GHRH Injection Research Articles

Effects of galanin infusion on GH secretion and GHRH-induced GH release in prepubertal male lambs

The coexistence of galanin (GAL) with some classical neurotransmitters suggests that it may exert a role as a neuroendocrine modulator. The aim of this study was to investigate the GH response to porcine galanin (p-GAL) in prepubertal male lambs. In the experiments A and B the i.v. infusion of galanin (5 μg/kg) for 60 min was carried out alone (Experiment A) or combined with an i.m. injection of GHRH (0.5 μg/kg) 30 min after infusion (Experiment B); in the Experiment C, galanin (5 μg/kg) was infused for 300 min. Galanin infusion was not effective in increasing GH baseline levels ( P > 0.08); however galanin potentiated ( P < 0.01) the GH responsiveness to GHRH. The prolonged galanin infusion caused a significant increase in GH plasma levels and pulse frequency. These observations support the hypothesis that galanin may be involved in the regulation of somatotropic axis in young animals by modulating both stimulatory and inhibitory hypothalamic factors.

Predicting bull growth performance and carcass composition from growth hormone response to growth hormone-releasing hormone.

Development of practical, physiologically based methods that provide an early, yet accurate, evaluation of a bull's genetic merit could benefit the beef industry. The use of GH response to a single, acute dose of GHRH was evaluated as a predictor of future growth performance and carcass characteristics of weanling bulls. Fifty-six Angus bulls averaging 229 d (SD = 27) of age were administered three doses i.v. (0, 1.5, and 4.5 microg/100 kg BW) of human GHRH (1-29) analog in a Latin square design balanced for residual effects. Blood samples were collected via jugular catheter at -60, -45, -30, -15, 0, 5, 10, 15, 30, 45, 60, 90 and 120 min relative to GHRH injection. Serum concentrations of GH were plotted over time. Response to GHRH was calculated as the area under the GH response curve (AUC-GH) using the trapezoidal approximation. Relationships between AUC-GH, weaning weight adjusted to 205 d of age (205-d WW), and direct weaning weight EPD (WWEPD) versus age-adjusted BW (BWadj), ADG, and carcass measurements from a 140-d growth performance test were evaluated using simple linear regression. A positive correlation between AUC-GH and ADG and an inverse relationship between AUC-GH and carcass fat were observed. The present study provides evidence that AUC-GH is a better predictor of future growth performance in beef bulls than 205-d WW or WWEPD values. Thus, GH response to GHRH is associated with subsequent growth and may be a useful tool for sire selection in beef production.

Somatostatin pretreatment enhances growth hormone (GH) responsiveness to GH-releasing hormone: a potential new diagnostic approach to GH deficiency.

Despite the availability of numerous testing procedures to evaluate GH secretion in short children, there is still controversy about the most reliable test in the diagnosis of GH deficiency. We have recently demonstrated that in normal short children, priming with the long-acting somatostatin analog. SMS 201-995 (SMS), significantly potentiates their GH response to subsequent GHRH challenge. In the present study, we used the combined SMS + GHRH test in patients with GH deficiency to validate the hypothesis that this test would better discriminate between normal short children and those with truly diminished GH secretion. We studied 24 children classified into three groups according to their GH peak response to up to four conventional tests: 1) children with normal short stature and normal GH response (NSSA: GH peak > or = 10 micrograms/L, n = 6); 2) children with normal short stature with borderline GH response (NSSB: GH peak > or = 7 micrograms/L but < 10 micrograms/L, n = 4); and 3) GH-deficient children (GHD: GH peak < 7 micrograms/L, n = 14). Two study protocols were performed in all subjects: SMS (1 microgram/kg, sc) was randomly administered or omitted (control test) a 0800 h and GHRH (1 microgram/kg, iv) was given 5 h later. Plasma GH levels were measured every 30 min from 0800 h until 2 h after the GHRH injection. Pretreatment with SMS significantly augmented the GH peak response and the GH area under the GH concentration curve over 2 h after GHRH injection in the NSSA group, compared with control tests, but had no effect in the other two groups. While there was wide overlap of individual peak GH values to both the conventional tests and to the GHRH injection in the control test among the three groups of children, pretreatment with SMS resulted in complete discrimination between GHD and normal short children; the mean GH peak response to GHRH after SMS pretreatment was 8- to 9-fold lower in the GHD subjects (5.2 +/- 0.8 micrograms/L) compared with both the NSSA (44.0 +/- 14.3 micrograms/L; P < 0.01) and NSSB (42.9 +/- 5.0 micrograms/L; P < 0.01) groups and, more importantly, there was no overlap in the individual GH responses between GHD and normal short children. These results demonstrate that the combined SMS + GHRH test clearly discriminates normal short children from those with GHD. In view of its testing economy, safety, and accuracy, this combined test could become the test of choice to establish a diagnosis of GH deficiency in the slowly growing child.

