<b><i>Background:</i></b> A random ultrasensitive luteinizing hormone (LH) (LH-ICMA) ≥0.3 mIU/L is highly accurate in confirming a diagnosis of central precocious puberty (CPP). However, a prepubertal value does not exclude the diagnosis. The clinical differences between patients with CPP who have a pubertal versus prepubertal LH-ICMA have not been clearly defined. Furthermore, there is minimal information regarding the utility of this test in boys with CPP. The objective of this study was to analyze differences between patients diagnosed with CPP who had a pubertal versus prepubertal LH-ICMA, including a cohort of boys. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> A retrospective chart review of children diagnosed with CPP within the last 10 years who had a baseline LH-ICMA obtained was performed. Variables analyzed included sex, age, ethnicity, bone age, BMI, etiology, Tanner stage (TS), testicular volume, and menarchal status. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Of 27 boys and 126 girls who qualified for the study, the LH-ICMA was pubertal in 87% and prepubertal in 13%. Girls with a pubertal LH-ICMA had higher baseline estradiol concentrations (<i>p</i> &#x3c; 0.001) and more advanced breast development (<i>p</i> = 0.015) compared to girls with a prepubertal LH-ICMA. Of girls with a prepubertal LH-ICMA, 74% had at least TS 3 breast development and 1 was post-menarchal. The LH-ICMA was pubertal in 96% of the boys with CPP in this study. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> The LH-ICMA can be prepubertal even in girls with advanced development. To our knowledge, ours is the largest cohort of boys in whom the accuracy of a random LH-ICMA has been reported.

No abstract

Background: Three times daily (TID) hydrocortisone (HC) is recommended as the optimal glucocorticoid regimen in growing children with congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH). However, a variety of other treatment schemes are used in the clinical setting. Objective: To determine whether there are clinical differences between children being treated with TID HC versus those receiving other glucocorticoid regimens. Further, we sought to determine whether there was evidence of a deleterious effect on growth in children receiving treatment with alternate regimens. Methods: Medical records of children followed in our pediatric endocrinology outpatient clinic for classic CAH secondary to 21-hydroxylase deficiency during the last 10 years were reviewed. Variables analyzed included sex, age at most recent visit, glucocorticoid type, frequency and dose (mg/m2/day), height z-score, BMI z-score, ethnicity, most recent bone age, growth velocity z-score, and provider’s impression of compliance (good or poor). Results: Of 104 children (51% boys) with CAH, 50 (48%) were on TID HC, 43 (41%) were on prednisone or prednisolone, and 5 (5%) were on dexamethasone. An additional 6 (6%) were on HC administered either 2 or 4 times daily. No differences were seen between TID HC and alternate regimen groups with respect to sex, height z-score, BMI z-score, ethnicity, provider assessment of compliance, ratio of bone age to chronologic age, or growth velocity. The average height z-score was -0.40 + 1.31 in the TID HC group compared to -0.87 + 1.33 in the alternate regimen group (p=0.075). Patients receiving TID HC were younger (p=0.027) and on a lower glucocorticoid dose (p=0.001) than those on alternate regimens. Conclusions: Less than half of our patients with CAH were receiving TID HC. Reassuringly, growth parameters and other indices of disease control were equivalent between patients on conventional HC dosing and other therapeutic approaches. These results suggest that a range of glucocorticoid treatment regimens may be equally viable in children with CAH.