The combined pituitary function test in children: an evaluation of the clinical usefulness of TRH and LHRH stimulation tests through a retrospective analysis of one hundred and twenty six cases
Me. Westwood et al., The combined pituitary function test in children: an evaluation of the clinical usefulness of TRH and LHRH stimulation tests through a retrospective analysis of one hundred and twenty six cases, CLIN ENDOCR, 52(6), 2000, pp. 727-733
OBJECTIVE The combined pituitary function test is routinely used in the end
ocrine investigation of short children. The TRH and luteinising hormone-rel
easing hormone (LHRH) response tests have been shown to be of minimal value
in adults. We have evaluated the clinical utility of these tests in the co
ntext of combined pituitary function testing in children.
DESIGN A retrospective analysis of basal hormone measurements and pituitary
stimulation tests in relation to clinical assessment of pituitary function
.
PATIENTS One hundred and twenty-six children, 82 boys and 44 girls, aged 2-
17 years, who had undergone pituitary function testing were studied.
RESULTS The TSH response to TRH stimulation correlated directly with basal
plasma TSH but not basal plasma total T4. In patients with an impaired resp
onse to stimulation, basal TSH concentrations were < 2.0 mIU/l and signific
antly lower than in patients with a normal response (P < 0.0001). An impair
ed response to TRH stimulation had a positive predictive value of 0.43 and
a negative predictive value of 0.90 for the diagnosis of hypopituitarism. A
basal TSH concentration of < 2.0 mIU/l had a positive predictive value of
0.22 and a negative predictive value of 0.92. A low basal T4 (normal range
60-140 nmol/l) in combination with an inappropriately low or normal basal T
SH was always associated with a diagnosis of hypopituitarism.
The responses of plasma LH and FSH to LHRH stimulation correlated directly
with basal plasma LH and FSH concentrations. Basal gonadotrophin concentrat
ions, basal sex hormone concentrations or response to LHRH stimulation coul
d not distinguish patients with constitutional delay of growth and puberty
from those with hypopituitarism. There was no apparent relationship between
either basal gonadotrophin concentrations or response to LHRH stimulation
and clinical assessment of pituitary function. In patients greater than or
equal to 13 years with constitutional delay of growth and puberty the media
n and interquartile ranges of basal LH and FSH were 1.4 IU/l (0.7-3.6) and
2.6 IU/l (2.2-5.2) respectively. The three hypopituitary patients in this s
tudy with chronological age greater than or equal to 13 years had undetecta
ble concentrations of both gonadotrophins. The response of LH and FSH to LH
RH stimulation was significantly lower in patients greater than or equal to
13 years with clinical hypopituitarism than in those with intact pituitary
function (P < 0.02).
CONCLUSION TRH and LHRH tests in children with short stature appear to have
little value over and above the baseline hormone measurements. An abnormal
response to hormone stimulation is not diagnostic of hypothalamic-pituitar
y disease. We have demonstrated that neither TRH nor LHRH stimulation tests
should be routinely used in the investigation of children with short statu
re.