McCartney, Christopher R.

Abstract Background Central precocious puberty (CPP), which is traditionally defined as the development of secondary sexual characteristics before age 8 years in girls and age 9 years in boys, results from the premature activation of the hypothalamic–pituitary–gonadal (HPG) axis. CPP can be associated with short adult stature, adverse psychosocial outcomes, and increased cardiometabolic and cancer risks in adulthood. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists can effectively suppress premature activation of the HPG axis and have the potential to increase adult height as well as improve psychosocial and long-term health outcomes among patients with CPP. However, as secular trends have continued to shift toward earlier age of pubertal onset, some subpopulations of children with CPP, as it is currently defined, may not require the same extent of diagnostic evaluation and treatment. Objective Develop evidence-based recommendations related to the diagnosis and treatment of CPP. Methods A multidisciplinary panel of clinical experts, along with experts in guideline methodology and systematic literature review, used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to address 10 clinical questions related to the diagnosis and treatment of CPP. Systematic reviews of health-related benefits and harms were conducted for each clinical question. The guideline development panel (GDP) also used the GRADE evidence-to-decision (EtD) framework to address stakeholder values and preferences, costs and required resources, cost-effectiveness, acceptability, feasibility, and potential impacts on health equity. Results In girls with thelarche (Tanner stage B2) between ages 7.0 and 8.0 years, the GDP suggests watchful waiting via periodic physical examinations (every 4-6 months) rather than immediately performing evaluation with laboratory testing or radiologic imaging. In addition, the GDP suggests that all girls with breast development (ie, Tanner stage B2) before age 7 years should first be observed for 4 to 6 months to differentiate unsustained or slowly progressive puberty vs rapidly progressive puberty. These recommendations are largely based on evidence that girls with slowly progressive puberty attain a normal adult height without treatment. When hormonal evaluation is performed to confirm central (GnRH-dependent) activation as the cause of precocious puberty, the GDP suggests starting the evaluation with ultrasensitive basal luteinizing hormone (LH) concentration rather than routine GnRH/GnRH agonist (GnRHa) stimulation testing for all patients. While brain magnetic resonance imaging has been a traditional part of CPP evaluation, the GDP suggests that it should not be routinely performed in girls ages 6.0 to 8.0 years and boys ages 8.0 to 9.0 years without central nervous system (eg, neuro-ophthalmologic) symptoms, largely based on a low prevalence of pathologic intracranial findings in these age groups. The GDP suggests against routine genetic testing for patients with CPP, although they judged that genetic testing (eg, MKRN3 sequencing) should be considered for patients with familial CPP through a shared decision-making process. The GDP suggests GnRHa treatment for many children with CPP, although available evidence suggests that some patient subgroups (eg, older girls with slowly progressive CPP) may be less likely to receive a net benefit with this treatment. Rather than always starting GnRHa treatment with a monthly injectable formulation, the GDP suggests that treatment should be initiated with the formulation (such as a longer-acting formulation) that is anticipated to be used long-term. The GDP suggests against routine addition of growth hormone therapy to increase adult height. They also suggest against the routine biochemical testing (eg, LH, sex steroids) to monitor pubertal suppression while receiving GnRHa, instead reserving biochemical testing to confirm clinically suspected treatment failure. Finally, the GDP suggests against routinely continuing GnRHa treatment beyond chronologic age 10.0 to 11.0 years (girls) or 11.0 to 12.0 years (boys) and/or bone age 11.0 to 12.0 years (girls) or 12.0 to 13.0 years (boys). Conclusion These clinical recommendations were developed to address important uncertainties in the diagnosis and treatment of children with CPP. They are based on the best available scientific evidence regarding clinical outcomes judged to be most important to patients and families. The GDP's overarching goal was to suggest diagnostic and therapeutic strategies that will most likely provide net clinical benefits while simultaneously considering important contextual factors such as cost and feasibility. The guideline-development process highlighted important knowledge gaps and the substantial need for additional research.

