Article Contents
Clin Exp Pediatr > Volume 68(6); 2025 |
|
Study | Country | Sample Size | Follow-up duration | MPS subtype | Age of participants | Gender (female %) | Administration of rhGH | Growth parameters measured | Key Findings: Summary of the main results related to growth parameters |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Vellodi 1997 [21] | UK | 38 | Up to 15 yr | MPS I | At the time of the 1st HSCT: 19.6 mo | 50% | No | Height | In most patients, linear growth has been maintained for some years and is now approaching the 50th percentile. This is accounted for almost entirely by the sitting height, reflecting poor spinal growth. |
Head circumference | At the time of BMT, macrocephaly was observed in all except 2 patients. | ||||||||
Post-BMT, growth was slowing down or arrested in all cases. | |||||||||
Sexual development | Of the 5 patients who are of pubertal age, 2 have been investigated for delayed puberty and have been found to have primary ovarian failure, presumably related to chemotherapy. | ||||||||
One patient has sexual infantilism. | |||||||||
The other 2 are thought clinically to be developing normally. | |||||||||
Vellodi 1992 [25] | UK | 2 | Up to 10 yr | MPS IIIB | At the time of diagnosis: 18 mo | 100% | No | Height | Both patients experienced a fall in growth velocity, fluctuating between the 3rd and 25th percentiles during childhood. By age 10, their growth velocity had exceeded the 50th percentile. |
Sexual development | Twin 1 has had normal breast development, and her periods commenced at age 10, whereas twin 2 has not had any periods so far, has no pubic hair, and has only stage 2 breast development. | ||||||||
Polgreen 2008 [16] | USA | 48 | Mean:6.9 yr | MPS IH | Mean at the time of HSCT: 1.7 yr | 42% | In 2 patients | Height (based on CDC charts) | Short stature was positively associated with greater age at HSCT (P=0.002) and TBI (P=0.009). |
The growth patterns for both genders demonstrated a progressive falling behind. Pre-HSCT mean height was -0.1±1.5 SDS; short stature was present in 9% of patients (n=4 of 44). By 10 years of age, mean height decreased to -3.2±1.6 | |||||||||
SDS, and the short stature prevalence increased to 87% (n=13 of 15). | |||||||||
Polgreen 2014 [26] | USA | 23 | Mean: 1.7 yr (range, 1.0–2.3) | overall | Height (based on CDC charts) | Of the individuals treated with hGH, those with GHD had a trend towards higher annualized growth velocity compared to those without GHD (6.5±1.9 vs. 3.5±2.1; P=0.050). | |||
MPS IH | Mean: 9.8±3.1 yr | 54% | In 6 patients | Height | No participant with MPS IH had an annual increase in height SDS. There was no difference in age or duration of GH treatment between those with an annual increase in height SDS and those without an annual increase in height SDS. | ||||
MPS II | Mean: 12.0±2.7 yr | 0% | In 4 patients | Height | Participants with MPSII treated with GH compared to 3 (50%) not treated with GH had an annual increase in height SDS. | ||||
Polgreen 2009 [28] | USA | 8 | N/A | MPS IH | At the start of GH: 9.6±2.3 yr (range, 6–13.2) | 50% | All patients | BMI | At baseline, the patient's BMI was 20.5±3.4 kg/m2 (range, 15.9–24.3 kg/m2), which remained in the normal range throughout treatment. |
Sexual development | Three children were pubertal at the time of initiation of GH, and 2 children started puberty during treatment with GH. | ||||||||
Height | Baseline height SDS was -3.9±1.6 SDS (range, -6.2 to -1.3 SDS). Height SDS remained stable after 1 yr of GH therapy. | ||||||||
Baseline growth velocity in GH-treated children was 3.5±1.5 cm/yr (-2.6±1.9 SDS; range, 1.2–6.1 cm/yr), and it increased to 5.2±3.0 cm/yr (-0.1±3.6 SDS; range, 1.8–9.8 cm/yr) after 1 year of treatment. Growth velocity increased by ≥2 cm/yr in 4 patients (50%). | |||||||||
