Patients with dilated cardiomyopathy show reduction of the somatotroph responsiveness to GHRH both alone and combined with arginine

Citation
F. Broglio et al., Patients with dilated cardiomyopathy show reduction of the somatotroph responsiveness to GHRH both alone and combined with arginine, EUR J ENDOC, 142(2), 2000, pp. 157-163
Citations number
54
Categorie Soggetti
Endocrinology, Nutrition & Metabolism
Journal title
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENDOCRINOLOGY
ISSN journal
08044643 → ACNP
Volume
142
Issue
2
Year of publication
2000
Pages
157 - 163
Database
ISI
SICI code
0804-4643(200002)142:2<157:PWDCSR>2.0.ZU;2-Q
Abstract
Objective: Altered function of the GH/IGF-I axis in patients with dilated c ardiomyopathy (DCM) has been reported. In fact, DCM patients show reduction of IGF-I levels, which could reflect slight peripheral GH resistance or, a lternatively, reduced somatotroph secretion, Spontaneous GH secretion has b een reported to be altered by some but not by other authors, whereas the GH response to GHRH, but not that to GH-releasing peptides, seems reduced in DCM patients. On the other hand, it is well known that the GH response to G HRH in humans is markedly potentiated by arginine (ARG), which probably act s via inhibition of hypothalamic somatostatin release: in fact the GHRH+ARG test is known as one of the most reliable to evaluate the maximal secretor y capacity of somatotroph cells. Methods: In order to further clarify the somatotroph function in DCM, in we ll-nourished patients with DCM (34 male, 4 female: age (mean +/- S.E.M.) 57 .8 +/- 1.1 years; body mass index (BMI) 24.6 +/- 0.6 kg/m(2); left ventricu lar ejection fraction 23.2 +/- 1.6%; New York Heart Association classificat ion I/1, II/17, III/18, IV/2) we studied the GH response to GHRH (1.0 mu g/ kg i.v.) alone or combined with ARG (0.5 g/kg i.v), The results in DCM pati ents were compared with those in age-matched control subjects (CS) (39 male , 7 female; age 55.9 +/- 1.0 years: BMI 23.2 +/- 0.3 kg/m(2)). Results: Mean IGF-I levels in DCM patients were lower than in CS (144.3 +/- 6.9 vs 175.1 +/- 8.4 mu g/l, P < 0.05) whereas basal GH levels were simila r in both groups (1.7 +/- 0.3 vs 1.7 +/- 0.3 mu g/l), The GH response to GH RH in DCM patients was lower (P < 0.05) than that in CS (GH peak 6.5 +/- 1. 2 vs 10.7 +/- 2.1 mu g/l). In both groups the GH response to GHRH + ARG was higher (P < 0.001) than that to GHRH alone. However, the GH response to GH RH + ARG in DCM patients remained clearly lower (P < 0.01) than that in CS (18.3 +/- 3.2 vs 34.1 +/- 4.6 mu g/l). The GH response to GHRH alone and co mbined with ARG was not associated with the severity of the disease. Conclusion: DCM patients show blunted GH responses to GHRH both alone and c ombined with ARG. Evidence that ARG does not restore the GH response to GHR H in DCM patients makes it unlikely that the somatotroph hyporesponsiveness to the neurohormone reflects hyperactivity of hypothalamic somatostatinerg ic neurons.