Growth Hormone vs. IGF-1 Therapy: A Comprehensive Analysis of Long-Term Bone Density Outcomes

Abstract

This article provides a critical analysis for researchers and drug development professionals on the long-term efficacy of Growth Hormone (GH) and Insulin-like Growth Factor-1 (IGF-1) therapies in optimizing bone density. It explores the distinct and synergistic mechanisms of the GH/IGF-1 axis on bone formation and resorption, evaluates clinical methodologies for assessing bone quality and anabolic response, addresses challenges in patient stratification and treatment optimization, and compares clinical outcomes across different therapeutic contexts, including GH deficiency, osteoporosis, and fracture healing. The synthesis of recent meta-analyses, clinical trials, and preclinical data aims to inform future therapeutic strategies and clinical research directions.

Decoding the GH/IGF-1 Axis: Fundamental Mechanisms in Bone Metabolism and Density

The interplay between Growth Hormone (GH) and Insulin-like Growth Factor-1 (IGF-1) is a cornerstone of skeletal homeostasis, yet their distinct and overlapping functions in bone remodeling present a complex puzzle for researchers and therapeutic developers. This review systematically compares the direct versus indirect actions of GH and IGF-1, framing the analysis within the critical context of long-term bone density outcomes. By synthesizing contemporary preclinical and clinical evidence, detailing experimental methodologies, and visualizing key signaling pathways, this guide provides a foundational resource for advancing targeted anabolic therapies in bone health.

The GH-IGF-1 axis is a critical endocrine system regulating postnatal growth and lifelong bone metabolism. GH, secreted by the pituitary gland, stimulates IGF-1 production, primarily in the liver, creating a classic hormonal axis. However, the discovery that both hormones are also produced and act locally within bone tissue has complicated the understanding of their individual roles. The long-standing "somatomedin hypothesis," which positioned IGF-1 as the primary mediator of GH's effects, has been challenged and refined by evidence of GH's direct actions [1]. Untangling this intricate network is not merely an academic exercise; it is essential for developing next-generation therapeutics for osteoporosis, fracture repair, and other skeletal disorders, where the goal is to maximize anabolic outcomes while minimizing off-target effects.

The central question driving current research is: Which pathway—direct GH action, systemic endocrine IGF-1, or local paracrine/autocrine IGF-1—is most responsible for the anabolic effects on bone, and how can this knowledge be harnessed for superior clinical outcomes? This review deconstructs the distinct roles of GH and IGF-1 by examining their unique signaling mechanisms, their differential effects on bone cells in experimental models, and the resulting long-term impacts on bone mineral density (BMD) and microarchitecture.

Molecular Mechanisms: Signaling Pathways and Cellular Targets

GH and IGF-1 initiate their effects by binding to distinct cell surface receptors, activating separate but interacting intracellular signaling cascades that converge on the regulation of bone formation and resorption.

Growth Hormone (GH) Signaling

GH exerts its effects through both direct and indirect mechanisms. Its direct actions are initiated by binding to the transmembrane GH receptor (GHR), which is present on various bone cells, including osteoblast progenitors, chondrocytes, and osteoclasts [1].

• JAK-STAT Activation: The primary intracellular pathway for GH signaling is the JAK-STAT pathway. GHR binding activates the associated tyrosine kinase, JAK2, which in turn phosphorylates members of the STAT family, particularly STAT5b. Phosphorylated STATs dimerize and translocate to the nucleus, where they act as transcription factors for target genes, including IGF-1 [1]. This is a crucial link to indirect actions.
• Direct Cellular Effects: Preclinical studies indicate that GH has a direct mitogenic effect on osteoblast progenitors and prechondrocytes, promoting their differentiation and expansion. This "differentiation" action is distinct from the later "clonal expansion" stimulated by IGF-1 [1].

The following diagram illustrates the core signaling pathway of Growth Hormone:

Insulin-like Growth Factor-1 (IGF-1) Signaling

IGF-1 signaling is classically considered the downstream effector of GH, but it also operates through GH-independent mechanisms. IGF-1 can act in an endocrine manner (liver-derived) or an autocrine/paracrine manner (locally produced in bone) [2] [1].

• Receptor Binding: IGF-1 primarily signals through the IGF-1 Receptor (IGF-1R), a receptor tyrosine kinase.
• PI3K-AKT and MAPK Pathways: Ligand binding to IGF-1R activates two principal downstream pathways: the PI3K-AKT pathway, which is critical for cell survival, metabolism, and differentiation, and the MAPK/ERK pathway, which primarily drives cell proliferation and mitogenesis [1].
• Bioavailability Regulation: The activity of circulating IGF-1 is modulated by a family of IGF Binding Proteins (IGFBPs), with IGFBP-3 being the most abundant. These proteins create a reservoir of IGF-1, controlling its half-life and bioavailability to tissues [1].

The following diagram illustrates the core signaling pathway of IGF-1:

Comparative Analysis: Direct GH vs. IGF-1 Actions on Bone

While their signaling pathways can interact, GH and IGF-1 have distinct and non-overlapping roles in bone remodeling. The following table summarizes their primary characteristics and points of differentiation.

Table 1: Direct Comparison of GH and IGF-1 Actions in Bone Remodeling

Feature	Growth Hormone (GH)	Insulin-like Growth Factor-1 (IGF-1)
Primary Mode of Action	Mixed (Direct & Indirect)	Primarily Direct
Key Target Cells	Osteoblast progenitors, prechondrocytes [1]	Differentiated osteoblasts, osteocytes [1]
Primary Effect on Bone Cells	Stimulates differentiation of progenitor cells [1]	Stimulates proliferation and clonal expansion of mature cells [1]
Signaling Pathway	JAK-STAT [1]	PI3K-AKT & MAPK/ERK [1]
Relationship to Axis	Upstream initiator	Downstream mediator (endocrine & paracrine)
Impact on Bone Turnover	Increases both formation and resorption [2] [1]	Primarily increases bone formation [1]
Therapeutic Potential	Anabolic, but may be limited by resorptive effect	Targeted anabolic agent

The interplay between these hormones can be visualized as a coordinated sequence of events driving bone formation:

Experimental Models and Key Data

Understanding the distinct roles of GH and IGF-1 has been achieved through carefully designed experimental models that isolate their effects.

Key Experimental Models and Protocols

• Liver-Specific IGF-1 Knockout (LID) Models:

  • Objective: To dissect the endocrine (liver-derived) vs. autocrine/paracrine (local) actions of IGF-1.
  • Protocol: Generation of mice with a targeted disruption of the IGF-1 gene specifically in hepatocytes. These mice exhibit a ~75% reduction in circulating IGF-1 but normal levels of IGF-1 in other tissues [3].
  • Outcome Measurement: Comparison of bone growth, density (via DXA/pQCT), and microarchitecture (via μCT) between LID mice and controls. Studies show that LID mice have reduced bone size and density, demonstrating the significant role of circulating IGF-1 in determining peak bone mass [3].

• GH and IGF-1 Combination Therapy in Animal Models:

  • Objective: To test for synergistic effects between GH and IGF-1.
  • Protocol: Administration of recombinant GH, recombinant IGF-1, or a combination of both to hypophysectomized (GH-deficient) rats or other animal models. Doses are calibrated to match physiological levels.
  • Outcome Measurement: Analysis of longitudinal bone growth (tibial length), BMD, and bone formation markers (e.g., osteocalcin). Research indicates that co-administration has a synergistic effect on bone growth, greater than either hormone alone, confirming their non-redundant roles [1].

• Clinical Studies in Acromegaly and GH Deficiency:

  • Objective: To observe the long-term effects of GH/IGF-1 excess and deficiency in humans.
  • Protocol: Observational and interventional studies in patients with acromegaly (GH excess) or GH deficiency. Parameters include serum GH/IGF-1 levels, BMD by DXA, high-resolution peripheral quantitative CT (HR-pQCT) for microarchitecture, and fracture incidence.
  • Outcome Measurement: In acromegaly, patients display increased bone turnover but paradoxically have elevated fracture risk despite normal or high BMD, linked to microarchitectural deficits like increased cortical porosity [4] [2]. In GH deficiency, low bone turnover and reduced BMD are observed, which can be partially reversed with GH replacement therapy [2].

Quantitative Data Synthesis

The following table consolidates key quantitative findings from preclinical and clinical studies, highlighting the differential outcomes of GH and IGF-1 action.

Table 2: Comparative Experimental Data on GH and IGF-1 Effects on Bone Parameters

Parameter / Model	GH Effect	IGF-1 Effect	Synergistic Effect (GH+IGF-1)	Citation
Trabecular Bone Volume (in vivo)	Increases	Increases	Significantly greater increase than monotherapy	[1]
Osteoblast Progenitor Differentiation (in vitro)	Strong stimulation	Weak stimulation	Not applicable	[1]
Cortical Porosity (Human Acromegaly)	Significantly increases (due to high remodeling)	Associated effect	Not applicable	[4] [2]
Serum Bone Formation Marker (P1NP)	Increases	Increases	Additive or synergistic increase	[1]
Fracture Risk (Human Data)	Biphasic: Increased in acromegaly, decreased with GH replacement in GHD	Low serum IGF-1 associated with ~40% increased fracture risk	Not applicable	[2] [1]

The Researcher's Toolkit: Essential Reagents and Models

Table 3: Essential Research Tools for Investigating GH and IGF-1 in Bone

Tool / Reagent	Type	Primary Function in Research
Recombinant Human GH	Protein	To administer GH in vitro or in vivo to study direct effects and stimulation of IGF-1 production.
Recombinant Human IGF-1	Protein	To administer IGF-1 to isolate its effects from those of GH, particularly in GHR-deficient models.
IGF-1 Radioimmunoassay (RIA) / ELISA	Assay Kit	To quantitatively measure IGF-1 levels in serum, cell culture supernatant, or bone tissue extracts.
LID Mouse Model	Animal Model	To study the specific role of endocrine (liver-derived) IGF-1 independently from local IGF-1.
GHR Knockout (GHR-/-) Mouse	Animal Model	To study GH insensitivity and isolate the effects of IGF-1 in the complete absence of GH signaling.
HR-pQCT Scanner	Equipment	To non-invasively assess bone microarchitecture (trabecular number, separation, cortical porosity) in clinical and preclinical studies.
JAK2 and STAT5 Inhibitors	Small Molecule	To chemically block the GH signaling pathway and validate its role in cellular and animal models.

The dissection of GH and IGF-1 actions reveals a sophisticated, multi-level regulatory system for bone mass. GH acts as the initial trigger, directly promoting the commitment of mesenchymal progenitors to the osteoblast lineage. IGF-1, both systemically and locally produced, then acts as a potent amplifier, driving the proliferation and functional activity of these differentiated bone-forming cells. The clinical data underscores that long-term bone health depends on the delicate balance of this axis; both excess (acromegaly) and deficiency (GHD) lead to poor bone quality and increased fracture risk, despite very different BMD readings [4] [2].

The future of therapeutics lies in leveraging this nuanced understanding. Simply replacing GH or IGF-1 may not be optimal due to the mixed anabolic and resorptive effects of GH and the potential mitogenic risks of systemic IGF-1. Promising avenues include:

• Targeting IGFBP Activity: Developing modulators of IGFBPs to enhance the local bioavailability of IGF-1 within the bone microenvironment, potentially maximizing anabolic effects while minimizing systemic exposure.
• Biased Ligands for GHR: Designing GH receptor agonists that selectively activate beneficial signaling pathways (e.g., favoring STAT5 over other pathways) to optimize the anabolic response.
• Combination Therapies: Exploring sequential or low-dose combination therapies to harness the synergistic effects of GH and IGF-1 observed in preclinical models, potentially for severe osteoporosis or complex fracture healing.

In conclusion, the move beyond the simplistic view of a linear GH-IGF-1 axis is complete. The future of successful anabolic therapy for bone diseases depends on a precise, targeted manipulation of these two powerful hormones' distinct and collaborative actions.

The traditional somatomedin hypothesis posited that growth hormone (GH) acted primarily on the liver to produce insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1), which then circulated to bone tissues to promote growth in an endocrine manner. However, emerging evidence has refined this model into a dual-effector theory, recognizing that locally produced IGF-1 exerts critical autocrine/paracrine actions that are distinct from, and in some cases more important than, endocrine IGF-1 for skeletal development and homeostasis. This review comprehensively compares these two signaling paradigms within the context of bone biology, examining their molecular mechanisms, experimental evidence from genetic models, and implications for long-term bone density outcomes in therapeutic interventions.

The understanding of how IGF-1 regulates bone metabolism has undergone a significant evolution over the past several decades. The original somatomedin hypothesis, first proposed in the 1970s, established a linear endocrine pathway wherein pituitary-derived GH stimulated hepatic IGF-1 production, which then circulated systemically to promote skeletal growth at epiphyseal plates [5]. This model positioned IGF-1 primarily as an endocrine mediator of GH actions.

Challenges to this hypothesis emerged from multiple fronts. Seminal studies demonstrated that mice with liver-specific Igf-1 deletion (LiverIGF-I−/−) exhibited >75% reduction in circulating IGF-1 levels yet developed and grew normally with minimal skeletal abnormalities [6] [7]. This surprising finding suggested that local IGF-1 production could compensate for the loss of systemic IGF-1, prompting a fundamental reconsideration of IGF-1 biology. The subsequent dual-effector theory proposed that GH has both direct effects on peripheral tissues and stimulates local IGF-1 production that acts in autocrine/paracrine manners [5].

All major skeletal cell types, including chondrocytes, osteoblasts, osteocytes, and osteoclasts, express both IGF-1 and its receptor (IGF-1R), creating a complex network of local signaling interactions that operate alongside the traditional endocrine axis [6] [7]. This review systematically compares these two modes of IGF-1 signaling in bone, examining their relative contributions to skeletal development, homeostasis, and the long-term bone density outcomes associated with GH versus IGF-1-directed therapies.

Molecular Mechanisms and Signaling Pathways

Ligand-Receptor Interactions and Downstream Signaling

IGF-1 is a 70-amino acid polypeptide that binds to the IGF-1 receptor (IGF-1R) with approximately 100-fold higher affinity than insulin [6]. The IGF-1R is a tyrosine kinase receptor consisting of two α and two β subunits linked by disulfide bonds [6] [5]. Upon IGF-1 binding, the receptor undergoes autophosphorylation at tyrosine residues 1135, 1131, and 1136 in the kinase domain, initiating downstream signaling cascades [6] [8].

The activated IGF-1R recruits members of the insulin receptor substrate (IRS) family, primarily IRS-1 and IRS-2 in bone cells, which serve as docking proteins for various signaling molecules [6] [8]. This interaction triggers two principal signaling pathways:

• Ras-Raf-MEK-ERK-MAPK cascade: Through SH2 domain interactions, IGF-1R binds Grb2, which complexes with Sos to activate Ras GTPase, ultimately leading to ERK1/2 phosphorylation and translocation to the nucleus where it activates transcription factors promoting cell proliferation [6].
• PI3K-Akt-mTOR pathway: IGF-1R/IRS complex recruits and activates phosphatidylinositol 3 kinase (PI3K), which converts PIP2 to PIP3, leading to Akt phosphorylation and activation [6] [8]. Akt then phosphorylates multiple substrates including Bad (promoting cell survival), mTOR (regulating protein synthesis), and FoxO transcription factors (modulating oxidative stress responses) [8].

Table 1: Key Components of IGF-1 Signaling in Bone Cells

Signaling Component	Function in Bone	Cellular Expression
IGF-1R	Tyrosine kinase receptor for IGF-1	All skeletal cells
IRS-1	Mediates IGF-1R downstream signaling	Chondrocytes, osteoblasts
IRS-2	Mediates IGF-1R downstream signaling	Osteoblasts, osteoclasts
ERK1/2	Regulates cell proliferation	All skeletal cells
Akt	Promotes cell survival, metabolism	All skeletal cells
mTOR	Coordinates protein synthesis, differentiation	Osteoblasts, chondrocytes

Endocrine vs. Autocrine/Paracrine Signaling Modes

The fundamental distinction between endocrine and autocrine/paracrine IGF-1 signaling lies in their spatial organization and regulatory control:

Endocrine IGF-1 Signaling:

• Source: Primarily hepatic origin
• Regulation: GH-dependent
• Transport: Circulates bound to IGF-binding proteins (IGFBPs), primarily IGFBP-3 and acid-labile subunit (ALS) forming a ternary complex
• Function: Systemic regulation of growth, mediates GH actions on skeleton

Autocrine/Paracrine IGF-1 Signaling:

• Source: Produced locally by skeletal cells
• Regulation: Influenced by multiple factors including mechanical loading, PTH, and local growth factors
• Action: Acts locally on producing cell (autocrine) or neighboring cells (paracrine)
• Function: Direct control of bone cell proliferation, differentiation, survival; mediation of mechanotransduction

The revised somatomedin hypothesis incorporates both pathways, acknowledging that GH stimulates both hepatic IGF-1 production (endocrine) and local IGF-1 production in target tissues (autocrine/paracrine), while also accounting for GH-independent effects of IGF-1 during embryonic and early postnatal development [5].

Figure 1: The Revised Somatomedin Hypothesis. This diagram illustrates the dual effector model incorporating both endocrine IGF-1 from the liver and autocrine/paracrine IGF-1 produced locally in bone tissue, with GH stimulating both pathways while also having direct actions on bone.

Experimental Evidence and Comparative Analysis

Genetic Mouse Models: Defining Distinct Roles

Key insights into the relative importance of endocrine versus autocrine/paracrine IGF-1 signaling have come from tissue-specific gene knockout models:

Global IGF-1 and IGF-1R Knockouts:

• Global IGF-1 KO mice exhibit severe growth retardation evident by embryonic day 13.5, with smaller skeletons and delayed mineralization [6] [7].
• Most global IGF-1 KO mice die perinatally, but survivors show continued post-natal growth retardation [6].
• Global IGF-1R KO mice display more severe phenotypes than IGF-1 KO, and double KO mice phenocopy IGF-1R KO mice [6] [7].

Liver-Specific IGF-1 Knockouts:

• LiverIGF-I−/− mice show >75% reduction in circulating IGF-1 levels but develop normally with minimal skeletal defects [6] [7].
• These findings demonstrated that local IGF-1 production can compensate for loss of endocrine IGF-1.

Cartilage-Specific IGF-1R Knockouts:

• Cartilage-specific IGF-1R KO (cartIGF-IR−/−) mice display less severe phenotypes than global KO, with body weights ≈90% of wild-type at birth [6].
• These mice die perinatally with severe chondrocyte defects including reduced proliferation, delayed differentiation/hypertrophy, and increased apoptosis [6] [8].
• Tamoxifen-inducible cartilage-specific KO models for post-natal studies show significant reductions in growth plate chondrocyte proliferation and differentiation [6].

Osteoblast-Specific IGF-1R Knockouts:

• Impaired osteoblast function leads to reduced bone formation and mineralization.
• Demonstrates requirement for autocrine/paracrine IGF-1 signaling in bone formation.

Table 2: Skeletal Phenotypes of Genetic Mouse Models

Genetic Model	Circulating IGF-1	Local IGF-1 Signaling	Skeletal Phenotype	Viability
Global IGF-1 KO	Severely reduced	Disrupted in all tissues	Severe growth retardation, delayed mineralization, reduced proliferation, increased apoptosis	Most die perinatally
Liver-specific IGF-1 KO	<25% of normal	Intact	Normal development, minimal skeletal defects	Normal
Cartilage-specific IGF-1R KO	Normal	Disrupted in chondrocytes	Reduced chondrocyte proliferation, delayed differentiation, increased apoptosis	Perinatal lethality
Tamoxifen-inducible cartilage KO	Normal	Postnatal disruption in chondrocytes	Reduced growth plate activity, impaired longitudinal growth	Viable with growth defects

In Vitro Studies: Elucidating Cellular Mechanisms

Cell culture studies have provided detailed mechanistic insights into how IGF-1 signaling regulates bone cell functions:

Chondrocyte Studies:

• IGF-1 promotes chondrocyte proliferation, hypertrophy, and survival in growth plate cartilage [6] [8].
• Interaction between IGF-1 and 1α,25(OH)2D3 (active vitamin D) shows mutual upregulation of their respective receptors in growth plate chondrocytes [9].
• Combined treatment with IGF-1 and 1α,25(OH)2D3 has additive effects on chondrocyte proliferation and colony formation [9].

Osteoblast Studies:

• IGF-1 stimulates osteoblast proliferation, differentiation, and bone matrix production.
• Differential expression of IGF-1 splicing variants during osteoblast differentiation suggests isoform-specific functions [5].
• Osteoblasts from high bone mass mouse strains (C3H/HeJ) show different IGF-1 isoform expression patterns compared to normal strains (C57BL/6J) [5].

Mechanotransduction Studies:

• Skeletal unloading creates resistance to IGF-1 despite normal receptor expression [5].
• Disrupted crosstalk between IGF-1 signaling and integrin-mediated mechanotransduction pathways underlies this resistance [5].
• The IGF-1Eb variant (mechano-growth factor, MGF) is upregulated in response to mechanical stimulation [5].

Therapeutic Implications for Bone Density Outcomes

GH versus IGF-1 Therapy: Clinical Evidence

The distinction between endocrine and autocrine/paracrine IGF-1 signaling has significant implications for therapeutic strategies aimed at improving bone density:

GH Replacement Therapy:

• Increases both bone formation and resorption markers, with an initial expansion of the bone remodeling space [10] [1].
• Long-term studies (10+ years) show significant improvements in bone mineral density (BMD):
  • 10-year GH replacement in adult GH-deficient patients resulted in approximately 7% increase in lumbar spine BMD and 11% increase in total hip BMD [10].
  • The greatest BMD increments occurred around year 6 of treatment [10].
  • No significant improvement in trabecular bone score (TBS, a measure of bone microarchitecture) was observed despite BMD improvements [10].

IGF-1 Therapy:

• Used primarily in GH resistance syndromes (e.g., Laron syndrome).
• Promotes linear bone growth but may be less effective than GH for improving overall bone mass due to lack of GH-specific effects on progenitor cells [1].
• Has direct effects on osteoblast function and bone formation.

Combination Therapy:

• Some studies suggest synergistic effects when GH and IGF-1 are administered together [1].
• GH and IGF-1 have independent and complementary functions in bone metabolism.

Table 3: Long-Term Bone Density Outcomes in Hormone Replacement Therapies

Therapy	Study Duration	Lumbar Spine BMD Change	Hip BMD Change	Bone Turnover Markers	Fracture Risk
GH replacement	10 years	+7% (NS)	+11% (p=0.0003)	Increased formation and resorption	Not reported
GH replacement	15 years	Significant increase	Significant increase	Increased	Potential reduction
IGF-1 therapy	Variable	Moderate improvement	Moderate improvement	Increased formation	Limited data
GH + IGF-1	Limited studies	Potential synergistic effect	Potential synergistic effect	Markedly increased	Unknown

Molecular Cross-Talk and Integration with Systemic Signals

Local IGF-1 signaling integrates with multiple other regulatory pathways in bone:

GH-IGF-1 Axis:

• Local IGF-1/IGF-IR signaling is critical for the anabolic bone actions of both GH and parathyroid hormone (PTH) [6] [7].
• GH stimulates local IGF-1 production in bone, creating autocrine/paracrine loops that amplify its anabolic effects.

PTH-IGF-1 Interactions:

• IGF-1 signaling modulates the anabolic effects of PTH on bone [5].
• Molecular mechanisms involve Indian hedgehog (Ihh) and ephrin signaling pathways [5].

Sex Steroid-IGF-1 Interactions:

• Estrogen regulates IGF-1 expression in bone tissue [1].
• Hypogonadal women show reduced bone mass responses to GH therapy despite similar IGF-1 levels [11].

Figure 2: Integration of Local IGF-1 Signaling with Systemic and Mechanical Cues. This diagram illustrates how local IGF-1 production in bone responds to multiple stimuli including mechanical loading, PTH, GH, and sex steroids, activating downstream signaling pathways that regulate key bone cell functions.

Research Methods and Experimental Protocols

Key Methodologies for Studying IGF-1 Signaling in Bone

Genetic Mouse Models:

• Tissue-specific knockout mice: Utilizing Cre-loxP technology with tissue-specific promoters (e.g., Col2α1-Cre for chondrocytes, Ocn-Cre for osteoblasts) to delete IGF-1 or IGF-1R in specific cell lineages [6] [8].
• Inducible knockout models: Tamoxifen-inducible systems (e.g., TamCarIGF-IR−/−) for studying post-natal functions without developmental compensation [6].
• Global knockout models: IGF-1 and IGF-1R null mice for studying systemic effects.

Cell Culture Systems:

• Primary chondrocyte cultures: Isolated from rat tibial growth plates, maintained in monolayer or agarose-stabilized suspension cultures [9].
• Osteoblast cultures: Derived from calvaria or bone marrow stromal cells.
• Co-culture systems: For studying paracrine interactions between different bone cell types.

Signaling Analysis:

• Receptor binding assays: Scatchard analysis using [125I]-αIR3 for IGF-1R quantification [9].
• Immunostaining: Using specific antibodies (e.g., mAb αIR3 for IGF-1R, mAb 9A7γ for VDR) to localize and quantify receptor expression [9].
• mRNA quantification: RT-PCR for assessing IGF-1 splicing variants and receptor expression [5] [9].