The decrease in growth hormone (GH) response after repeated stimulation with GH-releasing hormone is partly caused by an elevation of somatostatin tonus.

Repeated injection of GHRH leads to a decrease in the GH response in normal subjects. Arginine (Arg) stimulates GH secretion by suppression of hypothalamic somatostatin. To confirm these findings, eight normal men were examined in a series of five settings: test 1 (GHRH/GHRH-TRH), 100 micrograms GHRH injected iv, followed by 100 micrograms GHRH, iv, after 120 min and 200 micrograms TRH, iv, after 150 min; test 2 (GHRH/Arg-TRH), like test 1, but instead of the second GHRH injection, a 30 g Arg infusion over 30 min; test 3 (GHRH/GHRH-Arg-TRH), like test 1, but additionally a 30 g Arg infusion after 120 min; test 4 (GHRH-Arg-TRH), iv GHRH and Arg infusion initially, followed by iv TRH after 30 min; and test 5 (TRH), 200 micrograms TRH, iv, at 0 min. For statistical evaluation, the area under the GH curve (AUC) from 0-120 min was compared with the AUC from 120-240 min. The GH response to the second administration of GHRH was significantly lower (P < 0.02) than the first increase [AUC, 0.5 +/- 0.01 min.mg/L (mean +/- SE) vs. 1.2 +/- 0.3]. No significant differences were found between the GH responses to either GHRH or Arg alone (AUC, 0.9 +/- 0.2 min.mg/L vs. 0.9 +/- 0.2). A larger GH increase (P < 0.02) was seen after GHRH-Arg compared to GHRH alone (AUC, 1.9 +/- 0.4 min.mg/L vs. 1.2 +/- 0.3). The GH response (P < 0.02) to GHRH-Arg stimulation was lower after previous GHRH injection than after GHRH-Arg stimulation alone (AUC, 1.9 +/- 0.4 min.mg/L vs. 3.5 +/- 0.9). There was a statistically significant difference between the TRH-stimulated TSH response in test 4 compared to that in test 5. We could show that decreasing GH responses to repeated GHRH can be avoided by a combined stimulation with GHRH/Arg. These findings suggest that the decreased GH response to a second GHRH bolus may be partly due to an elevated hypothalamic somatostatin secretion, which can be suppressed by Arg. The lower GH response to GHRH-Arg stimulation after a previous GHRH bolus suggests, furthermore, that the readily available GH pool in the human pituitary may be limited.

Aspects of the neuroendocrine control of somatotropic function in calorically restricted dogs and patients with eating disorders: studies with cholinergic drugs

A series of studies was devised in both an experimental model of food deprivation, i.e., beagle dogs undergoing a progressive reduction of calorie intake and adolescent females with anorexia nervosa (AN) in the acute and recovery phase, and in patients with atypical eating disorders. The studies were aimed at ascertaining whether the alleged function of the hypothalamic system inhibitory to growth hormone (GH) secretion, i.e., the somatostatinergic, may account for at least some of the abnormalities of GH secretion present in AN patients (e.g., elevated basal GH levels, paradoxical GH rise after glucose or thyrotropin releasing hormone, etc). Caloric restricted dogs or patients with eating disorders were given an intravenous injection of the physiologic GH-releasing peptide GHRH alone or preceded by pirenzepine, a muscarinic cholinergic antagonist reportedly capable of eliciting hypothalamic release of somatostatin (SS), or pyridostigmine, a muscarinic cholinergic agonist which, conversely, would restrain hypothalamic release of SS. In addition, dogs were challenged with acute administration of glucose or thyrot-ropin-releasing hormone, compounds also thought to act via somatostatinergic influences. Data obtained in dogs under caloric restriction or in AN patients in the acute phase of the disease with drugs affecting cholinergic transmission suggest that the latter is increased in both conditions (only partial suppression of the GHRH-induced GH rise with pirenzepine, failure of pyridostigmine to further enhance the GH response to GHRH). Instead, in the same AN patients in the acute phase tested during recovery, in AN patients during the recovery phase, and in patients with atypical eating disorders, pirenzepine completely suppressed the GH response to GHRH, as it did in controls. Finally, data obtained on basal and GHRH-stimulated GH release in dogs given glucose or thyrot-ropin-releasing hormone and in AN patients given arginine, another compound thought to act via inhibition of somatostatinergic influences, do not support the view that somatostatinergic function is impaired in states of food deprivation.