Abstract Disclosure: D. Segura Torres: None. K. Raygoza: None. M. Garcia: None. J.P. Brito: None. M.E. McDonnell: None. M. Corrigan: None. C.R. McCartney: None. R. Dhaliwal: None. N.M. Singh Ospina: None. Clinical practice guidelines (CPG) improve healthcare quality by guiding decision making. Recent trends in CPG development emphasize incorporating race/ethnicity terms and health equity considerations. However, the appropriateness of how race/ethnicity is utilized remains uncertain. Objective This study seeks to evaluate the use of race/ethnicity in published Endocrine Society (ES) CPG and elucidate the context in which race and ethnicity terms are used. Methods: We identified 30 active clinical practice guidelines from ES up to January 2023. Two reviewers independently and in duplicate: a) located statements addressing race/ethnicity using an electronic search with 24 keywords, b) determined the statements' location within guidelines, and c) classified them based on content using frameworks by Cerdena and Gilliam. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. Exclusions were made for statements not addressing race and ethnicity terms in the appropriate context (e.g., “minority” of the panel disagreed), as well as for those in references or duplicates. Results: We reviewed 30 clinical practice guidelines, with 19 of them containing statements related to race or ethnicity. After applying exclusion criteria, we identified a final analytic sample of 114 statements. The majority of these statements were found in the body of the clinical guidelines (79%), followed by the evidence-to-decision framework (14%), and clinical recommendations (7%).The predominant classification were statements in which there was biologization of race/ethnicity 55% (n=63). Discussions on racial/ethnic disparities accounted for 23% (n=26) of the statements, with 31% (n=8) of these including explicit considerations of social context. Additionally, there were descriptions of race-specific treatment or diagnosis/screening in 14% (n=16) and 9% (n=10) of the statements, respectively.Less commonly statements of race/ethnicity reflected the consideration of ancestry as a code for race/ethnicity (n=7, 6%), identified ancestry as a risk factor for disease (n=19, 6%), highlighted racial/ethnic groups as understudied n=6, 5%), normalized findings to the majority group (White centeredness) (n=7, 6%), and other categories (7%). None of the statements employed race/ethnicity terms to emphasize cultural humility or the value of inclusivity in guideline committees. Conclusion: We systematically analyzed how race and ethnicity terms are used in ES CPGs. Our findings align with prior assessments made in non-ES CPG, highlighting the prevalent biologization of race and ethnicity constructs. Addressing this trend and incorporating socio-structural context considerations could bolster the impact of clinical guidelines in promoting health equity. Presentation: 6/1/2024

Abstract Vitamin D plays a critical role in many physiological functions, including calcium metabolism and musculoskeletal health. This commentary aims to explore the intricate relationships among skin complexion, race, and 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) levels, focusing on challenges the Endocrine Society encountered during clinical practice guideline development. Given that increased melanin content reduces 25(OH)D production in the skin in response to UV light, the guideline development panel addressed the potential role for 25(OH)D screening in individuals with dark skin complexion. The panel discovered that no randomized clinical trials have directly assessed vitamin D related patient-important outcomes based on participants' skin pigmentation, although race and ethnicity often served as presumed proxies for skin pigmentation in the literature. In their deliberations, guideline panel members and selected Endocrine Society leaders underscored the critical need to distinguish between skin pigmentation as a biological variable and race and ethnicity as socially determined constructs. This differentiation is vital to maximize scientific rigor and, thus, the validity of resulting recommendations. Lessons learned from the guideline development process emphasize the necessity of clarity when incorporating race and ethnicity into clinical guidelines. Such clarity is an essential step toward improving health outcomes and ensuring equitable healthcare practices.

Abstract Background Numerous studies demonstrate associations between serum concentrations of 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) and a variety of common disorders, including musculoskeletal, metabolic, cardiovascular, malignant, autoimmune, and infectious diseases. Although a causal link between serum 25(OH)D concentrations and many disorders has not been clearly established, these associations have led to widespread supplementation with vitamin D and increased laboratory testing for 25(OH)D in the general population. The benefit-risk ratio of this increase in vitamin D use is not clear, and the optimal vitamin D intake and the role of testing for 25(OH)D for disease prevention remain uncertain. Objective To develop clinical guidelines for the use of vitamin D (cholecalciferol [vitamin D3] or ergocalciferol [vitamin D2]) to lower the risk of disease in individuals without established indications for vitamin D treatment or 25(OH)D testing. Methods A multidisciplinary panel of clinical experts, along with experts in guideline methodology and systematic literature review, identified and prioritized 14 clinically relevant questions related to the use of vitamin D and 25(OH)D testing to lower the risk of disease. The panel prioritized randomized placebo-controlled trials in general populations (without an established indication for vitamin D treatment or 25[OH]D testing), evaluating the effects of empiric vitamin D administration throughout the lifespan, as well as in select conditions (pregnancy and prediabetes). The panel defined “empiric supplementation” as vitamin D intake that (a) exceeds the Dietary Reference Intakes (DRI) and (b) is implemented without testing for 25(OH)D. Systematic reviews queried electronic databases for publications related to these 14 clinical questions. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence and guide recommendations. The approach incorporated perspectives from a patient representative and considered patient values, costs and resources required, acceptability and feasibility, and impact on health equity of the proposed recommendations. The process to develop this clinical guideline did not use a risk assessment framework and was not designed to replace current DRI for vitamin D. Results The panel suggests empiric vitamin D supplementation for children and adolescents aged 1 to 18 years to prevent nutritional rickets and because of its potential to lower the risk of respiratory tract infections; for those aged 75 years and older because of its potential to lower the risk of mortality; for those who are pregnant because of its potential to lower the risk of preeclampsia, intra-uterine mortality, preterm birth, small-for-gestational-age birth, and neonatal mortality; and for those with high-risk prediabetes because of its potential to reduce progression to diabetes. Because the vitamin D doses in the included clinical trials varied considerably and many trial participants were allowed to continue their own vitamin D–containing supplements, the optimal doses for empiric vitamin D supplementation remain unclear for the populations considered. For nonpregnant people older than 50 years for whom vitamin D is indicated, the panel suggests supplementation via daily administration of vitamin D, rather than intermittent use of high doses. The panel suggests against empiric vitamin D supplementation above the current DRI to lower the risk of disease in healthy adults younger than 75 years. No clinical trial evidence was found to support routine screening for 25(OH)D in the general population, nor in those with obesity or dark complexion, and there was no clear evidence defining the optimal target level of 25(OH)D required for disease prevention in the populations considered; thus, the panel suggests against routine 25(OH)D testing in all populations considered. The panel judged that, in most situations, empiric vitamin D supplementation is inexpensive, feasible, acceptable to both healthy individuals and health care professionals, and has no negative effect on health equity. Conclusion The panel suggests empiric vitamin D for those aged 1 to 18 years and adults over 75 years of age, those who are pregnant, and those with high-risk prediabetes. Due to the scarcity of natural food sources rich in vitamin D, empiric supplementation can be achieved through a combination of fortified foods and supplements that contain vitamin D. Based on the absence of supportive clinical trial evidence, the panel suggests against routine 25(OH)D testing in the absence of established indications. These recommendations are not meant to replace the current DRIs for vitamin D, nor do they apply to people with established indications for vitamin D treatment or 25(OH)D testing. Further research is needed to determine optimal 25(OH)D levels for specific health benefits.

Abstract In an effort to enhance the trustworthiness of its clinical practice guidelines, the Endocrine Society has recently adopted new policies and more rigorous methodologies for its guideline program. In this Clinical Practice Guideline Communication, we describe these recent enhancements—many of which reflect greater adherence to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to guideline development—in addition to the rationale for such changes. Improvements to the Society’s guideline development practices include, but are not limited to, enhanced inclusion of nonendocrinologist experts, including patient representatives, on guideline development panels; implementation of a more rigorous conflict/duality of interest policy; a requirement that all formal recommendations must be demonstrably underpinned by systematic evidence review; the explicit use of GRADE Evidence-to-Decision frameworks; greater use and explanation of standardized guideline language; and a more intentional approach to guideline updating. Lastly, we describe some of the experiential differences our guideline readers are most likely to notice.