Functional Assays:

• Proliferation assays: [3H]-thymidine incorporation, growth curves in monolayer cultures [9].
• Differentiation assays: Alkaline phosphatase activity, colony formation in agarose-stabilized suspension cultures [9].
• Survival assays: TUNEL staining, caspase activity measurements.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 4: Key Research Reagents for Studying IGF-1 Signaling in Bone

Reagent/Cell Line	Specific Application	Key Features/Function
αIR3 monoclonal antibody	IGF-1R detection and blockade	Specifically binds to IGF-1R, used for immunostaining and receptor blocking studies
Igf-1 floxed mice	Tissue-specific KO generation	Mice with loxP sites flanking IGF-1 exon 3 for Cre-mediated deletion
Col2α1-Cre mice	Chondrocyte-specific targeting	Expresses Cre recombinase under type II collagen promoter
Primary growth plate chondrocytes	In vitro signaling studies	Isolated from rat tibiae, maintain differentiated phenotype
IGF-1 ELISA kits	IGF-1 quantification	Measure IGF-1 levels in conditioned media or serum
Phospho-specific antibodies	Signaling pathway analysis	Detect activated/phosphorylated IGF-1R, Akt, ERK
Recombinant IGF-1	Functional studies	Bioactive IGF-1 for treatment experiments
Agarose suspension culture system	Chondrocyte colony formation	Maintains chondrocyte phenotype in 3D culture

The dual-effector theory of IGF-1 signaling in bone represents a significant advancement over the traditional somatomedin hypothesis. While endocrine IGF-1 continues to play important roles in systemic growth regulation and mediates many effects of GH, the autocrine/paracrine IGF-1 signaling pathways emerge as critically important for local control of bone cell activities, mediation of mechanotransduction, and integration of multiple hormonal signals.

The therapeutic implications of this distinction are substantial. GH therapy, which stimulates both endocrine and autocrine/paracrine IGF-1 production, appears more effective for improving long-term bone density outcomes than IGF-1 monotherapy, which primarily activates IGF-1 receptors without the complementary GH-specific effects on progenitor cell differentiation. Future therapeutic strategies might target specific IGF-1 splicing variants or modulate local IGF-1 signaling without systemic effects.

Important unanswered questions remain regarding the precise mechanisms regulating tissue-specific IGF-1 splicing, the molecular basis of IGF-1 resistance in disuse osteoporosis, and the potential for selectively modulating autocrine versus endocrine IGF-1 actions for therapeutic benefit. As research continues to elucidate the complex interactions between these signaling paradigms, new opportunities will emerge for optimizing bone health and treating skeletal disorders.

The growth hormone (GH)–insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1) axis is a fundamental regulator of skeletal development, linear growth, and bone mass maintenance throughout life [12] [13] [14]. This hormonal system exerts complex anabolic effects on the skeleton through coordinated actions on key bone cells: osteoblasts, responsible for bone formation; osteoclasts, responsible for bone resorption; and chondrocytes, the cells driving longitudinal bone growth at the growth plate [13] [15]. GH and IGF-1 signaling operates through both endocrine pathways, with liver-derived IGF-1 entering the circulation, and autocrine/paracrine pathways, where these factors are produced locally within bone tissue [8] [5]. Disruption of this axis, as seen in GH deficiency or acromegaly, leads to profound alterations in bone microstructure and increased fracture risk, underscoring its critical role in skeletal health [13] [14]. This review details the cellular targets and molecular mechanisms by which GH and IGF-1 coordinate bone remodeling and growth, providing a foundation for understanding therapeutic applications in skeletal disorders.

Cellular Targets of the GH/IGF-1 Axis

Osteoblasts

Osteoblasts are the primary bone-forming cells, derived from mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs). The GH/IGF-1 axis is a potent stimulator of osteoblast function.

• Proliferation and Differentiation: GH directly stimulates osteoblast precursor proliferation and differentiation [14]. Importantly, IGF-1, produced either systemically or locally by osteoblasts themselves, is a critical mitogen that promotes osteoblast proliferation and bone formation while inhibiting apoptosis [14] [16]. Osteoblast-specific knockout of the IGF-1 receptor (IGF-1R) reveals its essential role in bone matrix mineralization [13] [16].
• Anabolic Actions: The net in vivo effect of GH and IGF-1 is anabolic, regulating bone remodeling, increasing periosteal bone apposition, and enhancing bone strength [14]. Targeted overexpression of Igf1 in osteoblasts results in increased bone mineral density and trabecular bone volume [12].

Osteoclasts

Osteoclasts are bone-resorbing cells derived from the monocyte/macrophage hematopoietic lineage. The GH/IGF-1 axis influences osteoclastogenesis both directly and indirectly.

• Direct Effects: Osteoclasts and their precursors express receptors for IGF-1 [16]. In vitro studies show that IGF-1 can support osteoclast formation and survival, suggesting a direct role in promoting bone resorption [13] [16].
• Indirect Effects: The primary mechanism by which GH and IGF-1 stimulate bone resorption is indirect, via the upregulation of RANKL (Receptor Activator of Nuclear Factor-κB Ligand) synthesis in osteoblasts [16]. RANKL is a key cytokine that binds to its receptor RANK on osteoclast precursors, triggering their differentiation and activation. This creates a coupling mechanism where bone formation is coordinated with prior bone resorption [16].

Chondrocytes

Chondrocytes in the growth plate are the key cellular players in endochondral ossification, the process responsible for longitudinal bone growth [15]. The GH/IGF-1 axis is a critical regulator of this process.

• Chondrogenesis and Differentiation: IGF-1 induces chondrogenesis of mesenchymal cells and helps maintain the differentiated phenotype of articular chondrocytes [17]. Signaling through the IGF-1 receptor is crucial for the formation and hypertrophy of chondrocytes [15].
• Growth Plate Function: GH stimulates the local production of IGF-1 within the growth plate, which then acts in a paracrine/autocrine manner to promote chondrocyte proliferation, hypertrophy, and the synthesis of extracellular matrix [15] [5]. Disruption of IGF-1 signaling in chondrocytes leads to disorganized growth plates, decreased proliferation, increased apoptosis, and impaired longitudinal growth [8].

Key Signaling Pathways and Molecular Mechanisms

The cellular effects of GH and IGF-1 are mediated through complex and interconnected signaling networks. The diagrams below summarize the core pathways in osteoblasts and chondrocytes.

IGF-1 Signaling in Bone Cells

IGF-1 binding to its receptor (IGF-1R) initiates a primary signaling cascade that is central to its anabolic actions in osteoblasts and chondrocytes.

Pathway Description:

• Ligand-Receptor Binding: IGF-1 binding to IGF-1R induces autophosphorylation of tyrosine residues on the receptor's kinase domain [8].
• Downstream Cascade Activation: The phosphorylated receptor recruits and activates adapter proteins, primarily the IRS family (IRS1, 2) and Shc [8]. This leads to two major signaling branches:
  • The PI3K/Akt Pathway: IRS activation stimulates Phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K), which activates Akt via PDK1 [8]. Akt is a central node that promotes cell survival, protein synthesis (via mTOR), and inhibits pro-apoptotic factors like FoxO transcription factors and GSK3β [8]. GSK3 inhibition also impacts Wnt/β-catenin signaling, a critical pathway for osteoblast differentiation [8].
  • The Ras/MAPK Pathway: Shc activation recruits Grb2/SOS, leading to the sequential activation of Ras, Raf, MEK, and ERK (a MAPK) [8]. This pathway primarily drives cell proliferation and differentiation by modulating gene expression [8] [17].

Growth Hormone Signaling and Cross-Talk

GH signaling initiates a distinct pathway that converges with and modulates IGF-1 signaling, particularly in osteoblasts.

Pathway Description:

• Receptor Activation: GH binds to its pre-formed dimeric receptor (GHR), a member of the cytokine receptor family, leading to activation of the associated tyrosine kinase, JAK2 [12] [14].
• STAT5-Mediated Transcription: Activated JAK2 phosphorylates members of the STAT family (primarily STAT5b). Phosphorylated STATs dimerize, translocate to the nucleus, and bind to specific response elements on target genes, most notably the Igf1 gene, to stimulate its transcription [12].
• Dual-Effector Model: This signaling results in the production of both systemic (endocrine) IGF-1 (primarily from the liver) and local (paracrine/autocrine) IGF-1 within bone and cartilage [5]. Local IGF-1 then acts on IGF-1R to exert its effects. GH can also exert some IGF-1R-independent effects on osteoblasts, such as inhibiting apoptosis, but the IGF-1R is required for its major anabolic effects in vivo [18].

Experimental Data and Therapeutic Outcomes

Quantitative Effects on Bone Parameters

Long-term clinical studies and genetic models provide quantitative data on the effects of GH and IGF-1 on bone. The table below summarizes key findings.

Table 1. Quantitative Effects of GH/IGF-1 Axis Modulation on Bone Parameters

Model / Intervention	Bone Parameter	Change	Duration	Citation
AGHD patients on GH therapy	Lumbar Spine BMD	~ +7%	10 years	[10]
AGHD patients on GH therapy	Total Hip BMD	~ +11%	10 years	[10]
AGHD patients on GH therapy	Trabecular Bone Score (TBS)	No significant change	10 years	[10]
Osteoblast-specific Igf1 overexpression (Mice)	Bone Mineral Density	Increased	N/A	[12]
Osteoblast-specific Igf1r knockout (Mice)	Bone Matrix Mineralization	Severely impaired	N/A	[13] [16]
Global Igf1 knockout (Mice)	Bone Length & Mass	Severe reduction	Embryonic & Postnatal	[5]

Key Insights from Data:

• Therapy Efficacy: Long-term GH replacement therapy in adults with GH deficiency (AGHD) leads to a significant, time-dependent increase in Bone Mineral Density (BMD), with the greatest increment observed around 6 years of treatment [10].
• Microarchitecture vs. Density: The lack of significant change in the Trabecular Bone Score (TBS), an indirect measure of bone microarchitecture, despite improvements in BMD, suggests that GH therapy may not fully restore bone quality in AGHD patients [10].
• Genetic Evidence: Data from genetically modified mouse models unequivocally demonstrate that intact IGF-1 signaling within osteoblasts is non-redundant for normal bone matrix mineralization and the attainment of peak bone mass [12] [13] [16].

Comparison of GH vs. IGF-1 Therapeutic Actions

While intertwined, GH and IGF-1 have distinct and overlapping roles in bone metabolism, with implications for therapy.

Table 2. Comparative Actions of GH and IGF-1 on the Skeleton

Aspect	Growth Hormone (GH)	Insulin-like Growth Factor-1 (IGF-1)
Primary Signaling	Binds GHR, activates JAK2/STAT5 pathway [12] [14]	Binds IGF-1R, activates PI3K/Akt & MAPK pathways [8]
Mode of Action	Direct actions & stimulation of systemic/local IGF-1 production [14] [5]	Endocrine, autocrine, and paracrine actions [8] [16]
Key Osteoblast Effect	Stimulates precursor proliferation & differentiation; anabolic in vivo [14]	Promotes proliferation, inhibits apoptosis; essential for matrix mineralization [14] [16]
Key Osteoclast Effect	Indirectly stimulates via RANKL upregulation [16]	Directly supports formation/survival; indirectly via RANKL [13] [16]
Key Chondrocyte Effect	Recruits resting chondrocytes; stimulates local IGF-1 production [15] [5]	Promotes proliferation, hypertrophy, and matrix synthesis [8] [15]
Therapeutic Context	Used for GH deficiency; improves BMD long-term [10] [14]	Investigational; used in severe IGF-1 deficiency (e.g., Laron syndrome) [15]
Clinical Bone Outcome in Deficiency	Low bone mass, increased fracture risk [13] [14]	Growth failure, undermineralized skeleton [13] [5]

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Research Reagents

Studying the GH/IGF-1 axis in bone requires a specific toolkit of reagents and model systems.

Table 3. Essential Research Reagents and Models for GH/IGF-1 Skeletal Research

Reagent / Model	Function/Application	Key Insight from Use
Cre/loxP System	Conditional gene knockout in specific cell types (e.g., Osteocalcin-Cre for osteoblasts, Col2α1-Cre for chondrocytes) [8] [18]	Revealed that osteoblast-derived IGF-1 is a key determinant of bone mineralization, distinct from liver-derived IGF-1 [12] [18].
Recombinant human GH (rhGH)	Hormone replacement in vitro and in vivo; testing anabolic effects.	Long-term (10-year) treatment in AGHD patients increases BMD, but may not improve trabecular microarchitecture (TBS) [10].
IGF-1 Neutralizing Antibody	To block IGF-1 ligand activity and isolate IGF-1-dependent effects in cell culture.	Abolishes GH-stimulated osteoblast proliferation, confirming this effect is IGF-1 mediated [18].
STAT5b Knockout Models	To dissect the specific role of this transcription factor in GH signaling.	STAT5b is a major signaling pathway by which GH stimulates Igf1 gene transcription in the liver [12].
PI3K Inhibitors (e.g., LY294002)	Inhibits the PI3K/Akt signaling branch to determine its contribution to IGF-1 actions.	PI3K activation is required for IGF-1-induced chondrogenesis and for blocking NO-induced chondrocyte apoptosis [17].
Hologic Densitometers & TBS iNsight	Clinical and research tools to assess Bone Mineral Density (BMD) and Trabecular Bone Score (TBS).	Enabled the finding that GH therapy improves BMD but not TBS over a 10-year period in AGHD [10].

The regulation of osteoblast, osteoclast, and chondrocyte activity by GH and IGF-1 is a paradigm of systemic and local hormonal control of skeletal homeostasis. GH, largely through the activation of JAK2/STAT5 signaling, drives the production of IGF-1, which then executes many of its anabolic functions via the PI3K/Akt and MAPK pathways [8] [12] [14]. The intricate cross-talk between these pathways ensures coordinated bone formation and resorption, as well as proper longitudinal growth. Critical insights from genetic models and clinical studies highlight that while IGF-1 is indispensable for bone matrix mineralization [16], GH is effective at increasing bone mass over the long term [10]. However, the persistence of fracture risk in controlled acromegaly and the disconnect between BMD and microarchitecture improvements in GH-treated patients indicate that restoring healthy bone structure is more complex than normalizing hormone levels alone [13] [14]. Future research should focus on elucidating the discrete roles of specific IGF-1 splicing variants in bone and developing therapeutic strategies that can fully restore bone quality and strength in disorders of the GH/IGF-1 axis.

The maintenance of skeletal health is a complex process governed by a dynamic interplay of endocrine factors and inflammatory cytokines. Within this regulatory network, growth hormone (GH) and insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) play central roles, orchestrating bone remodeling through direct cellular actions and intricate cross-talk with other physiological systems [1] [19]. This review systematically examines the comparative effectiveness of GH versus IGF-1 therapy on long-term bone density outcomes, with particular emphasis on their interactions with sex steroids, parathyroid hormone (PTH), and inflammatory mediators. Understanding these systemic influences is critical for researchers and drug development professionals seeking to optimize therapeutic strategies for conditions of compromised bone health, including osteoporosis and growth hormone deficiency.

GH and IGF-1 are fundamental regulators of bone metabolism, with GH acting both directly and indirectly through the stimulation of IGF-1 production [1] [19]. The skeletal effects of these hormones are significantly modulated by the endocrine milieu, particularly the status of sex steroids which undergo dramatic changes during menopause and andropause [20] [21]. Furthermore, the inflammatory landscape, characterized by cytokines such as IL-6, TNF-α, and RANKL, can profoundly influence bone turnover and mediate therapeutic responses [22]. This analysis integrates current clinical evidence and experimental data to provide a comprehensive comparison of GH and IGF-1 therapeutics, focusing on their distinct and overlapping pathways in regulating bone mineral density and microarchitecture.

Physiological Framework of Bone Regulation

The GH/IGF-1 Axis in Bone Metabolism

The GH/IGF-1 axis represents a crucial regulatory system for skeletal homeostasis, with both hormones exerting complementary but distinct effects on bone cells. GH directly stimulates osteoblast proliferation and differentiation while also promoting the local production of IGF-1 within bone tissue [1]. IGF-1, in turn, enhances osteoblast activity, reduces osteoblast apoptosis, and promotes both osteoblast- and osteoclastogenesis [19]. The liver serves as the primary source of circulating IGF-1, which is predominantly bound to IGF binding proteins (IGFBPs), with IGFBP-3 representing the principal binding protein that regulates IGF-1 bioavailability [1].

The intracellular signaling mechanisms differ between these two hormones. GH signaling occurs primarily through the JAK-STAT pathway, where GHR activation leads to phosphorylation of STAT proteins, particularly STAT-5b, which translocate to the nucleus to regulate gene transcription [1]. IGF-1 signals through the IGF-1 receptor, activating both the MAPK and PI3K-Akt pathways to promote cellular proliferation and survival, respectively [1]. This differential signaling underlies their distinct temporal patterns in bone remodeling, with GH primarily stimulating the differentiation of osteoblast precursors and IGF-1 promoting the subsequent clonal expansion of committed osteoblasts [1].

Figure 1: GH and IGF-1 Signaling Pathways in Bone Cells. GH activates the JAK2/STAT5 pathway via its receptor (GHR), regulating gene transcription and stimulating IGF-1 production. IGF-1 signals through its receptor (IGF1R) to activate MAPK and PI3K/Akt pathways, promoting osteoblast proliferation and survival. Created based on mechanistic descriptions from [1].

Interactive Regulation by Sex Steroids, PTH, and Cytokines

The skeletal effects of GH and IGF-1 are significantly modulated by sex steroids, PTH, and inflammatory cytokines through complex cross-regulatory mechanisms. Estrogen has been demonstrated to regulate IGF-1 expression, creating an important interplay that contributes to the maintenance of skeletal integrity [1]. This relationship becomes particularly evident during menopause, when declining estrogen levels coincide with reduced IGF-1 activity and accelerated bone loss [1] [23]. Similarly, androgens influence bone metabolism through both aromatization to estrogens and direct effects on osteoblasts, with testosterone deficiency representing a known risk factor for osteoporosis in men [22] [20].

The RANKL/RANK/OPG axis serves as a critical interface between inflammatory cytokines and bone remodeling, with pro-inflammatory cytokines such as IL-1, IL-6, and TNF-α stimulating osteoclast differentiation and activity through this pathway [22]. This cytokine network is subject to regulation by sex steroids, with estrogen deficiency leading to increased production of these pro-resorptive cytokines [22]. PTH, which activates both bone resorption and formation, interacts with the GH/IGF-1 axis, with GH demonstrated to modulate PTH secretion [19]. These multifaceted interactions create a complex regulatory network that determines the net effect of GH and IGF-1 therapy on bone outcomes.

Comparative Analysis of GH vs. IGF-1 Therapeutics

Mechanisms of Action and Molecular Pathways

GH and IGF-1 exhibit distinct yet complementary mechanisms of action on bone tissue, with differential effects on various bone compartments. GH demonstrates a preferential effect on cortical bone, with studies showing significant improvements in cortical thickness and area following GH treatment [10] [19]. In contrast, IGF-1 appears to exert more pronounced effects on trabecular bone parameters, though clinical evidence remains somewhat limited [1] [24]. These compartment-specific actions reflect differences in their cellular targets and signaling pathways, with GH primarily stimulating osteoblast precursor differentiation and IGF-1 promoting mature osteoblast function.

The temporal patterns of response also differ between these therapeutic approaches. GH therapy typically induces an initial increase in bone resorption markers, followed by a subsequent rise in bone formation markers - a phenomenon characterized as the "transition from a negative to a positive bone balance" [1]. This biphasic response contrasts with the more direct anabolic effects observed with IGF-1 administration, which simultaneously stimulates both bone formation and resorption [1]. These differential temporal patterns have important implications for the monitoring of therapeutic efficacy and the interpretation of short-term versus long-term outcomes.

Bone Density Outcomes in Clinical Studies

Long-term studies provide critical insights into the comparative effectiveness of GH and IGF-1 therapy on bone mineral density. A 10-year prospective study of GH replacement in adults with GH deficiency demonstrated significant improvements in bone parameters, with total hip BMD increasing by approximately 11% and lumbar spine BMD increasing by approximately 7% over the treatment period [10]. The most substantial gains were observed at year 6 of treatment, suggesting a gradual accumulation of beneficial effects [10]. Interestingly, this study found no significant change in trabecular bone score, indicating that the improvements may primarily reflect increased bone density rather than enhanced microarchitecture [10].

Table 1: Long-Term Bone Mineral Density Outcomes in Growth Hormone Therapy

Study Duration	Lumbar Spine BMD Change	Total Hip BMD Change	Trabecular Bone Score Change	Study Population
2 years	+2-3%	+3-4%	No significant change	Adults with GHD [10]
6 years	+6%	+13%	No significant change	Adults with GHD [10]
10 years	+7%	+11%	No significant change	Adults with GHD [10]
15 years	Significant increase vs. baseline	Significant increase vs. baseline	Not reported	Adults with GHD [10]

Evidence for IGF-1 therapy on bone density outcomes, while promising, is derived from more limited clinical studies. In patients with PAPP-A2 deficiency, a condition characterized by low IGF-1 bioactivity, rhIGF-1 treatment over six years progressively normalized BMD while also improving growth velocity and body composition [24]. This suggests that IGF-1 therapy can produce substantial skeletal benefits in specific deficiency states, though its efficacy in other populations requires further investigation. The anabolic effects of both GH and IGF-1 are influenced by sex steroid concentrations, with evidence suggesting that estrogen status modulates therapeutic responses [1] [20].

Interactions with Sex Steroid Status

The skeletal effects of GH and IGF-1 are significantly modulated by sex steroid concentrations, creating important considerations for patient stratification and therapeutic timing. In postmenopausal women, the decline in estrogen levels disrupts the normal regulation of the GH/IGF-1 axis, contributing to an imbalance in bone remodeling [1]. This endocrine relationship is further evidenced by the strong correlation between the estradiol-to-testosterone ratio and BMD in postmenopausal women, with higher ratios associated with better bone density outcomes [20]. These findings suggest that the efficacy of GH/IGF-1 therapy may be influenced by the hormonal milieu, particularly in women undergoing menopausal transition.

The impact of sex steroids on therapeutic responses extends to male populations as well. In aged men, BMD correlations with IGF-1 become less pronounced, with estrogen emerging as the dominant hormonal determinant of bone density [1]. This observation aligns with the recognized importance of estrogen in male skeletal health and suggests that the responsiveness to GH/IGF-1 therapy may decline with advancing age in parallel with changes in sex steroid status. These interactions highlight the importance of considering endocrine context when evaluating the potential benefits of GH versus IGF-1 therapeutics.

Table 2: Hormonal Influences on Bone Mineral Density and Therapy Response

Hormonal Factor	Correlation with BMD	Influence on GH/IGF-1 Therapy	Population Evidence
Estradiol	Positive correlation [20]	Enhances IGF-1 expression and anabolic effects [1]	Postmenopausal women [20] [23]
Testosterone	Positive correlation in men [22]	Precursor for estrogen; direct effects on osteoblasts [22] [20]	Men with hypogonadism [22]
E2/T Ratio	Positive correlation [20]	Higher ratios associated with better bone outcomes	Postmenopausal women [20]
IGF-1	Positive correlation [1]	Primary mediator of bone anabolic effects	Women and men with GHD [10] [1]

Modulation by Inflammatory Cytokines

The inflammatory milieu represents another critical modifier of GH and IGF-1 effects on bone, with pro-inflammatory cytokines potentially counteracting their anabolic actions. Cytokines such as IL-1, IL-6, and TNF-α stimulate osteoclast differentiation and activity through the RANKL/RANK/OPG pathway, creating a state of accelerated bone resorption that may oppose the beneficial effects of GH/IGF-1 therapy [22]. This interaction is particularly relevant in conditions of chronic inflammation, such as rheumatoid arthritis or inflammatory bowel disease, where cytokine dysregulation contributes to secondary osteoporosis.

The GH/IGF-1 axis demonstrates bidirectional relationships with inflammatory pathways. GH and IGF-1 have been shown to modulate immune function, while inflammatory cytokines can induce resistance to GH through suppression of GH receptor signaling [1]. Specifically, cytokines such as TNF-α and IL-1β can upregulate suppressors of cytokine signaling proteins, particularly SOCS2, which downregulates GH/IGF-1 signaling and may blunt the skeletal response to therapy [1]. This crosstalk creates a complex interplay that varies according to the underlying inflammatory status and may contribute to the variable treatment responses observed in different patient populations.

Experimental Models and Methodologies

Key Research Protocols

The evaluation of GH and IGF-1 effects on bone requires specialized methodologies designed to capture changes in both density and microarchitecture. Standard protocols for clinical studies typically include dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry for assessment of areal BMD at clinically relevant sites such as the lumbar spine and total hip [10] [20]. These measurements are often complemented by more sophisticated techniques including high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography, which provides three-dimensional assessment of volumetric BMD and bone microarchitecture [19], and trabecular bone score analysis, which offers indirect evaluation of trabecular microarchitecture from DXA images [10].

Longitudinal studies require careful protocol standardization to ensure reliable assessment of treatment effects over time. In the 10-year prospective study of GH replacement, measurements were conducted at baseline and every two years throughout the treatment period, allowing for comprehensive evaluation of the temporal pattern of BMD response [10]. Similar protocols have been employed in studies of IGF-1 therapy, with regular monitoring of auxological parameters and bone density at predetermined intervals [24]. These methodologies provide the foundation for comparing the long-term effects of GH versus IGF-1 therapy on skeletal outcomes.

