To examine the relative effectiveness of GH-releasing hormone (GHRH) given either as multiple iv pulses or as a continuous iv infusion, we studied the GH response to a nearly equivalent total dose of GHRH-44 administered by both routes in a group of normal men. Further, in view of the pulsatile nature of GH secretion and its augmentation with sleep, we investigated whether a diurnal difference in GH release was present during chronic pulsatile administration of GHRH during day and night. Seven men received six GHRH pulses (1 microgram/kg, iv) at 2-h intervals during both day (0900-2100 h) and night (2100-0900 h), and four underwent nighttime placebo pulsing. Eight men received a daytime continuous GHRH infusion (0.15 microgram/kg X h for 5 h, followed by 0.75 microgram/kg X h for 5 h) and a separate 10-h placebo infusion. The GH response to a bolus dose of GHRH (1 microgram/kg, iv) was determined after both continuous GHRH and placebo infusions. No significant difference was found in the GH area response (mean +/- SEM) during total day and night GHRH pulsing periods (6095 +/- 1192 vs. 6506 +/- 1483 ng/min X ml; P = NS). GH secretion was blunted after the initial daytime GHRH pulse (P = 0.02), and only two of seven men had a GH increase after the second pulse; responsiveness was restored after the fourth pulse. In contrast, all subjects responded to the second nighttime GHRH pulse. During continuous GHRH infusions, GH secretion was unsustained and pulsatile. The incremental GH response to a single GHRH bolus dose was decreased after GHRH infusion compared to that after placebo (4.4 +/- 1.8 vs. 10.3 +/- 3.4 ng/ml; P less than 0.05). No difference was found in the total GH area response to a nearly equivalent dose of GHRH administered as either multiple pulses or continuous infusion followed by a single GHRH bolus dose. The apparent pulsatile nature of GH secretion during continuous GHRH infusion and the lack of a significant difference in the GH response to a nearly equivalent dose of GHRH administered as either multiple pulses or a continuous infusion suggest that GHRH need not be administered in a pulsatile manner to be an effective therapeutic agent for the stimulation of GH secretion in children with hypothalamic GHRH deficiency.

Previous studies from this laboratory and by others in rats, monkeys, and humans support the concept that growth hormone (GH) can regulate its own secretion through an autofeedback mechanism. With the availability of human growth hormone-releasing factor (GRF), the possible existence of such a mechanism was reexplored by examining the effect of exogenous GH on the GH response induced by GRF-44-NH2 in six normal men (mean age, 32.4 yr). In all subjects the plasma GH response evoked by GRF-44-NH2 (1 ag/kg i.v. bolus) was studied before and after 5 d of placebo (1 ml normal saline i.m. every 12 h), and then before and 12 h after 5 d of biosynthetic methionyl human GH (5 U i.m. every 12 h). The GH response to GRF (maximal increment over time 0 value) was significantly inhibited after GH treatment (0-13 vs. 23-11.2 ng/ml before treatment, P = 0.05), but was not significantly affected by placebo. This impaired pituitary response to GRF persisted for at least 24 h following exogenous GH treatment in two subjects who underwent further study. Serum somatomedin-C concentrations were significantly increased after 5 d of GH treatment (2.66-5.00 vs. 0.92-1.91 U/ml before treatment, P = <0.01). The impaired pituitary response to GRF may be mediated indirectly through somatomedin, somatostatin, by a direct effect of GH on the pituitary somatotropes, or by all of these mechanisms. These data suggest that after GH treatment, the blunted GH response to synthetic GRF is not solely a consequence of the inhibition of hypothalamic GRF secretion.

No abstract

To examine the efficacy of multiple doses of GHRH-44 to enhance GH secretion and to determine the number of GHRH-44 doses required to exclude hypothalamic dysfunction, 12 doses of GHRH-44 were administered iv every 2 h to 4 GH-deficient patients beginning in the morning (group A) and to 4 GH-deficient patients beginning in the evening (group B). Five additional GH-deficient patients (group C) were given 4-18 GHRH-44 doses. The first and last doses were 5 micrograms/kg; all others were 1 microgram/kg. Higher GH responses were attained by 9 of the 13 patients after multiple GHRH-44 doses than after the initial GHRH-44 dose. After the first GHRH-44 dose, the peak plasma GH concentrations were less than 7 micrograms/L in 9 patients; 4 of 9 achieved GH concentrations above 7 micrograms/L after 5-7 GHRH-44 doses; 2 had measurable levels below 7 micrograms/L. GH concentrations remained undetectable in 3 older patients in group C. In the patients who had detectable GH levels after GHRH-44 treatment, serum somatomedin-C concentrations increased from 0.67 +/- 0.14 (+/- SEM) to 0.79 +/- 0.14 U/mL after 6 GHRH-44 doses (P less than 0.01; n = 10) then to 1.00 +/- 0.14 (+/- SEM) U/mL after an additional 4-6 GHRH-44 doses (P less than 0.05; n = 9). After 6 GHRH-44 doses in groups A and B, the integrated GH concentrations between 2000 and 0800 h were greater than the integrated GH concentrations between 0800 and 2000 h (P less than 0.02). These findings indicate that a hypothalamic defect cannot be excluded on the basis of an impaired response to a single dose of GHRH-44, that the number of GHRH doses required to stimulate GH release in GH-deficient patients is variable, and that in addition to the possibility of genetically determined GHRH insensitivity some non-responding patients have developed severe acquired resistance to GHRH. Evidence for diurnal variation in the responsiveness of somatotropes to GHRH-44 in GH-deficient patients was also found.

No abstract