Safety of growth hormone replacement in survivors of cancer and intracranial and pituitary tumours: a consensus statement

Growth hormone (GH) has been used for over 35 years, and its safety and efficacy has been studied extensively. Experimental studies showing the permissive role of GH/insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-I) in carcinogenesis have raised concerns regarding the safety of GH replacement in children and adults who have received treatment for cancer and those with intracranial and pituitary tumours. A consensus statement was produced to guide decision-making on GH replacement in children and adult survivors of cancer, in those treated for intracranial and pituitary tumours and in patients with increased cancer risk. With the support of the European Society of Endocrinology, the Growth Hormone Research Society convened a Workshop, where 55 international key opinion leaders representing 10 professional societies were invited to participate. This consensus statement utilized: (1) a critical review paper produced before the Workshop, (2) five plenary talks, (3) evidence-based comments from four breakout groups, and (4) discussions during report-back sessions. Current evidence reviewed from the proceedings from the Workshop does not support an association between GH replacement and primary tumour or cancer recurrence. The effect of GH replacement on secondary neoplasia risk is minor compared to host- and tumour treatment-related factors. There is no evidence for an association between GH replacement and increased mortality from cancer amongst GH-deficient childhood cancer survivors. Patients with pituitary tumour or craniopharyngioma remnants receiving GH replacement do not need to be treated or monitored differently than those not receiving GH. GH replacement might be considered in GH-deficient adult cancer survivors in remission after careful individual risk/benefit analysis. In children with cancer predisposition syndromes, GH treatment is generally contraindicated but may be considered cautiously in select patients

Mild Cognitive Impairment Is Associated with Poorer Nutritional Status on Hospital Admission and after Discharge in Acutely Hospitalized Older Patients

In acutely hospitalized older patients (≥65 years), the association between mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and malnutrition is poorly described. We hypothesized that (1) MCI is associated with nutritional status on admission and after discharge; (2) MCI is associated with a change in nutritional status; and (3) a potential association is partly explained by frailty, comorbidity, medication use, and age. We combined data from a randomized controlled trial (control group data) and a prospective cohort study (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01964482 and NCT03052192). Nutritional status was assessed on admission and follow-up using the Mini Nutritional Assessment—Short Form. MCI or intact cognition (noMCI) was classified by three cognitive performance tests at follow-up. Data on frailty, comorbidity, medication use, and age were drawn from patient journals. MCI (n = 42) compared to noMCI (n = 47) was associated with poorer nutritional status with an average difference of −1.29 points (CI: −2.30; −0.28) on admission and −1.64 points (CI: −2.57; −0.70) at 4-week follow-up. Only age influenced the estimates of −0.85 (CI: −1.86; 0.17) and −1.29 (CI: −2.25; −0.34), respectively. In acutely hospitalized older patients, there is an association between MCI and poorer nutritional status upon admission and four weeks after discharge. The association is partly explained by higher age

Optimization of Nutrition And Medication (OptiNAM) for acutely admitted older patients:protocol for a randomized single-blinded controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Internationally, older patients (≥65 years) account for more than 40% of acute admissions. Older patients admitted to the emergency department (ED) are frequently malnourished and exposed to inappropriate medication prescribing, due in part to the inaccuracy of creatinine-based equations for estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). The overall aims of this trial are to investigate: (1) the efficacy of a medication review (MED intervention) independent of nutritional status, (2) the accuracy of eGFR equations based on various biomarkers compared to measured GFR (mGFR) based on (99m)Technetium–diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid plasma clearance, and (3) the efficacy of an individualized multimodal and transitional nutritional intervention (MULTI-NUT-MED intervention) in older patients with or at risk of malnutrition in the ED. METHODS: The trial is a single-center block randomized, controlled, observer-blinded, superiority and explorative trial with two parallel groups. The population consists of 200 older patients admitted to the ED: 70 patients without malnutrition or risk of malnutrition and 130 patients with or at risk of malnutrition defined as a Mini Nutritional Assessment-Short Form score ≤11. All patients without the risk of malnutrition receive the MED intervention, which consists of a medication review by a pharmacist and geriatrician in the ED. Patients with or at risk of malnutrition receive the MULTI-NUT-MED intervention, which consists of the MED intervention in addition to, dietary counseling and individualized interventions based on the results of screening tests for dysphagia, problems with activities of daily living, low muscle strength in the lower extremities, depression, and problems with oral health. Baseline data are collected upon study inclusion, and follow-up data are collected at 8 and 16 weeks after discharge. The primary outcomes are (1) change in medication appropriateness index (MAI) score from baseline to 8 weeks after discharge, (2) accuracy of different eGFR equations compared to mGFR, and (3) change in health-related quality of life (measured with EuroQol-5D-5L) from baseline to 16 weeks after discharge. DISCUSSION: The trial will provide new information on strategies to optimize the treatment of malnutrition and inappropriate medication prescribing among older patients admitted to the ED. TRAIL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NTC03741283. Retrospectively registered on 14 November 2018. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-021-05456-6

Safety of growth hormone replacement in survivors of cancer and intracranial and pituitary tumours: a consensus statement.

Growth hormone (GH) has been used for over 35 years, and its safety and efficacy has been studied extensively. Experimental studies showing the permissive role of GH/insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-I) in carcinogenesis have raised concerns regarding the safety of GH replacement in children and adults who have received treatment for cancer and those with intracranial and pituitary tumours. A consensus statement was produced to guide decision-making on GH replacement in children and adult survivors of cancer, in those treated for intracranial and pituitary tumours and in patients with increased cancer risk. With the support of the European Society of Endocrinology, the Growth Hormone Research Society convened a Workshop, where 55 international key opinion leaders representing 10 professional societies were invited to participate. This consensus statement utilized: (1) a critical review paper produced before the Workshop, (2) five plenary talks, (3) evidence-based comments from four breakout groups, and (4) discussions during report-back sessions. Current evidence reviewed from the proceedings from the Workshop does not support an association between GH replacement and primary tumour or cancer recurrence. The effect of GH replacement on secondary neoplasia risk is minor compared to host- and tumour treatment-related factors. There is no evidence for an association between GH replacement and increased mortality from cancer amongst GH-deficient childhood cancer survivors. Patients with pituitary tumour or craniopharyngioma remnants receiving GH replacement do not need to be treated or monitored differently than those not receiving GH. GH replacement might be considered in GH-deficient adult cancer survivors in remission after careful individual risk/benefit analysis. In children with cancer predisposition syndromes, GH treatment is generally contraindicated but may be considered cautiously in select patients