Figure 2: Experimental Workflow for Evaluating GH/IGF-1 Therapies. Standard research protocol for clinical studies investigating long-term bone density outcomes in response to GH or IGF-1 therapy, incorporating comprehensive baseline assessment, regular monitoring, and multidimensional endpoint analysis. Synthesized from methodologies described in [10] [19] [20].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Bone Endocrine Studies

Research Tool	Specific Function	Application Examples
Recombinant human GH	Binds GHR to activate JAK-STAT signaling	GH replacement studies in deficient adults [10]
Recombinant human IGF-1	Activates IGF-1R to stimulate MAPK/PI3K pathways	IGF-1 therapy in deficiency states [24]
ID-LC-MS/MS	Precise quantification of hormone levels	Measurement of serum testosterone and estradiol [20]
DXA with iNsight software	Assessment of bone density and trabecular score	Longitudinal BMD and TBS measurement [10]
HR-pQCT	3D evaluation of bone microarchitecture	Assessment of cortical and trabecular parameters [19]
ELISA for bone turnover markers	Quantification of CTX, P1NP, osteocalcin	Monitoring bone remodeling dynamics [22]
RANKL/OPG assays	Evaluation of osteoclast regulation	Assessment of resorptive pathway activity [22]

The comparative analysis of GH and IGF-1 therapeutics reveals a complex landscape of skeletal regulation characterized by distinct mechanisms of action, differential effects on bone compartments, and significant modulation by endocrine and inflammatory factors. GH therapy demonstrates robust long-term benefits on bone mineral density, particularly in the cortical compartment, with maximal effects emerging after several years of treatment. IGF-1 therapy shows promise in specific deficiency states but requires further investigation in broader populations. Critically, the efficacy of both interventions is substantially influenced by sex steroid status, with estrogen playing a particularly important role in mediating therapeutic responses.

For researchers and drug development professionals, these findings highlight several important considerations. First, patient stratification based on endocrine status may optimize therapeutic outcomes, particularly in postmenopausal women and hypogonadal men. Second, the temporal patterns of response differ between GH and IGF-1, suggesting that appropriate trial duration is essential for accurate assessment of treatment efficacy. Finally, the modulatory influence of inflammatory cytokines represents both a challenge and an opportunity, suggesting that concurrent anti-inflammatory interventions might enhance the skeletal benefits of GH/IGF-1 therapy. Future research should focus on personalized approaches that account for these systemic interactions to maximize long-term bone health outcomes.

The growth hormone (GH) and insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) axis constitutes a fundamental regulatory system for somatic growth, metabolism, and skeletal acquisition. This pleiotropic axis involves GH released from the pituitary gland, which stimulates IGF-1 production primarily in the liver (endocrine IGF-1) and locally in target tissues including bone (autocrine/paracrine IGF-1) [1] [25] [26]. During pubertal growth, GH and IGF-1 levels peak and associate with accelerated bone mineral density (BMD) acquisition, while their age-related decline contributes to bone loss and increased fracture risk [1] [26]. Understanding the distinct and overlapping contributions of GH and IGF-1 to skeletal health requires precise preclinical models. This guide objectively compares skeletal phenotypes and underlying mechanisms of two pivotal transgenic mouse models: GH receptor knockout (GHR-/-) and liver-specific IGF-1 deficient plus acid-labile subunit knockout (LID+ALSKO) mice, providing researchers with experimental data and methodologies relevant to evaluating long-term bone density outcomes of GH versus IGF-1 therapy.

Model Specifications and Genetic Background

The GHR-/- and LID+ALSKO mouse models enable researchers to dissect the individual roles of GH action versus endocrine IGF-1 in skeletal physiology through distinct genetic manipulations.

GHR-/- Mice: These mice carry a global knockout of the GH receptor (GHR), resulting in complete GH resistance throughout the body. This model mimics human Laron syndrome [26]. The disrupted GH signaling abolishes both the direct actions of GH and the stimulation of IGF-1 production in liver and other tissues, leading to severely reduced circulating IGF-1 levels [1] [25].

LID+ALSKO Mice: This compound model combines liver-specific IGF-1 deletion (LID) with knockout of the acid-labile subunit (ALSKO). The genetic targeting specifically reduces endocrine IGF-1 produced by the liver by approximately 75%, while preserving local (autocrine/paracrine) IGF-1 production in extrahepatic tissues [25] [26]. The additional ALS knockout further destabilizes the remaining circulating IGF-1 by preventing the formation of the ternary complex with IGFBP-3, which normally prolongs IGF-1 half-life in circulation [25].

Table 1: Fundamental Characteristics of GHR-/- and LID+ALSKO Mouse Models

Characteristic	GHR-/- Model	LID+ALSKO Model
Primary Genetic Defect	Global GH receptor knockout	Liver-specific IGF-1 deletion combined with ALS knockout
GH Signaling	Abolished	Preserved
Circulating IGF-1	Severely reduced	Reduced (~25% of normal)
Local IGF-1 Production	Disrupted	Largely preserved
Human Disease Analogue	Laron syndrome	Partial endocrine IGF-1 deficiency

Comparative Skeletal Phenotype Analysis

Comprehensive skeletal phenotyping reveals distinct outcomes on bone mass, geometry, and quality between the two models, highlighting the differential contributions of GH signaling versus endocrine IGF-1.

Body Size and Bone Geometry

GHR-/- mice exhibit profound postnatal growth retardation, achieving only 50-60% of normal adult body size, with corresponding reductions in both longitudinal bone growth and cortical bone cross-sectional area [25] [26]. In contrast, LID+ALSKO mice show a more moderate reduction in body size, approximately 10% smaller than controls, indicating that endocrine IGF-1 contributes significantly but not exclusively to somatic growth [26].

Bone Mass and Microarchitecture

GHR-/- Mice: These mice demonstrate significant reductions in bone mineral density (BMD) affecting both cortical and trabecular compartments [26]. The global absence of GH signaling leads to low bone turnover, with reduced rates of both bone formation and resorption, ultimately impairing the attainment of peak bone mass [1] [25].

LID+ALSKO Mice: The skeletal phenotype is less severe than in GHR-/- mice. While BMD is reduced, the preservation of local GH signaling and autocrine/paracrine IGF-1 provides partial protection against skeletal deficits [25] [26]. This suggests that local IGF-1 production in bone can partially compensate for reduced endocrine IGF-1 in maintaining bone mass.

Table 2: Comparative Skeletal Phenotypes in Adult Mice

Parameter	GHR-/- Model	LID+ALSKO Model	Control Reference
Body Weight	~50-60% of normal [26]	~90% of normal [26]	100%
Bone Length	Severely reduced [25]	Moderately reduced [26]	Normal
Cortical BMD	Significantly reduced [26]	Moderately reduced [25]	Normal
Trabecular Bone Volume	Significantly reduced [25]	Mild to moderate reduction [25]	Normal
Bone Turnover	Low bone turnover [1]	Not fully characterized	Normal

Molecular Mechanisms and Signaling Pathways

The divergent skeletal phenotypes arise from distinct disruptions to the GH/IGF-1 axis, affecting downstream signaling pathways and gene expression in osteogenic cells.

Diagram 1: GH/IGF-1 signaling disruptions. GHR-/- disrupts entire axis; LID+ALSKO primarily reduces endocrine IGF-1.

GH exerts its effects through both direct actions on target tissues and indirect actions mediated by IGF-1. As illustrated in Diagram 1, the GHR-/- model disrupts the entire axis, abolishing both direct GH effects and IGF-1 production. In contrast, the LID+ALSKO model primarily reduces the endocrine pool of IGF-1 while preserving local GH signaling and autocrine/paracrine IGF-1 production [25] [26]. In bone, both GH and IGF-1 stimulate osteoblast proliferation, differentiation, and matrix production. GH directly targets progenitor cells in the bone microenvironment, while IGF-1 (both local and systemic) promotes clonal expansion of more differentiated osteogenic cells [1]. The near-complete absence of signaling in GHR-/- mice thus creates a more severe skeletal deficit than the selective endocrine IGF-1 deficiency in LID+ALSKO mice.

Experimental Methodologies for Skeletal Phenotyping

Micro-Computed Tomography (μCT) Analysis

Protocol Application: μCT scanning provides high-resolution three-dimensional analysis of bone microarchitecture. For murine long bones (typically femur or tibia):

• Sample Preparation: Dissect intact bones, fix in formalin, and store in 70% ethanol at 4°C.
• Scanning Parameters: Set isotropic voxel size to 5-10 μm, energy settings of 55 kVp, integration time 300-500 ms [27] [28].
• Regional Analysis: For trabecular bone, analyze the secondary spongiosa of the distal femoral metaphysis. For cortical bone, analyze the mid-diaphyseal region.
• Output Parameters: Trabecular bone volume fraction (BV/TV), trabecular number, thickness, separation; cortical bone area, cross-sectional thickness, porosity [27].

Bone Histomorphometry and Histology

Protocol Application: This technique provides dynamic and cellular information about bone formation and resorption.

• Tissue Processing: Embed undecalcified bone in methylmethacrylate or decalcify for paraffin embedding [28].
• Static Parameters: Stain sections with Toluidine Blue or Goldner's Trichrome to quantify osteoblast number/surface, osteoclast number/surface, and osteocyte density [28].
• Dynamic Parameters: Administer calcein (10 mg/kg) intraperitoneally at 7 and 2 days before sacrifice to label mineralizing bone surfaces. Measure mineral apposition rate (MAR) and bone formation rate (BFR) [25].
• Special Stains: Tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase (TRAP) staining identifies osteoclasts. Safranin-O or Alcian Blue staining visualizes cartilage in fracture callus studies [28] [29].

Biomechanical Testing

Protocol Application: Assess bone functional competence through mechanical properties.

• Sample Preparation: Use fresh or rehydrated bone specimens stored at -20°C.
• Three-Point Bending: For long bones, position femur or tibia on two supports and apply load at mid-diaphysis until fracture [28].
• Output Parameters: Maximum load (ultimate force), stiffness, energy to failure, and post-yield displacement [27] [28].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for GH/IGF-1 Skeletal Studies

Reagent/Category	Specific Examples	Research Application
Antibodies for IHC/IF	Anti-GHR, anti-IGF-1, anti-IGF-1R, anti-Osteocalcin	Protein localization and quantification in bone sections
ELISA Kits	IGF-1 ELISA, IGFBP-3 ELISA, Osteocalcin ELISA, CTX-1 ELISA	Quantify serum hormone levels and bone turnover markers
Cell Culture Media	Osteoblast differentiation media (ascorbic acid, β-glycerophosphate)	In vitro studies of osteoblast function and mineralization
Bone Stains	Alizarin Red S (mineralization), Alcian Blue (cartilage), TRAP stain (osteoclasts)	Histological assessment of bone and cartilage morphology
Molecular Biology	qPCR primers for: Col1a1, Runx2, Osteocalcin, TRAP, ALP	Gene expression analysis in bone tissue or cells

Research Implications and Therapeutic Translation

Preclinical evidence from these models provides crucial insights for developing therapies targeting the GH/IGF-1 axis for bone disorders. The severe skeletal impairment in GHR-/- mice supports the use of GH therapy in conditions of GH deficiency or resistance, as demonstrated by human studies showing that GH treatment increases bone mineral density and stimulates bone turnover in GH-deficient patients [30]. The milder phenotype in LID+ALSKO mice suggests that endocrine IGF-1 supplementation alone may be insufficient for optimal skeletal health, highlighting the importance of preserving local IGF-1 action in bone [25] [26].

These models further illuminate the complex interactions between the GH/IGF-1 axis and other hormonal systems, particularly sex steroids, which collaborate in bone mass acquisition and maintenance [1] [26]. Future therapeutic strategies may need to consider these interactions, especially in age-related bone loss where multiple hormonal systems decline simultaneously.

From Bench to Bedside: Assessing Bone Health and Therapeutic Efficacy in Clinical Practice

Bone mineral density (BMD), as measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), has long been the gold standard for diagnosing osteoporosis and assessing fracture risk. However, BMD alone fails to account for approximately 70% of fragility fractures observed in clinical practice, revealing significant limitations in its predictive capability [31]. This diagnostic gap has driven the development of advanced biomarkers and imaging technologies that evaluate critical aspects of bone quality not captured by BMD alone, including bone microarchitecture, geometry, and material properties [32] [33]. These sophisticated parameters provide a more comprehensive understanding of bone strength, particularly in complex metabolic conditions where bone quality impairment precedes or exceeds bone quantity loss.

The integration of these advanced assessments is especially relevant when evaluating the long-term skeletal effects of endocrine therapies, such as growth hormone (GH) and insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) replacement. Research demonstrates that while GH replacement therapy in GH-deficient adults progressively increases BMD over years, its effects on trabecular microarchitecture—as measured by trabecular bone score (TBS)—may be limited, highlighting the distinct responses of different bone compartments to anabolic stimuli [10]. This article provides a comprehensive comparison of advanced bone quality assessment tools, detailing their methodologies, clinical applications, and specific utility within the context of bone endocrine research.

Advanced Imaging Biomarkers for Bone Quality Assessment

Trabecular Bone Score (TBS)

Trabecular Bone Score is a textural parameter derived from standard lumbar spine DXA images that quantifies the local variations in pixel grayscale levels, providing an indirect measure of trabecular microarchitecture [34]. Unlike BMD, which primarily measures bone quantity, TBS evaluates the structural organization of trabecular bone, with higher values indicating stronger, more fracture-resistant microarchitecture [31].

A key application of TBS is in conditions where bone fragility occurs despite normal or elevated BMD. In patients with type 2 diabetes, for example, TBS has proven to be a better predictor of fracture risk than BMD alone [31]. Similarly, in patients receiving glucocorticoid therapy, TBS helps explain fracture events occurring at higher BMD values [32]. Long-term studies of GH replacement therapy in adults with GH deficiency have revealed a dissociation between BMD and TBS responses; while lumbar spine and total hip BMD showed significant increases (approximately 7% and 11% respectively over 10 years), TBS demonstrated no significant change during the same period [10]. This finding suggests that GH replacement may preferentially affect bone mineralization over trabecular microstructure, or that the TBS measurement itself may be insensitive to the specific microarchitectural changes induced by GH.

Hip Structural Analysis (HSA) and Bone Geometry

Hip Structural Analysis utilizes DXA-derived images to assess bone geometry parameters at the proximal femur, a site predominantly composed of cortical bone [34]. HSA provides several mechanically relevant measurements including cross-sectional area (CSA, an indicator of axial strength), cross-sectional moment of inertia (CSMI, a measure of bending resistance), section modulus (Z, representing bending strength), and cortical thickness [32] [31].

These geometric parameters exhibit different relationships with demographic factors compared to trabecular parameters. Research has shown that while both TBS and femoral neck cortical thickness correlate negatively with age, the associations are stronger in women [34]. Furthermore, these parameters respond differently to body mass index (BMI); TBS shows a significant negative correlation with BMI in individuals with BMI >25 kg/m², whereas cortical thickness maintains a positive correlation with BMI across all ranges [34]. This divergence underscores the independent contributions of trabecular and cortical compartments to overall bone strength and their differential response to mechanical loading.

Clinical studies have demonstrated the value of geometric parameters in fracture prediction. In patients with systemic lupus erythematosus, the femoral neck buckling ratio (an index of cortical stability under axial loads) correlated with major fractures and disease duration during long-term follow-up [32]. However, current scientific guidelines do not yet recommend routine clinical use of HSA for hip fracture risk assessment, primarily due to difficulties in parameter interpretation and insufficient evidence from real-world practice settings [31].

Peripheral Quantitative Computed Tomography (pQCT) and Volumetric Density

Peripheral Quantitative Computed Tomography represents a significant technological advancement over projection-based techniques like DXA, as it provides truly volumetric bone density measurements and enables separate analysis of cortical and trabecular compartments [35]. Unlike DXA, which calculates "areal" BMD (aBMD, in g/cm²), pQCT measures "volumetric" BMD (vBMD, in mg/cm³) at peripheral sites such as the radius and tibia, eliminating the size artifact inherent in DXA measurements [35].

High-resolution pQCT (HR-pQCT) further enhances this capability by providing detailed assessment of bone microarchitecture at resolutions sufficient to quantify trabecular number, thickness, separation, and cortical porosity [33]. This technology has been designated a "gold standard" method for bone quality assessment in research settings [10]. A study of GH replacement in adults with GH deficiency utilizing HR-pQCT demonstrated increases in vBMD, cortical area, and cortical thickness after 24 weeks of treatment, though trabecular parameters remained unchanged [10], reinforcing the compartment-specific effects observed with other modalities.

The primary limitation of pQCT and HR-pQCT remains their restricted availability outside research institutions, along with higher radiation exposure compared to DXA (though significantly lower than clinical CT) [35].

Finite Element Analysis (FEA) and Bone Strain Index (BSI)

Finite Element Analysis represents one of the most sophisticated engineering approaches applied to bone strength assessment. This mathematical method divides complex structures into smaller, simpler elements to simulate mechanical behavior under load [32]. When applied to bone images, FEA can non-invasively predict bone strength and load resistance by calculating the stress and strain distribution throughout the structure.

The Bone Strain Index is an innovative DXA-derived index based on FEA principles that incorporates local information on density distribution, bone geometry, and loading conditions [32] [31]. BSI differs fundamentally from BMD and TBS by evaluating how bone deforms under specific loads rather than merely quantifying mass or structure [31]. This approach provides a direct assessment of bone's mechanical competence, integrating multiple determinants of bone strength into a single parameter.

Emerging evidence suggests BSI may be particularly valuable in secondary osteoporosis conditions. Studies demonstrate that both lumbar and femoral BSI can discriminate fractured osteoporotic individuals, predict first and subsequent fragility fractures, monitor anabolic treatment efficacy, and detect patients affected by secondary osteoporosis [31]. In rheumatological diseases like rheumatoid arthritis, where systemic bone loss begins early in disease development, BSI may offer advantages over conventional parameters by capturing aspects of bone quality impairment not reflected in BMD measurements [32].

Table 1: Comparative Analysis of Advanced Bone Quality Assessment Technologies

Technology	Primary Parameters	Bone Compartment Assessed	Key Strengths	Limitations
Trabecular Bone Score (TBS)	Trabecular texture, pixel gray-level variation	Trabecular (primarily spine)	Derived from standard DXA, no additional scan time or radiation, superior to BMD in diabetes	Limited to lumbar spine, insensitive to some therapeutic effects [10]
Hip Structural Analysis (HSA)	Cross-sectional area, cortical thickness, section modulus, buckling ratio	Cortical (proximal femur)	Provides mechanical strength parameters, uses existing DXA images	Difficult interpretation, limited evidence for routine clinical use [31]
pQCT/HR-pQCT	Volumetric BMD, trabecular architecture, cortical porosity	Both trabecular and cortical (peripheral sites)	Eliminates DXA size artifact, separates compartments, gold standard for microarchitecture	Primarily research use, limited availability, higher radiation than DXA [35]
Bone Strain Index (BSI)	Bone strain under load, finite element modeling	Both trabecular and cortical (spine & femur)	Integrates density, geometry and loading, predicts mechanical performance	Newer technology with evolving clinical evidence [32]

Experimental Methodologies for Advanced Bone Assessment

Standardized Protocol for TBS Assessment

TBS assessment requires specific methodology to ensure consistent and comparable results. The standard protocol involves:

• Image Acquisition: Lumbar spine DXA scans (L1-L4) are performed using standard positioning protocols on DXA systems from major manufacturers (Hologic, GE-Lunar, or Norland) [34].

• Software Analysis: DICOM images are processed using specialized TBS iNsight software (Med-Imaps, France), which calculates the TBS value based on the experimental variogram of the image grayscale values [10] [34].

• Data Interpretation: Results are expressed as a unitless value, with lower TBS indicating degraded microarchitecture. The software provides age- and sex-matched reference values for context [34].

Critical methodological considerations include the use of the same DXA scanner for longitudinal assessments and appropriate cross-calibration when changing devices. In research settings, TBS is often measured retrospectively from stored DXA images, facilitating long-term studies like the 10-year investigation of GH replacement effects [10].

Protocol for Hip Structural Analysis

HSA implementation follows these key steps:

• DXA Acquisition: Standard hip DXA scans are performed according to manufacturer guidelines, ensuring proper positioning and image quality [34].

• Geometric Analysis: The HSA program (available in software such as Hologic's APEX) analyzes the DXA image using a line profile algorithm across specific regions of interest: narrow neck, intertrochanter, and femoral shaft [34].

• Parameter Calculation: The software automatically computes geometric parameters including cross-sectional area (CSA), cross-sectional moment of inertia (CSMI), section modulus, cortical thickness, and buckling ratio [34].

Research applications require careful attention to standardization, particularly when comparing results across studies. The strong association between HSA parameters and BMI necessitates appropriate adjustment in statistical analyses [34].

Advanced Protocol for Bone Strain Index

BSI calculation represents a more complex computational process:

• Image Processing: DXA scans of the lumbar spine or femur are converted into 2D finite element models where each element is assigned mechanical properties based on pixel grayscale values correlated to bone density [32] [31].

• Load Application: The model simulates physiological loading conditions—typically compressive loads for the spine and a combination of bending and compression for the femur [31].

• Strain Calculation: The finite element analysis computes the strain distribution throughout the bone structure, with the BSI value representing the maximum equivalent strain normalized to a reference value [31].

This methodology effectively creates a virtual biomechanical test from a standard DXA image, providing unique insight into bone's resistance to deformation under load.

Signaling Pathways and Research Workflows

The following diagram illustrates the integrated research workflow for evaluating bone quality in endocrine therapy studies, incorporating both established and novel assessment technologies:

Integrated Research Workflow for Bone Quality Assessment

The diagram above outlines a comprehensive research approach that leverages multiple imaging technologies to fully characterize skeletal responses to endocrine therapies. This integrated methodology enables researchers to detect compartment-specific and microarchitectural changes that would remain undetected using BMD alone.

Essential Research Reagent Solutions

Table 2: Essential Research Materials and Technologies for Bone Quality Studies

Research Tool	Specific Function	Example Applications
DXA Systems (Hologic Discovery)	Areal BMD measurement, image source for TBS/HSA/BSI	Baseline and longitudinal BMD assessment [10] [36]
TBS iNsight Software	Analysis of trabecular texture from DXA images	Microarchitecture assessment in endocrine disorders [10] [34]
Finite Element Modeling Software	BSI calculation from DXA images	Bone strength simulation in rheumatological diseases [32] [31]
HR-pQCT Scanners	Volumetric BMD and 3D microarchitecture	Compartment-specific therapy effects [10] [33]
Recombinant Human GH	Hormone replacement therapy	AGHD treatment studies [10] [36]
IGF-1 Assay Kits	Monitoring therapeutic efficacy	Dose titration and safety monitoring [10] [36]

The limitations of BMD as a standalone fracture risk predictor have driven the development of sophisticated technologies that evaluate bone quality through multiple complementary approaches. TBS provides unique insight into trabecular microarchitecture, HSA quantifies cortical geometry and strength, pQCT enables volumetric and compartment-specific assessment, and BSI introduces a biomechanical perspective through finite element modeling. Each technology contributes distinct information to a comprehensive understanding of bone strength, explaining aspects of fracture risk not captured by BMD alone.

In the context of GH and IGF-1 therapy research, these advanced biomarkers reveal complex, compartment-specific skeletal responses that may inform more targeted therapeutic approaches. The dissociation between BMD improvements and TBS stability observed during long-term GH replacement underscores the need for multi-parameter assessment strategies [10]. Future research should focus on validating these technologies in diverse patient populations, establishing standardized reference values, and developing integrated algorithms that combine multiple parameters for superior fracture risk prediction. As these technologies evolve and become more accessible, they hold the promise of transforming our approach to bone health assessment, enabling truly personalized management of skeletal fragility.

The development of therapies aimed at promoting long-term skeletal anabolism represents a critical frontier in treating age-related and disease-associated bone loss. Unlike anti-resorptive agents that primarily inhibit bone breakdown, anabolic therapies actively stimulate new bone formation, potentially restoring bone structure and strength that has already been compromised. The GH/IGF-1 axis serves as a paradigmatic model for understanding anabolic pathways, with both molecules demonstrating direct and indirect effects on bone formation through endocrine and paracrine mechanisms [14]. However, designing clinical trials to evaluate these therapies presents unique challenges, particularly in selecting endpoints that convincingly demonstrate long-term benefits on bone density, quality, and fracture risk reduction that are meaningful to patients, clinicians, and regulators [37].

This review systematically compares endpoint methodologies for evaluating skeletal anabolism, with a specific focus on therapies targeting the GH/IGF-1 axis. We provide a structured analysis of quantitative measures, detailed experimental protocols, and essential research tools to guide researchers in designing robust clinical trials that can adequately capture the long-term skeletal benefits of anabolic interventions.

Endpoint Comparison for Skeletal Anabolism Trials

Categorization and Application of Primary Endpoints

Clinical trials evaluating skeletal anabolism utilize diverse endpoints ranging from direct bone density measurements to functional outcomes. The table below summarizes the primary endpoint categories, their applications, and limitations in the context of long-term skeletal anabolism trials.

Table 1: Primary Endpoint Categories for Evaluating Skeletal Anabolism

Endpoint Category	Specific Measures	Applications	Limitations
Bone Mineral Density (BMD)	DXA-derived BMD (spine, hip) [38]	Gold standard for osteoporosis diagnosis & treatment monitoring; Regulatory acceptance	Does not fully capture bone quality or microarchitecture; Affected by bone size [14]
Bone Turnover Biomarkers	Bone-specific alkaline phosphatase (formation), CTX (resorption) [1] [14]	Short-term response indicator (3-6 months); Mechanism of action confirmation	High biological variability; Influenced by non-skeletal factors
Functional Outcomes	Fracture incidence reduction [14]	Clinically most relevant; Patient-centered	Requires large sample size & long duration; Not feasible for early-phase trials
Biomechanical & Structural	Bone Health Index (BHI), QCT, HR-pQCT [39]	Assesses bone strength & microarchitecture; More sensitive to changes than DXA	Limited availability; Higher cost; Less standardized for regulatory purposes

GH vs. IGF-1 Therapy: Endpoint Response Profiles

Therapies targeting the GH/IGF-1 axis demonstrate distinct temporal and mechanistic profiles across key endpoints. The following table provides a comparative analysis based on clinical and preclinical evidence.

