Page 54

Proefschrift binnenwerk Manon Ernst_DEF.indd

C H A P T E R   3   predictive   value:   90%).   On   the   other   hand   they   were   indistinguishable   from   each   other   when   TBW   was   <   0.7   l/m2   (Figure   2   quadrant   C   and   D,   negative   predictive   value:  32%).  Based  on  these  results,  the  change  in  TBW  <  0.7  l/m2  in  SGA  children   is  not  a  tool  to  decide  to  stop  treatment  with  rhGH  treatment,  but  a  change  in  TBW   >  0,7  l/m2  is  highly  predictable  for  a  good  response  to  therapy.         In   this   study   different   results   are   seen   between   GHD   children   and   children   born   SGA.   GHD   children   show   a   lower   FFM/   heigt2   and   thereby   a   higher   fat   mass   (FM)   before   start   of   any   treatment,   compared   to   SGA   children   who   show   a   higher   FFM/heigt2 4,5.   The   treatment   with   rhGH   causes   a   shift   in   body   composition   to-­‐ wards   the   FFM   in   GHD   children,   possibly   because   their   amount   of   fat   deposit   is   much  higher  than  in  SGA  children.    Another  possible  explanation  could  be  that  SGA   children  do  not  have  a  growth  hormone  deficiency.  The  effect  of  rhGH  treatment  is   therefore  less  obvious  than  in  GDH  children.       Also   a   possible   metabolic   factor   could   be   involved.   One   of   the   factors   mentioned   with  respect  to  the  stunted  growth  of  SGA  children  is  reduced  sensitivity  for  IGF-­‐1   (insulin-­‐like  growth  factor  1)20.  IGF-­‐1  is  mainly  secreted  by  the  liver  as  a  result  of   stimulation   by   growth   hormone.   IGF-­‐1   expression   is   required   for   achieving   maxi-­‐ mal   growth.   Short   SGA   children   show   plasma   IGF-­‐1   levels   that   are   in   the   lower   normal  range21.     The   above   mentioned   factors   could   possibly   explain   why   SGA   children   show   less   increase  of  TBW/height2  as  response  to  treatment,  despite  their  increase  in  height.   In  SGA  children  this  shift  can  be  seen  less  obvious.     Other  methods  for  measuring  body  composition  in  GHD  or  SGA  children  are  evalu-­‐ ating  the  change  in  body  mass  index  (BMI)  or  evaluating  the  change  in  weight  for   height  (SDS)  after  one  year  of  treatment.  In  the  study  of  Ernst  et  al.22 is  found  that   the  mean  change  in  BMI  (kg/m2)  after  1  year  of  rhGH  treatment  is  -­‐0,04  kg/m2.  The   mean   change   in   weight   for   height   (SDS),   after   1   year   of   rhGH   treatment   is   0,11.   Apparently,   BMI   and   weight   for   height   of   SGA   children   barely   change   during   the   first  year  of  rhGH  treatment.  Therefore,  the  TBW  method  is  much  more  appropriate   than   the   other   described   methods.   Another   method   of   measuring   TBW   is   the   un-­‐ derwater   weighting.   This   method   is   not   practically   achievable   and   is   not   used   in   this  study.  Changes  in  TBW  under  influence  of  rhGH  treatment  are  also  dependent   on  other  factors  like  age,  sexe  and  diet.  These  are  determinants  of  TBW23.   52    


Proefschrift binnenwerk Manon Ernst_DEF.indd
To see the actual publication please follow the link above