GH responsiveness to repeated GHRH or hexarelin administration in normal adults

GH responses, calculated as the net incremental area under the curve (GH nAUC/h), to two consecutive 1 microgram/kg/bw iv GHRH boluses (administered at 0 and 120 min, test a), to one 1 microgram/kg/bw iv GHRH bolus followed by a 1 microgram/kg/bw iv hexarelin bolus (administered at 0 and 120 min respectively, test b) and to two consecutive 1 microgram/kg/bw iv hexarelin boluses (administered at 0 and 120 min, test c) were evaluated in 6 normal adults. The first GHRH injection caused a clear rise in serum GH levels in all subjects (mean GH nAUC/h, test a: 832.1 +/- 59.4 ng/ml/h, range: 723.7-1074.0 ng/ml/h; test b: 859.2 +/- 122.9 ng/ml/h, range 618.0-1422.7 ng/ml/h). Hexarelin administration elicited a marked GH release (test c: 1424 +/- 208.2 ng/ml/h, range: 810.0-2154.0 ng/ml/h), which was significantly higher than those observed after GHRH (vs test a: p < 0.02, vs test b: p < 0.05). After the first GHRH bolus, the second GHRH injection (test a) was unable to sustain GH elevated levels (mean GH nAUC: 74.5 +/- 26.5 ng/ml/h, range: 9.7-182.2 ng/ml/h), while hexarelin administration (test b) caused a clear GH rise in all subjects (GH nAUC: 1049.7 +/- 105.2 ng/ml/h, range: 786.0-1356.0 ng/ml/h). Repeated hexarelin administration (test c) was associated with a significant (p < 0.02) reduction of GH responses to the second bolus (286.6 +/- 43.1 ng/ml/h), which were however significantly higher than those observed after the second GHRH bolus (p < 0.05). In conclusion, these results demonstrate that repeated hexarelin administration causes a reduction of GH responsiveness, which is less marked than that induced by repeated GHRH administration, probably due to the more potent GH-releasing effect of hexarelin. Moreover, when administered after GHRH, hexarelin has a sustained GH-releasing effect in contrast to the poor efficacy of GHRH, thus suggesting that the acute effect of hexarelin is probably not mediated through hypothalamic GHRH pathways.

EFFECTS OF CONTINUOUS GHRH INFUSION ON GH SECRETION IN GH-DEFICIENT PATIENTS WITH HYPOTHALAMIC-PITUITARY ABNORMALITIES

To evaluate residual pituitary GH, GH responses to continuous 180-min infusion of increasing doses of GHRH 1-29 followed by iv bolus injection of GHRH were studied in 28 hypopituitary patients, 21 of whom had pituitary abnormalities on MRI. Pituitary hypoplasia, stalk agenesis and ectopic posterior pituitary lobe in 7 patients with isolated GH deficiency (IGHD) and 6 with multiple pituitary hormone deficiencies (group I); isolated pituitary hypoplasia in 8 IGHD (group II); normal pituitary gland morphology in 7 IGHD (group III). Pituitary volume was not significantly different in the groups I and II.The study consisted of 1) 0.9% saline infusion for 30′(50ml/h) from 0830-0900h; 2)GHRH 200 ng/kg body weight/h from 0900-1000h, GHRH 400 ng/kg/h from 1000-1100h and GHRH 600 ng/kg/h from 1100-1200h; 3)iv bolus dose of GHRH (2ug/kg) at 1200h. Blood samples for GH and IGF-1 levels were obtained every 15 min until 1200h and then after 5,10,15,20 and 30′ following GHRH bolus.A slight increase of GH was observed in group I while GHRH infusion significantly increased GH secretion in the groups II and III. Mean GH pulse amplitude as well as mean GH height were significantly lower in group I (1.08±0.35, 3.12±0.94 ng/ml) than in group II (4.74±0.53, 14.89±1.50 ng/ml, p=0.0007) and III (6.78±2.42, 22.93±5.41 ng/ml p=0.0092, p=0.004). A similar trend was also observed for the mean integrated total GH areas over 0-line in the group I (30.24±9.55 ng/ml),II (202.79±33.87 ng/ml, p=0.0003) and III (193.32±27.93 ng/ml, p=0.0004).Spontaneous GH peaks occur during saline infusion in the group III suggesting the presence of two releasable pituitary GH pools. The GH secretion pattern was quite different in groups II (late GH reponse) and III. GH response to the iv bolus dose of GHRH was indicative of pituitary desensitization. Basal IGF-1 was in the normal levels in group III and no variations were detected during GHRH infusion.