Table 2: Comparative Endpoint Profiles for GH and IGF-1 Therapies

Endpoint	GH Therapy Response	IGF-1 Therapy Response	Temporal Considerations
BMD Response	Increases cortical bone, variable trabecular effects [14]	Correlates with BMD in some populations [1]	Significant changes typically require 12-24 months
Bone Turnover	Simultaneously increases formation & resorption markers [1] [14]	Increases both formation and resorption biomarkers [1]	Marker changes detectable within 3-6 months
Fracture Healing	Accelerates callus formation & fracture healing [1]	Promotes bone healing in preclinical models [1]	Short-term outcome (weeks to months)
Linear Bone Growth	Stimulates via chondrocyte proliferation in growth plate [14]	Critical mediator of longitudinal bone growth [1]	Primarily relevant in pediatric populations
Fracture Risk	Reduces in GHD; increases in acromegaly [14]	Low levels associated with increased fracture risk [1]	Long-term outcome requiring years of follow-up

Signaling Pathways in GH/IGF-1 Bone Anabolism

The skeletal effects of Growth Hormone and Insulin-like Growth Factor-1 are mediated through a complex network of interacting pathways that regulate bone formation, resorption, and remodeling. The diagram below illustrates the key molecular mechanisms and their interactions in skeletal anabolism.

GH/IGF-1 Signaling Pathway in Bone

This diagram illustrates the dual pathways of GH action: direct effects via osteoblast GH receptors and indirect effects mediated through systemic and local IGF-1. GH binding to its receptor (GHR) activates JAK2/STAT5 signaling, stimulating IGF-1 gene expression. Liver-derived systemic IGF-1 circulates to bone, while local IGF-1 is produced by osteoblasts in response to both GH and PTH [14]. IGF-1 then promotes osteoblast proliferation and bone formation through autocrine/paracrine mechanisms. Simultaneously, osteoblasts regulate bone resorption by controlling the RANKL/OPG ratio, which determines osteoclast differentiation and activity [38]. The net anabolic effect depends on the balance between these formation and resorption processes.

Experimental Protocols for Assessing Skeletal Endpoints

Bone Biomarker Assessment Protocol

The measurement of biochemical markers of bone turnover provides early indicators of anabolic therapy response. The following workflow details the standardized protocol for assessing these biomarkers in clinical trials.

Bone Biomarker Assessment Workflow

Key Methodology Details:

• Sample Timing: Collect baseline and follow-up samples at identical times of day (preferably 8-10 AM) to account for diurnal variation [40]
• Processing: Centrifuge blood samples within 1 hour of collection; store aliquoted serum/plasma at -80°C until analysis
• Formation Markers: Procollagen type III N-terminal propeptide (P3NP) shows promise as an early muscle anabolism biomarker with potential bone application; Bone-specific alkaline phosphatase (Bone ALP) and Procollagen type I N-terminal propeptide (P1NP) are bone-specific formation markers [40]
• Resorption Markers: Serum C-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen (CTX) and N-telopeptide (NTX) provide resorption assessment
• IGF-1 Measurement: Use immunoassays (e.g., Immulite 2000) with procedures to disrupt IGF binding proteins (IGFBPs); intra-assay CV should be <5% [1] [40]
• Data Interpretation: Significant changes require consideration of biological variability (10-15% for CTX); calculate least significant change for individual monitoring

Clinical Trial Design for Long-Term Anabolism

Evaluating long-term skeletal anabolism requires meticulous trial design that captures both structural and functional outcomes. The following protocol outlines key considerations for phase III trials.

Table 3: Key Elements of Long-Term Skeletal Anabolism Trial Design

Design Element	Recommendation for Long-Term Trials	Rationale
Study Population	Postmenopausal women/older men with osteoporosis; Patients with documented low BMD (T-score ≤ -2.5) or with fragility fractures [37]	High-risk population with greater potential for demonstrated benefit
Study Duration	Minimum 18-24 months for BMD; 3-5 years for fracture endpoints [37]	Bone remodeling cycle requires 3-4 months; fracture accumulation needs sufficient time
Comparator	Placebo for superiority trials; Active comparator (anti-resorptive) for non-inferiority [37]	Ethical considerations in high-risk populations may require active comparator
Primary Endpoint	Dual Primary:1. BMD change (spine/hip)2. New vertebral fracture incidence [37] [14]	Combines surrogate endpoint with clinically relevant outcome
Key Secondary Endpoints	Non-vertebral fractures, hip fractures, bone turnover markers, safety/tolerability [37]	Provides comprehensive risk-benefit profile
Stratification Factors	Baseline BMD, age, fracture history, bone turnover status [37]	Controls for known predictors of treatment response

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Successful investigation of skeletal anabolism requires specialized reagents and methodologies. The following table details essential research solutions for evaluating GH/IGF-1 targeted therapies.

Table 4: Essential Research Reagents for Skeletal Anabolism Studies

Reagent / Assay	Manufacturer / Example	Research Application
D3-Creatine Dilution	Research-use stable isotopes	Gold standard for muscle mass measurement; More accurate than DXA for clinical trials [37]
DXA (Dual-energy X-ray Absorptiometry)	Hologic, GE Lunar	Standard BMD measurement; Primary endpoint in many bone trials [37]
High-Resolution pQCT	Scanco Medical	Assess bone microarchitecture (trabecular number, thickness, separation); Research tool [38]
Bone Turnover Immunoassays	Immunodiagnostic Systems, Quidel	Quantify CTX (resorption), P1NP (formation) in serum/urine [40]
GH/IGF-1 Axis Assays	Siemens Immulite, Roche Diagnostics	Measure GH, IGF-1, IGFBPs; Require careful standardization [1] [40]
RNA Microarray Profiling	Rosetta Biosoftware Resolver	Discovery of novel biomarker candidates in muscle/bone tissue [40]
Comparative Proteomics	Fourier Transform Mass Spectrometry	Protein expression profiling for mechanism of action studies [40]

The evaluation of long-term skeletal anabolism requires a multifaceted endpoint strategy that integrates bone density measurements, turnover biomarkers, and structural assessments to fully characterize therapeutic effects. For therapies targeting the GH/IGF-1 axis, understanding the distinct yet complementary mechanisms of GH and IGF-1 is essential for appropriate endpoint selection and interpretation. While BMD remains a foundational endpoint for regulatory approval, emerging techniques that assess bone quality and microarchitecture show promise for providing deeper insights into bone strength benefits beyond what BMD alone can demonstrate.

Successful trial design must balance scientific rigor with practical considerations, selecting endpoints that are sensitive to change, clinically meaningful, and feasible within study constraints. As biomarker science advances, the field moves toward increasingly personalized approaches that may eventually allow researchers to select endpoints based on individual patient characteristics and therapeutic mechanisms. The methodologies and comparisons presented here provide a framework for designing trials that can robustly demonstrate the long-term skeletal benefits of anabolic therapies.

The growth hormone (GH) and insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) axis represents a critical signaling pathway for bone metabolism, influencing skeletal development, maintenance, and repair. This complex physiological system operates through both endocrine and paracrine/autocrine mechanisms to regulate bone formation and resorption processes. In clinical practice, perturbations of this axis—particularly growth hormone deficiency (GHD)—contribute significantly to bone fragility disorders, including idiopathic osteoporosis and impaired fracture healing [2] [14] [41]. The therapeutic application of recombinant human GH (rhGH) aims to restore this axis, with emerging evidence supporting its benefits for bone mineral density (BMD) and fracture risk reduction in deficient states [10] [41].

Understanding the comparative effectiveness of GH versus IGF-1 targeted therapies requires examining their distinct yet complementary mechanisms of action. GH exerts both direct effects on bone tissue and indirect effects mediated through systemic and local IGF-1 production [14]. This review synthesizes current preclinical and clinical evidence to objectively compare therapeutic strategies targeting the GH/IGF-1 axis, with a specific focus on long-term bone density outcomes across different clinical contexts including GHD, idiopathic osteoporosis, and fracture healing.

Physiological Mechanisms of GH and IGF-1 in Bone

The GH/IGF-1 axis regulates bone metabolism through a sophisticated network of direct and indirect actions. GH binding to its receptor activates intracellular JAK2/STAT signaling pathways, leading to increased expression of IGF-1 [14]. The resulting IGF-1 then functions in both endocrine (liver-derived) and paracrine/autocrine (locally produced) manners to stimulate osteoblast proliferation and bone formation [2] [14].

The skeletal effects of this axis are pleiotropic. GH directly promotes osteoblast cell proliferation and differentiation while also stimulating prechondrocyte multiplication in growth plates [14]. Simultaneously, IGF-1 decreases osteoblast apoptosis and promotes chondrocyte differentiation [14]. Importantly, both GH and IGF-1 influence bone remodeling by modulating cytokine production (including interleukin-1β, interleukin-6, and tumor necrosis factor), which subsequently affects osteoclast formation and activity [14]. The net in vivo effect of GH and IGF-1 is anabolic, resulting in increased bone remodeling with a positive balance that favors bone formation over resorption [14] [41].

Figure 1: GH/IGF-1 Signaling Pathway in Bone Metabolism. Growth hormone (GH) binding to its receptor (GHR) activates JAK2/STAT signaling, increasing IGF-1 gene expression. IGF-1 acts through endocrine (systemic) and paracrine/autocrine (local) pathways to stimulate osteoblast-mediated bone formation. IGF-1 also influences osteoclast differentiation and activity via RANKL modulation, affecting bone resorption. The net effect is increased bone turnover with formation exceeding resorption [2] [14] [41].

In states of GH deficiency, bone turnover decreases substantially, leading to impaired statural growth in children and reduced bone mass in adults [2] [41]. This manifests clinically as short stature in pediatric patients and increased fracture risk across the lifespan. The skeletal fragility observed in GHD results from a low bone turnover state where bone formation is disproportionately impaired relative to resorption [41]. Histomorphometric analyses reveal reduced osteoid surface, mineralizing surface, and eroded bone surface in GHD patients compared to healthy controls [41].

Therapeutic Approaches: GH versus IGF-1

Treatment Modalities and Molecular Considerations

Therapeutic strategies targeting the somatotropic axis primarily involve recombinant human GH (rhGH) administration, which provides the biologically active hormone to activate both direct GH signaling and downstream IGF-1 production. Alternatively, IGF-1 therapy represents a more targeted approach that bypasses GH receptor signaling entirely. Each strategy offers distinct pharmacological profiles and molecular mechanisms.

Somatrogon, a long-acting GH formulation, exemplifies advancements in rhGH therapy. This fusion protein incorporates the amino acid sequence of human GH with copies of the C-terminal peptide from human chorionic gonadotropin, resulting in extended half-life (~37.7 hours) compared to conventional somatropin (~4 hours) [42]. This prolonged activity permits once-weekly dosing while maintaining physiological activation of both GH and IGF-1 pathways [42].

Bioinactive GH syndrome represents a unique therapeutic scenario where patients exhibit immunoreactive but biologically ineffective endogenous GH [43]. These individuals typically demonstrate significantly reduced serum IGF-1 and IGFBP-3 levels despite normal GH secretion, leading to short stature. Treatment with rhGH effectively bypasses the functional defect, resulting in robust growth responses—often exceeding those observed in idiopathic short stature or small for gestational age populations [43].

Key Research Reagents and Methodologies

Table 1: Essential Research Reagents for GH/IGF-1 Axis Investigation

Reagent/Solution	Primary Function	Research Application
Recombinant Human GH (rhGH)	GH receptor agonist	In vitro and in vivo studies of GH signaling; therapeutic intervention
Long-acting GH formulations (e.g., Somatrogon)	Extended-action GH receptor agonist	Evaluating sustained GH/IGF-1 axis activation; weekly dosing regimens
IGF-1 Generation Test	Assessment of GH bioactivity	Diagnosing bioinactive GH; measuring IGF-1 response to GH stimulation
IGF-1 Immunoassays	Quantification of IGF-1 levels	Monitoring therapeutic response; safety assessment
Dual-energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DXA)	Bone density and composition measurement	Primary outcome for bone mineral density and content
Hologic Densitometers	DXA scanning hardware	Standardized BMD measurement across longitudinal studies
Trabecular Bone Score (TBS) Software	Indirect bone microarchitecture assessment	Evaluating bone quality independent of density
Bone Turnover Markers (P1NP, CTX)	Dynamic bone remodeling assessment	Monitoring treatment effects on bone formation and resorption

Comparative Clinical Outcomes in GHD

Pediatric and Adolescent Populations

The efficacy of GH therapy in pediatric GHD is well-established for improving linear growth, with recent studies exploring novel formulations and treatment durations. A six-month real-world study comparing once-weekly somatrogon versus daily GH demonstrated comparable efficacy, with height gains of 4.58±1.18 cm and 4.41±0.87 cm, respectively [42]. Both treatments exhibited similar safety profiles, with no significant differences in height velocity or IGF-1 levels [42].

During the critical transition phase from adolescence to adulthood, GH therapy plays a vital role in achieving peak bone mass (PBM). A prospective cohort study in transitional GHD (TGHD) patients demonstrated that continued rhGH therapy significantly improved lumbar spine BMD (0.74±0.58 g/cm² vs. 0.53±0.12 g/cm² in untreated controls) and grip strength after six months [44]. Importantly, discontinuation of GH therapy led to BMD decline (0.42±0.55 g/cm² vs. 0.59±0.85 g/cm²) and deterioration of musculoskeletal function [44].

An 18-month randomized controlled trial further substantiated the importance of GH continuity during transition, demonstrating that non-weight-based low-dose somatropin (0.5±0.18 mg/day) significantly improved lumbar spine bone mineral content (11.02%±10.12% increase versus 2.05%±10.31% in untreated controls) [45]. These findings underscore the critical window of bone accrual during late adolescence and the necessity of GH therapy for optimizing PBM.

Adult Populations and Long-Term Outcomes

Long-term GH replacement in adult GHD (AGHD) demonstrates sustained benefits for bone health. A ten-year prospective study revealed continuous BMD improvement, with total hip BMD increasing approximately 11% (p=0.0003) over the decade [10]. The most significant BMD increments occurred at year six for both lumbar spine (+6%) and total hip (+13%) [10]. This longitudinal data confirms the time-dependent nature of GH effects on bone, with maximal benefits requiring several years of continuous therapy.

Table 2: Comparative Bone Outcomes in GH Deficiency Across the Lifespan

Population	Therapy	Duration	Bone Outcomes	Comparative Efficacy
Children with GHD [42]	Once-weekly Somatrogon vs. Daily GH	6 months	Height gain: 4.58±1.18 cm vs. 4.41±0.87 cm	Equivalent efficacy (p>0.05)
Transitional GHD [44]	rhGH continuation vs. No treatment	6 months	Lumbar BMD: 0.74±0.58 vs. 0.53±0.12 g/cm²	Significant improvement with rhGH (p<0.05)
Transitional GHD [45]	Low-dose somatropin vs. No treatment	18 months	LS BMC: 11.02%±10.12% vs. 2.05%±10.31% increase	Significant improvement with somatropin (p<0.04)
Adult GHD [10]	rhGH replacement	10 years	Total hip BMD: +11% (p=0.0003)	Progressive increase, peak at year 6
Bioinactive GH [43]	rhGH therapy	3 years	Final height: All patients achieved normal stature	Superior response vs. ISS and SGA

The skeletal benefits of GH replacement extend beyond BMD metrics. AGHD patients exhibit a 2-7.4 times higher prevalence of fractures compared to age-matched controls, which improves with adequate GH replacement [41]. However, the relationship between GH therapy and fracture risk reduction appears complex, with some studies demonstrating dissociation between BMD improvements and fracture outcomes [10].

GH/IGF-1 Therapy in Idiopathic Osteoporosis and Fracture Healing

Osteoporosis Management

The therapeutic potential of GH/IGF-1 axis modulation extends to idiopathic osteoporosis management, particularly in cases characterized by low bone turnover. In GHD-induced osteoporosis, rhGH therapy stimulates a fundamental shift toward increased bone remodeling, addressing the underlying pathophysiology of reduced bone formation [41]. This anabolic effect distinguishes GH from antiresorptive agents, which primarily suppress bone resorption.

The evidence supporting GH for osteoporosis management is particularly robust in GHD populations. Multiple studies confirm that rhGH replacement improves BMD and reduces fracture risk in both childhood-onset and adult-onset GHD [41]. The magnitude of BMD improvement appears dependent on treatment duration, with studies shorter than 12-24 months often failing to demonstrate significant changes [10]. This temporal pattern reflects the physiological bone remodeling cycle, wherein GH initially expands the bone remodeling space before net bone accumulation occurs.

Fracture Healing Applications

Preclinical models provide compelling evidence for GH and IGF-1 in fracture repair, demonstrating enhanced callus formation and mechanical strength with administration. The mechanisms involve accelerated chondrogenesis and osteogenesis during the early phases of healing, potentially reducing the time to union [14]. However, clinical translation remains limited, with most human evidence derived from indirect outcomes in GHD populations rather than direct studies of acute fracture management.

Epidemiological observations confirm that GHD patients have increased fracture risk, supporting the physiological importance of an intact GH/IGF-1 axis for skeletal integrity [41]. This risk profile normalizes with GH replacement, suggesting potential application for fracture prevention in high-risk populations. The pleiotropic effects of GH—including improved muscle mass, strength, and balance—may contribute to fracture risk reduction beyond direct skeletal effects.

Methodological Approaches in GH/IGF-1 Research

Diagnostic Protocols and Assessment Tools

Accurate diagnosis of GHD forms the foundation for appropriate therapy. The diagnostic approach involves a combination of clinical assessment, biochemical testing, and bone density evaluation:

GH Stimulation Testing: Dynamic evaluation using insulin tolerance tests (gold standard), arginine, or glucagon stimulation remains essential for confirming GHD diagnosis. Cutoff values for peak GH response vary by test: ≤5 μg/L for ITT and ≤4 μg/L for arginine stimulation in transitional GHD [44].

IGF-1 Monitoring: Serum IGF-1 measurement provides a useful biomarker for GH activity, though interpretation requires consideration of age, sex, pubertal status, and body weight. Overweight/obese children consistently demonstrate higher IGF-1 levels during GH therapy despite receiving lower weight-based doses [46].

Bone Density Assessment: Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) represents the standard method for BMD measurement in both research and clinical settings. Longitudinal studies employ strict quality control measures, including cross-calibration when changing densitometers [10].

Advanced Bone Metrics: Trabecular bone score (TBS) derived from DXA provides indirect assessment of bone microarchitecture, while high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography (HR-pQCT) offers three-dimensional evaluation of bone structure and density [10].

Figure 2: Experimental Workflow for GH/IGF-1 Clinical Trials. Standardized methodology for evaluating GH/IGF-1 therapies includes rigorous diagnostic confirmation, controlled intervention with IGF-1-guided dosing, and comprehensive outcome assessment using DXA, biochemical markers, and fracture evaluation [42] [44] [10].

Research Design Considerations

Optimal study design for GH/IGF-1 therapeutics requires careful consideration of several methodological factors:

Population Stratification: Distinct pathophysiological mechanisms necessitate separate analysis of childhood-onset versus adult-onset GHD, organic versus idiopathic etiology, and isolated versus multiple pituitary hormone deficiencies [41].

Treatment Duration: Given the delayed onset of BMD response, studies shorter than 12-24 months may fail to capture the full therapeutic effect of GH interventions [10].

Dosing Strategies: Weight-based dosing (e.g., 0.66 mg/kg/week for somatrogon) represents the standard approach, though fixed low-dose regimens (0.5 mg/day) demonstrate efficacy for bone outcomes in transition patients [42] [45].

Control Groups: Ethical considerations in GHD populations often limit placebo-controlled designs, necessitating careful selection of active comparators or wait-list control methodologies.

The therapeutic applications of GH and IGF-1 in bone disorders represent a rapidly evolving field with significant clinical implications. Current evidence firmly establishes the role of GH replacement for optimizing bone health in GHD populations across the lifespan, from facilitating linear growth in children to reducing fracture risk in adults. The comparative effectiveness of GH versus direct IGF-1 therapy remains incompletely characterized, though the pleiotropic effects of GH beyond IGF-1 mediation suggest potential advantages for certain indications.

Future research directions should include head-to-head comparisons of GH versus IGF-1 monotherapy, exploration of combination approaches, and validation of novel biomarkers for treatment response prediction. Additionally, the development of long-acting formulations and personalized dosing algorithms based on pharmacogenomic and pharmacodynamic profiling may further enhance the therapeutic index of GH/IGF-1 axis modulation for bone health applications.

The development of long-acting drug delivery systems represents a paradigm shift in the management of chronic conditions, offering enhanced therapeutic efficacy, improved safety profiles, and superior patient adherence compared to conventional formulations. For diseases requiring sustained treatment, such as growth hormone deficiency (GHD), these advanced systems provide controlled, extended drug release that maintains therapeutic plasma levels while reducing dosing frequency [47]. The optimization of dosing regimens for long-acting formulations has emerged as a critical focus in drug development, particularly for therapies targeting long-term outcomes such as bone density maintenance, where consistent exposure is essential for achieving therapeutic goals.

This review examines the current landscape of dosing paradigm optimization for long-acting formulations, with particular emphasis on growth hormone therapies and their implications for bone health. We explore how pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) modeling approaches are revolutionizing dose selection and regimen design, enabling more precise targeting of therapeutic windows while minimizing adverse effects. Through comparative analysis of different optimization strategies and their outcomes, we provide insights into the evolving science of long-acting formulation development and its application to enhancing long-term skeletal health outcomes.

Current Landscape of Long-Acting Formulations

Long-acting injectables (LAIs) have transformed treatment approaches across multiple therapeutic areas, particularly for chronic conditions requiring sustained pharmacological intervention. These systems are specifically designed to overcome limitations of conventional formulations, including fluctuating drug levels, reduced efficacy, and poor patient adherence [47]. The technological evolution of LAIs has progressed from simple oil-based systems limited to lipophilic molecules to sophisticated delivery platforms capable of accommodating hydrophilic drugs and large molecules, including peptides and proteins [48].

The market landscape for long-acting formulations has expanded significantly, with 223 marketed LAIs currently available. Cancer therapeutics represent the largest segment (36.1%), followed by central nervous system disorders (21.2%), and metabolic diseases (13.0%) [48]. This distribution reflects the critical need for sustained, consistent drug exposure in conditions where therapeutic windows are narrow and adherence challenges pronounced. For growth hormone therapies, the transition from daily injections to long-acting growth hormone (LAGH) formulations has particularly addressed the issue of nonadherence, which historically affected approximately 30% of patients on daily rhGH regimens and significantly compromised treatment outcomes [49].

Advanced delivery technologies now include polymeric microspheres, in-situ forming depots, implantable systems, prodrug approaches, and reservoir-type implants utilizing semipermeable membranes [47] [48]. Each technology offers distinct release kinetics and administration profiles, enabling duration of action ranging from weeks to months. For instance, in schizophrenia treatment, long-acting injectable antipsychotics now offer dosing intervals extending from two weeks to six months, with demonstrated improvements in adherence and clinical outcomes [50]. Similar advances in growth hormone therapies have yielded formulations with weekly dosing that maintain stable growth velocity while significantly reducing treatment burden.

Table 1: Classification of Marketed Long-Acting Injectables by Therapeutic Area

Therapeutic Area	Percentage of Marketed LAIs	Representative Conditions	Common Dosing Intervals
Cancer	36.1%	Various carcinomas	1-4 weeks
Central Nervous System	21.2%	Schizophrenia, bipolar disorder	2 weeks-6 months
Metabolic Diseases	13.0%	Diabetes, growth hormone deficiency	1-7 days
Infectious Diseases	10.0%	HIV, viral infections	1-6 months
Cardiovascular	8.5%	Hypertension, thrombosis	1-4 weeks
Other	11.2%	Various	Variable

Dosing Optimization Strategies for Long-Acting Formulations

Model-Informed Drug Development Approaches

The optimization of dosing regimens for long-acting formulations increasingly relies on model-informed drug development (MIDD) approaches that integrate pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, and disease progression modeling. Population PK/PD (PopPK/PD) modeling represents a particularly powerful methodology for identifying optimal dosing strategies that account for interindividual variability and specific patient factors [49]. These approaches enable quantitative prediction of drug exposure and response relationships under various dosing scenarios, providing a scientific basis for regimen selection before conducting costly clinical trials.

Adaptive dose simulation frameworks have emerged as valuable tools for investigating complex dosing scenarios, particularly for compounds with narrow therapeutic indices [51]. These frameworks incorporate PK, PD, efficacy, and safety models to simulate the impact of different starting doses, dosing intervals, and event-driven dose modifications on therapeutic outcomes. The implementation typically involves a multidisciplinary team including clinicians, clinical pharmacologists, and pharmacometricians who define clinical decision criteria and dose adaptation rules based on quantifiable markers [51]. This approach allows for in-silico evaluation of multiple dosing strategies, identifying those that maximize clinical benefit while minimizing adverse effects.

Specific Optimization Strategies for Long-Acting Formulations

Dose Up-Titration Regimens

Dose up-titration has emerged as a promising strategy to counteract the declining drug response often observed with long-acting formulations over extended treatment periods. For long-acting growth hormone therapies, waning growth velocity represents a significant challenge, with studies documenting progressive declines from 11.5 cm/year in the first year to 7.4 cm/year by the fourth year of treatment with constant dosing [49]. Similar patterns occur with other long-acting therapeutics, necessitating strategic dose adjustments to maintain therapeutic effects.

