (P < 0.01); these responses were similarly inhibited (P < 0.05) by either CST-14 or SS-14, that made ghrelin-induced GH rise similar to that after GHRH alone. Neither CST-14 nor SS-14 modified PRL, ACTH, or cortisol responses to ghrelin. The inhibitory effect of CST-14 and SS-14 on insulin was unaffected by ghrelin that, in turn, reduced insulin secretion per se (P < 0.01). Ghrelin increased glucose levels (P < 0.05); CST-14 and SS-14 did not modify this effect. Thus, CST-14 inhibits both basal and stimulated GH secretion in humans to the same extent of SS-14. The GH-releasing activity of ghrelin seems partially resistant to CST-14 as well as SS-14. CST-14 and SS-14 do not affect PRL and ACTH secretion but, like ghrelin, inhibit insulin secretion; the ghrelin-induced inhibition is not additive with that of CST-14 or SS-14, suggesting a common mechanism of action on beta cell secretion.     

Characterization of new selective somatostatin receptor subtype-2 (sst2) antagonists, BIM-23627 and BIM-23454. Effects of BIM-23627 on GH release in anesthetized male rats after short-term high-dose dexamethasone treatment

We here report a pharmacological characterization of two new somatostatin (SS) receptor subtype-2 (sst2) selective antagonists by evaluating their GH-releasing activity when administered, by different routes, in anesthetized adult rats and in freely moving 10-d-old rats. Moreover, we describe the effect of these SS antagonists on the GH response to GHRH after short-term high-dose dexamethasone (DEX) treatment in young male rats. BIM-23454 and BIM-23627, given iv, were able to counteract the SS-induced inhibition of GH secretion occurring after urethane anesthesia in a dose-dependent manner. In DEX-treated animals, the GH response to GHRH was partially blunted (5-min peak values, 270 +/- 50 ng/ml in saline-treated vs. 160 +/- 10 ng/ml in DEX-treated, P < 0.05); however, the simultaneous administration of BIM-23627 (0.2 mg/kg, iv) restored higher amplitude GH pulse, leading to a significantly higher overall mean GH response (area under the curve, 4200 +/- 120 ng/ml/30 min vs. 2800 +/- 100 ng/ml/30 min after GHRH alone; P < 0.05). The SS antagonists showed a reduced GH-releasing effect when administered sc or ip, likely attributable to decreased bioavailability, as compared with the iv route. SS antagonist administration also increased plasma glucagon, insulin, and glucose levels. Based on prior reports that sst2 tonically suppresses glucagon secretion, the antagonist most likely increased glucagon secretion from the pancreatic alpha-cells, with resultant increases in plasma glucose and then insulin.     

GHRH plus arginine in the diagnosis of acquired GH deficiency of childhood-onset

We evaluated the GH-releasing effect of GHRH plus arginine (ARG) in 36 patients (22 males and 14 females) with acquired GH deficiency including idiopathic inflammatory pituitary stalk thickness (n = 15), Langerhans cell histiocytosis (LCH) affecting the hypothalamic-pituitary area (n = 11), and craniopharyngioma (n = 10). All of the patients (mean age, 9.6 +/- 3.1 yr; range, 5.6-20.8) showed GH response less than 10 microg/liter after 2 pharmacological stimuli and were tested with GHRH plus ARG at a mean age of 11.2 +/- 4.1 yr. Twenty-nine patients had vasopressin deficiency, 10 had TSH deficiency, 8 had gonadotropin deficiency, and 4 had ACTH deficiency. The median peak GH response to insulin test was 2.1 microg/liter (range, 1.1-2.9), whereas it was 1.5 microg/liter (range, 1.3-2.4) after ARG. The median peak GH response to insulin was significantly lower in the patients with craniopharyngioma (1.4 microg/liter; range, 0.8-1.7) than in the patients with idiopathic pituitary stalk thickness (2.2 microg/liter; range, 1.0-2.4) or with LCH (2.6 microg/liter; range 2.0-4.3, P = 0.02). The median peak GH response to ARG was significantly lower in the patients with idiopathic inflammatory pituitary stalk thickness (1.3 microg/liter; range, 0.8-1.8) than in those with craniopharyngioma (1.5 microg/liter; range, 1.1-1.6) or with LCH (2.8 microg/liter; range, 1.9-3.2, P = 0.00007). The median peak GH response after GHRH plus ARG was significantly lower in the overall patient population (8.3 microg/liter; range, 4.4-28.4) than in the age-matched controls (49.8 microg/liter; range, 39.9-81.6, P < 0.00001). The median peak GH response was significantly lower in the patients with craniopharyngioma (4.6 microg/liter; range, 3.6-6.3) than in those with LCH (8.9 microg/liter; range, 4.4-28.4) or with idiopathic pituitary stalk thickness (12.6 microg/liter, range, 6.4-24, P = 0.07). Ten patients had a GH response of more than 20 microg/liter after GHRH plus ARG. There was a trend toward a decrease in peak GH response to GHRH plus ARG (r = -0.57, P = 0.06) as patient age increased. For cut-off values of 20 microg/liter, the sensitivity of GHRH plus ARG was 75% (95% CI, 57.8-87.9%) and the specificity was 96.4% (95% CI, 89.9-99.2%); whereas, for cut-off values of 24.2 microg/liter, sensitivity was 86.1% (95% CI, 70.5-95.3%), and specificity was 95.2% (95% CI, 88.2-98.7%). The median IGF-I level did not differ between the children with idiopathic pituitary stalk thickness (57 microg/liter; range, 46-68), those with LCH (55 microg/liter; range, 34-63), and those with craniopharyngioma (41 microg/liter; range, 39-49). The present study confirmed the diagnostic potential of the GHRH-plus-ARG test in children with acquired GH deficiency caused by hypothalamic-pituitary lesion. It stimulates GH secretion to a greater extent in those patients with GH deficiency with primary involvement of the hypothalamic area, e.g. patients with idiopathic pituitary stalk thickness or LCH, than in those with both hypothalamic and pituitary lesion, as in craniopharyngioma. In some patients, the GHRH-plus-ARG test stimulates GH response to a so-called: normal value, suggesting that pituitary responsiveness to GHRH plus ARG may fail to recognize acquired GHD. Finally, the number of pituitary hormone deficits and the patient's age affect the GH response to GHRH plus ARG.