ABSTRACT
Central precocious puberty is the premature activation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis, leading to an early epiphyseal fusion and, in many cases, heights below the genetic target. Therefore, a proper adult stature prediction is essential for the treatment decision. OBJECTIVE: To compare the concordance of final height using height prediction made by two validated methods versus the ge netic target height in girls who consulted due to central precocious puberty. PATIENTS AND METHOD: Retrospective, non-concurrent cohort study including 93 girls with central precocious puberty, who were not treated with LHRH analogs and had reached their final adult height. The data was obtained from the clinical records. To predict height, the Bayley-Pinneau method and the Roche-Wainer- Thissen method were applied, and the results were compared with the genetic target height. The concordance between the estimated final height and the final height obtained was evaluated using the Bland-Altman method. RESULTS: When comparing the final height obtained with that predicted by the Bayley-Pinneau method, there was a mean difference of 1.01 cm, and using the Rocke-Wainer- Thissen method, there was a difference of +0.96 cm. The calculation of the genetic target height showed a difference of +0.05 cm with respect to the final height. CONCLUSION: The prediction of height made by the Bayley-Pinneau and Roche-Wainer-Thissen methods was adequate and, contrary to expectations, it was similar to the calculation of the genetic target height that does not use the age of bone maturation. This also presented better concordance and less dispersion of the results with respect to the final height obtained.
Subject(s)
Puberty, Precocious , Adult , Body Height/physiology , Bone Development , Cohort Studies , Female , Humans , Puberty, Precocious/drug therapy , Retrospective StudiesABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Upper GI endoscopy (UGE) is essential for the diagnosis of gastrointestinal diseases. Mucus and bubbles may decrease mucosal visibility. The use of mucolytics could improve visualization. Our aim was to determine whether premedication with simethicone or simethicone plus N-acetylcysteine is effective in improving visibility during UGE. METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial with 2 control groups: no intervention and water 100 mL (W); and 3 intervention groups: simethicone 200 mg (S); S + N-acetylcysteine (NAC) 500 mg (S+NAC500); and S + NAC 1000 mg (S+NAC1000). The solution was ingested 20 minutes before UGE. Gastric visibility was evaluated in 4 segments with a previously described scale. A score of less than 7 points was defined as adequate visibility (AV). Water volume was used to improve visibility, and adverse reactions were evaluated as a secondary outcome. Multiple group comparison was performed using non-parametric one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). RESULTS: Two hundred thirty patients were included in the study, 68% female, mean age 49 years. The most common indication for UGE was epigastric pain/dyspepsia (33%). AV was more frequent in the S+NAC500 and S+NAC1000 groups (65% and 67%) compared with no intervention (44%, P = .044) and water (41%, P = .022). The gastric total visibility scale (TVS) was significantly better in the S+NAC500 and S+NAC1000 groups compared with water (P = .03 and P = .008). Simethicone was not different from no intervention and water. S+NAC1000 required less water volume to improve visibility. No adverse reactions from the study drugs were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Premedication with S+NAC500 and S+NAC1000 improves visibility during UGE. The use of simethicone did not show improvements in gastric visibility. TVS was worse in patients using water alone. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT 01653171.).