Research on Pegpesen, a novel long-acting growth hormone, demonstrates the potential of structured up-titration regimens. Modeling simulations have explored starting at 0.14 mg/kg/week with periodic increases of 12.3%, 18.9%, and 26.0% every 3 months to a maximum of 0.28 mg/kg/week [49]. This approach dose-dependently increased 12-month growth velocity from 9.51 to 9.88 cm/year while maintaining insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) levels within a safe range. The convergence of growth velocity by 24 months across dosing levels suggests that response saturation occurs before the second year of treatment, highlighting the importance of early intervention with dose optimization [49].

Weight-Banded Dosing

Weight-based dosing, while physiologically rational, presents practical challenges for long-acting formulations as children grow and require frequent dose adjustments. Weight-banded dosing models, where a single product strength serves patients within a specific weight range, offer a simplified alternative that maintains efficacy while enhancing convenience [49]. Simulation studies with Pegpesen have evaluated the suitability of fixed doses for children within ±1.78 kg and ±3.57 kg of a target weight.

Results demonstrate that PK/PD profiles for subjects within ±1.78 kg of the target weight were comparable to standard weight-based dosing, while the ±3.57 kg range showed significant divergence [49]. This suggests that carefully calibrated weight-banding approaches can maintain therapeutic exposure while reducing the need for frequent formulation strength changes. This strategy aligns with the broader trend in long-acting formulation development toward reducing treatment burden and simplifying administration protocols.

Extended Dosing Intervals

The evolution of dosing intervals for long-acting formulations reflects ongoing efforts to balance therapeutic coverage with convenience and adherence. In schizophrenia treatment, the development of paliperidone palmitate six-monthly (PP6M) LAI represents the current frontier, offering twice-yearly dosing that substantially reduces healthcare encounters while maintaining therapeutic efficacy [50]. Similar advances are emerging across therapeutic domains, with technology innovations enabling progressively longer intervals between administrations.

Longer dosing intervals demonstrate particular benefit for patient populations with challenges in maintaining regular healthcare contact, including those with recent-onset schizophrenia, limited access to care, or transitions between care settings [50]. Real-world evidence indicates that longer-interval LAIs are associated with improved adherence rates, with patients on LAIs showing 89% greater adherence (proportion of days covered ≥80%) compared to those on oral antipsychotics [50]. This adherence advantage translates to meaningful clinical outcomes, including reduced relapse rates and hospitalization frequency.

Growth Hormone and IGF-1 Therapies: Implications for Bone Health

Mechanisms of Action on Bone

The GH/IGF-1 axis plays a fundamental role in skeletal development, linear growth, and bone metabolism through complex endocrine and paracrine/autocrine mechanisms. Growth hormone exerts both direct and IGF-1-mediated effects on bone cells, stimulating osteoblast proliferation and differentiation while also modulating chondrocyte activity in growth plates [2] [14]. IGF-1, produced primarily in the liver in response to GH stimulation but also synthesized locally in bone tissue, promotes osteoblast proliferation, enhances bone formation, and reduces osteoblast apoptosis [14].

Preclinical studies utilizing transgenic animal models have demonstrated that GH can stimulate longitudinal bone growth directly, independent of systemic IGF-1 production [14]. This direct mechanism involves activation of the JAK2-STAT signaling pathway following GH binding to its dimeric receptor, leading to transcriptional regulation of target genes involved in bone formation [14]. The physiological actions of the GH/IGF-1 axis result in net anabolic effects on bone, regulating bone remodeling, increasing periosteal apposition, and enhancing bone strength—all essential processes for achieving linear growth and maintaining peak bone mass [2].

Bone Pathology in GH/IGF-1 Axis Disorders

Disturbances in the GH/IGF-1 axis produce distinctive bone pathology patterns with significant implications for fracture risk and skeletal health. In growth hormone deficiency (GHD), the characteristic bone phenotype includes decreased bone turnover, delayed statural growth, reduced bone mass, and elevated fracture risk [2]. The impaired osteoblastogenesis and reduced bone strength observed in GHD reflect the combined impact of diminished direct GH signaling and reduced systemic IGF-1 availability [14].

Conversely, acromegaly (GH excess) produces a more complex bone phenotype characterized by increased bone turnover but decreased lumbar bone mineral density, ultimately resulting in elevated vertebral fracture and osteoarthritis risk [2]. The disproportionate increase in bone resorption relative to formation in acromegaly creates a net bone loss situation despite elevated markers of bone turnover [14]. This paradox highlights the delicate balance required in the GH/IGF-1 axis for optimal bone health and explains why simply increasing GH exposure does not necessarily improve bone outcomes.

Table 2: Bone Characteristics in GH/IGF-1 Axis Disorders

Parameter	GH Deficiency	GH Excess (Acromegaly)	Normal GH/IGF-1 Axis
Bone Turnover	Decreased	Increased	Balanced
Bone Mineral Density	Low	Decreased in lumbar spine	Normal for age
Fracture Risk	Increased	Increased (vertebral)	Normal
Linear Growth	Impaired	N/A (adults)	Normal
Osteoblast Activity	Reduced	Increased but insufficient	Normal
Osteoclast Activity	Reduced	Markedly increased	Normal
Response to Normalization Therapy	Fracture risk decreases	Fracture risk persists	N/A

Therapeutic Implications for Bone Health

The differential effects of GH and IGF-1 on bone have important implications for designing optimal dosing regimens aimed at long-term bone health. Treatment focused on normalizing the GH/IGF-1 axis successfully decreases fracture risk in GHD but fails to achieve similar protection in acromegaly [2]. This discrepancy suggests that the skeletal effects of GH excess may involve irreversible changes or distinct mechanisms not simply corrected by hormone level normalization.

The timing and pattern of GH exposure also significantly influence bone outcomes. Preclinical data indicate that GH exerts independent effects on bone beyond hepatic IGF-1 generation, with transgenic mouse models demonstrating that both GH and IGF-1 excess can produce analogous negative effects on bone similar to GHD [14]. This biphasic response pattern—where both deficiency and excess prove detrimental—highlights the importance of precise dosing control in long-acting GH formulations to maintain therapeutic exposure within an optimal window for bone health.

Comparative Analysis of Dosing Optimization Approaches

Methodologies for Dosing Regimen Optimization

The science of dosing regimen optimization for long-acting formulations employs sophisticated modeling and simulation approaches that integrate pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, and disease progression components. Population PK/PD modeling using software platforms such as NONMEM (non-linear mixed-effects model) represents the current standard for quantitative analysis of drug behavior across patient populations [49]. These models characterize typical parameter values, between-subject variability, and residual unexplained variability, enabling simulation of diverse dosing scenarios.

Hybrid PK/PD models with target-mediated drug disposition (TMDD) components have proven particularly valuable for compounds like exenatide extended-release that exhibit complex absorption processes and receptor-mediated nonlinear PK behaviors [52]. These models successfully describe plasma concentration-time and response profiles, enabling Monte Carlo simulations to explore potential dosing regimens that optimize pharmacodynamic exposure [52]. The sequential modeling approach—first developing a PopPK model then integrating it with PD data—provides a robust framework for predicting exposure-response relationships under novel dosing conditions.

Experimental Protocols for Dosing Optimization Studies

Well-designed clinical trials provide the foundation for robust dosing optimization. Phase 1 studies typically employ single-ascending-dose designs in healthy subjects to establish preliminary tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics [49]. These are followed by combined Phase 2/3 trials in patient populations that incorporate dose-ranging elements and active comparators. For Pegpesen, the Phase 2/3 trial design enrolled initial subjects for optimal dose-finding followed by larger cohorts for efficacy and safety confirmation [49].

The technical implementation of adaptive simulation frameworks involves meticulous preparation of simulation settings, including event timing, decision criteria, dosing rules, and bookkeeping procedures [51]. Simulation outcomes typically include metrics such as growth velocity, biomarker levels (e.g., IGF-1), and PK/PD profiles at specific timepoints (e.g., 12 and 24 months) [49]. These outputs enable quantitative comparison of dosing strategies and identification of regimens that maximize therapeutic benefit while maintaining safety parameters.

Comparative Outcomes of Different Dosing Strategies

Direct comparison of dosing strategies for long-acting formulations reveals distinctive patterns of efficacy, safety, and convenience trade-offs. For long-acting growth hormones, dose up-titration regimens demonstrate clear advantages in maintaining growth velocity over time compared to fixed dosing. Simulation studies indicate that structured up-titration can increase 12-month growth velocity by approximately 0.37-0.88 cm/year compared to constant dosing [49]. This enhanced efficacy comes without compromising safety, as IGF-1 levels remain within the normal range throughout the titration period.

Weight-banded dosing offers significant convenience advantages while maintaining therapeutic exposure for patients within carefully defined weight ranges. The similarity of PK/PD profiles between weight-banded and standard weight-based dosing for subjects within ±1.78 kg of target weight supports the feasibility of this approach [49]. However, the significant divergence observed with broader weight ranges (±3.57 kg) underscores the importance of precise band definition to avoid subtherapeutic or supratherapeutic exposure.

Table 3: Comparison of Dosing Optimization Strategies for Long-Acting Formulations

Strategy	Key Features	Advantages	Limitations	Evidence Level
Dose Up-Titration	Progressive dose increases over time (e.g., every 3 months)	Counters declining response over time; Maintains efficacy; Demonstrated safety	Increased monitoring requirements; Potential for delayed toxicity	Phase 3 simulation studies [49]
Weight-Banded Dosing	Fixed doses for weight ranges rather than exact weight	Simplified administration; Reduced product strengths needed; Improved convenience	Limited to ±1.78 kg ranges; Requires careful band definition	Modeling and simulation [49]
Extended Dosing Intervals	Longer intervals between administrations (e.g., 3-6 months)	Improved adherence; Reduced healthcare encounters; Lower stigma	Limited dose adjustment flexibility; Potential for accumulation	Real-world evidence studies [50]
Model-Informed Dosing	PK/PD modeling and simulation to inform regimens	Quantitative basis for decisions; Preclinical optimization; Reduced trial cost	Model dependency; Validation requirements	Regulatory submissions [51]

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Methodologies

Advancing the science of dosing optimization for long-acting formulations requires specialized research tools and methodologies. The following table summarizes key reagents and their applications in this field.

Table 4: Essential Research Reagents and Methodologies for Dosing Optimization Studies

Reagent/Methodology	Function	Application Examples
Population PK/PD Modeling (NONMEM)	Quantitative analysis of drug disposition and response across populations	Pegpesen dose optimization [49]; Exenatide ER regimen simulation [52]
Adaptive Dose Simulation Framework	In-silico evaluation of complex dosing scenarios with dose modifications	Oncology dose optimization [51]; Narrow therapeutic index drugs
Monte Carlo Simulation	Statistical method for modeling probability of different outcomes under uncertainty	Exploration of alternative dosing regimens [52]; Prediction of exposure-response
First-Order Conditional Estimation with Interaction (FOCEI)	Parameter estimation method in non-linear mixed-effects models	PopPK/PD model development [49]
Target-Mediated Drug Disposition (TMDD) Models	Modeling nonlinear PK due to high-affinity binding to pharmacological targets	Exenatide extended-release with GLP-1 receptor mediation [52]
Sequential PK-PD Modeling	Approach where PK model is developed first, then linked to PD responses	Pegpesen PopPK/PD model development [49]

The optimization of dosing regimens for long-acting formulations represents a sophisticated integration of pharmaceutical technology, clinical science, and quantitative pharmacology. Model-informed approaches have demonstrated significant utility in identifying dosing strategies that maximize therapeutic benefit while minimizing adverse effects, particularly for therapies targeting long-term outcomes such as bone health. The continued evolution of long-acting formulations—with extended durations, simplified administration, and individualized dosing—holds promise for enhanced clinical outcomes across multiple therapeutic domains.

For growth hormone therapies specifically, structured dose up-titration and weight-banded dosing approaches offer solutions to the challenges of waning treatment response and dosing complexity. The differential effects of GH and IGF-1 on bone metabolism underscore the importance of precise exposure control within therapeutic windows to optimize long-term skeletal outcomes. As the field advances, the integration of innovative delivery technologies with sophisticated modeling approaches will enable increasingly refined dosing paradigms that balance efficacy, safety, and convenience across diverse patient populations.

The GH/IGF-1 axis is a critical regulator of skeletal growth, bone metabolism, and the maintenance of bone mass throughout life [1] [53]. In both clinical practice and research, monitoring the efficacy and safety of therapies that target this axis—namely, growth hormone (GH) and insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) therapy—is paramount for ensuring positive long-term bone density outcomes. This guide provides a objective comparison of the monitoring methodologies centered on three core components: serum IGF-1 measurement, the analysis of biochemical bone turnover markers (BTMs), and the assessment of growth plate status. Accurate monitoring presents significant challenges, including the complex regulation of IGF-1 by sex steroids during puberty, the biphasic nature of bone density changes in response to GH, and the limitations of conventional imaging in reflecting true bone strength [54] [19] [55]. This article summarizes key experimental data and protocols to aid researchers and drug development professionals in the rigorous evaluation of anabolic bone therapies.

Therapeutic Agent Profiles and Key Monitoring Parameters

The table below compares the fundamental characteristics and monitoring challenges of GH and IGF-1 therapies.

Table 1: Comparison of GH and IGF-1 Therapies for Bone Health

Parameter	Growth Hormone (GH) Therapy	IGF-1 Therapy
Primary Mechanism	Direct action via GH receptor & indirect via systemic IGF-1; stimulates osteoblast & chondrocyte progenitor cells [1] [14] [53]	Direct action via IGF-1 Receptor; promotes osteoblast proliferation & differentiation, reduces apoptosis [56] [14]
Primary Use Case	Treatment of Growth Hormone Deficiency (GHD) in children and adults [54]	Treatment of GH insensitivity (e.g., Laron syndrome) [1] [56]
Key Monitoring Challenge	Biphasic BMD response (initial decrease followed by increase); Interpretation of IGF-1 during puberty [54] [55]	Regulation of bioavailable IGF-1, complicated by high affinity for IGFBPs [56]
Typical Bone Turnover Response	Increases both bone formation and resorption markers [1] [54] [19]	Increases bone formation markers [1]

Bone Turnover Marker Profiles in GH/IGF-1 Axis Disorders

Biochemical bone turnover markers provide a dynamic picture of bone remodeling activity. Their profiles differ significantly between states of GH excess (acromegaly) and deficiency (GHD), as summarized below.

Table 2: Bone Turnover Marker Profiles in GH/IGF-1 Axis Disorders [1] [57] [19]

Marker	Function	GH Deficiency (GHD)	GH Excess (Acromegaly)	Response to Normalizing Treatment
Bone Alkaline Phosphatase (BALP)	Indicator of osteoblast activity [57]	Low [19]	High [19]	Increases with GH replacement [54]; Decreases with acromegaly treatment [19]
Osteocalcin (OC)	Non-collagenous protein produced by osteoblasts [57]	Low [19]	High [19]	Increases with GH replacement; Decreases with acromegaly treatment [19]
Procollagen I N-Propeptide (P1NP)	Reflects type I collagen synthesis [57]	Low [19]	High [19]	Increases with GH replacement; Decreases with acromegaly treatment [19]
C-Telopeptides (CTX)	Reflects collagen breakdown from bone resorption [57]	Low [19]	High [19]	Increases with GH replacement; Decreases with acromegaly treatment [19]

Experimental Protocols for Key Assays

IGF-1 Measurement Protocol

The accurate measurement of serum IGF-1 is complicated by its binding to IGFBPs, which must be disrupted for a valid assay [56].

• Sample Collection: Collect venous blood samples after an overnight fast. Centrifuge to separate serum and store aliquots at -80°C [58].
• Pre-treatment: Perform an acid-ethanol extraction to separate IGF-1 from its binding proteins (IGFBPs) [56]. This critical step prevents interference and underestimation of IGF-1 levels.
• Quantification: Use a validated immunoassay.
  • Common Platforms: Immunoassay systems such as the IDS iSYS or Siemens Immulite [1] [55].
  • Quality Control: Include control samples with known concentrations. Report results as Standard Deviation Scores (SDS) adjusted for age and sex [55]. Note that inter-assay variability can be a significant source of error [55].
• Pubertal Consideration: For peripubertal subjects, consider simultaneous measurement of sex steroids (estradiol in girls, testosterone in boys) via gas chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (GC-MS/MS) to improve the interpretation of IGF-1 SDS, as sex steroids influence IGF-1 levels prior to visible pubertal signs [55].

Bone Turnover Marker Assessment Protocol

The following protocol outlines the simultaneous measurement of key formation and resorption markers.

• Sample Collection: Collect fasting morning serum samples to minimize diurnal variation. Process and freeze samples as for IGF-1 measurement [57] [58].
• Marker Analysis (ELISA):
  • Coating: Coat 96-well plates with capture antibodies specific to the target marker (e.g., anti-BALP, anti-P1NP, anti-CTX) [57].
  • Incubation: Dilute serum samples and standards. Add to wells and incubate to allow antigen-antibody binding.
  • Detection: After washing, add a detection antibody conjugated to a reporter enzyme (e.g., ruthenium for ECL detection) [58]. Follow with a chemiluminescent substrate.
  • Quantification: Measure signal intensity and calculate concentrations against the standard curve. Assay characteristics should include: analytical sensitivity, linear range, and intra-assay coefficient of variation (CV) [57].

Signaling Pathways and Experimental Workflow

The following diagram illustrates the core signaling pathways of the GH/IGF-1 axis in bone and the subsequent bone remodeling processes that are monitored via turnover markers.

Diagram Title: GH/IGF-1 Signaling and Bone Remodeling Cascade

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Research Reagents

The table below details essential reagents and materials used in experimental investigations of the GH/IGF-1 axis and bone metabolism.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for GH/IGF-1 and Bone Studies

Reagent / Material	Function / Application in Research
Recombinant Human GH (rhGH)	Used for in vitro and in vivo studies to assess direct cellular responses and for creating animal models of GH excess [54].
Recombinant Human IGF-1 (rhIGF-1)	Critical for probing IGF-1 receptor-specific signaling and anabolic effects in cell cultures and animal models, independent of GH [1] [56].
IGF-1 ELISA/Kits	Immunoassays for quantifying total serum or plasma IGF-1 levels; require pre-treatment steps to dissociate IGF-1 from binding proteins for accuracy [56] [58].
Bone Turnover Marker ELISA Kits	Validated immunoassays for specific markers like P1NP, BALP, Osteocalcin, and CTX to monitor bone formation and resorption rates in serum [57] [58].
GC-MS/MS	Gold-standard method for the highly specific and sensitive measurement of sex steroids (estradiol, testosterone), crucial for accounting for pubertal influence on IGF-1 [55].
GHR Antagonists (e.g., Pegvisomant)	Research tool to block the GH receptor, allowing dissection of GH-specific effects from those mediated by IGF-1 in models of GH excess [19].
IGFBP-3	Used in studies to modulate the bioavailability of IGF-1 and to investigate the dynamics of the ternary complex in regulating IGF-1 activity [1] [56].
SOCS2 Transgenic/KO Models	Animal models to investigate the role of Suppressor of Cytokine Signaling proteins in the negative feedback regulation of GH/IGF-1 signaling [1] [14].
Dual-Energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DXA)	Clinical and research tool for measuring areal Bone Mineral Density (BMD), though it has limitations in assessing bone microarchitecture [54] [19].

The effective monitoring of GH and IGF-1 therapies hinges on a multi-faceted approach that integrates the measurement of serum IGF-1 with a panel of dynamic bone turnover markers and clinical growth assessments. Key challenges, such as the pre-analytical handling of IGF-1 samples and the profound influence of puberty on the GH/IGF-1 axis, necessitate strict and sophisticated experimental protocols. Future research must focus on establishing more reliable predictors of fracture risk in these patient populations, standardizing assays for better cross-study comparison, and developing integrated monitoring algorithms that combine biochemical markers with advanced imaging to fully capture treatment efficacy on bone quality and long-term bone density outcomes.

Navigating Clinical Challenges: Resistance, Safety, and Personalizing Therapy

Identifying and Overcoming Hepatic and Peripheral GH Resistance

Clinical and Therapeutic Significance of GH Resistance

Growth Hormone (GH) resistance is a pathological state characterized by impaired signaling through the GH receptor (GHR), leading to reduced production of Insulin-like Growth Factor-1 (IGF-1) and its associated anabolic effects, despite normal or elevated GH levels [59]. This condition is clinically significant as it disrupts the GH-IGF-1 axis, a fundamental regulator of postnatal growth, bone metabolism, and body composition. The liver is the primary site for endocrine IGF-1 production, and hepatic GH resistance results in markedly low circulating IGF-1 levels, which disrupts systemic metabolic homeostasis [59] [60]. Consequently, this resistance is implicated in the progression of several morbidities, including osteoporosis, increased fracture risk, lipid abnormalities, insulin resistance, and hepatic steatosis [1] [61] [60]. Overcoming GH resistance is therefore a critical therapeutic goal for restoring bone density and improving metabolic outcomes in affected patients.

Comparative Mechanisms of GH and IGF-1 Therapy

The therapeutic actions of GH and IGF-1, while interconnected, involve distinct and complementary mechanisms for overcoming GH resistance. The following table outlines the molecular sites of action for each therapy.

Table 1: Therapeutic Mechanisms of Action for GH and IGF-1

Therapeutic Target	GH Therapy	IGF-1 Therapy
Primary Signaling	Binds GHR, activating JAK2-STAT5, ERK, and PI3K pathways [62]	Binds IGF-1 Receptor (IGF-1R), activating PI3K-Akt and MAPK pathways [1]
Hepatic Action	Direct action on hepatocytes; aims to bypass GHR resistance [62]	Bypasses defective hepatic GHR signaling entirely [1]
IGF-1 Production	Stimulates production of systemic (liver) and local (bone) IGF-1 [1]	Provides direct hormone replacement; independent of GH status [1]
Bone Cell Targets	Stimulates progenitor pre-chondrocytes and osteoblasts [1]	Stimulates clonal expansion of mature osteoblasts [1]
Overcoming Resistance	May require high doses or co-therapies to overcome inflammation [59]	Effective in GH Insensitivity Syndrome (Laron Syndrome) [1]

The following diagram illustrates the signaling pathways of GH and IGF-1, highlighting key points of disruption in GH resistance and the distinct entry points for each therapy.

Experimental and Clinical Outcome Data

Empirical evidence from animal models and human clinical trials provides quantitative data on the outcomes of GH and IGF-1 therapies, particularly regarding their impact on bone and metabolic health.

Table 2: Bone Density Outcomes from Preclinical and Clinical Studies

Study Model / Population	Therapy	Duration	Key Bone Density Outcome	Reference
Adult GH Deficiency (Human)	GH Replacement	10 Years	Total Hip BMD increased by ~11%; Lumbar Spine BMD increased by ~7% [10]	[10]
Liver GHR Knockout (Mouse)	None (GHR deleted)	Congenital	Normal linear growth, but significantly reduced total bone mineral density [60]	[60]
Transitional GHD (Human)	GH Therapy	6 Months	Significant improvement in lumbar BMD (0.53 to 0.74 g/cm²); Untreated group showed decline [44]	[44]
Male Idiopathic Osteoporosis (Human)	None (Observational)	N/A	Low serum IGF-1 correlated with reduced BMD, despite normal GH secretion [61]	[61]

Table 3: Metabolic and Systemic Outcomes from Experimental Models

Outcome Parameter	GH Therapy	IGF-1 Therapy	Key Experimental Context
Circulating IGF-1	Increases (when effective) [10]	Directly replaces and increases [1]	GHRLD mouse model showed >90% suppression of IGF-1 [60]
Hepatic Steatosis	Can promote in GHR deficiency [60]	Does not correct steatosis [60]	IGF-1 infusion did not resolve liver fat in GHRLD mice [60]
Glucose Metabolism	Can cause insulin resistance [60]	Can improve insulin sensitivity	High GH in GHRLD mice led to insulin resistance [60]
Bone Turnover	Increases bone formation and resorption markers [1]	Increases bone formation	Short-term GH studies show increased bone remodeling [1] [10]

Experimental Protocols for Investigating GH Resistance

Research into GH resistance and therapeutic efficacy relies on standardized, robust experimental models and protocols.

In Vivo Animal Models

• Genetically Engineered Mouse Models: The liver-specific GHR knockout (GHRLD) model is pivotal. It demonstrates that deleting the GHR in hepatocytes leads to a >90% suppression of circulating IGF-1, severe hepatic steatosis, and insulin resistance, despite normal linear growth [60].
• Inflammation-Induced Resistance Models: Acute or chronic inflammation is induced using lipopolysaccharide (LPS) injection or genetic models like the Dragon knockout mouse, which exhibits chronic inflammation. These models demonstrate that pro-inflammatory cytokines (IL-6, TNF-α, IL-1β) induce hepatic GH resistance [59].
• Antibody Neutralization Studies: To dissect the role of specific cytokines, neutralizing antibodies against IL-6 or a combination of antibodies against TNF-α and IL-1β are administered in vivo. This allows researchers to confirm the distinct mechanisms of different cytokines—TNF-α/IL-1β primarily downregulate GHR, while IL-6 upregulates SOCS3 [59].

