Endocrine Abstracts

Introduction: A increased prevalence of metabolic syndrome (MetS) has recently been described in patients with adult growth hormone deficiency (GHD). This fact could influence the increased risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality observed in these patients. Our objective was to investigate the characteristics and prevalence of MetS in adult GHD.

Design and methods: Forty-nine adult patients (30 women, 19 men; 14 childhood-onset), mean age of 36.2±13.8 years, with severe GHD (mean duration 9.1±9.4 years) were evaluate before GH replacement. Complete information on all MetS components were collected. MetS was defined according to the National Cholesterol Education Program’s Adult Treatment Panel III (NCEP) and the International Diabetes Foundation (IDF). The prevalence of MetS was calculated, and associations were assessed between baseline variables and MetS.

Results: MetS was present in 14.9% (NCEP) and 31.8% (IDF) of our patients, lower than data from KIMS analysis (43.1%) and similar from the normal population (20–30%). The prevalences of MetS components (NCEP) were: waist circumference 26.5%, HDL 45%, triglycerides 47.8%, hyperglycaemia 4.3% and hypertension (14%). No childhood-onset patient fulfilled the definition of MetS, while 23.3% of adult-onset patients were diagnosed. The prevalence was higher in women (25 vs 5.8%, non-statistically significant). Mean age and GHD duration before GH replacement were similar among MetS and no-MetS patients; MetS patients had higher glycaemia (P=0.005), triglycerides (P<0.001), waist circumference (P<0.001), lower HDL-cholesterol BMI (P=0.001), and were shorter (P=0.034) than no-MetS patients.

Conclusion: The prevalence of MetS in our GHD patients were lower than KIMS study. That could be influenced by a lower age in our patients (13 years younger). However, we should diagnose and treat MetS components as they could contribute to the increased risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality found in GHD patients.

Declaration of interest: The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research project.

Funding: This research did not receive any specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sector.