Eptastigmine augments basal and GHRH-stimulated growth hormone release in young and old dogs

The aim of the present work was to evaluate the effect on the growth hormone (GH) secretion of eptastigmine, a new long-acting cholinesterase inhibitor, in unanesthetized beagle dogs. In a first study, 5 young dogs were given single doses (0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 mg/kg, i.m.) of the drug or saline in a randomized cross-over manner. Blood samples were collected immediately before and, at regular intervals, until 150 min after drug injection. GH plasma concentrations were determined by radioimmunoassay. Plasma cholinesterase activity was measured with a potentiometric method. There was a significant logistic relationship (r = 0.601, P<0.01) between the administered dose of eptastigmine and the log-transformed areas under the GH plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) with a calculated ED 50 for eptastigmine of 0.63±0.36 mg/kg. There was also a significant linear relationship (r = 0.630, P<0.01) between log-transformed AUC of GH levels and AUC of plasma cholinesterase activity. In a second study we evaluate the ability of eptastigmine (2.0 mg/kg, i.m.) to potentiate the GH-releasing effect of the GH-releasing hormone (GHRH, 2.0 μg/kg, i.v.) in young and old dogs. Eptastigmine was administered 45 min before GHRH and blood collected every 15 min until 90 min after GHRH injection. In young dogs, maximum GH plasma levels (C max) were 6.1±1.0 ng/ml after GHRH compared to 22.5±2.3 ng/ml after GHRH preceded by eptastigmine (P<0.01). In old animals, C max were 4.6±1.4 ng/ml after GHRH vs 13.2±7.4 ng/ml after combined administration of GHRH and eptastigmine (P<0.05). These data indicate that eptastigmine is very effective in augmenting basal and stimulated GH secretion in old dog. The good activity also shown in old animals suggests a potential use of this drug to reverse the age-dependent decline in GH secretion responsible for many involutional changes of aging.

The effect of atenolol on the growth hormone response to growth hormone-releasing hormone in obese children.

We have evaluated the effect of acute administration of atenolol, a selective beta-adrenergic antagonist, on the GH response to GHRH in nine obese children and in eight age-matched controls. The GH response to GHRH (1-29, 1 microgram/kg iv), evaluated both as the GH peak and as integrated area under the curve, was significantly lower in the obese children than in the controls. Pretreatment with atenolol (50 or 100 mg orally in subjects with body weight less than or greater than 40 kg, respectively, administered 120 min before the GHRH injection) significantly increased the GH response to GHRH in the obese subjects, such that their mean peak GH levels and mean integrated area under the curve after atenolol plus GHRH were similar to those of the control children after GHRH. Also in control children, atenolol caused a significant augmentation of the GH response to GHRH. Mean peak GH levels and mean integrated area under the curve after atenolol plus GHRH were significantly higher in the controls than in the obese children given the same treatment. These data show that inhibition of central beta-adrenergic receptors counteracts the blunted GH response to GHRH present in the obese children. In view of the alleged mechanism of action of beta-adrenergic blockade (inhibition of endogenous SRIH release), our data suggest that the somatostatinergic system is intact in obesity, and that the suppressed GH secretion is due to other causes.