Aldenhoven 2015 [24] | Europe/multicenter | 217 | Median: 9.2 yr | MPS IH | Median at the time of HSCT:16 mo (range, 2-47) | 44% | None | Height (based on WHO charts) | Longitudinal height was significantly affected post-HSCT, deviating from the reference curves, particularly after 10 yr of age, in both sexes. Sitting height predominantly contributes to short stature, with relative leg length and arm span sparing. |
Head circumference | Head circumference appears to normalize over time in most transplanted patients. | ||||||||
Patel 2014 [17] | Japan | 44 | Up to 16–18 yr | MPS II | Mean age at HSCT: 4.68±1.63 yr | 0% | N/A | Height | HSCT-treated patients from 10 to 18 yr of age showed significantly better growth than untreated patients, with treated children being 20 cm taller on the last evaluation. |
Weight | Weight gain was comparable between ERT and HSCT-treated patients up to 10 yr of age, but untreated patients showed slower weight gain after 10 yr. | ||||||||
Maier 2023 [22] | Germany | 14 | 8.1 yr (range 0.1–16.0) | MPS I | Mean at HSCT: 1.72 yr (range, 0.81–3.08) | 57% | N/A | Height | Mean body length SDS was 1.61 (range, 4.58–3.29), and mean sitting height SDS was 3.28 (range, 7.37–0.26), with the mean leg length SDS of 1.64 (range, 3.88–1.49). |
Age at HSCT has a statistically significant effect on body length and sitting height, especially when SDS values were worse when patients were older than 2 yr at HSCT. | |||||||||
Head circumference | Head circumference SDS was greater in infancy (mean SDS: 0.91; range, 2.52–6.09) and approached the reference group with increasing age with a mean of 0.91 (range, -2.52 to 6.09). | ||||||||
Miller 2023 [18] | USA - Canada | 55 | N/A | Overall | 29% | 14 Patients | Height (based on CDC charts) | Height z score decreased over time in all MPS groups by 0.1 to 0.2 each year (all P≤0.001). | |
There was no significant difference in within-individual change in height z score over time in those treated with rhGH versus those not treated. | |||||||||
MPS IH (n=23) | 9.3±3.5 years | 52% | 8 Patients | Height | Adult height: 136.7±8.9 cm (123.4–147.4 cm) | ||||
All participants had short stature at their adult height. | |||||||||
BMI | Median BMI percentile was 91.5% and ranged from 2.2% to 98.5% | ||||||||
The prevalence of BMI >30 was 33%, and for BMI 25-30 was 40%. | |||||||||
MPS VI (n=9) | 14.4±5.2 yr | 33% | 2 Patients | Height | Adult height: 127.7±15.4 cm (108.3–146.0 cm) | ||||
All participants had short stature at their adult height. | |||||||||
BMI | BMI z score increased slowly over time in MPS VI (β=0.05; 95% CI, 0.02–0.07; P<0.001) | ||||||||
Median BMI percentile of 74.8% and range of 5.6% to 97.0%. | |||||||||
Lund 2020 [23] | USA | 19 | Up to 9 yr | Overall | 9.7±4.2 yr (range, 5.0-16.5) | 42% | N/A | Height (based on CDC charts) | Height SDS in all MPSI patients was -2.3±1.1 (range, -4.2 to -0.7). |
Sexual development | Males: Reached Tanner stage 2 at a mean age of 12.6±2.5 yr (range, 9.1–16.7 yr). | ||||||||
Females: Reached Tanner stage 2 at a mean age of 10.4±1.6 yr (range, 9.0–12.2 yr). | |||||||||
MPS IH (n=14) | Mean 8.0±2.9 yr (range, 5.0–12.4) | 50% | Height (based on CDC charts) | Height z score: -2.4±1.2 (range, -4.2 to -0.7). | |||||
Mean at HSCT: 1.3±0.7 yr (range,0.2–2.5) | BMI | BMI z score: 0.7±0.9 (range, -0.5 to 1.9). | |||||||
Gardner 2011 [19] | UK | 22 | 12.2 yr (range, 6.2–21.6) | MPS IH | Mean at HSCT: 1.3 yr (range, 0.6–3.2) | 32% | N/A | Height (based on UK 1990 standards) | Height z score was -4.3 in boys and -3.4 in girls. |
All patients had a final height < -2SD and showed a gradual deceleration of all growth parameters with age. | |||||||||
