Morning basal luteinizing hormone, a good screening tool for diagnosing central precocious puberty
10.6065/apem.2019.24.1.27
- Author:
Dong Min LEE
1
;
In Hyuk CHUNG
Author Information
1. Department of Pediatrics, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Precocious puberty;
Gonadotropin-releasing hormone stimulation test;
Gonadotropin-releasing hormone;
Luteinizing hormone;
Bone age
- MeSH:
Adolescent;
Body Mass Index;
Child;
Female;
Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone;
Gonadotropins;
Humans;
Lutein;
Luteinizing Hormone;
Mass Screening;
Methods;
Puberty;
Puberty, Precocious;
Retrospective Studies;
Sensitivity and Specificity;
Treatment Outcome
- From:Annals of Pediatric Endocrinology & Metabolism
2019;24(1):27-33
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: The standard method used to diagnose central precocious puberty (CPP) is the gonadotropin releasing hormone stimulation test (GnRHST). However, this test is inconvenient for children because it is time-consuming and requires multiple samples. This study aimed to determine the reliability of morning unstimulated luteinizing hormone (mLH) level when screening for CPP, with an emphasis on the influence of diurnal variation. METHODS: This study included 160 girls with signs of early puberty (SMR 2) under 8 years of age. They were classified as CPP or non-CPP based on their standard GnRHST. The auxological, biochemical, and hormonal characteristics of subjects were retrospectively evaluated. The prognostic value of single morning unstimulated gonadotropin level was examined for use in CPP screening. RESULTS: Of 160 patients, 121 (75.6%) presented with CPP, and 39 (24.4%) were determined to be prepubertal. The mLH/mFSH (morning unstimulated follicular stimulating hormone) ratio showed significant differences between the 2 groups (P<0.001). The mLH was correlated with GnRHST variables (r=0.532, P<0.001). The mLH cutoff point when screening for CPP was 0.22 IU/L, which had sensitivity and specificity of 69.4% and 82.1%, respectively. In regression analysis, bone age (BA) (odds ratio [OR], 1.018; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.967–1.071; P=0.506) and body mass index (BMI) (OR, 0.874; 95% CI, 0.583–1.310; P=0.515) were not significant predictors. The mLH≥0.22 IU/L group (OR, 9.596; 95% CI, 3.853–23.900; P<0.001) was highly suggestive of CPP. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, single morning unstimulated luteinizing hormone had clinical efficacy for CPP screening, but BA advanced over chronological age and BMI was not useful for CPP screening.