Effects of exogenous growth hormone pretreatment on the pituitary growth hormone response to growth hormone-releasing hormone alone or in combination with pyridostigmine in Type I diabetic patients

We evaluated the effects of iv pretreatment with exogenous GH on the GH response to GHRH either alone or in combination with pyridostigmine in 14 Type I diabetic patients and 6 normal subjects. All the subjects received an iv bolus injection of biosynthetic human GH, 2 IU; 2 h later they received either a. pyridostigmine, 120 mg orally, or b. placebo, 2 tablets orally, followed 1 h later by iv injection of GHRH(1-29) NH2, 100 micrograms. In normal subjects the median GH peak after GH+ GHRH was 1.8, range 1.2-6.9 micrograms/l. Pyridostigmine enhanced the GH response to GHRH in all subjects. The median GH peak after pyridostigmine + GH + GHRH was 32.7, range 19.8-42.1 micrograms/l (p less than 0.001 vs GHRH alone). Seven diabetic subjects had median GH peaks after GH + GHRH greater than 6.9 micrograms/l (the maximum GH peak after GH + GHRH in normal subjects) (group A: median GH peak 35.7, range 21.7-55 micrograms/l). The other diabetic subjects had GH peak lower than 6.9 micrograms/l (group B: median GH peak 4.4, range 2.1-6.5 micrograms/l). Pyridostigmine significantly increased the GH response to GHRH in group B patients (median GH peak 29.3, range 15.7-93.4 micrograms/l, p less than 0.001 vs GH + GHRH alone), but not in group A patients (median GH peak 39.9, range 21.9-64.9 micrograms/l). Group A diabetic patients were younger and had higher HbA1c and blood glucose levels than group B patients. In those diabetic patients with an exaggerated GH response to GH + GHRH, pyridostigmine failed to cause the increase in GH secretion observed in diabetic and control subjects with no responses to GH + GHRH.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Growth hormone concentrations in plasma of healthy pigs and pigs with atrophic rhinitis

SUMMARY Plasma concentrations of porcine growth hormone (pgh) were similar in healthy pigs and those with atrophic rhinitis (ar), therefore, observed reduced growth rates and feed efficiency in naturally infected pigs with ar were not attributed to low concentrations of plasma pgh. Also, pituitary glands in both groups of pigs were responsive to growth hormone-releasing hormone (ghrh) challenge by increasing pgh secretion. Administration of clonidine hydrochloride to pigs naturally infected with ar failed to elicit any significant change (5.3 ± 1.4 ng/ml) in the plasma concentration of pgh within a 45-minute bleeding interval. The pretreatment concentrations of pgh were similar in specific-pathogen-free toxin-treated and specific-pathogen-free control groups, but they increased significantly in toxin-treated pigs (20.7 ± 8.2 ng/ml) within 15 minutes after ghrh injection. Porcine growth hormone release in toxin-treated pigs was variable; however, all pigs did not respond to ghrh administration: 3 responded with an increase in pgh release (35.6 ± 10.6 ng/ml), 2 did not respond (6.7 ± 0.5 ng/ml), and 1 had a decrease in pgh release (3.9 ng/ml). Therefore, the observed reduced growth rates reported in the literature may be attributed to factors at the target level of pgh action, such as insufficient or down-regulation of pgh receptors, changes or impaired ability in the pgh receptor-binding characteristics, and inability of pgh receptor complex to transduce signal. Toxins are known to modulate signal transduction pathways. It has been speculated that serotype-D Pasteurella multocida toxin may influence growth by its effect on signal transduction from pgh receptor complex on the cell membrane to the interior of the cell. This would account for the presence of high concentrations of pgh in the plasma and a functionally competent hypophysis cerebri, which responded to ghrh injection that have retarded growth in pigs affected with ar.

Growth Hormone (GH) Responses to the Hexapeptide GH-Releasing Peptide and GH-Releasing Hormone (GHRH) in the Cynomolgus Macaque: Evidence for Non-GHRH-Mediated Responses*

