Increasing education among providers and African American Muslims about Islamic perspectives on breastfeeding may improve breastfeeding exclusivity and duration. Healthcare providers who care for Muslim women should be aware of Islam's tradition of positive attitudes toward breastfeeding and partner with Muslim leaders to improve breastfeeding rates and duration among such women.
Objectives Provocative growth hormone (GH) tests are widely used for diagnosing pediatric GH deficiency (GHD). A thorough understanding of the evidence behind commonly used interpretations and the limitations of these tests is important for improving clinical practice. Content To place current practice into a historical context, the supporting evidence behind the use of provocative GH tests is presented. By reviewing GH measurement techniques and examining the early data supporting the most common tests and later studies that compared provocative agents to establish reference ranges, the low sensitivity and specificity of these tests become readily apparent. Studies that assess the effects of patient factors, such as obesity and sex steroids, on GH testing further bring the appropriateness of commonly used cutoffs for diagnosing GHD into question. Summary and Outlook Despite the widely recognized poor performance of provocative GH tests in distinguishing GH sufficiency from deficiency, limited progress has been made in improving them. New diagnostic modalities are needed, but until they become available, clinicians can improve the clinical application of provocative GH tests by taking into account the multiple factors that influence their results.
Introduction: Males are twice as likely as females to receive pediatric growth hormone (GH) treatment in the United States, despite similar distributions of height z-scores in both sexes. Male predominance in evaluation and subspecialty referral for short stature contributes to this observation. This study investigates whether sex differences in GH stimulation testing and subsequent GH prescription further contribute to male predominance in GH treatment. Methods: Retrospective chart review was conducted of all individuals, age 2-16 years, evaluated for short stature or poor growth at a single large tertiary referral center between 2012-2019. Multiple logistic regression models were constructed to analyze sex differences. Results: Of 10,125 children referred for evaluation, a smaller proportion were female (35%). More males (13.1%) than females (10.6%) underwent GH stimulation testing (p<0.001) and did so at heights closer to average (median height z-score -2.2 [interquartile range (IQR) -2.6, -1.8] vs. -2.5 [IQR -3.0,-2.0], respectively; p<0.001). The proportion of GH prescriptions by sex was similar by stimulated peak GH level. Predictor variables in regression modeling differed by sex: commercial insurance predicted GH stimulation testing and GH prescription for males only, whereas lower height z-score predicted GH prescription for females only. Conclusions: Sex differences in rates of GH stimulation testing, but not subsequent GH prescription based on response to GH stimulation testing, seem to contribute to male predominance in pediatric GH treatment. That height z-score predicted GH prescription in females but not males raises questions about the extent to which sex bias—from children, parents and/or physicians—, as opposed to objective growth data, influence medical decision-making in the evaluation and treatment of short stature.
There is an ongoing need to determine best practices for effective transition from pediatric to adult care for adolescents and emerging adults (EAs) with type 1 diabetes given the potential for poor health outcomes post-transfer. This study evaluated self-reported confidence ratings as measured by the Readiness of Emerging Adults with Diabetes Diagnosed in Youth (READDY) tool among adolescents and EAs with type 1 diabetes and the association of the confidence ratings with clinical and demographic characteristics, as well as provider documentation of relevant anticipatory guidance topics. The READDY is a diabetes-specific tool used to collect patient-reported confidence in transition preparation topics to target educational interventions. These interventions are divided into four domains: Diabetes Knowledge, Health System Navigation, Insulin Self-Management, and Health Behaviors. A retrospective chart review was conducted of patients 15–24 years of age with type 1 diabetes who completed the READDY between January 2017 and January 2018 at a single center. Overall patient-reported confidence levels were high. However, adolescents and EAs endorsed their lowest levels of confidence on items assessing knowledge of alcohol, tobacco, sexual health, and the impact of diabetes on pregnancy (females only), with the percentages of low scores of 20.7, 25.9, 35.9, and 42.9%, respectively. Documentation of provider counseling about screening and prevention of diabetes comorbidities, alcohol use, and tobacco use was associated with scores in the higher range for the corresponding item in the READDY. These findings highlight an opportunity to create interventions related to developmentally important topics for adolescents and EAs with type 1 diabetes to enhance successful transition preparation.