In Vitro Cell Culture Models

• Hepatoma Cell Lines: Huh-7 human hepatoma cells are commonly used. Cells are treated with recombinant human cytokines (IL-6, TNF-α, IL-1β) to study their direct effects on GHR and SOCS3 mRNA and protein expression [59].
• Transient Transfection: Huh-7 cells are transfected with plasmids encoding signaling molecules like SOCS3 or a constitutively active form of STAT5b (CA Stat5b). This tests their ability to overcome cytokine-induced suppression of IGF-1 expression, helping to delineate the signaling pathway hierarchy [59].

Human Clinical Trial Design

• Patient Population: Studies often focus on adults with GH deficiency (AGHD) or specific conditions like transitional GHD. Diagnosis is confirmed via stimulation tests (e.g., insulin tolerance test with a GH peak cutoff of ≤3 μg/L) [10].
• Therapy Protocol: Subjects receive daily subcutaneous injections of recombinant human GH (rhGH). Dosing is titrated to normalize IGF-1 levels, often starting at 0.2-0.3 mg/day [10].
• Outcome Measures: Key endpoints include:
  • Bone Mineral Density (BMD): Measured at the lumbar spine and total hip via dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) at baseline and serially during treatment [44] [10].
  • Biochemical Markers: Serum IGF-1 levels are monitored frequently as a surrogate for treatment efficacy and compliance [44] [10].
  • Body Composition: DXA is also used to track changes in lean body mass and fat mass [44].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Research Reagents

The following table catalogues essential reagents and models used in experimental studies of GH resistance.

Table 4: Essential Research Reagents for GH Resistance Studies

Reagent / Model	Specific Example	Primary Function in Research
Recombinant Cytokines	Human IL-6, TNF-α, IL-1β (R&D Systems) [59]	Induce GH resistance in vitro and in vivo to model inflammatory states.
Neutralizing Antibodies	Anti-mouse IL-6, TNF-α, IL-1β (R&D Systems) [59]	Block specific cytokine actions to dissect their individual roles in resistance.
Genetically Engineered Mice	Liver-specific GHR Knockout (GHRLD) [60]	Study the compartmentalized effects of disrupted GH signaling.
Cell Lines	Huh-7 Human Hepatoma Cells [59]	Provide a scalable in vitro system for mechanistic signaling studies.
GH & IGF-1 Assays	IMMULITE IGF-1 Assay (Siemens) [10]	Quantify hormone levels in serum and culture media for diagnostic and research purposes.
Bone Density Measurement	DXA Scan (e.g., GE Lunar Prodigy) [44]	Gold-standard method for assessing bone mineral density in clinical and pre-clinical research.

Bone metabolism is fundamentally regulated by a dynamic balance between resorption and formation. This review examines the critical, yet challenging, management of the biphasic response—an initial stimulation of bone resorption followed by long-term formation—within the context of Growth Hormone (GH) and Insulin-like Growth Factor-1 (IGF-1) therapy. We objectively compare the performance of these therapeutic strategies, supported by experimental and clinical data, to elucidate their distinct mechanisms and temporal effects on bone density. A key differentiator is GH's capacity to activate bone remodeling, initiating a resorptive phase that precedes and potentially enables its anabolic benefits, a process modulated by the Wnt/β-catenin signaling pathway. This analysis provides a framework for researchers and clinicians to navigate the complex temporal dynamics of bone therapeutics for optimizing long-term skeletal outcomes.

The concept of biphasic dose-response relationships, characterized by low-dose stimulation and high-dose inhibition, is a widely observed phenomenon in biological systems, from cell signaling to whole-organism physiology [63]. In bone biology, this paradigm is central to the process of bone remodeling, where an initial phase of osteoclast-driven resorption is a necessary precursor to osteoblast-mediated formation. This tightly coupled sequence is essential for skeletal health, but its dysregulation can lead to pathologies such as osteoporosis. The Wnt/β-catenin signaling pathway serves as a prime molecular example of this biphasic control; it exerts dosage-dependent regulation over osteoclastogenesis, promoting precursor proliferation at one stage while inhibiting differentiation at another [64]. Similarly, at the therapeutic level, interventions like GH and IGF-1 can induce a temporal biphasic response, manifesting as an early increase in bone resorption markers that later transitions to a sustained anabolic formation phase. Understanding and managing this sequence is critical for leveraging the full osteogenic potential of these therapies, particularly for applications in fracture healing and the treatment of severe osteoporosis [1].

Comparative Therapeutic Profiles: GH vs. IGF-1

The following table summarizes the core comparative data on the effects of GH and IGF-1 on bone metabolism, synthesizing findings from key clinical and preclinical studies.

Table 1: Comparative Analysis of GH and IGF-1 Therapy on Bone

Parameter	Growth Hormone (GH) Therapy	Insulin-like Growth Factor-1 (IGF-1) Therapy
Overall Mechanism	Direct action via GHR & indirect via hepatic/systemic IGF-1; JAK-STAT signaling [1].	Direct action via IGF-1R; primary mediator of GH's growth effects [1].
Key Signaling Pathways	GHR → JAK2 → STAT5b; induces IGF-1 gene expression [1].	IGF-1R → PI3K/Akt and MAPK/Erk pathways [1].
Effect on Bone Turnover	Significantly increases both bone formation and resorption markers [1].	Significantly increases both bone formation and resorption markers [1].
Temporal Biphasic Response	Initial increase in resorption/remodeling space, with BMD increase observed after 12-24 months [10].	Can stimulate growth independently, but effects may be less sustained without GH-induced IGFBP-3 [1].
Long-Term BMD Outcome (10-Year Data)	+7% L-spine BMD (NS), +11% Total Hip BMD (p=0.0003); peak increase at year 6 [10].	Data for long-term monotherapy is less comprehensive; often studied in combination with GH.
Impact on Bone Microarchitecture	No significant change in Trabecular Bone Score (TBS) over 10 years [10].	Suggested to play a greater role in regulating bone size than GH [1].
Primary Clinical Application in Bone	Treatment of AGHD; potential for osteoporosis and fracture healing [1] [10].	Investigated for osteoporosis; critical for bone mass acquisition and maintenance [1].

Experimental Data and Protocols

Key Experimental Findings on Biphasic Responses

• β-Catenin in Osteoclastogenesis: A seminal study demonstrated that β-catenin, the central mediator of canonical Wnt signaling, is induced during the M-CSF-mediated proliferation switch in osteoclast precursors but is suppressed during the RANKL-mediated differentiation switch [64]. Genetically, β-catenin deletion blocked precursor proliferation, while its constitutive activation sustained proliferation but prevented differentiation, both leading to osteopetrosis. In contrast, β-catenin heterozygosity enhanced differentiation, causing osteoporosis. This illustrates a precise biphasic and dosage-dependent regulatory mechanism [64].
• GH-Induced Bone Remodeling Sequence: Clinical studies in adults with GH deficiency (AGHD) have clearly documented the biphasic nature of GH therapy. Treatment initially increases bone turnover, expanding the bone remodeling space and leading to an initial decrease or no change in Bone Mineral Density (BMD). This is followed by a time-related increase in BMD, which becomes significant in studies longer than 12-24 months [10]. One of the longest prospective studies showed that the greatest BMD increment was achieved around year 6 of therapy, confirming the long-term anabolic phase [10].
• Interplay with PPARγ: The biphasic effects of compounds like genistein, a phytoestrogen, further underscore the complexity of bone cell regulation. In mesenchymal progenitor cells, low concentrations of genistein (0.1–1 μM) stimulated osteogenesis, while higher concentrations (>10 μM) stimulated adipogenesis via transactivation of PPARγ [65]. This highlights a competing fate decision influenced by dose, which is relevant given the known mutual inhibition between Wnt/β-catenin and PPARγ pathways.

Detailed Experimental Methodologies

The following table outlines the core protocols used to generate key data in the cited research, providing a reproducible framework for investigating biphasic responses.

Table 2: Key Experimental Protocols in Bone Biology Research

Methodology	Key Procedure Steps	Primary Application & Measured Endpoints
In Vitro Osteoclast Differentiation [64]	1. Purify hematopoietic bone marrow cells.2. Differentiate with M-CSF (40 ng/ml) for 3 days.3. Differentiate with M-CSF + RANKL (100 ng/ml) for 3+ days.4. Treat with agonists/antagonists (e.g., Wnt3a, BIO).	Application: Study osteoclast formation and function.Endpoints: TRAP+ multinucleated cell count; gene expression (RT-qPCR) of transcription factors (e.g., c-Fos, NFATc1); protein analysis (Western Blot) [64].
Long-Term Clinical BMD Assessment [10]	1. Recruit AGHD subjects.2. Administer daily subcutaneous rhGH, dose-titrated to IGF-1 levels.3. Perform DXA scans (L-spine, total hip) at baseline and every 2 years for up to 10 years.4. Derive Trabecular Bone Score (TBS) from DXA scans.	Application: Evaluate long-term therapy effect on bone density and microarchitecture.Endpoints: Bone Mineral Density (BMD, g/cm²); TBS; IGF-1 levels (SDS) [10].
Bone Precursor Proliferation Assay [64]	1. Treat bone marrow cells with M-CSF (40 ng/ml) for 3 days.2. M-CSF starve for 6 h, then restimulate with M-CSF for 4 h.3. Provide BrdU during S-phase.4. Quantify proliferation via BrdU incorporation ELISA.	Application: Quantify proliferation of osteoclast precursors.Endpoints: BrdU incorporation (OD values) [64].

Signaling Pathways and Molecular Mechanisms

The biphasic response in bone to systemic factors like GH is underpinned by complex, integrated signaling networks. The following diagram synthesizes the key pathways involving GH, IGF-1, and Wnt/β-catenin, highlighting their points of crosstalk.

Diagram: Signaling Network of GH, IGF-1, and Wnt/β-Catenin in Bone. The GH receptor activates JAK2/STAT5b signaling, inducing systemic IGF-1 production. IGF-1 then promotes bone formation via PI3K/Akt and MAPK/Erk pathways. The Wnt/β-catenin pathway stabilizes β-catenin to drive osteoblastogenesis and OPG production, which inhibits RANKL to limit osteoclast differentiation. STAT5b may also directly influence Wnt target genes, indicating potential cross-talk.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 3: Key Reagents for Investigating Bone Metabolism and Biphasic Responses

Reagent / Material	Function & Application in Research
Recombinant M-CSF & RANKL	Essential cytokines for the in vitro differentiation of osteoclasts from bone marrow or monocyte precursors [64].
Recombinant Wnt3a	A canonical Wnt pathway agonist used to activate β-catenin signaling and study its anabolic and anti-catabolic effects on bone cells [64].
GSK3β Inhibitors (e.g., BIO)	Small molecule inhibitors that mimic Wnt signaling by preventing β-catenin phosphorylation and degradation, used to probe the pathway's function [64].
Recombinant human GH (rhGH)	Used in both in vivo animal studies and clinical trials to investigate the direct and indirect (via IGF-1) effects of GH on skeletal tissue [10].
β-Catenin Modifiers (siRNA, Expression Plasmids)	Tools for genetically knocking down or constitutively activating β-catenin to elucidate its precise, dosage-dependent role in osteoclastogenesis [64].
PPARγ Agonists (e.g., Rosiglitazone)	Used to activate the PPARγ pathway, which is mutually inhibitory with Wnt/β-catenin, to study lineage commitment between osteoblasts and adipocytes [64] [65].
Biphasic Calcium Phosphate (BCP)	A bone substitute material used to study the interaction between biomaterials and the immune system (osteoinmunology) and the role of immune cells (e.g., Tregs) in bone regeneration [66].

The growth hormone (GH) and insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) axis plays a critical role in regulating growth, metabolism, and tissue maintenance throughout life. In therapeutic contexts, both GH and IGF-1 are used to treat various conditions, yet their potential to induce acromegaly-like effects, impact joint health, and influence metabolic pathways presents a complex risk-benefit landscape. This review provides a comprehensive comparison of GH and IGF-1 therapies, focusing on their distinct and overlapping physiological effects, with particular emphasis on long-term bone density outcomes, joint integrity, and metabolic implications. Understanding these differential effects is crucial for researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals aiming to optimize therapeutic strategies while minimizing adverse outcomes.

Physiological Mechanisms and Signaling Pathways

The GH/IGF-1 Endocrine Axis

Growth hormone, a peptide hormone secreted by the anterior pituitary gland, exerts its effects through both direct and indirect mechanisms [67]. The indirect effects are primarily mediated through the stimulation of IGF-1 production, predominantly in the liver [1]. This GH/IGF-1 axis forms a critical endocrine circuit where GH triggers IGF-1 release, which in turn inhibits further GH secretion through a negative feedback loop [67]. IGF-1 circulates bound to IGF binding proteins (IGFBPs), with IGFBP-3 representing the principal binding protein that regulates IGF-1 bioavailability and tissue distribution [1]. The intricate regulation of this axis ensures normal growth during development and maintains metabolic homeostasis throughout adulthood.

Direct Cellular Signaling Mechanisms

Beyond the classical endocrine axis, both GH and IGF-1 exert direct cellular effects through their respective receptors. The GH receptor (GHR) utilizes the Janus kinase (JAK) signal transducer and activator of transcription (STAT) signal transduction pathway, particularly activating STAT5b, which translocates to the nucleus to activate gene transcription [1]. In contrast, IGF-1 signals primarily through the IGF-1 receptor (IGF-1R), a tyrosine kinase transmembrane receptor that activates downstream pathways including the phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K)/Akt cascade and the Ras/Raf/MAPK/ERK pathway [68]. These distinct signaling mechanisms help explain the differential effects observed with GH versus IGF-1 administration, particularly in bone and joint tissues.

Figure 1: GH and IGF-1 Signaling Pathways. GH activates the JAK2/STAT pathway leading to gene transcription and systemic IGF-1 production. IGF-1 signals through IGF-1R to activate PI3K/Akt/mTOR and Ras/Raf/MEK/ERK pathways, regulating cell proliferation, matrix synthesis, and survival.

Therapeutic Profiles: Comparative Analysis of GH and IGF-1

FDA-Approved Indications and Clinical Applications

Growth Hormone Therapies: GH administration is FDA-approved for multiple conditions including GH deficiency in both children and adults, Turner syndrome, Prader-Willi syndrome, chronic kidney disease, children born small for gestational age, short bowel syndrome, and muscle-wasting disease associated with HIV/AIDS [69]. The therapeutic effects are mediated through complex mechanisms involving both direct GH actions and IGF-1-dependent pathways.

IGF-1-Based Therapies: IGF-1 administration is primarily used for growth hormone insensitivity syndromes (such as Laron syndrome) where despite normal or elevated GH levels, IGF-1 production is impaired [1]. The more targeted approach of IGF-1 therapy bypasses GH resistance mechanisms and may offer advantages in specific patient populations with intact downstream signaling pathways.

Metabolic Implications and Differential Effects

Effects on Substrate Metabolism: GH demonstrates potent effects on substrate metabolism, increasing mobilization of fatty acids from adipose tissue, enhancing protein synthesis in most cells, and decreasing glucose utilization throughout the body [70]. These metabolic alterations are reflected in decreased fat mass and increased fat-free mass observed in numerous studies. GH treatment significantly increases both basal metabolic rate (BMR) and total energy expenditure (TEE), as demonstrated in studies of prepubertal children where BMR increased by 5% and TEE by 7% after just 6 weeks of treatment [70].

IGF-1 Metabolic Actions: In contrast, IGF-1 exhibits glucose-lowering effects similar to insulin and plays a significant role in glucose homeostasis [67]. While both hormones ultimately influence metabolism, their primary mechanisms differ substantially—GH acting as a counter-regulatory hormone and IGF-1 functioning as an insulin-sensitizing agent. These differential metabolic effects have important implications for patients with underlying metabolic disorders.

Table 1: Comparative Therapeutic Profiles of GH and IGF-1

Parameter	Growth Hormone Therapy	IGF-1 Therapy
Primary Metabolic Effects	Increased lipolysis, protein synthesis, insulin resistance	Glucose-lowering, insulin-sensitizing
Energy Expenditure	Increases BMR (5%) and TEE (7%) [70]	Limited direct data
Body Composition	Decreased fat mass, increased fat-free mass [70]	Less pronounced effects
Glucose Metabolism	Counteracts insulin, elevates blood glucose [67]	Lowers blood glucose levels [67]
Bone Formation	Stimulates osteoblast proliferation and differentiation [1]	Promotes osteoblast proliferation and bone formation [1]

Acromegaly-like Effects: Pathological Excess versus Therapeutic Administration

Clinical Manifestations of Hormone Excess

Acromegaly, resulting from chronic GH and IGF-1 excess, provides important insights into the potential adverse effects of therapeutic administration. In adults, acromegaly presents with enlarged hands and feet, altered facial features, thickened bones, enlarged organs, and increased risk of hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and heart disease [67]. These manifestations result from prolonged exposure to elevated GH and IGF-1 levels, with over 99% of cases caused by pituitary adenomas [67].

The biochemical monitoring of acromegaly involves assessment of both GH and IGF-1 levels, with the oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) serving as the gold standard for evaluating GH suppression [71]. Importantly, IGF-1 measurement has emerged as a more reliable single marker for disease activity due to its more stable levels throughout the day compared to the pulsatile secretion of GH [72]. Modern IGF-1 assays have refined normal ranges based on age and sex, with the true upper limit of normal now recognized as considerably lower than initially thought [72].

Discordant GH and IGF-1 Patterns in Disease Monitoring

A significant challenge in managing acromegaly and assessing therapeutic interventions arises from the occasional discrepancy between GH and IGF-1 measurements. Studies report abnormal GH suppression with normal IGF-1 levels in 9-39% of patients [71]. This pattern may result from persistent GH dysregulation despite remission, conditions that alter GH suppression (chronic renal insufficiency, liver failure, diabetes mellitus), or factors that lower IGF-1 levels (malnutrition, hypothyroidism, oral estrogen use) [71].

Conversely, the pattern of elevated IGF-1 with apparently normal GH suppression often occurs when inappropriate GH cutoffs are used for specific assays [71]. These discordances highlight the complexity of the GH/IGF-1 axis and underscore the importance of using appropriate assay-specific cutoffs and considering clinical context when interpreting biochemical results.

Joint Health Implications: Differential Effects of GH and IGF-1

IGF-1 in Cartilage Metabolism and Osteoarthritis Risk

IGF-1 plays a fundamental role in articular cartilage health, promoting chondrocyte proliferation, enhancing matrix production, and inhibiting chondrocyte apoptosis [68]. Ex vivo studies demonstrate that IGF-1 is responsible for maintaining articular cartilage proteoglycan synthesis, critical for cartilage regeneration after injury [68]. Additionally, IGF-1 stimulates the synthesis of type II collagen and promotes the chondrogenic differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells, essential for cartilage repair mechanisms [68].

However, recent Mendelian randomization studies reveal a more complex relationship between IGF-1 and joint health. Higher IGF-1 levels are correlated with an increased risk for knee (OR: 1.07), hip (OR: 1.13), and hand osteoarthritis (OR: 1.09), but not spine OA [73]. This apparent paradox highlights the dual nature of IGF-1 in joint homeostasis—while essential for cartilage anabolism and repair, excessive levels may contribute to joint degeneration through mechanisms potentially mediated by body mass index (BMI) [73].

GH Effects on Joint Integrity

GH exerts direct effects on cartilage and joint tissues, stimulating chondrocyte proliferation and the formation of prechondrocyte colonies [1]. The direct action of GH on progenitor cells in cartilage, with IGF-1 stimulating subsequent clonal expansion, forms the basis of the "dual effector" theory of GH action [1]. While both GH and IGF-1 are considered potential anabolic agents for bone and joint health, their effects on osteoarthritis risk appear to differ.

Preclinical models suggest that GH excess may promote joint degeneration and chondrocyte metabolic dysfunction [14]. Notably, growth hormone-receptor disruption in mice has been shown to reduce osteoarthritis and chondrocyte hypertrophy [14], indicating that GH signaling plays a role in joint degeneration processes. This finding has significant implications for long-term therapeutic use of GH and monitoring of joint health in patients receiving GH therapy.

Table 2: Effects on Joint and Bone Health

Parameter	Growth Hormone Therapy	IGF-1 Therapy
Cartilage Metabolism	Stimulates prechondrocyte proliferation [1]	Enhances chondrocyte proliferation and matrix production [68]
Osteoarthritis Risk	Potential promotion of joint degeneration [14]	Increased risk for knee, hip, and hand OA [73]
Bone Formation	Increases bone turnover; initial decrease in BMD followed by increase [10]	Stimulates osteoblast activity; enhances bone formation [1]
Bone Resorption	Activates osteoclasts, stimulating bone resorption [10]	Limited direct resorptive effects
Long-term BMD Outcomes	Increased BMD after 6 years: L-spine +6%, TH +13% [10]	Limited long-term data available

Long-term Bone Density Outcomes

GH Therapy and Bone Mineral Density

Long-term GH replacement therapy demonstrates significant positive effects on bone mineral density in adults with GH deficiency. A 10-year prospective study revealed that total hip BMD increased by approximately 11%, with the greatest increment observed at year 6 (+13%) [10]. Lumbar spine BMD showed a 7% increase overall, again with the most significant improvement at year 6 (+6%) [10]. This pattern of response—initial increase in bone turnover followed by gradual BMD improvement—characterizes the anabolic bone effects of GH therapy.

The mechanisms underlying these BMD changes involve both direct and indirect actions. GH directly stimulates osteoblast proliferation and differentiation while also activating osteoclasts and bone resorption [10]. The net in vivo effect remains anabolic over the long term, with GH essential for achieving peak bone mass and maintaining bone strength [14]. Importantly, the same study did not show significant improvement in trabecular bone score (TBS), suggesting that the positive effects may be primarily on bone density rather than trabecular microarchitecture [10].

Comparative Effects on Bone Quality and Fracture Risk

In acromegaly, characterized by GH and IGF-1 excess, bone health follows a different pattern. While increased bone turnover occurs, lumbar bone mineral density is typically decreased, with elevated vertebral fracture risk despite normal or increased BMD at some sites [14]. This discrepancy highlights the complex relationship between bone density, bone quality, and fracture risk in the context of GH/IGF-1 axis perturbations.

Treatment aimed at normalizing the GH/IGF-1 axis decreases fracture risk in GH deficiency but appears less effective at reducing fracture risk in acromegaly [14], suggesting potential long-term alterations in bone microstructure that may not fully reverse with biochemical control. These findings have important implications for drug development, suggesting that therapeutic strategies should focus not only on biochemical normalization but also on direct bone quality outcomes.

Experimental Methodologies and Research Approaches

Key Experimental Models and Protocols

Human Clinical Trials: Long-term bone density studies typically employ prospective designs with BMD measurements at baseline and regular intervals (e.g., every 2 years) using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) [10]. These studies monitor IGF-1 levels regularly, adjusting doses to maintain age-adjusted normal ranges. Typical rhGH replacement regimens start at 0.2-0.3 mg/day, titrated according to IGF-1 levels, with stable doses reached by approximately month 6 [10].

In Vitro Chondrocyte and Osteoblast Cultures: Studies investigating cartilage metabolism often utilize explant cultures or isolated chondrocytes from various sources (articular joints, growth plates) [68]. Experimental protocols typically involve stimulation with IGF-1 (10-100 ng/mL) and assessment of proteoglycan synthesis, collagen production, and gene expression changes [68]. For inflammatory modeling, interleukin-1β is commonly used to simulate catabolic conditions, with IGF-1 tested for its protective effects [68].

Animal Models: Transgenic mouse models have been instrumental in elucidating the distinct roles of GH and IGF-1 in bone metabolism [14]. These include tissue-specific knockout models (e.g., osteoblast-specific IGF-1 receptor knockout) and models of hormone excess [14]. Large animal models, particularly miniature pigs, have been used to study cartilage repair using gene therapy approaches with Ad/AAV vectors overexpressing IGF-1 [68].

Biochemical Assessment Methodologies

The biochemical assessment of acromegaly and treatment response relies on standardized protocols. The oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) involves administration of 75 or 100 g of glucose with GH measurements at 0, 30, 60, 90, and 120 minutes [71]. Nadir GH cutoffs for remission have become progressively lower with improved assay sensitivity, currently recommended to be <0.2-0.3 μg/L for highly sensitive assays [71].

IGF-1 measurement requires careful methodology due to binding proteins that can interfere with assays. Modern techniques use the Immulite 2000/2500 assays with interassay variability of 2.4-4.7% [10]. Age and sex-matched normative databases are essential for proper interpretation, with recent studies establishing more precise normal ranges across all ages [72].

Figure 2: Clinical Trial Workflow for GH/IGF-1 Therapies. Schematic representation of key stages in clinical trials comparing GH and IGF-1 therapies, including subject recruitment, intervention, monitoring, and endpoint analysis.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Methodologies

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions for GH/IGF-1 Studies

Research Tool	Specific Function	Application Examples
Recombinant Human GH	Binds GH receptor activating JAK2/STAT pathway	In vitro osteoblast/chondrocyte studies; animal models of GH excess [14]
Recombinant IGF-1	Activates IGF-1R signaling through PI3K/Akt and MAPK pathways	Cartilage repair studies; chondrocyte differentiation assays [68]
IGF-1 ELISA/Kits	Quantifies IGF-1 levels in serum, tissue, culture supernatant	Biochemical monitoring; assay comparison studies [10] [72]
Immulite 2000/2500 IGF-1 Assay	Standardized clinical measurement of IGF-1	Clinical trials; diagnostic assessment [10]
GH Receptor Antibodies	Detects GHR expression; blocks GH signaling	Mechanism studies; tissue distribution analysis [14]
IGF-1R Inhibitors	Blocks IGF-1 signaling pathway	Specificity controls; cancer risk studies [68]
DXA Systems	Measures bone mineral density (BMD)	Long-term bone density monitoring [10]
Ad/AAV-IGF-1 Vectors	Gene delivery for localized IGF-1 expression	Cartilage repair studies; localized therapy approaches [68]

The risk-benefit analysis of GH versus IGF-1 therapies reveals a complex landscape of differential effects on acromegaly-like manifestations, joint health, and metabolic parameters. While both agents share common signaling pathways, their distinct mechanisms of action result in different therapeutic and adverse effect profiles. GH therapy demonstrates significant long-term benefits on bone mineral density but carries greater potential for metabolic disturbances and joint effects. IGF-1 therapy offers more targeted approach with favorable glucose metabolism effects but may present greater osteoarthritis risk at elevated levels.