GH-releasing peptide (GHRP; His-D-Trp-Ala-Trp-D-Phe-Lys-NH2), a hexapeptide derived from enkephalin, has been shown to have GH-releasing activity in man and several animal species. To characterize the GHRP dose-response curve and compare it with that of GH-releasing hormone [GHRH-(1-44)NH2], six unanesthetized young adult cynomolgus macaques were tested with a range of iv doses of GHRP or GHRH in random order. Animals were fitted with vests and tethers. Blood samples were obtained before and at 15-min intervals after the administration of drugs. Doses ranged from 0.03-3 mg/kg for GHRP and from 1-30 micrograms/kg for GHRH. The dose-response curves for the two peptides were not parallel. GHRP had lower potency, but evoked a much higher peak GH response than GHRH (greater than 55 vs. 12 micrograms/L). Because one of the proposed mechanisms of action of GHRP is the inhibition of somatostatin (SS), we tested the effects of propranolol, which inhibits SS, on the GH responses to GHRH and GHRP. Propranolol was given at a dose of 14 micrograms/kg, iv, 10 min before the injection of saline, GHRH (10 micrograms/kg), or GHRP (1 mg/kg). GH responses to propranolol alone did not differ from those to placebo (peak, 6 +/- 2 vs. 8 +/- 2 micrograms/L). However, propranolol pretreatment doubled the GH responses to both GHRH and GHRP compared with those to GHRH or GHRP alone 28 +/- 5 micrograms/L vs. 14 +/- 5 (P less than 0.05) and 54 +/- 2 vs. 25 +/- 6 micrograms/L (P less than 0.001), respectively]. These results show that GHRP causes a potent dose-dependent release of GH in this primate species. Since GHRP can produce a greater maximal GH response than GHRH, mechanisms other than release of endogenous GHRH must be involved.

Growth hormone response following growth hormone releasing hormone injection in thalassemia major: influence of pubertal development

Thirty-five patients with thalassemia major, aged 7 to 21 years, were studied to define the relationship between the pubertal development and the growth-hormone (GH) secretion during sleep, after administration of GH-releasing factor (hpGRF 1-44), and betaxolol-glucagon or arginin-insulin. Pubertal development was classified as being appropriate or delayed for chronological age. GH response to pharmacological stimuli and during sleep was not linked to the pubertal development according to the chronological age. The peak of GH secretion after GHRH injection was significantly delayed in thalassemic patients with retarded puberty. The integrated secretion of GH during the 120-min test was slightly but not significantly reduced in these patients. The prepubertal pattern of GHRH response was restored in the patients receiving substitutive therapy by HCG or testosterone. The alteration of GH response to GHRH in thalassemic patients is likely to be only due to delayed puberty and decreased endogeneous GHRH secretion since it is corrected by androgen or gonadotropin replacement.

Effects of methimazole treatment on growth hormone (GH) response to GH-releasing hormone in patients with hyperthyroidism

In vitro studies have demonstrated that thyroid hormones can enhance basal and stimulated growth hormone secretion by cultured pituitary cells. However, both in man and in the rat the effects of high thyroid hormone levels on GH secretion are unclear. The aim of our study was to test the GH response to human GHRH in hyperthyroid patients and to evaluate the effects on GH secretion of short- and long-term pharmacological decrease of circulating thyroid hormones. We examined 10 hyperthyroid patients with recent diagnosis of Graves' disease. Twelve healthy volunteers served as controls. All subjects received a bolus iv injection of GHRH(1-29)NH2, 100 micrograms. Hyperthyroid patients underwent a GHRH test one and three months after starting antithyroid therapy with methimazole, 10 mg/day po. GH levels at 15, 30, 45, 60 min and GH peak after stimulus were significantly lower in hyperthyroid patients than in normal subjects. The GH peak was also delayed in hyperthyroid patients. After one month of methimazole therapy, most of the hyperthyroid patients had thyroid hormone levels in the normal range, but they did not show significant changes in GH levels after GHRH, and the GH peak was again delayed. After three months of therapy with methimazole, the hyperthyroid patients did not show a further significant decrease in serum thyroid hormone levels. However, mean GH levels from 15 to 60 min were significantly increased compared with the control study. The GH peak after GHRH was also earlier than in the pre-treatment study.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Impaired Inhibitory Effects of Somatostatin on Growth Hormone (GH)-Releasing Hormone Stimulation of GH Secretion after Short Term Infusion*

