Hypercreatininemia and hyperglycemia: diabetic nephropathy or "inverted peritoneal auto-dialysis"?

We describe a case of 51-year-old male with fever, abdominal pain and inguino-scrotal hernia. Laboratory examination revealed hypercreatininemia and hyperglycemia, firstly interpreted as diabetic nephropathy. US and CT scan showed a hernia of the bladder into the scrotum. Surgery revealed multiple bladder perforations with peritoneal diffusion of urine. So, hypercreatininemia was caused by peritoneal reabsorption of urea and creatinine, a condition that may be described as "inverted peritoneal auto-dialysis". Surgical reposition and repairment of the bladder led to rapid normalization of serum urea and creatinine. Discharged diagnosis was intraperitoneal rupture of inguino-scrotal hernia of the bladder in patient with recent onset of diabetes mellitus.

Inhibitory action on GHRH-induced GH secretion of chronic tamoxifen treatment in breast cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Previous in vitro and in vivo studies on animal models have demonstrated that tamoxifen (TAM) inhibits GH secretion. Studies in humans are conflicting. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of chronic TAM treatment on GH secretory dynamics in the presence of negligible endogenous oestrogens, in postmenopausal women with breast cancer. PATIENTS: Ten female patients were studied over a 6-12-month period after surgical therapy, before medical therapy, and during chronic treatment with TAM (20 mg/day p.o.). MEASUREMENTS: In all subjects we performed a standard GHRH-test (50 mg i.v. as a bolus) and compared the single time points, the peak response and the areas under the curves (AUC), before and during treatment. In basal samples, we evaluated the circulating levels of IGF-1, IGF-BP3 and their ratio, SHBG, FSH, LH, Oestradiol (E2) and PRL. GH was assayed by Immunoradiometric assay (IRMA). Insulin-like growth factor type I (IGF-I), Insulin-like growth factor-binding protein-3 (IGF-BP3), FSH, LH and PRL were measured by Radioimmunoassay (RIA). SHBG was measured by a noncompetitive liquid phase immunoradiometric assay, while E2 was measured directly in plasma by a liquid phase technique. RESULTS: TAM chronic treatment significantly reduced GH response to GHRH at single time point evaluations, GH peak response (mean decrease: 59.8 +/- 7.3%) and GH-AUC (mean decrease 53.8 +/- 8.9%). TAM also significantly reduced plasma IGF-1 levels. No significant variations were found in IGF-BP3 levels or in the IGF-1/IGF-BP3 ratio. A significant inverse correlation between SHBG and IGF-1 circulating levels was noticed during TAM treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Our data show that long-term tamoxifen treatment blocks the response of GH to exogenous GHRH and reduces IGF-1 levels, possibly by a central mechanism other than the demonstrated peripheral action. The results of this study, keeping in mind the demonstrated mitogenic role of IGF-1 in cancer proliferation, can contribute to clarify the mechanism by which TAM exerts its antiproliferative effect.

Role of food intake in the modulation of hexarelin-induced growth hormone release in normal human subjects.

Hexarelin (HEX) is a new synthetic analog of the Growth Hormone releasing peptides and is stronger than GHRH in releasing GH in vivo. No information is available on the effect of food ingestion on HEX-induced GH secretion. On the other hand, we have previously demonstrated that food intake at lunchtime in normal subjects has an inhibitory effect on the GH response to GHRH. The aim of the present study was to investigate the effect of food ingestion on GH secretion induced by HEX as compared to GHRH in six normal men (aged 23-29 years) and six normal women (aged 24-29 years). The body weights for all subjects were within 120% of their ideal body weight, according to their sex and age. Our data confirm that HEX is much more powerful than GHRH in inducing GH release in humans, both in the fasting state (GH-AUC: 3010 +/- 695 after HEX, vs. 1339 +/- 281 after GHRH, microg/L/120 min; p<0.06) and after a meal (GH-AUC: 1523 +/- 121, after HEX, vs. 309 +/- 61, after GHRH, microg/L/120 min; p<0.06). Moreover, our study shows that food intake partially blunts the fasting GH response to HEX (GH-AUC: 3010 +/- 695 after HEX, in fasting state, vs. 1523 +/- 121 after HEX, after meal, microg/L/120 min; p<0.06; mean inhibition of AUC 41.02 +/- 7.96%), whereas it nearly abolishes the GH response to GHRH in the same subjects (GH-AUC: 1339 +/- 281 after GHRH, in fasting state, vs. 309 +/- 61 after GHRH, after meal, microg/L/120 min; p<0.06; mean inhibition of AUC 70.31 +/- 6.22%). In conclusion, our study confirms that HEX acts differently from GHRH; the GH releasing effect of HEX could be only partially influenced by the physiological metabolic or neuroendocrine food-related modifications.