Future research directions should include longer-term comparative studies directly assessing both bone density and bone quality parameters, more sophisticated understanding of the discordance between GH and IGF-1 measurements in various clinical contexts, and development of tissue-specific delivery systems to optimize therapeutic effects while minimizing adverse outcomes. For drug development professionals, these findings highlight the importance of considering both direct hormone effects and downstream mediators when designing therapeutic strategies targeting the GH/IGF-1 axis.

The growth hormone (GH) and insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) axis represents a critical regulatory system for bone metabolism, influencing skeletal development, bone mineral density (BMD) maintenance, and fracture risk throughout life [1] [74]. GH exerts its effects both directly through receptor-mediated actions on bone cells and indirectly by stimulating systemic and local IGF-1 production, which in turn promotes osteoblast proliferation, differentiation, and bone formation activities [14]. Understanding how patient-specific factors including obesity, age, and sex influence the therapeutic efficacy of GH and IGF-1 therapies is essential for optimizing clinical outcomes in disorders of bone metabolism.

This review objectively compares the performance of GH versus IGF-1 therapies, with particular focus on how comorbidities and demographic factors modulate treatment responses. The analysis is framed within the context of long-term bone density outcomes, providing researchers and drug development professionals with evidence-based insights for therapeutic decision-making and future research directions.

Molecular Mechanisms and Signaling Pathways

GH/IGF-1 Axis Signaling in Bone

The GH/IGF-1 axis employs complex signaling mechanisms that directly influence bone metabolism through multiple pathways. GH binding to its receptor (GHR) activates intracellular JAK2/STAT5 signaling, leading to increased IGF-1 gene transcription [14]. IGF-1 then mediates many of GH's anabolic effects on bone through endocrine, autocrine, and paracrine mechanisms.

*GH and IGF-1 exert both independent and synergistic effects on bone cells [1]. GH directly stimulates osteoblast precursor proliferation, while IGF-1 promotes maturation and activity of osteoblasts. The net effect increases bone formation, though bone resorption is also stimulated through RANKL-mediated osteoclast activation [74]. This balanced remodeling is essential for maintaining bone strength and mineral density.

Therapeutic Action Mechanisms

GH and IGF-1 therapies function through distinct but overlapping mechanisms to promote bone health. GH therapy activates the entire signaling cascade, potentially maximizing the biological response but depending on functional hepatic and cellular machinery. IGF-1 therapy bypasses GH receptor signaling, offering potential benefits in conditions characterized by GH resistance or insensitivity [24].

The circulating IGF-1 profiles differ significantly between daily GH therapy and long-acting GH formulations. Daily GH produces stable IGF-1 levels with minor fluctuations, while weekly GH formulations generate distinct cyclic patterns with peaks around days 3-4 post-injection and gradual declines by day 7 [75]. These pharmacological profiles may influence both efficacy and safety parameters in different patient populations.

Impact of Comorbidities on Therapeutic Efficacy

Obesity and Metabolic Dysfunction

Obesity significantly influences GH pharmacology and treatment response through multiple mechanisms. Adipose tissue, particularly visceral fat, contributes to metabolic inflammation and GH resistance [76]. The chronic inflammatory state in obesity characterized by elevated cytokines may interfere with GH signaling through suppression of the JAK-STAT pathway [76].

Obesity-related comorbidities further complicate treatment response. Metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), present in approximately 38% of obese individuals, may impair IGF-1 production as the liver is the primary source of circulating IGF-1 [76]. This reduction in hepatic IGF-1 synthesis potentially diminishes the efficacy of GH therapy, suggesting that direct IGF-1 administration might bypass this limitation in obese patients with significant hepatic steatosis.

Age and Sex Considerations

Age dramatically influences treatment response to GH and IGF-1 therapies. Childhood-onset GH deficiency (CO-GHD) primarily affects longitudinal bone growth, while adult-onset GH deficiency (AO-GHD) predominantly impacts bone maintenance and fracture risk [74]. Younger patients generally show more robust responses to therapy, with children exhibiting significant catch-up growth and BMD improvement compared to adults [74].

Sex differences significantly modulate therapeutic efficacy. Studies consistently demonstrate that sex steroids interact with the GH/IGF-1 axis, creating distinct response profiles [1]. Estrogens regulate GH secretion patterns and modulate IGF-1 production, while androgens amplify GH action [74]. These interactions may explain the observed clinical differences in weight-loss dynamics between sexes, with significant variations in response to identical interventions [77].

Table 1: Impact of Demographic Factors on GH/IGF-1 Therapy Efficacy

Factor	Impact on GH Therapy	Impact on IGF-1 Therapy	Clinical Implications
Age (Children)	Strong growth response; increases linear growth & BMD [74]	Promotes growth in resistance syndromes [24]	Critical window for intervention; GH first-line for most deficiencies
Age (Adults)	Modest BMD improvement; reduces fracture risk [74]	Limited data on bone outcomes; case reports show promise [24]	Longer treatment duration needed for significant BMD changes
Sex (Male)	Enhanced response due to androgen amplification of GH action [74]	Potentially better response due to higher lean mass	May require lower weight-based dosing for equivalent efficacy
Sex (Female)	Complex interaction with estrogen levels; menopause reduces efficacy [1]	Possibly less influenced by hormonal status	Estrogen status should be considered in dosing regimens
Aging with Sex Steroid Reduction	Decreased efficacy due to reduced GH secretion amplitude [1]	May be more reliable with declining endocrine function	Potential advantage for IGF-1 in elderly with age-related GH resistance

Comparative Therapeutic Efficacy for Bone Health

Bone Mineral Density and Fracture Risk Outcomes

GH and IGF-1 therapies demonstrate distinct temporal patterns for improving bone health metrics. GH therapy typically produces an initial increase in bone resorption markers followed by a subsequent rise in formation markers, creating a transitional period where BMD may temporarily decrease before showing significant improvement after 12-24 months of treatment [1]. This biphasic response pattern necessitates long-term treatment commitment for optimal bone outcomes.

IGF-1 therapy produces more rapid effects on bone metabolism in specific deficiency states. In patients with PAPP-A2 deficiency, a condition characterized by reduced IGF-1 bioactivity, rhIGF-1 treatment rapidly improved BMD and progressively normalized bone mineralization over six years of therapy [24]. This suggests that IGF-1 may provide more direct anabolic effects without the initial resorptive phase seen with GH therapy.

Table 2: Bone-Related Outcomes of GH vs. IGF-1 Therapies

Outcome Measure	GH Therapy Effects	IGF-1 Therapy Effects	Comparative Efficacy
Bone Mineral Density	Increases after 18-24 months; improves BMC [74]	Progressive normalization in deficiency states [24]	GH has more evidence; IGF-1 promising for specific disorders
Fracture Risk	Reduces risk in GHD; 2-7.4x higher risk untreated [74]	Limited long-term fracture data	GH demonstrated for GHD; IGF-1 evidence emerging
Bone Turnover Markers	Initial resorption increase, then formation increase [1]	Likely direct formation stimulation	Different temporal patterns; IGF-1 potentially more direct
Linear Growth (Children)	Stimulates growth plate activity [1]	Effective in bioinactive GH & resistance [78]	GH first-line; IGF-1 for specific molecular defects
Therapeutic Response Time	Delayed BMD effect (12+ months) [74]	Rapid growth velocity response [24]	IGF-1 may provide faster initial improvement

Patient-Specific Response Factors

The etiology of growth impairment significantly influences therapeutic response. Children with bioinactive GH represent a particularly responsive subgroup, demonstrating greater gains in growth velocity and height Z-scores compared to those with idiopathic short stature or small for gestational age status, despite similar GH dosing [78] [43]. This enhanced responsiveness highlights the importance of precise molecular diagnosis in predicting treatment outcomes.

Age of deficiency onset determines treatment priorities. CO-GHD requires focus on longitudinal growth and peak bone mass acquisition, while AO-GHD management prioritizes BMD preservation and fracture risk reduction [74]. These distinct therapeutic goals may benefit from different treatment approaches, with IGF-1 therapy potentially offering advantages in states of GH resistance commonly associated with aging.

Experimental Models and Methodologies

Clinical Research Approaches

GH/IGF-1 research employs standardized diagnostic and monitoring protocols to evaluate therapeutic efficacy. Key assessments include:

• Bone Density Measurement: Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans to quantify BMD and bone mineral content (BMC) at baseline and regular intervals during treatment [74]
• Biochemical Markers: Serum IGF-1, IGFBP-3, and bone turnover markers (P1NP for formation, CTX for resorption) monitored regularly [1]
• Fracture Risk Assessment: Vertebral fracture assessment via radiography and documentation of incident fragility fractures [74]

IGF-1 generation tests help identify specific endocrine defects. The standard protocol involves administering subcutaneous GH (0.1 mg/kg/day) for four consecutive days with serum IGF-1 and IGFBP-3 measured on day five [43]. A positive response (increase ≥40 ng/mL in IGF-1 and ≥400 ng/mL in IGFBP-3) indicates functional GH signaling capacity and helps identify patients with bioinactive GH who will respond well to exogenous GH therapy [43].

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for GH/IGF-1 Bone Studies

Reagent/Category	Specific Examples	Research Application	Functional Role
GH Assays	Beckman Access Ultrasensitive hGH chemiluminescent assay [1]	GH quantification in biological fluids	Measures 22 kDa GH with 96% specificity; identifies GH isoforms
IGF-1 Assays	Immulite 2000 (Siemens) [1]	Serum IGF-1 measurement	Quantifies total IGF-1 with intra-assay CV 2.3-3.9%
IGF-1 Free	Mass spectrometry-based methods [1]	Free IGF-1 quantification	Measures bioactive fraction; avoids IGFBP interference
Binding Protein Assays	IGFBP-3 immunoassays [1]	IGF transport system evaluation	Assesses IGFBP-3 levels; regulates IGF-1 bioavailability
Cell Culture Systems	Cultured chondrocytes & osteoblasts [1]	In vitro mechanism studies	Tests direct effects on bone cells at different maturation stages
Animal Models	GHR knockout mice [1]	In vivo pathway analysis	Models GH resistance; distinguishes hepatic vs. local IGF-1 effects

The therapeutic efficacy of GH and IGF-1 therapies is significantly modulated by comorbidities, age, and sex factors, creating a complex landscape for clinical decision-making. Obesity-induced GH resistance may favor IGF-1 therapy in selected patients, while age-related declines in GH secretion might be overcome with long-acting GH formulations that provide sustained IGF-1 stimulation [75]. Sex-specific dosing protocols accounting for steroid hormone interactions represent another promising approach for personalized therapy.

Future research should prioritize head-to-head comparative effectiveness studies, refined dosing algorithms incorporating comorbidity adjustments, and long-term bone health outcomes across the lifespan. The developing understanding of adipose tissue biology, gut microbiome interactions, and genetic modifiers of GH sensitivity will likely yield novel therapeutic targets for optimizing bone health outcomes in patients requiring GH/IGF-1 axis interventions.

The pursuit of effective strategies to enhance bone mass and reduce fracture risk has evolved from single-agent therapies to multifaceted approaches that leverage synergistic interactions. Within this context, growth hormone (GH) and insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) therapies represent cornerstone anabolic interventions for managing skeletal disorders, particularly in states of hormonal deficiency. GH and IGF-1 are fundamental regulators of skeletal growth, bone metabolism, and the maintenance of bone mass throughout life [1]. GH stimulates tissue formation both directly and indirectly, while IGF-1 acts as a critical mediator of bone growth [1]. Preclinical and clinical data have demonstrated the significant pleiotropic effects of GH and IGF-1 on both bone formation and resorption, establishing their vital role in bone health [2] [14]. However, the anabolic potential of these therapies is not realized in isolation; emerging evidence indicates that their efficacy can be significantly amplified through strategic combination with mechanical loading and targeted nutritional support. This review objectively compares the therapeutic profiles of GH and IGF-1 and synthesizes current experimental data on their synergistic use with mechanical and nutritional interventions to optimize long-term bone density outcomes.

GH and IGF-1 Therapy: Mechanisms and Comparative Efficacy

Fundamental Biology and Signaling Pathways

The GH/IGF-1 axis operates through a complex signaling network that directly influences bone remodeling. GH exerts its effects by binding to dimeric GH receptors (GHR) on target cells, initiating an intracellular cascade involving Janus kinase 2 (JAK2) and signal transducer and activator of transcription (STAT) proteins, particularly STAT5b [1] [14]. This signaling leads to the transcription of genes critical for bone metabolism, including IGF-1. The actions of GH on bone are mediated through both endocrine mechanisms (via liver-derived IGF-1) and autocrine/paracrine mechanisms (via locally produced IGF-1) [2] [14]. IGF-1 subsequently promotes osteoblast proliferation, enhances bone formation, reduces osteoblast apoptosis, and facilitates chondrocyte differentiation [14].

The following diagram illustrates the integrated signaling pathways of GH and IGF-1 in bone cells, and their interaction with mechanical and nutritional factors:

Diagram 1: Integrated signaling pathways of GH, IGF-1, mechanical loading, and nutrition in bone metabolism.

Comparative Analysis of Therapeutic Outcomes

Clinical studies reveal distinct temporal and mechanistic differences between GH and IGF-1 therapies. Both agents significantly influence bone turnover markers, but their net effects on bone mineral density (BMD) manifest over different timeframes. The table below summarizes key comparative data from clinical studies.

Table 1: Comparative Clinical Effects of GH and IGF-1 Therapy on Bone

Parameter	GH Therapy	IGF-1 Therapy	Clinical Context & Notes
Bone Turnover	Increases both bone formation and resorption markers [1]	Increases both bone formation and resorption markers [1]	Initial increase in resorption may precede formation response with GH.
Temporal BMD Response	Initial decrease/no change, followed by increase after 12-24 months [10]	More rapid increase in bone formation possible [1]	Long-term GH studies show greatest BMD increment at ~6 years [10].
Fracture Healing	Increased bone healing in hip/tibial fractures [1]	Limited direct clinical data	GH administration results in rapid clinical improvements [1].
Therapeutic Synergy	Interacts with sex steroids in anabolic process [1]	Effective in GH insensitivity syndrome [1]	Combined GH/IGF-1 may have synergistic effect [1].
Long-Term BMD Outcome	10-year study: ~7% increase lumbar spine, ~11% increase total hip BMD [10]	Limited long-term clinical data	BMD increases sustained over decade-long therapy [10].
Fracture Risk	Decreased risk with GH replacement in deficiency [2]	Low IGF-1 levels associated with ~40% increased fracture risk [1]	Serum IGF-1 useful for assessing vertebral fracture risk [1].

Synergy with Mechanical Loading

Biomechanical Interactions with Anabolic Therapies

Mechanical loading represents a potent physiological stimulus for bone formation, and its interaction with anabolic therapies can produce synergistic effects. The skeletal response to loading is governed by the specific parameters of the mechanical stimulus: intensity, frequency, and duration [79]. Recent preclinical evidence demonstrates that the timing of therapeutic intervention relative to mechanical loading can significantly influence the osteogenic outcome.

A 2025 murine study investigating parathyroid hormone (PTH) pre-treatment prior to tibial mechanical loading provides a relevant model for understanding how priming the skeletal tissue can enhance anabolic responses. The study found that pre-treating mice with PTH for six weeks prior to initiating mechanical loading further enhanced load-induced increases in cortical bone mass compared to concurrent treatment alone [80]. Furthermore, this pre-treatment regimen rescued the blunted anabolic response to loading observed in cancellous bone with concurrent PTH therapy [80]. This suggests a priming effect that optimizes the bone microenvironment for enhanced mechanical sensitivity.

Optimizing Loading Parameters for Synergistic Effects

The specific parameters of mechanical loading are critical determinants of the bone formation response. A 2024 study systematically evaluated different combinations of loading intensity, frequency, and duration on healthy knee cartilage and chondrocytes, providing insights applicable to bone anabolism [79]. The findings indicate that low-intensity, low-frequency, and long-duration mechanical loading is optimal for maintaining cartilage homeostasis and activating anabolic responses [79].

In the context of combination therapy, these optimized loading parameters may enhance the integrated musculoskeletal response to GH or IGF-1. The mechanosensitivity of bone cells is influenced by the local hormonal milieu, and the presence of anabolic agents like IGF-1 can potentiate the osteogenic response to mechanical stimuli. The experimental workflow for investigating these interactions typically involves in vivo mechanical loading models combined with systemic or local administration of the therapeutic agent, as detailed below.

Diagram 2: Experimental workflow for evaluating combined therapy and mechanical loading.

Synergy with Nutritional Support

Essential Nutrients for Bone Anabolism

Nutrition provides the fundamental substrates for bone matrix formation and mineral metabolism, playing a complementary role to pharmacologic anabolic therapies. While calcium and vitamin D are widely recognized for their importance in bone health, several other micronutrients are critically involved in supporting the bone formation processes stimulated by GH and IGF-1.

Magnesium deficiency, prevalent in over half of the US population, impairs bone quality, while supplementation (250 mg/day) has been shown to significantly increase BMD in osteoporotic women [81]. Silicon, concentrated in immature osteoid, plays a role in initiating mineralization, with dietary intakes >40 mg/day correlating with increased BMD [81]. Vitamin K contributes to bone strength through its role in carboxylating osteocalcin, and insufficiency is associated with under-carboxylated osteocalcin and increased fracture risk [81]. Boron may influence bone metabolism through its effects on steroid hormone metabolism [81].

Table 2: Essential Nutritional Cofactors for Optimizing Bone Anabolism

Nutrient	Role in Bone Metabolism	Typical Dietary Intake	Recommended Supplemental Intake
Vitamin D	Facilitates calcium absorption, regulates bone remodeling [81]	150-300 IU/day [81]	400-1000 IU/day [81]
Calcium	Primary mineral component of bone hydroxyapatite [81]	~735 mg/day (below RDA) [81]	500 mg/day (to achieve RDA of 1200 mg) [81]
Magnesium	Cofactor for alkaline phosphatase; deficiency impairs bone quality [81]	243 mg/day (below RDA) [81]	250-350 mg/day [81]
Silicon	Initiates mineralization process; concentrated in osteoid [81]	18-30 mg/day [81]	20-40 mg/day [81]
Vitamin K	Carboxylates osteocalcin; reduces bone turnover and fracture risk [81]	70-80 μg/day [81]	50-150 μg/day [81]
Boron	Influences steroid hormone metabolism relevant to bone [81]	~1 mg/day [81]	1-3 mg/day [81]

Dietary Patterns for Bone Health

Beyond individual nutrients, overall dietary patterns significantly influence bone health outcomes. A scoping review of 49 human studies found that adherence to "healthy" dietary patterns—characterized by high intake of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, poultry, fish, nuts, legumes, and low-fat dairy products, while minimizing soft drinks, fried foods, processed meats, sweets, and refined grains—consistently demonstrated beneficial impacts on bone mineral status and reduced fracture risk [82]. These dietary approaches provide a favorable milieu for anabolic therapies to exert their maximal effects by ensuring adequate availability of all necessary bone-forming substrates.

Experimental Protocols and Research Methodologies

Preclinical Models for Investigating Combination Therapies

Robust preclinical models are essential for elucidating the mechanisms and optimizing the parameters of synergistic approaches. The following protocols represent current methodologies cited in the literature:

Protocol 1: Pre-treatment with Anabolic Agent Prior to Mechanical Loading

• Model: 10-week-old female C57Bl/6J mice [80]
• Pre-treatment: Administer PTH (or vehicle) for 6 weeks prior to loading initiation [80]
• Loading Regimen: Apply cyclic tibial compression for 2-6 weeks while continuing therapy [80]
• Assessment: Analyze cortical and cancellous bone morphology via μCT; quantify osteoblast/osteoclast populations via histology/immunohistochemistry; measure bone formation rate via dynamic histomorphometry [80]

Protocol 2: In Vitro Chondrocyte Response to Mechanical Strain Parameters

• Cell Source: Primary chondrocytes isolated from mouse knee joints [79]
• Mechanical Stimulation: Apply cyclic tensile strain (CTS) using a Strex device with varying parameters:
  • Intensity: Low (8%) vs. High (15%) strain
  • Frequency: Low (0.5 Hz) vs. High (1.0 Hz)
  • Duration: Short (12 h) vs. Long (24 h) [79]
• Outcome Measures: mRNA expression of COL2A1, ACAN, SOX9 via qRT-PCR [79]

Clinical Assessment of Long-Term Bone Density Outcomes

Long-term monitoring of anabolic therapies requires precise methodologies:

• Bone Mineral Density (BMD): Measured at lumbar spine (L1-L4) and total hip using DXA (Hologic densitometers) every 2 years [10]
• Trabecular Bone Score (TBS): Derived from L1-L4 DXA using iNsight software as an indirect measure of trabecular microarchitecture [10]
• Biochemical Markers: Serum IGF-1 levels monitored regularly using standardized assays (IMMULITE) with calculation of IGF-1 SDS scores [10]

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Research Reagents and Materials

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for Bone Anabolism Studies

Reagent/Material	Specific Example	Research Application
Recombinant Human GH	Recombinant human GH (rhGH)	In vivo replacement therapy; in vitro osteoblast stimulation [10]
Mechanical Loading Device	Strex device (STB-140)	Application of cyclic tensile strain to chondrocytes/osteoblasts in culture [79]
In Vivo Loading System	Custom tibial compression device	Application of controlled mechanical loads to murine tibia in vivo [80]
Bone Densitometer	Hologic DXA systems (Discovery, Horizon)	Longitudinal measurement of BMD in clinical and preclinical studies [10]
IGF-1 Assay	IMMULITE 2000/2500 assay	Quantification of serum IGF-1 levels for therapy monitoring [10]
Micro-CT Scanner	SkyScan 1276, Scanco Medical μCT40	High-resolution 3D analysis of bone microarchitecture [80]
Histomorphometry Software	iNsight TBS software	Analysis of trabecular bone score from DXA images [10]
Cell Culture Chambers	Strex STB-CH-10 stretch chambers	Mechanically active cell culture for tensile strain experiments [79]

The evidence synthesized in this review supports a paradigm shift from isolated therapeutic interventions toward integrated, multimodal approaches for optimizing bone health. The comparative analysis of GH and IGF-1 therapies reveals distinct temporal patterns of BMD response, with GH demonstrating progressive gains over a 10-year period, particularly at the hip [10]. The synergy between these anabolic agents and mechanical loading is optimized through strategic pre-treatment protocols and carefully calibrated loading parameters emphasizing low-intensity, low-frequency, and long-duration stimuli [80] [79]. Furthermore, the foundation for successful anabolic therapy requires adequate nutritional support, particularly ensuring sufficient magnesium, silicon, vitamin K, and boron, which are commonly insufficient in modern diets yet critically involved in bone metabolism [81].

Future research directions should include:

• Clinical translation of pre-treatment paradigms demonstrated in rodent models to human subjects receiving GH/IGF-1 therapy.
• Elucidation of the molecular crosstalk between nutritional status, mechanical signaling pathways, and anabolic hormone action in bone cells.
• Long-term randomized controlled trials comparing combination therapies against monotherapies for fracture reduction as the primary endpoint.
• Personalization of combination protocols based on genetic, metabolic, and biomechanical profiling of individual patients.

The most promising approach for maximizing long-term bone density outcomes appears to be the sequential application of nutritional optimization, followed by anabolic therapy pre-treatment, and subsequently combined with precisely controlled mechanical loading. This integrated methodology leverages the complementary mechanisms of action across these domains to create a synergistic anabolic environment capable of significantly enhancing bone mass and reducing fracture risk beyond what any single intervention can achieve.

Head-to-Head: Validating Long-Term Skeletal Outcomes of GH and IGF-1 Therapies

The management of osteoporosis, a disease characterized by reduced bone density and increased fracture risk, relies on therapeutic agents with two primary mechanisms of action: antiresorptive and anabolic. Antiresorptive drugs, such as bisphosphonates and denosumab, work by slowing bone breakdown, while anabolic agents, including parathyroid hormone analogs and romosozumab, actively stimulate new bone formation. The role of the growth hormone (GH)/insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) axis in bone metabolism has garnered significant research interest due to its fundamental role in skeletal growth and bone mass maintenance throughout life. This meta-analysis examines clinical outcomes for bone density and fracture risk reduction, contextualizing the potential of GH and IGF-1 therapies within the current landscape of osteoporosis treatment.