We examined the effect of prior exposure to somatostatin (SRIH) on its inhibition of GH and TSH responses to GHRH and TRH stimulation to determine whether SRIH desensitization has physiological significance in man. Six men received GHRH (1 microgram/kg, iv) and TRH (0.3 microgram/kg, iv) 20 min after starting a saline or SRIH (5.5 ng/kg/min, iv) infusion and again 6 h later. Hormone responses were quantified by measuring the area under the curve, corrected for GH concentration at injection time. Similar results were obtained when GH responses were quantified by measuring the hormone secretory rate using the program Detect. Plasma GH and TSH responses to the two GHRH and TRH injections during saline were similar. However, the effects of prior exposure to SRIH were hormone specific. SRIH blunted GH responses to GHRH at 20 min (1609 +/- 286 micrograms/L.min vs. 451 +/- 224), but did not significantly inhibit the responses 6 h later (1422 +/- 410 micrograms/L.min vs. 1000 +/- 302). In contrast, SRIH inhibition of TSH responses to the two TRH injections was similar (first, 946 +/- 201 micrograms/L.min vs. 700 +/- 148; second, 813 +/- 175 micrograms/L.min vs. 562 +/- 66). We next used these results to study whether the previously reported attenuation of GH responses to repeated GHRH stimulation at 2-h intervals is mediated by SRIH. Eight men received GHRH (1 microgram/kg, iv) 380 min after starting a saline or SRIH (5.5 ng/kg/min, iv) infusion or 90 min after starting a primed (5 mg, iv) infusion of propranolol (80 micrograms/min, iv) and again 2 h later. As in the first protocol, GH responses to GHRH were not inhibited when preceded by a 6-h SRIH infusion. However, the 6-h SRIH infusion resulted in a partial restoration of plasma GH responses to the second GHRH injection (saline infusion: first, 1429 +/- 342 micrograms/L.min; second, 254 +/- 75; SRIH infusion: first, 1042 +/- 247 micrograms/L.min; second, 468 +/- 105). beta-Blockade by propranolol resulted in enhanced GH responses to GHRH, but did not prevent the attenuation of GH responses to the second GHRH injection (first, 1937 +/- 366 micrograms/L.min; second, 614 +/- 99). The desensitization to SRIH inhibition of GH responses to GHRH after a 6-h SRIH infusion provides evidence of physiological consequences of SRIH receptor down-regulation. The impaired GH responses to repeated GHRH stimulation are mediated at least in part by enhanced SRIH secretion, which appears independent of a beta-adrenergic mechanism.

Effects of propranolol on GH responsiveness to repeated GH-releasing hormone stimulations in normal subjects

The influence of beta-adrenergic blockade by oral propranolol on the variability of GH responses to GHRH and on GH responsiveness to repeated GHRH administrations was investigated. Eight normal volunteers underwent three tests on three separate occasions. Each test consisted of two administrations of 80 micrograms GHRH at 2-h intervals without other medication (test 1) or combined with oral administration of 80 mg propranolol 90 min before the first (test 2) or the second GHRH injection (test 3). In test 1 GH levels increased significantly after the first, but not the second GHRH bolus (net incremental area under the curve [nAUC], mean +/- SD: 1453 +/- 974 and 178 +/- 309 micrograms.l-1.(120 min)-1, respectively). In test 2 basal GH secretion was not influenced by propranolol administration, whereas the GH response to the first GHRH injection was significantly greater than in test 1 (2327 +/- 1814 micrograms.l-1.(120 min)-1; p less than 0.05). However, individual subjects showed the same variability of GH response as in test 1. The GH response to the second GHRH bolus remained negligible. In test 3 administration of propranolol 90 min before the second GHRH bolus led to a clear GH increase (690 +/- 1002 micrograms.l-1.(120 min)-1), not significantly different from the GH response to the first bolus (1796 +/- 1375 micrograms.l-1.(120 min)-1). However, only 4 subjects showed a marked restoration of the GH responsiveness to the second GHRH administration. In conclusion, oral administration of propranolol is able to increase GH responsiveness to GHRH without changing the great individual variability. The response to a repeated GHRH stimulation is only partially restored by propranolol.

Repetitive Injections of Growth Hormone Releasing Hormone (GHRH 1-44) to Normal Volunteers and Patients with Growth Hormone Deficiency

The present study was designed to answer the following three questions: Is there any difference between the growth hormone (GH) response to i.v. injections of GHRH 1-44 by a slowly injecting hormone pump or to a s. s. or rapid i. v. injection by syringe? Do nocturnal injections of GHRH 1-44 i. v. elicit different GH levels than during daytime? Can repetitive administration of GHRH 1-44 in patient with GH deficiency induce a physiological GH pattern and thereby normalize the condition resulting from a hypothalamic defect? A rapid i. v. bolus injection of 50 micrograms GHRH 1-44 by syringe with an injection time of one second elicited in the same subject at the same time of the day a twofold greater response than a slowly injecting (60 seconds) hormone pump. In six male adult volunteers each GHRH i. v. bolus was followed by a GH secretory pulse. The GH response at night (area under the curve and peak plasma GH levels) was significantly greater than at daytime (P less than 0.05) and greater than the GH pulses measured during a spontaneous nocturnal profile (P less than 0.05). Out of six GH deficient young adult patients who had been receiving extractive GH until two years prior to the study, three responded much like the controls, the other three patients-those who lacked any spontaneous nocturnal GH peaks-had markedly lower GH levels after GHRH (P less than 0.05). However, there was a clear-cut GH release after GHRH injection in each patient.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Acute effects of cortisone acetate on growth hormone response to growth hormone-releasing hormone in normal adult subjects

