RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: Growth hormone deficiency (GHD) is the most common pituitary hormone deficiency and is one of the main causes of short stature in children and adolescents. The aim of this study is to evaluate the epidemiology of pediatric GHD worldwide, since no other systematic review has been published so far. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science up to July 2023 to find epidemiological studies involving children with GHD. Two review authors independently screened articles, extracted data and performed the quality assessment. RESULTS: We selected 9 epidemiological studies published from 1974 to 2022. The range of prevalence was 1/1107-1/8,646. A study based on a registry of GH users in the Piedmont region (Italy) reported the highest mean prevalence. In the included studies, the mean incidence ranged from 1/28,800 to 1/46,700 cases per year. One study reported a 20-year cumulative incidence of 127/100,000 for boys and 93/100,000 for girls. Studies were heterogeneous in terms of population (age and GHD etiology) and diagnostic criteria. As for the methodological quality of included studies, all but one study satisfied the majority of the checklist items. CONCLUSIONS: The included studies are mostly European, so the provided estimates cannot be considered global. International multicentre studies are needed to compare epidemiological estimates of GHD among different ethnical groups. Considering the considerable cost of human recombinant GH, the only available therapy to treat GHD, understanding accurate epidemiological estimates of GHD in each country is fundamental for resource allocation.
RESUMEN
We evaluated the efficacy, safety, adherence, quality of life (QoL) and cost-effectiveness of long-acting growth hormone (LAGH) vs daily growth hormone (GH) preparations in the treatment of growth hormone deficiency (GHD) in children. Systematic searches were performed in PubMed, Embase and Web of Science up to July 2022 on randomized and non-randomized studies involving children with GHD receiving LAGH as compared to daily GH. Meta-analyses for efficacy and safety were performed comparing different LAGH/daily GH formulations. From the initial 1393 records, we included 16 studies for efficacy and safety, 8 studies for adherence and 2 studies for QoL. No studies reporting cost-effectiveness were found. Pooled mean differences of mean annualized height velocity (cm/year) showed no difference between LAGH and daily GH: Eutropin Plus® vs Eutropin® [- 0.14 (-0.43, 0.15)], Eutropin Plus® vs Genotropin® [- 0.74 (-1.83, 0.34)], Jintrolong® vs Jintropin AQ® [0.05 (-0.54, 0.65)], Somatrogon vs Genotropin® [- 1.40 (-2.91, 0.10)], TransCon vs Genotropin® [0.93 (0.26, 1.61)]. Also, other efficacy and safety outcomes, QoL and adherence were comparable for LAGH and daily GH. Our results showed that, although most of the included studies had some concerns for risk of bias, regarding efficacy and safety all the LAGH formulations were similar to daily GH. Future high quality studies are needed to confirm these data. Adherence and QoL should be addressed from real-world data studies for both the mid and long term and in a larger population. Cost-effectiveness studies are needed to measure the economic impact of LAGH from the healthcare payer's perspective.
