31 research outputs found
Final height as reflected by prepubertal height and the timing of puberty. In: Sexual precocity: Etiology, Diagnosis and Management
Luteinizing Hormone (LH) and Estradiol Suppression and Growth in Girls with Central Precocious Puberty: Is more suppression better? Are Pre-injection LH Levels Useful in Monitoring Treatment?
Usefulness of early morning urine estrone-3-glucuronide assay in the monitoring ovarian secretory function in precocious puberty
Growth velocity and serum aminoterminal propeptide of type III procollagen in precocious puberty during gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogue treatment
Reversal and Relapse of Hypogonadotropic Hypogonadism: Resilience and Fragility of the Reproductive Neuroendocrine System
Importance of Leuprolide Acetate Variable Dosing for Precocious Puberty: A Range of Acceptable Suppression
Final height in girls with central precocious puberty: comparison of two different luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist treatments
In order to evaluate the effects of two long-acting luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonists on growth, bone maturation and final height in girls with central precocious puberty, we analyzed growth data from 40 girls (15 treated with buserelin intranasal spray (group A), 15 treated with triptorelin depot im every 28 days (group B) and 10 untreated (group C)). Patients in group A started treatment when chronological age (CA) was 7.7 +/- 0.9 years, bone age (BA) was 10.2 +/- 1.1 years and height was 131.9 +/- 5.0 cm. Patients in group B started therapy when CA was 7.6 +/- 0.5 years, BA 9.8 +/- 1.0 years and height 133.2 +/- 7.6 cm. The diagnosis of untreated patients (group C) was made when CA was 7.2 +/- 0.9 years, BA 9.6 +/- 2.2 years and height 130.2 +/- 8.6 cm. Both luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonists appeared to control precocious puberty. Final height in group B (160.6 +/- 5.7 cm) was significantly higher than that of group A (153.2 +/- 5.0 cm: p < 0.05) and group C (149.6 +/- 6.3; p < 0.01), whereas the difference between groups A and C was not statistically significant. In group B a positive difference was observed between final height (160.6 +/- 5.7 cm) and target height (157.6 +/- 5.9 cm) (ns); on the contrary, in groups A and C, final height was lower than target height (155.5 +/- 5.3 and 156.4 +/- 1.3 cm, respectively), but only in group C the difference was statistically significant (p < 0.01).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS