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 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 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.