Lower versus Traditional Treatment Threshold for Neonatal Hypoglycemia.

BACKGROUND: Worldwide, many newborns who are preterm, small or large for gestational age, or born to mothers with diabetes are screened for hypoglycemia, with a goal of preventing brain injury. However, there is no consensus on a treatment threshold that is safe but also avoids overtreatment. METHODS: In a multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial involving 689 otherwise healthy newborns born at 35 weeks of gestation or later and identified as being at risk for hypoglycemia, we compared two threshold values for treatment of asymptomatic moderate hypoglycemia. We sought to determine whether a management strategy that used a lower threshold (treatment administered at a glucose concentration of <36 mg per deciliter [2.0 mmol per liter]) would be noninferior to a traditional threshold (treatment at a glucose concentration of <47 mg per deciliter [2.6 mmol per liter]) with respect to psychomotor development at 18 months, assessed with the Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development, third edition, Dutch version (Bayley-III-NL; scores range from 50 to 150 [mean {±SD}, 100±15]), with higher scores indicating more advanced development and 7.5 points (one half the SD) representing a clinically important difference). The lower threshold would be considered noninferior if scores were less than 7.5 points lower than scores in the traditional-threshold group. RESULTS: Bayley-III-NL scores were assessed in 287 of the 348 children (82.5%) in the lower-threshold group and in 295 of the 341 children (86.5%) in the traditional-threshold group. Cognitive and motor outcome scores were similar in the two groups (mean scores [±SE], 102.9±0.7 [cognitive] and 104.6±0.7 [motor] in the lower-threshold group and 102.2±0.7 [cognitive] and 104.9±0.7 [motor] in the traditional-threshold group). The prespecified inferiority limit was not crossed. The mean glucose concentration was 57±0.4 mg per deciliter (3.2±0.02 mmol per liter) in the lower-threshold group and 61±0.5 mg per deciliter (3.4±0.03 mmol per liter) in the traditional-threshold group. Fewer and less severe hypoglycemic episodes occurred in the traditional-threshold group, but that group had more invasive diagnostic and treatment interventions. Serious adverse events in the lower-threshold group included convulsions (during normoglycemia) in one newborn and one death. CONCLUSIONS: In otherwise healthy newborns with asymptomatic moderate hypoglycemia, a lower glucose treatment threshold (36 mg per deciliter) was noninferior to a traditional threshold (47 mg per deciliter) with regard to psychomotor development at 18 months. (Funded by the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development; HypoEXIT Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN79705768.).

Metabolic Health in Short Children Born Small for Gestational Age Treated With Growth Hormone and Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone Analog: Results of a Randomized, Dose-Response Trial.

CONTEXT: Previously we showed that pubertal children born small for gestational age (SGA) with a poor adult height (AH) expectation can benefit from treatment with GH 1 mg/m(2) per day (∼ 0.033 mg/kg/d) in combination with 2 years of GnRH analog (GnRHa) and even more so with a double GH dose. GnRHa treatment is thought to have negative effects on body composition and blood pressure. Long-term effects and GH-dose effects on metabolic health in children treated with combined GH/GnRHa are unknown. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate body composition, blood pressure, and lipid profile during GH treatment, either with or without 2 years of additional GnRHa. To assess whether GH 2 mg/m(2) per day (∼ 0.067 mg/kg/d) results in a similar or even more favorable metabolic health at AH than GH 1 mg/m(2) per day. METHODS: This was a longitudinal, randomized, dose-response GH trial involving 107 short SGA children (58 girls) treated with GH until AH (GH randomized 1 or 2 mg/m(2)/d during puberty). Sixty-four children received additional GnRHa. At AH, metabolic parameters were compared between children treated with combined GH/GnRHa and those with only GH. The GH dose effect on metabolic health was evaluated in a subgroup of 47 children who started GH treatment in early puberty (randomized 1 or 2 mg/m(2)/d) with 2 years of GnRHa. RESULTS: At AH, fat mass percentage (FM%) SD score (SDS), lean body mass (LBM) SDS, blood pressure SDS, and lipid profile were similar between children treated with combined GH/GnRHa and those with only GH. In the pubertal subgroup, FM% SDS was lower during treatment with GH 2 mg/m(2) per day. There was no GH dose-dependent effect on LBM SDS, blood pressure, and lipid profile. CONCLUSIONS: Combined GH/GnRHa treatment has no long-term negative effects on metabolic health compared with only GH. Started in early puberty, a GH dose of 2 mg/m(2) per day results in a similar metabolic health at AH and a more favorable FM% than GH 1 mg/m(2) per day.

Adult height in short children born SGA treated with growth hormone and gonadotropin releasing hormone analog: results of a randomized, dose-response GH trial.

CONTEXT: GH treatment is effective in improving height in short children born small for gestational age (SGA). GH is thought to have limited effect when started during adolescence. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate GH treatment efficacy in short SGA children when treatment was started during adolescence; to assess whether GH 2 mg/m(2) · d during puberty improves adult height (AH) compared with 1 mg/m(2) · d; and to assess whether an additional 2-yr postponement of puberty by GnRH analog (GnRHa) improves AH in children who are short at the start of puberty (<140 cm), with a poor AH expectation. PATIENTS AND DESIGN: In this longitudinal, randomized, dose-response GH trial, we included 121 short SGA children (60 boys) at least 8 yr of age. We performed intention-to-treat analyses on all children and uncensored case analyses on 84 children who reached AH. Besides, we evaluated growth during 2 yr of combined GH/GnRHa and subsequent GH treatment until AH in a subgroup of 40 pubertal children with a height of less than 140 cm at the start. RESULTS: Short SGA children started treatment at a median age of 11.2 yr, when 46% had already started puberty. Median height increased from -2.9 at start to -1.7 sd score (SDS) at AH (P < 0.001). Treatment with GH 2 vs. 1 mg/m(2) · d during puberty resulted in significantly better AH (P = 0.001), also after correction for gender, age at start, height SDS at start, treatment years before puberty, and target height SDS. AH was similar in children who started puberty at less than 140 cm and received GH/GnRHa, compared with children who started puberty greater than 140 cm and received GH only (P = 0.795). CONCLUSION: When started in adolescence, GH treatment significantly improves AH in short SGA children, particularly with GH 2 mg/m(2) · d during puberty. When SGA children are short at the start of puberty, they can benefit from combined GH/GnRHa treatment.