The median male final height was 137.5 cm (132, 138.5), and the median female final height was 143.1 cm (129, 145.8). | |||||||||
Weight | BMI declined over time from a median SDS of +2.2 two yr posttransplant to -0.04 ten yr posttransplant. | ||||||||
Cattoni 2019 [27] | Italy | 4 | MPS IH (n=2) | 6.7 and 6.4 yr at the time of HSCT | 100% | 2 Patients | Height | In patient 1, height velocity increased to 4.3 cm/yr (-2.11 SDS) after 6 mo and 5.2 cm/yr (-0.60 SDS) after 12 mo of GH therapy. Height SDS improved slightly from -3.57 to -3.42 after 12 mo of treatment. | |
In another patient, height velocity increased from 2.96 cm/yr (-3.44 SDS) to 9.97 cm/yr (+4.56 SDS) at 6 mo and 6.99 cm/yr (+1.21 SDS) at 12 mo of GH therapy. | |||||||||
Cattoni 2021 [20] | Italy | 15 | At least 60 mo post-HSCT | MPS IH | Mean at HSCT: 1.81±0.8 yr (range, 0.71–3.54) | 73.30% | N/A | Height (based on WHO growth charts) | Before HSCT, median height SDS was -1.19 SDS (range, -4.13 to +1.17), and after HSCT it dropped to -2.32 SDS by 5-yr posttransplant. |
Compared to untreated MPS IH patients, there was a statistically significant increase in height SDS from -0.39 SDS to +1.35 SDS. | |||||||||
14 out of 14 patients showed a remarkable increase in height SDS at 9 yr of age (mean +3.67±1.63 SDS compared to untreated patients). | |||||||||
Height velocity showed a remarkable acceleration after HSCT (mean height velocity at 2 yr of age: -0.84±1.79 SDS vs. -2.49±2.24 SDS at HSCT). Despite a reduction after 2 yr post-HSCT, height velocity remained above baseline levels throughout the follow-up period. | |||||||||
7 Patients had attained their final height, with 6 presenting with short stature (height < -2 SDS). |
Summary of growth and development parameters across various studies of mucopolysaccharidosis highlighting study demographics, follow-up duration, growth hormone administration, and key findings related to growth and sexual development.
BMI, body mass index; MPS, mucopolysaccharidosis; rhGH, recombinant human growth hormone; HSCT, hematopoietic stem cell transplantation; BMT, bone marrow transplantation; CDC, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; SDS, standard deviation score; N/A, not addressed; hGH, human growth hormone; MPS IH, MPS type IH; WHO, World Health Organization; CI, confidence interval; SD, standard deviation.
Study | Design | QA tool |
Score |
||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Selection (max 4 points) | Comparability (max 2 points) | Outcome (max 3 points) | Overall | ||||||||||
Aldenhoven 2015 [24] | 3 | 1 | 3 | Good | |||||||||
Cattoni 2021 [20] | NOS | NOS | 4 | 2 | 3 | Good | |||||||
Lund 2020 [23] | Cohort | NOS | 2 | 2 | 3 | Fair | |||||||
Miller 2023 [18] | Cohort | NOS | 3 | 1 | 3 | Good | |||||||
Patel 2014 [17] | Cohort | NOS | 2 | 1 | 3 | Fair | |||||||
Polgreen 2008 [16] | Cohort | NOS | 3 | 1 | 3 | Good | |||||||
Polgreen 2014 [26] | Cohort | NOS | 3 | 1 | 3 | Good | |||||||
Vellodi 1997 [21] | Cohort | NOS | 3 | 0 | 3 | Poor | |||||||
Study | Design | QA tool |
Score |
||||||||||
Clear inclusion criteria | Condition measured reliably | Valid condition identification | Consecutive inclusion of participants | Complete inclusion of participants | Demographics clearly reported | Clinical information reported | Outcomes clearly reported | clinic demographics reported | Proper statistical methods | Overall | |||
Cattoni 2019 [27] | Case series | JBI | ⊕ | ⊕ | ⊕ | ⊖ | ⊕ | ⊕ | ⊕ | ⊕ | ⊖ | ⊕ | 80% |
Gardner 2011 [19] | Case series | JBI | ⊕ | ⊕ | ⊕ | ⊕ | ⊕ | ⊕ | ⊕ | ⊕ | ⊖ | ⊕ | 90% |
Maier 2023 [22] | Case series | JBI | ⊕ | ⊕ | ⊕ | ⊖ | ⊕ | ⊕ | ⊕ | ⊕ | ⊖ | ⊕ | 80% |
Polgreen 2009 [28] | Case series | JBI | ⊕ | ⊕ | ⊕ | ⊖ | ⊕ | ⊕ | ⊕ | ⊕ | ⊖ | ⊕ | 80% |
Vellodi 1992 [25] | Case series | JBI | ⊕ | ⊕ | ⊕ | ⊖ | ⊕ | ⊕ | ⊕ | ⊖ | ⊖ | ⊕ | 70% |