Noninvasive prenatal screening (NIPS) with predicted fetal sex chromosomes included in the results has become increasingly available for pregnant individuals. Predicted fetal sex chromosome results from NIPS are interpreted so as to equate sex chromosomes with sex and gender. As pediatric endocrinologists, we worry about how this use of NIPS harmfully reinforces sex and gender binaries and sets potentially inaccurate assumptions about what the identified chromosomes mean. We use a hypothetical case based on our clinical experience in which the NIPS report of fetal sex does not conform to expectations at birth to highlight ethical concerns surrounding this practice. The use of NIPS for fetal sex chromosome prediction has the potential to perpetuate stigma and bring psychological harm to parents and their future children, particularly those who are intersex, transgender, and gender diverse. The medical community should adopt an approach to the use of NIPS for fetal sex chromosome prediction that recognizes the spectrums of sex and gender to avoid reproducing stigma towards sex‐ and gender‐diverse individuals and associated harms.
Introduction: Growth hormone (GH) registries demonstrate that males outnumber females 2:1 for all indications combined and 3:1 for the idiopathic short stature indication. The aim of this study was to determine if gender disparities in GH treatment are due to differences in rates of stimulation testing and/or GH prescribing. Methods: Retrospective chart review was performed including children aged 2-16 years seen for short stature or poor growth in 2012-2019 at a large tertiary referral center. Children previously diagnosed with GHD were excluded. Continuous variables, reported as medians [IQR], were compared by Wilcoxon rank sum test and categorical variables by Chi-squared test. A two-tailed p-value <0.05 defined statistical significance. Results: Of 10,125 children seen for evaluation of short stature or poor growth (35% [3542] females [F], 65% [6583] males [M]), 1,245 underwent GH stimulation testing (30% [379] F, 70% [866] M). A larger proportion of males than females were tested (M 13.2%, F 10.7%; p <0.001). Amongst the entire study population, females had lower height Z-scores than males (F -1.98 [-2.46, -1.44], M -1.80 [-2.24, -1.31]; p<0.001). This difference persisted in those who proceeded to GH stimulation testing (F -2.52 [-3.00, -2.04], M -2.18 [-2.6, -1.81]; p<0.001) and GH treatment (F -2.62 [-3.11, -2.07], M -2.19 [-2.60, -1.81; p<0.001). Mean difference between height Z-score and mid-parental height (MPH) Z-score for the entire population did not differ by sex (F -1.52 [-2.17, -0.87], M -1.52 [-2.04, -0.97]; p=0.76), but the difference was greater in females among those who underwent GH stimulation testing (F -1.95 [-2.57, -1.40], M -1.79 [-2.32, -1.32]; p=0.009) and started GH treatment (F -1.93 [-2.58, -1.48], M -1.80 [-2.30, -1.32]; p=0.016). Peak stimulated GH levels were similar for males and females (F 9.6 [6.0, 13.6] ng/mL, M 9.4 [6.1, 13.2] ng/mL, p=0.62). The proportion of children prescribed GH after stimulation testing did not differ by gender (F 55% [208], M 56% [488]; p=0.63). This finding did not change upon sub-analysis by peak stimulated GH concentration groups (peak GH concentrations <7 ng/mL, 7-10 ng/mL, and >10 ng/mL). Conclusion: The male predominance among children seen for subspecialist evaluation of short stature was compounded by a greater proportion of those males subsequently undergoing GH stimulation testing despite less severe short stature. Although females who underwent GH stimulation testing had greater height deficit from their genetic potential than tested males, peak stimulated GH concentrations and GH prescription rates were similar by sex. Thus, gender disparities in GH treatment occur at the subspecialist referral and stimulation testing, but not GH prescription, steps. Further, GH stimulation test results failed to account for the more severe shortness among tested females, yet another limitation identified with such testing.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.