Reduced CV risk with long-term GH replacement in AGHD: data from two large observational studies

Figures

• 

  Figure 1. Study design. At each follow-up year, GH-treated patients were compared to age- and sex-matched untreated patients from the control group (taken from baseline). GH, growth hormone; IOS, International Outcome Study.

• 

  Figure 2. Cross-sectional comparison of IGF-I SDS between GH-treated patients at a follow-up year vs matched (age and sex) control groups. Shown are the mean (noughts/crosses within the box), median (dash within the box), 25th/75th percentiles (box) and maximum overserved values (noughts and crosses above the box). GH, growth hormone; IGF-I, insulin-like growth factor-I; SDS, standard deviation score.

• 

  Figure 3. Cross-sectional comparison of Brunner score between GH-treated patients at a follow-up year vs matched (age and sex) control groups. Shown are the mean (noughts/crosses within the box), median (dash within the box), 25th/75th percentiles (box) and maximum overserved values (noughts and crosses above the box). GH, growth hormone.

• 

  Figure 4. The mean (95% CI) Brunner scores of GH-treated patients and matched control groups at Year 2 and Year 7. Statistical comparisons between GH-treated and matched control patients were assessed using a Welch–Satterthwaite t-test due to unequal variances (Year 2: P = 0.0105; Year 7: P = 0.0001). CI, confidence interval; GH, growth hormone.

• 

  Figure 5. Cross-sectional and longitudinal Brunner scores of GH-treated male and female patients. (A) Mean scores and (B) absolute change from baseline. Data are mean ± s.d. GH, growth hormone.

• 

  Figure 6. Non-HDL category (mmol/L) for GH-treated patients by follow-up year. (A) All patients, (B) females and (C) males. GH, growth hormone; HDL, high-density lipoprotein.