Glucocorticoids have been shown to inhibit GH secretion in normal man when administered in large amounts for several days. The aim of our study was 1. to investigate the acute effects of a single dose of glucocorticoids on GH secretion in normal man; 2. to look at the relationship between the increase in serum cortisol concentration and GH response to the stimuli. Six healthy volunteers received on three occasions in random order an iv injection of GHRH (1-29) NH2, 100 micrograms, alone or 60 min after oral administration of either 25 or 50 mg of cortisone acetate. Mean stimulated GH levels, GH peak and integrated GH concentration were significantly lower after GHRH plus cortisone 25 mg than after GHRH alone. Mean GH levels at 15 and 30 min after GHRH injection and the peak GH level showed a further decrease after GHRH plus cortisone 50 mg. We conclude that acute administration of pharmacological doses of glucocorticoids is able to inhibit GH response to GHRH, probably through enhancement of endogenous somatostatin release. Moreover, this pharmacological effect of glucocorticoids seems to be dose-dependent and thus directly related to serum cortisol concentrations.

Plasma Somatostatin-Like Immunoreactivity during Growth-Hormone-Releasing Hormone Therapy in Non-Growth-Hormone-Deficient Children

To date, the effects of long-term growth hormone (GH)-releasing hormone [GHRH(1-29)-NH2] treatment on the plasma concentrations of somatostatin-like immunoreactivity (SLI) remain undefined. In the present study, the effect of GHRH(1-29)-NH2 therapy on plasma SLI levels has been studied in 11 non-GH-deficient children. The pattern of administration was 5 micrograms/kg body weight, given subcutaneously once every day. There was no significant change in plasma SLI levels after bolus injection of GHRH(1-29)-NH2 before and during GHRH(1-29)-NH2 therapy. However, plasma SLI rose in basal plasma and nocturnal sleep after 3 months of GHRH(1-29)-NH2 therapy and remained the same during 6 months of treatment with GHRH(1-29)-NH2. The reason for this finding is uncertain, but an increase in SLI release from the enteroinsular axis is a possible explanation. The association of our findings with the role of the circulating SLI on nutrient homeostasis and the effects of GNRH on growth velocity is discussed.

Mutual Priming Effects of GHRH and Arginine on GH Secretion: Informative Procedure for Evaluating GH Secretory Dynamics.

To establish a single and reliable test for evaluating GH secretion, we examined successive GH provocation by two agents with different modes of action: GHRH and arginine (Arg). In 4 normal subjects, a bolus injection of 50 micrograms of GHRH followed by 0.5 g/kg Arg infusion after 90 min evoked two GH peaks and the priming of the GHRH potentiated Arg-induced GH peak by 88% of that by Arg alone. In contrast, Arg pretreatment suppressed the GHRH-induced GH peak to a level of 15%. This inhibitory effect of Arg priming was not recovered by an increase in the GHRH dose (100 micrograms) or by prolongation of the GHRH injection period to 180 min. During Arg infusion, plasma somatostatin (SRIH) was significantly reduced and there was a linear correlation between Arg-induced GH peaks and basal TSH levels. This suggests that GH release by Arg is mediated by suppression of hypothalamic SRIH. One subject showed a blunted GH peak in response to GHRH but a normal peak in response to Arg repeatedly, suggesting an endogenous hypertonicity of SRIH. In 4 other normal subjects, the effect of endogenous GH fluctuation on the GHRH-Arg test was examined in the morning, afternoon and evening. The GH secretory profile was fairly consistent in individuals, but in 2 of them, GH response to GHRH was exaggerated in the evening and Arg-unresponsiveness ensued. This potentiation of GH release appears to be due to an increase in endogenous GHRH secretion or a decrease in SRIH tone. The GHRH-Arg test is therefore able to evaluate GH secretory dynamics through two major mechanisms, GHRH stimulation and SRIH inhibition in a single procedure, reducing the incidence of false negative GH response to Arg.