MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3182898685 · doi:10.1210/clinem/dgab498

Distinguishing Self-limited Delayed Puberty From Permanent Hypogonadotropic Hypogonadism: How and Why?

2021· letter· en· W3182898685 sur OpenAlexaff
Jennifer Harrington, Mark R. Palmert

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism · 2021
Typeletter
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueHypothalamic control of reproductive hormones
Établissements canadiensHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésHypogonadotropic hypogonadismEndocrinologyInternal medicineDelayed pubertyMedicineHormone

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Pediatric endocrinologists frequently encounter youth with delayed puberty. After the history, physical examination, and initial lab tests are completed, hypergonadotropic hypogonadism and an underlying condition causing functional or acquired hypogonadotropic hypogonadism are often eliminated. The endocrinologist is then left with 2 possibilities: constitutional delay of growth and puberty (CDGP) and congenital hypogonadotropic hypogonadism (CHH) (1). These youth are more commonly male and, in some cases, a tentative diagnosis is supported by findings suggestive of an associated syndrome, a history of cryptorchidism, or testes volume ≤ 1 cc (1). However, such features do not make the diagnosis of CHH certain, nor does a family history of self-limited delayed puberty confirm the diagnosis of CDGP. The inability to distinguish CHH from CDGP can lead to anxiety among patients and caregivers, impede counselling, lead to (unnecessary) additional testing, and affect treatment decisions. We reviewed the available clinical tests in 2012 and concluded “current literature does not allow for recommendation of any diagnostic test for routine clinical use, making this an important area for future investigation” (2). One wonders: where is the field 9 years later? Over the ensuing years, 2 of the more promising tests have not been fully supported. The first was basal inhibin B, which had offered the potential of a simple first-line test to distinguish CHH from CDGP. The rationale was that inhibin B, whose secretion from sertoli and granulosa cells is stimulated by follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), would be lower in those with lifelong CHH. Subsequent studies have verified that inhibin B levels are significantly lower in patients with CHH but have also reported a 5-fold variation in the threshold concentration of inhibin B needed to distinguish CHH from CDGP (3). The lowest inhibin B concentrations have high specificity for CHH, particularly among patients with high pretest probability based upon features such as cryptorchidism, low testicular volume, or syndromic characteristics. However, in youth without such clinical features, where clinicians are reliant on laboratory investigations to provide diagnostic clarity, basal inhibin B has lower sensitivity, potentially limiting its utility. Genetic testing was another promising discriminator. An ever-increasing number of genes have been identified to cause CHH, and some genetic causes of CDGP have also been identified. The genetic profiles of CDGP and CHH have some overlap but are largely distinct (4). However, for genetic testing to have greatest utility, even more causative genes need to be identified, as currently diagnostic variants are identified in only approximately 50% of cases of CHH. Yield can be increased by guiding testing based on presence of phenotypic features such as synkinesia or hearing loss, but doing so utilizes sequencing more as a confirmatory test instead of a discriminator for the cases where when no diagnostic clues are present. A newly proposed test is kisspeptin stimulated luteinizing hormone (LH) levels (5). Utilizing a stimulus upstream of gonadotropin-releasing hormone, the authors hypothesized that response to kisspeptin stimulation could identify youth with the innate ability to secrete gonadotropin-releasing hormone and subsequently LH (CDGP) from those without (CHH). In a study of 15 youth, a kisspeptin stimulated LH level of ≤0.4 mIU/mL identified youth with CHH with 100% sensitivity and specificity (5). These results are promising but need replication with diagnostic thresholds validated before advocating routine use. The test is also complicated, requiring access to intravenous kisspeptin and multiple blood draws over 4 h; perhaps future iterations can be simplified, decreasing a potential barrier to its routine use. Chaudhary et al now present the latest test, FSH-stimulated inhibin B concentrations (FSH-iB) (6). Recognizing the potential limitations of basal inhibin B, they hypothesized that low FSH -stimulated inhibin B would better identify youth with CHH. The authors analyzed a cohort of 42 individuals (adults with CHH and youth who underwent spontaneous puberty) to determine proposed diagnostic cutoffs and then examined the robustness of the cutoffs in 19 youth with delayed puberty. This 2-step approach is a strength of the study, and the authors report that a FSH-iB concentration of 116.14 pg/mL is able to distinguish youth with self-limited delayed puberty, who stimulated above this value, from those with CHH. Interestingly, the authors include cases of youth with multiple pituitary hormone deficiencies, in which a possible diagnosis of CHH is refuted by the FSH-iB level and subsequent endogenous puberty. The results also need replication with thresholds validated, but FSH-iB represents another promising diagnostic test. As with all diagnostic tests proposed so far, determining performance of this test in the most clinically challenging scenario is critical—the ability to separate the 12- to 13-year-old female or 13- to 14-year-old male with CDGP from those with CHH without clinical features suggestive of the underlying diagnosis. The FSH-iB test does have advantages over the proposed kisspeptin testing in that FSH is more readily available; however, it requires 3 injections over 3 to 5 days, which may hinder use. Concerns aside, these new developments raise the exciting possibility of distinguishing CDGP from CHH in the clinical setting. If so, obvious benefits would accrue, such as providing youth and caregivers a diagnosis, limiting additional testing, and making informed decisions about starting sex steroid supplementation and what regimen to use (1). While being careful not to medicalize variations in growth and development, it is increasingly appreciated that delayed puberty is associated with increased risk of negative psychosocial, educational, and medical impacts (7). If one knew that a youth had CHH, why not start supplementation at an earlier age that allows puberty to occur in concert with peers? Future considerations may also depend on the ability to distinguish CDGP from CHH. For example, were aromatase inhibitors to emerge as a preferred therapy for CDGP in males (8), one would need to identify and exclude those with CHH for whom the therapy would be inappropriate. Current studies do not demonstrate that initial testosterone therapy impairs future fertility in boys with CHH (1); however, if new studies were to demonstrate superiority of early gonadotropin treatment, one would need to identify youth with CHH to guide therapy. Thus, the ongoing quest to identify an inexpensive, easily administered, and generalizable diagnostic test for delayed puberty remains an important one. Disclosures: The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose. Financial Support: None. Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: Commentaire
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,032
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,026

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,022
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0030,002
Communication savante0,0020,003
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0320,028
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,003

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,052
Tête enseignante GPT0,316
Écart entre enseignants0,264 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations13
Publié2021
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentnon

Explorer davantage

Même revueThe Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & MetabolismMême sujetHypothalamic control of reproductive hormonesTravaux en français237 207