Growth hormone pharmacogenetics: The interactive effect of a microsatellite in the IGF1 promoter region with the GHR-exon 3 and 202 A/C IGFBP3 variants on treatment outcomes of children with severe GH deficiency

Unidade de Endocrinologia do Desenvolvimento, Laboratorio de Hormonios e Genetica Molecular LIM/42 do Hospital das Clínicas, Disciplina de Endocrinologia da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
The Pharmacogenomics Journal (Impact Factor: 4.23). 04/2011; 12(5):439-45. DOI: 10.1038/tpj.2011.13
Source: PubMed


Insulin-like growth factor type 1 (IGF1) is a mediator of growth hormone (GH) action, and therefore, IGF1 is a candidate gene for recombinant human GH (rhGH) pharmacogenetics. Lower serum IGF1 levels were found in adults homozygous for 19 cytosine-adenosine (CA) repeats in the IGF1 promoter. The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of (CA)n IGF1 polymorphism, alone or in combination with GH receptor (GHR)-exon 3 and -202 A/C insulin-like growth factor binding protein-3 (IGFBP3) polymorphisms, on the growth response to rhGH therapy in GH-deficient (GHD) patients. Eighty-four severe GHD patients were genotyped for (CA)n IGF1, -202 A/C IGFBP3 and GHR-exon 3 polymorphisms. Multiple linear regressions were performed to estimate the effect of each genotype, after adjustment for other influential factors. We assessed the influence of genotypes on the first year growth velocity (1st y GV) (n=84) and adult height standard deviation score (SDS) adjusted for target-height SDS (AH-TH SDS) after rhGH therapy (n=37). Homozygosity for the IGF1 19CA repeat allele was negatively correlated with 1st y GV (P=0.03) and AH-TH SDS (P=0.002) in multiple linear regression analysis. In conjunction with clinical factors, IGF1 and IGFBP3 genotypes explain 29% of the 1st y GV variability, whereas IGF1 and GHR polymorphisms explain 59% of final height-target-height SDS variability. We conclude that homozygosity for IGF1 (CA)19 allele is associated with less favorable short- and long-term growth outcomes after rhGH treatment in patients with severe GHD. Furthermore, this polymorphism exhibits a non-additive interaction with -202 A/C IGFBP3 genotype on the 1st y GV and with GHR-exon 3 genotype on adult height.

77 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Despite extensive experience over the past 25 y in managing growth failure with growth hormone (rhGH), predicting treatment efficacy in individual children remains a challenge. In this paper, the authors present the methods that are currently available to clinicians for predicting the growth response, and other more sophisticated techniques which have the potential to pave the way for individualised therapy in the future.
    The Indian Journal of Pediatrics 11/2011; 79(2):229-37. DOI:10.1007/s12098-011-0611-x · 0.87 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The goal of growth hormone (GH) treatment in a short child is to attain a fast catch-up growth toward the target height (TH) standard deviation score (SDS), followed by a maintenance phase, a proper pubertal height gain, and an adult height close to TH. The short-term response variable of GH treatment, first-year height velocity (HV) (cm/year or change in height SDS), can either be compared with GH response charts for diagnosis, age and gender, or with predicted HV based on prediction models. Three types of prediction models have been described: the Kabi International Growth Hormone Study models, the Gothenburg models and the Cologne model. With these models, 50-80% of the variance could be explained. When used prospectively, individualized dosing reduces the variation in growth response in comparison with a fixed dose per body weight. Insulin-like growth factor-I-based dose titration also led to a decrease in the variation. It is uncertain whether adding biochemical, genetic or proteomic markers may improve the accuracy of the prediction. Prediction models may lead to a more evidence-based approach to determine the GH dose regimen and may reduce the drug costs for GH treatment. There is a need for user-friendly software programs to make prediction models easily available in the clinic.
    Hormone Research in Paediatrics 05/2013; 79(5):257-270. DOI:10.1159/000351025 · 1.57 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE: Individual sensitivity to recombinant human growth hormone (r-hGH) is variable. Identification of genetic factors contributing to this variability has potential use for individualization of treatment. The objective of this study was to identify genetic markers and gene expression profiles associated with growth response on r-hGH therapy in treatment-naïve, prepubertal children with growth hormone deficiency (GHD) or Turner syndrome (TS). DESIGN: A prospective, multicenter, international, open-label pharmacogenomic study. METHODS: The associations of genotypes in 103 growth- and metabolism-related genes and baseline gene expression profiles with growth response to r-hGH (cm/year) over the first year were evaluated. Genotype associations were assessed with growth response as a continuous variable and as a categorical variable divided into quartiles. RESULTS: Eleven genes in GHD and 10 in TS, with 2 overlapping between conditions, were significantly associated with growth response either as a continuous variable (7 in GHD, 2 in TS) or as a categorical variable (4 more in GHD, 8 more in TS). In GHD, GRB10 was associated with high response (≥Q3) [P=0.0012], while SOS2 was associated with low response (≤Q1) [P=0.006]. In TS, LHX4 was associated with high response [P=0.0003] and PTPN1 with low response [P=0.0037]. Differences in expression were identified for 1 of the growth response-associated genes in GHD (AKT1) and for 2 in TS (KRAS and MYOD1). CONCLUSIONS: Carriage of specific growth-related genetic markers is associated with growth response in GHD and TS. These findings indicate that pharmacogenomics could have a role in individualized management of childhood growth disorders.
    European Journal of Endocrinology 06/2013; 169(3). DOI:10.1530/EJE-13-0069 · 4.07 Impact Factor
Show more