more thoughts... and lots of questions..
IGF-1 is low but not so low that it cries out GH deficiency. IGF-1 is low in normal teens with delayed puberty and both GH secretion on testing and endogenous GH secretion is low in teens with delayed puberty. Some doctors give testosterone before the gh testing in boys with delayed puberty
http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/jpem.2004.17.1/jpem.2004.17.1.77/jpem.2004.17.1.77.xml to differentiate between GH def and delayed puberty.
So I still wonder about the GH def diagnosis.
Delayed puberty (for any reason) causes a fall off in growth compared to peers with normally timed puberty. Do you or his father have a history of late puberty? (Crohn's could also cause a delay but would likely be with a low BMI, though not always...)
Bone age would be delayed in any case of delayed puberty.
Did the doctor do a CRP? a MRI of the head? (MRI used to be routine if GH def was diagnosed when I was practicing.)
Did the doctor try a normal dose of GH and have no response, and then move to a higher dose? THis would go against classical GH def.
A fall off in growth at 12 or 13 sounds like constitutional delay of puberty or new onset something. If the doctor is calling it GH def, what did the doctor say was the cause of new-onset GH def?
GH is overdiagnosed. The diagnosis and treatment criteria remain unclear and controversial and drug companies really push the drug. Below on the utility or lack of utility of test results.
Current Opinion in Endocrinology, Diabetes & Obesity:
February 2012 - Volume 19 - Issue 1 - p 47–52
doi: 10.1097/MED.0b013e32834ec952
GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT: Edited by Lynne L Levitsky
Diagnosis of growth hormone deficiency in childhood
Stanley, Takara
Abstract
Purpose of review: The diagnosis of growth hormone deficiency (GHD) in childhood is challenging, in large part because of the lack of a true gold standard and the relatively poor performance of available diagnostic testing. This review discusses the recent literature on this topic.
Recent findings: Auxology and clinical judgment remain the foundation for the diagnosis of GHD. Provocative growth hormone testing is poorly reproducible, dependent on factors such as body composition and pubertal status, and further limited by significant variability among commercially available growth hormone assays. Measurement of insulin-like growth factor I and insulin-like growth factor-binding protein 3 is not diagnostically useful in isolation but is helpful in combination with other diagnostic measures. Neuroimaging is also useful to inform diagnosis, as pituitary abnormalities suggest a higher likelihood of GHD persisting into adulthood. Although genetic testing is not routinely performed in the diagnosis of GHD at the present time, multiple recent reports raise the possibility that it may play a more important role in diagnosing GHD in the future.
Summary: Beyond physicians’ integrated assessment of auxology, clinical presentation, and bone age, current tools to diagnose GHD are suboptimal. Recent literature emphasizes the need to reappraise our current practice and to consider new tools for diagnosis.