The views of young adults and their parents on hormone treatment for short stature in adolescence.

AIM: To examine the view of young adults and their parents on growth hormone (GH) and gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) treatment in adolescence for idiopathic short stature (ISS) or short stature born small for gestational age (SGA). METHODS: Thirty young adults with ISS or SGA (18 treated, 12 untreated; age 17-23 years; 5.5 years after treatment) completed questionnaires and they and their parents were interviewed. RESULTS: Self-perceived current psychosocial functioning did not differ between the treated and untreated young adults, but several treated participants perceived psychosocial problems during adolescence. Most treated participants would have chosen again to receive hormone treatment, but they mentioned disadvantages of the treatment and were, as well as untreated participants, reticent upon recommending hormone treatment to others. CONCLUSION: GH/GnRHa treatment did not appear to have adverse long-term psychosocial consequences and the participants were glad to have taken the opportunity to receive hormone treatment. However, the treated group mentioned several disadvantages of the treatment and perceived some height-related psychosocial problems during adolescence. In considering hormone treatment, the positive as well as the negative aspects of the treatment as perceived by the participants are to be taken into consideration.

Long-term psychosocial consequences of hormone treatment for short stature.

AIM: To examine psychosocial functioning of young adults with idiopathic short stature or short stature born small for gestational age after growth hormone (GH) and gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) treatment in early adolescence or no intervention. METHODS: Thirty young adults (18 treated, 12 untreated; age 17-23 years; on average 5.5 years after the end of treatment) completed questionnaires regarding perceived competence and psychological distress. They and their parents were interviewed on social circumstances, height-related psychosocial stressors and parental worries about prospects in society. RESULTS: Height gain was on average 2.3 cm more for the treated than for the untreated group. On none of the psychosocial variables differences were found between treated and untreated participants. Compared to Dutch population norms, psychological and social functioning was normal. CONCLUSION: GH/GnRHa treatment, with arrest of pubertal development and lower than expected effects on final height, is not observed to lead to long-term negative or positive effects. Both treated and untreated participants go well through the psychosocial transition period of young adulthood. This suggests that, in the long term and independent of hormone treatment, adequate psychosocial adjustment is expected in case of short stature.

Final height outcome after three years of growth hormone and gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist treatment in short adolescents with relatively early puberty.

OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to assess final height (FH) and adverse effects of combined GH and GnRH agonist (GnRHa) treatment in short adolescents born small for gestational age or with normal birth size (idiopathic short stature). DESIGN AND PATIENTS: Thirty-two adolescents with Tanner stage 2-3, age and bone age (BA) less than 12 yr for girls or less than 13 yr for boys, height sd score (SDS) less than -2.0 SDS or between -1.0 and -2.0 SDS plus a predicted adult height (PAH0) less than -2.0 SDS were randomly allocated to receive GH plus GnRHa (n=17) or no treatment (n=15) for 3 yr. FH was assessed at the age of 18 yr or older in girls or 19 yr or older in boys. RESULTS: FH was not different between treatment and control groups. Treated children had a larger height gain (FH-PAH0) than controls: 4.4 (4.9) and -0.5 (6.4) cm, respectively (P<0.05). FH was higher than PAH0 in 76 and 60% of treated and control subjects, respectively. During follow-up, 50% of the predicted height gain at treatment withdrawal was lost, resulting in a mean gain of 4.9 cm (range, -4.0 to 12.3 cm) compared with controls. Treatment did not affect body mass index or hip bone mineral density. Mean lumbar spine bone mineral density and bone mineral apparent density tended to be lower in treated boys, albeit statistically not significant. CONCLUSION: Given the expensive and intensive treatment regimen, its modest height gain results, and the possible adverse effect on peak bone mineralization in males, GH plus GnRHa cannot be considered routine treatment for children with idiopathic short stature or persistent short stature after being born small for gestational age.

Psychosocial functioning of adolescents with idiopathic short stature or persistent short stature born small for gestational age during three years of combined growth hormone and gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist treatment.

AIM: To examine psychosocial functioning of medically referred adolescents with idiopathic short stature (ISS) or persistent short stature born small for gestational age (SGA) during 3 years of combined growth hormone (GH) and gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) treatment. METHODS: Thirty-eight adolescents participated in a controlled trial with GH/GnRHa treatment or no intervention. Each year the adolescents and their parents completed questionnaires and structured interviews. Multilevel analysis was used to analyze data. RESULTS: The adolescents of the treatment group showed a worse outcome than the adolescents of the control group on 3 of 16 variables: perceived competence of scholastic (p < 0.01) and athletic ability (p < 0.05) and trait anxiety (p < 0.05). Adolescents in both the treatment and control groups perceived improved current height (p < 0.001) and self-appraisal of physical appearance (p < 0.05). The parents did not report changes in their children during treatment. CONCLUSION: The observation of some adverse psychological consequences as experienced by the adolescents indicates that it is useful to monitor psychosocial functioning during a combined GH/GnRHa treatment in adolescents with ISS or SGA. It is uncertain whether the hypothesized positive effects of the expected gain in final height by adulthood can sufficiently counterbalance possible short-term negative effects.

Motives for choosing growth-enhancing hormone treatment in adolescents with idiopathic short stature: a questionnaire and structured interview study.

BACKGROUND: Growth-enhancing hormone treatment is considered a possible intervention in short but otherwise healthy adolescents. Although height gain is an obvious measure for evaluating hormone treatment, this may not be the ultimate goal for the person, but rather a means to reach other goals such as the amelioration of current height-related psychosocial problems or the enhancement of future prospects in life and society. The aim of our study was to clarify the motives of adolescents and their parents when choosing to participate in a growth-enhancing trial combining growth hormone and puberty-delaying hormone treatment. METHODS: Participants were early pubertal adolescents (25 girls, 13 boys) aged from 11 to 13 years (mean age 11.5 years) with a height standard deviation score (SDS) ranging from -1.03 to -3.43. All had been classified as idiopathic short stature or persistent short stature born small for the gestational age (intrauterine growth retardation) on the basis of a height SDS below -2, or had a height SDS between -1 and -2 and a predicted adult height SDS below -2. The adolescents and their parents completed questionnaires and a structured interview on the presence of height-related stressors, parental worries about their child's behavior and future prospects, problems in psychosocial functioning, and treatment expectations. Questionnaire scores were compared to norms of the general Dutch population. RESULTS: The adolescents reported normal psychosocial functioning and highly positive expectations of the treatment in terms of height gain, whereas the parents reported that their children encountered some behavioral problems (being anxious/depressed, and social and attention problems) and height-related stressors (being teased and juvenilized). About 40% of the parents were worried about their children's future prospects for finding a spouse or job. The motives of the adolescents and their parents exhibited rather different profiles. The most prevalent parental worries related to the current or future functioning of their children, while a few cases were characterized by no observed motives or by psychosocial problems only reported by the adolescents themselves. CONCLUSION: The motives for participating in a growth-enhancing hormone trial are more obvious in the parents than in the adolescents themselves. Two out of three parents report worries about the future opportunities or observe modest current psychosocial problems in their children. The adolescents want to gain height, but the motivation underlying this remains unclear. Few of the adolescents experience psychosocial problems. Our analyses revealed differences among individuals in terms of motives, which implies that in an evaluation of hormone treatment, the importance of divergent outcome variables will also differ among individuals. Effectiveness evaluations of hormone treatment to increase height and the consequential fulfillment of other goals must be awaited.