Comparative Efficacy of Antiosteoporosis Treatments

Fracture Risk Reduction Across Drug Classes

Table 1: Relative Fracture Risk Reduction of Antiosteoporosis Treatments Compared to Placebo

Drug Class	Specific Agents	Vertebral Fracture RR	Hip Fracture RR	Clinical Fracture RR
Oral Bisphosphonates	Alendronate, Risedronate	Significant reduction [83]	Significant reduction (Alendronate) [83]	Significant reduction [84]
Injectable Antiresorptives	Zoledronate, Denosumab	Significant reduction [83]	Significant reduction (Zoledronate, Denosumab) [83]	Significant reduction (Denosumab less effective than PTH agonists) [84]
SERMs	Raloxifene	Significant reduction [83]	Not significant [83]	Not available
PTH Receptor Agonists	Teriparatide, Abaloparatide	Superior to oral bisphosphonates [83]	Not significant [83]	Significant reduction [84]
Anabolic Agents	Romosozumab	Superior to oral bisphosphonates [83] [84]	Not available	Significant reduction [84]

Network meta-analysis of 69 randomized controlled trials (>80,000 patients) demonstrates that bone anabolic treatments (parathyroid hormone receptor agonists and romosozumab) provide superior fracture prevention compared to bisphosphonates for clinical and vertebral fractures [84]. For vertebral fractures, denosumab, teriparatide, and abaloparatide demonstrate greater efficacy than oral bisphosphonates, though they are not superior to zoledronate [83]. Hip fracture reduction is significant for alendronate, denosumab, and zoledronate, with no statistical superiority of any specific drug for this endpoint [83].

Bone Mineral Density as a Surrogate Endpoint

Table 2: Treatment-Related Changes in Total Hip Bone Mineral Density and Fracture Risk Prediction

Trial Design	Drug Mechanisms	Association with Vertebral Fracture Reduction (r²)	Association with Clinical Fracture Reduction (r²)
All placebo-controlled trials	All drugs	0.73 at 24 months [85]	0.71 at 24 months [85]
Placebo-controlled trials	Antiresorptive only	0.78 at 24 months [85]	0.65 at 24 months [85]
Sequential therapy trials	Anabolic followed by antiresorptive	Similar to placebo-controlled trials [85]	Similar to placebo-controlled trials [85]

Recent meta-regression analyses establish that treatment-induced changes in total hip BMD (THBMD) robustly predict fracture risk reduction across various anti-osteoporosis therapies and trial designs [85]. This relationship holds for different drug mechanisms, including sequential therapy with an anabolic agent followed by an antiresorptive, supporting THBMD as a reliable surrogate endpoint in clinical trials [85].

The GH/IGF-1 Axis in Bone Metabolism

Physiological Mechanisms and Signaling Pathways

The GH/IGF-1 axis plays a fundamental role in skeletal homeostasis through complex signaling pathways. GH acts both directly and indirectly via IGF-1, which is primarily produced in the liver but also in bone tissue [1].

Diagram 1: GH/IGF-1 Signaling Pathway in Bone Cells

Growth hormone binding to its receptor (GHR) activates JAK2/STAT5 intracellular signaling, leading to increased IGF-1 gene expression [1]. IGF-1 then promotes osteoblast proliferation and differentiation through binding to IGF-1 receptors, ultimately stimulating bone formation [1]. This pathway operates systematically via endocrine mechanisms and locally through paracrine/autocrine actions within bone tissue [1].

Therapeutic Potential for Osteoporosis

The GH/IGF-1 system demonstrates dysregulation in osteoporosis, with reduced systemic IGF-1 and IGFBP-3 levels observed in some patients, suggesting a "premature somatopause" may contribute to the disease pathogenesis [86]. Administration of GH or IGF-1 significantly increases both bone resorption and bone formation markers in most studies, indicating an overall increase in bone turnover [1]. In patients with hip or tibial fractures, GH/IGF-1 administration has shown promise by increasing bone healing and leading to rapid clinical improvements [1].

Treatment of osteoporosis with GH may be particularly beneficial due to the increased bone metabolism and improved bone geometry it induces [86]. This substantial increase in bone remodeling achieved with GH may be especially helpful during late post-menopause when bone turnover is typically decreased and osteoblastic function is impaired [86].

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Meta-Analysis Protocols for Fracture Outcomes

Network meta-analyses comparing osteoporosis treatments follow rigorous methodological standards. The typical protocol includes:

• Search Strategy: Systematic searches of Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials published within a specified timeframe (e.g., 1996-2021) [84].

• Eligibility Criteria: Inclusion of RCTs involving postmenopausal women with interventions focusing on bone quality outcomes. Primary outcomes typically include clinical fractures, with secondary outcomes of vertebral, non-vertebral, hip, and major osteoporotic fractures [84].

• Statistical Analysis: Both direct and indirect comparisons between treatments using network meta-analytical approaches. Meta-regressions assess effect modification by baseline risk factors such as age, bone mineral density, and previous fracture history [83] [84].

• Quality Assessment: Evaluation of risk of bias using standardized tools, with certainty in effect estimates rated as moderate to low for most individual outcomes due to limitations in reporting and imprecision [84].

Bone Density Measurement Protocols

Standardized protocols for assessing treatment-related changes in bone mineral density include:

• Dual-energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DXA): Precision-based measurements of total hip, femoral neck, and lumbar spine BMD at baseline and follow-up intervals (typically 12 and 24 months) [85].

• Individual Patient Data Analysis: Meta-regression analyses of individual patient data from multiple randomized controlled trials to establish associations between BMD changes and fracture risk reduction [85].

• Surrogate Threshold Effect Analysis: Determination of the minimum THBMD difference between active treatment and placebo that predicts significant fracture risk reduction in clinical trials [85].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for Bone Metabolism Studies

Reagent/Category	Specific Examples	Research Applications
GH/IGF-1 Axis Components	Recombinant GH, IGF-1, IGFBP-3	In vitro and in vivo studies of bone formation mechanisms [1]
Cell Culture Systems	Osteoblast/pre-osteocyte cell lines, Cultured chondrocytes	Investigation of GH and IGF-1 effects at different differentiation stages [1]
Animal Models	GHR(-/-) mice, Ovariectomized rats	Study of GH/IGF-1 deficiency and postmenopausal osteoporosis [1]
Bone Turnover Markers	Serum osteocalcin, Bone-specific alkaline phosphatase, Urinary pyridinoline cross-links	Monitoring bone formation and resorption responses to therapy [86]
IGF-1 Measurement Assays	Immulite 2000 assay, Mass spectrometry	Quantification of IGF-1 levels in biological fluids [1] [87]

Valid determination of GH and IGF-1 in biological fluids is fundamental for correct clinical evaluation [1]. The pronounced binding of IGF-1 to high-affinity IGF-binding proteins (IGFBPs) constitutes a notorious source of error in measurements, necessitating careful assay selection and validation [1]. For schizophrenia research, peripheral IGF-1 levels are typically measured in serum or plasma after a fasting period using standardized immunoassays [87].

This meta-analysis establishes the significant fracture risk reduction achieved by current antiosteoporosis treatments, with bone anabolic agents demonstrating superior efficacy for vertebral fracture prevention compared to antiresorptives. The robust association between treatment-induced BMD changes and fracture risk reduction across mechanisms supports BMD as a valid surrogate endpoint in clinical trials. While the GH/IGF-1 axis presents a promising therapeutic target for osteoporosis treatment through its anabolic effects on bone, current clinical evidence for GH/IGF-1 therapy in osteoporosis remains less established than for approved bone-active medications. Future research should focus on direct comparisons between GH/IGF-1 therapies and established treatments, optimal dosing strategies, and patient selection criteria to fully elucidate the clinical potential of targeting this pathway for fracture prevention.

The growth hormone (GH) and insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) axis represents a critical regulatory system for somatic growth, bone metabolism, and tissue maintenance throughout life. Understanding the comparative efficacy of GH versus IGF-1 monotherapy is essential for optimizing treatment strategies across various patient populations with disruptions in this axis. This complex endocrine system involves both direct hormone actions and intricate feedback mechanisms, with GH exerting effects both directly through GH receptors and indirectly via stimulation of IGF-1 production [1] [14].

The therapeutic applications of GH and IGF-1 replacement vary significantly based on the underlying pathophysiology. While GH monotherapy represents the standard approach for most cases of GH deficiency, IGF-1 monotherapy finds its primary application in conditions characterized by GH resistance or insensitivity [1]. This review systematically evaluates the comparative efficacy of these therapeutic approaches across different patient populations, with particular emphasis on long-term bone density outcomes, synthesizing available clinical evidence to inform researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals.

Mechanistic Insights: GH and IGF-1 Signaling Pathways

GH and IGF-1 Signaling Mechanisms

Growth hormone initiates its actions by binding to preformed GH receptor (GHR) dimers, triggering receptor activation and autophosphorylation of Janus kinase 2 (JAK2). This activation phosphorylates signal transducer and activator of transcription (STAT) proteins, particularly STAT5b, which then dimerize and translocate to the nucleus to induce transcription of target genes, including IGF-1 [1] [14]. The physiological actions of the GH/IGF-1 axis on bone are complex, involving both direct effects and systemic and locally produced IGF-1 exerted in an autocrine/paracrine manner [14].

IGF-1 operates through different mechanisms, acting as both a critical mediator of GH action and having independent functions. In serum, most IGF-1 circulates in a 150-kDa ternary complex with IGF binding protein-3 (IGFBP-3) and the acid labile subunit (ALS), which prolongs its half-life and regulates its bioavailability [88]. This complex cross the capillary barrier poorly, suggesting ALS plays a significant role in regulating IGF-1 passage from circulation into extravascular compartments [88].

Figure 1: GH-IGF-1 Axis Signaling Pathway. This diagram illustrates the complex signaling mechanisms of growth hormone (GH) and insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1), showing both the direct JAK-STAT pathway activation by GH and the subsequent stimulation of IGF-1 synthesis, which acts through both endocrine and autocrine/paracrine mechanisms to promote bone growth.

Bone-Specific Actions

In bone tissue, GH and IGF-1 have distinct but complementary functions. GH directly stimulates osteoblast proliferation and differentiation and prechondrocyte proliferation in the epiphyseal growth plates [14]. IGF-1 stimulates osteoblast proliferation and bone formation, decreases osteoblast apoptosis, and promotes chondrocyte differentiation [14]. The dual effector theory proposes that GH stimulates the differentiation of progenitor cells, while IGF-1 promotes clonal expansion of differentiated cells [1].

Animal studies using liver-specific IGF-1-deficient (LID) and ALS knockout (ALSKO) mice have demonstrated that a threshold concentration of circulating IGF-1 is necessary for normal bone growth, with double-knockout LID+ALSKO mice showing significant reductions in linear growth, bone mineral density, and cortical thickness [88]. These models highlight the importance of circulating IGF-1 in bone development, independent of local IGF-1 production.

Experimental Models and Methodologies

Preclinical Models

Transgenic mouse models have been instrumental in elucidating the distinct roles of GH and IGF-1 in bone metabolism. Liver IGF-1-deficient (LID) mice, generated using the Cre/loxP system, exhibit a 75% reduction in serum IGF-1 levels but grow relatively normally, suggesting the importance of autocrine/paracrine IGF-1 actions [88]. In contrast, ALS knockout (ALSKO) mice show a 65% reduction in circulating IGF-1 with only minimal growth impairment [88].

The most profound effects are observed in double gene-disrupted LID+ALSKO mice, which demonstrate only 10-15% of normal serum IGF-1 levels and severe attenuation of linear growth [88]. These animals exhibit smaller proximal tibial growth plates with reduced proliferative and hypertrophic zones, decreased bone mineral density (approximately 10%), and substantial reductions in periosteal circumference (greater than 35%) and cortical thickness [88]. IGF-1 treatment for four weeks restored growth plate height, demonstrating the therapeutic potential of IGF-1 administration [88].

Clinical Research Methodologies

Clinical studies evaluating GH and IGF-1 efficacy employ standardized methodologies including:

Bone Density Assessment:

• Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) for measuring lumbar spine, femoral neck, and total hip BMD [10] [89]
• High-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography (HR-pQCT) for evaluating volumetric BMD and microarchitecture [10]
• Trabecular bone score (TBS) derived from DEXA as an indirect measure of trabecular quality [10]

Biochemical Monitoring:

• Serum IGF-1 measurement using chemiluminescent immunoassays (e.g., IMMULITE systems) with results expressed as standard deviation scores (SDS) adjusted for age and sex [42] [10] [89]
• Bone turnover markers including formation markers (bone alkaline phosphatase, osteocalcin, procollagen type I N-terminal propeptide) and resorption markers (C-terminal cross-linking telopeptide of type I collagen) [90] [74]

Growth Assessment in Children:

• Height velocity measurement (cm/year)
• Height standard deviation score (SDS) calculation
• Bone age assessment using Greulich and Pyle Atlas [42]

Comparative Efficacy Across Patient Populations

GH Deficiency (GHD)

Adult GHD: In adults with GH deficiency, long-term GH replacement therapy demonstrates sustained benefits on bone health. A 10-year prospective study of 63 AGHD patients receiving IGF-1-normalized GH replacement showed significant increases in bone mineral density, with the greatest increments observed at year 6 (lumbar spine +6%, total hip +13%) [10]. Total hip BMD increased by approximately 11% over the 10-year follow-up period, while trabecular bone score (TBS) showed no significant change, suggesting GH primarily affects bone density rather than trabecular microarchitecture [10].

Childhood GHD: In pediatric GHD patients, GH therapy effectively restores growth velocity and normalizes adult height potential. A six-month study comparing daily versus weekly GH formulations found similar efficacy, with height gains of 4.41±0.87 cm for daily treatment versus 4.58±1.18 cm for weekly somatrogon [42]. Both regimens produced similar improvements in height SDS, indicating comparable efficacy between daily and weekly administration when properly dosed [42].

Table 1: GH Monotherapy Efficacy in Growth Hormone Deficiency

Population	Study Duration	Therapeutic Regimen	Efficacy Outcomes	Bone-Specific Effects
Adult GHD [10]	10 years	rhGH (0.2-0.3 mg/day, titrated to IGF-1)	IGF-1 increased ~35%	TH BMD +11%, LS BMD +7% at 10 years
Pediatric GHD [42]	6 months	Daily GH (0.23 mg/kg/week)	Height gain: 4.41±0.87 cm	Similar height SDS changes
Pediatric GHD [42]	6 months	Weekly somatrogon (0.66 mg/kg/week)	Height gain: 4.58±1.18 cm	Similar height SDS changes

GH Insensitivity Syndromes

IGF-1 monotherapy represents the primary treatment approach for patients with GH insensitivity syndromes, such as Laron syndrome. These conditions, characterized by defects in the GH receptor or post-receptor signaling pathways, render GH therapy ineffective [1]. While direct clinical trial data was limited in the available literature, preclinical evidence suggests that IGF-1 is quite effective in stimulating growth in patients affected by GH insensitivity syndrome, though this effect may become less effective due to lack of GH-induced IGFBP-3 stimulation of prechondrocytes [1].

Special Populations: Diabetes and Acromegaly

Type 2 Diabetes: Patients with T2DM demonstrate a nonlinear relationship between serum IGF-1 levels and bone mineral density. A cross-sectional study of 363 T2DM patients revealed a significant positive association between IGF-1 SDS and BMD at lumbar spine, femoral neck, and total hip only when IGF-1 SDS exceeded -1.68 [89]. Below this threshold, no significant association was observed, suggesting the existence of a critical IGF-1 level required to maintain bone density in diabetic patients [89].

Acromegaly: In acromegaly, characterized by GH and IGF-1 excess, studies demonstrate impaired bone quality despite normal or elevated BMD. GH excess is associated with increased bone turnover but decreased lumbar bone mineral density and increased vertebral fracture risk [2] [14]. Treatment with pegvisomant, a GH receptor antagonist, effectively normalizes IGF-1 levels and improves acromegaly symptoms, as measured by the Patient-Assessed Acromegaly Symptom Questionnaire (PASQ), which decreased by 3.5 points following IGF-1 normalization [91].

Table 2: Comparative Therapeutic Profiles in Pathological Conditions

Condition	Primary Defect	Preferred Therapy	Key Efficacy Measures
GH Deficiency [42] [10]	GH insufficiency	GH monotherapy	Height velocity (children), BMD (adults), IGF-1 normalization
GH Insensitivity [1]	GHR defect	IGF-1 monotherapy	Growth stimulation, metabolic parameters
Acromegaly [91]	GH excess	GH antagonism (pegvisomant)	IGF-1 normalization, symptom questionnaires
T2DM with Osteoporosis [89]	IGF-1 resistance	Unclear (both potentially beneficial)	BMD improvement, fracture risk reduction

Bone-Specific Outcomes: Comparative Analysis

Impact on Bone Metabolism

GH and IGF-1 have distinct but complementary effects on bone remodeling. GH replacement therapy in deficient adults initially increases bone remodeling space, potentially causing a transient decrease or no change in BMD during the first 12-24 months, followed by a time-related increase in bone densitometric endpoints [10]. This biphasic response reflects GH's dual action on both bone formation and resorption processes.

IGF-1 administration significantly increases both bone resorption and formation markers, creating a high bone turnover state [1]. In osteoporosis patients, IGF-1 therapy has demonstrated potential to stimulate bone formation, though clinical studies have shown conflicting results regarding its impact on fracture rates [1].

Fracture Risk and Bone Quality

GH deficiency is associated with a 2-7.4 times higher prevalence of fractures compared to age-matched controls, highlighting the critical role of the GH/IGF-1 axis in maintaining bone strength [74]. Long-term GH replacement in deficient patients reduces this fracture risk, although the exact mechanisms remain partially elucidated as trabecular bone score (an indirect measure of bone microarchitecture) may not significantly improve despite BMD increases [10].

In acromegaly, despite higher BMD in some skeletal sites, patients experience increased vertebral fracture risk due to impaired bone quality [2] [14]. This paradox highlights that BMD alone may not fully capture fracture risk in disorders of the GH/IGF-1 axis, emphasizing the need for additional bone quality assessment methods.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 3: Essential Research Materials for GH/IGF-1 Bone Studies

Reagent/Material	Application	Specific Function	Example References
IMMULITE IGF-1 Assay	IGF-1 quantification	Chemiluminescent immunoassay for serum IGF-1 measurement	[42] [10]
DPC IMMULITE 1000	IGF-1 quantification	Automated analyzer for IGF-1 levels in clinical studies	[89]
Hologic Densitometers	Bone density assessment	DEXA systems for BMD measurement at lumbar spine and hip	[10]
iNsight Software	Bone quality analysis	Calculates trabecular bone score from DEXA images	[10]
Recombinant Human GH	In vitro studies	Investigates direct GH effects on osteoblast cultures	[14]
Recombinant IGF-1	Mechanism studies	Assesses IGF-1-specific effects on bone cell lineages	[1] [88]
Transgenic Mouse Models	Pathway analysis	LID and ALSKO mice to dissect endocrine vs. autocrine IGF-1	[88]

The comparative efficacy of GH versus IGF-1 monotherapy is highly dependent on the specific patient population and underlying pathophysiology. GH monotherapy remains the standard of care for GH deficiency across all age groups, demonstrating proven efficacy for linear growth in children and bone mineral density improvement in adults. IGF-1 monotherapy finds its primary application in conditions of GH insensitivity, where GH receptor defects preclude response to GH treatment.

The critical importance of the GH/IGF-1 axis in bone health is evident across numerous clinical studies, with both deficiencies and excess states associated with impaired bone quality and increased fracture risk. Future research should focus on optimizing dosing strategies, understanding the differential effects on cortical versus trabecular bone, and developing more targeted approaches that maximize therapeutic benefits while minimizing potential adverse effects. For drug development professionals, these findings highlight the need for patient-specific approaches that account for the underlying endocrine pathophysiology when designing therapeutic interventions targeting this axis.

The growth hormone (GH) and insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) axis constitutes a fundamental regulatory system for skeletal growth, bone metabolism, and the maintenance of bone mass throughout life. GH and IGF-1 operate through complex, integrated functions to stimulate bone formation, linear growth during development, and bone remodeling in adulthood [1]. GH exerts both direct effects on target tissues and indirect effects primarily mediated through the systemic and local production of IGF-1 [1]. This intricate hormonal interplay is critical for achieving optimal peak bone mass and maintaining skeletal integrity, making it a central focus of research in both pediatric growth hormone deficiency (GHD) and adult osteoporosis. The investigation into long-term bone density outcomes following GH versus IGF-1 therapy is not merely a comparative efficacy exercise but a scientific imperative to unravel the distinct and synergistic roles of these two key mediators of bone health. Understanding the separate and combined contributions of GH and IGF-1 is essential for developing targeted therapeutic strategies that optimize skeletal outcomes across the lifespan, from children with GHD to adults with osteoporosis or ongoing skeletal fragility related to childhood-onset GHD.

Fundamental Mechanisms: GH/IGF-1 Signaling in Bone

Molecular Pathways and Cellular Actions

The anabolic effects of GH and IGF-1 on bone are mediated through a coordinated sequence of molecular events and cellular interactions. GH binding to the transmembrane GH receptor (GHR) activates the Janus kinase (JAK) signal transducer and activator of transcription (STAT) pathway, particularly STAT5b, which translocates to the nucleus to activate gene transcription [1]. A critical downstream event is the induction of IGF-1 production, which functions as a key effector of GH's growth-promoting activities.

The cellular actions of GH and IGF-1 on the skeleton are distinct yet complementary. The dual effector theory proposes that GH directly stimulates the differentiation of progenitor cells, such as prechondrocytes in the epiphyseal growth plate, while IGF-1 promotes the clonal expansion and maturation of these differentiated cells [1]. Specifically, in vitro studies with cultured chondrocytes demonstrate that GH stimulates the formation of colonies of young prechondrocytes, whereas IGF-1 acts on cells at later stages of maturation [1]. This paradigm extends to osteoblasts, where both hormones exert direct anabolic effects, with GH being particularly crucial for initiating the differentiation process [1].

Figure 1: GH/IGF-1 Signaling Pathway and Cellular Actions in Bone. GH activates intracellular JAK-STAT signaling via its receptor (GHR), leading to IGF-1 gene transcription. GH directly stimulates prechondrocyte differentiation, while IGF-1 promotes clonal expansion of differentiated cells, collectively driving bone formation.

Systemic versus Local IGF-1 Actions

The somatomedin hypothesis originally posited that skeletal growth is stimulated primarily by systemically derived (hepatic) IGF-1 [1]. However, this view has been refined by evidence demonstrating the critical importance of locally produced (autocrine/paracrine) IGF-1. Animal studies suggest distinct roles for these IGF-1 pools: systemic IGF-1 may contribute more to cortical bone integrity, while locally produced IGF-1 may be more critical for trabecular bone homeostasis [19]. This conceptual framework is vital for understanding the differential effects of GH therapy (which increases both systemic and local IGF-1) versus IGF-1 therapy (which primarily elevates systemic levels) on various bone compartments.

Pediatric Growth Hormone Deficiency: Long-Term Bone Outcomes

Real-World Evidence for GH Therapy in Pediatric GHD

Real-world evidence (RWE) has become increasingly important in complementing data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) by providing insights into long-term clinical outcomes and safety in diverse patient populations. Several large international databases monitor the long-term outcomes of pediatric GH treatment, including the Kabi/Pfizer International Growth Database (KIGS), the NordiNet International Outcome Study (IOS), and the Genetics and Neuroendocrinology of Short Stature International Study (GeNeSIS) [92].

A recent 12-month retrospective cohort study investigated the real-world efficacy of weekly somatrogon, a long-acting GH, in 39 prepubertal children with GHD. The study reported significant improvements in growth and bone health parameters over 12 months [39]:

• Height Standard Deviation Score (SDS) improved from -2.16 ± 0.80 to -1.65 ± 0.71 (p < 0.001)
• IGF-1 SDS increased from -1.38 ± 1.02 to 0.88 ± 1.57 (p < 0.001)
• Bone Health Index (BHI) SDS demonstrated significant improvement (p < 0.001)
• No significant advancement in bone age SDS was observed [39]

These findings indicate that long-acting GH therapy effectively improves linear growth and cortical bone health without disproportionately accelerating skeletal maturation in children with GHD.

Novel Mechanisms and Long-Term Safety

Emerging research suggests that GH's benefits may extend beyond traditional hormonal actions to involve modulation of stem cell populations. A groundbreaking eight-year study monitoring pediatric GHD patients during GH therapy found that long-term treatment increased circulating very small embryonic-like stem cells (VSELs), particularly the CD34+ subset, alongside increases in hematopoietic stem cells, mesenchymal stromal cells, and endothelial progenitor cells [93]. This suggests that GH may exert positive effects on bone and overall health by enhancing the body's regenerative cell populations, providing a potential novel mechanism for its long-term benefits.

Regarding long-term safety, RWE from large cohorts with follow-up periods extending into adulthood has generally been reassuring. The Safety and Appropriateness of Growth Hormone Treatments in Europe (SAGhE) cohort, which included 23,984 patients, found no overall increased cancer risk in patients without predisposing factors, though longer treatment duration has been associated with a moderately increased risk of neoplastic events in early to mid-adulthood [92]. The evidence for cardiovascular risk remains somewhat inconsistent across studies, with some reports indicating potential increased risks in certain populations [92].

Adult Populations: GHD and Osteoporosis

GH Replacement in Adult GHD

Adults with GHD, whether of childhood or adult onset, exhibit reduced bone mineral density (BMD) and increased fracture risk. The therapeutic approach and skeletal response differ notably from pediatric treatment. A pivotal prospective study followed 147 adults with GHD receiving GH replacement for two years, demonstrating significant increases in BMD at the lumbar spine (14%) and total femur (7%) [94]. The study also revealed important temporal patterns and demographic variations in treatment response:

• Bone turnover markers increased during the first 12 months, followed by a subsequent decrease in resorption markers [94]
• Trabecular Bone Score (TBS), a parameter of bone microarchitecture, improved significantly (4%) by 24 months [94]
• Treatment response was more pronounced in males and childhood-onset GHD patients [94]

Long-term follow-up data over 10 years of GH replacement therapy in 63 adult GHD patients confirms the sustainability of these positive effects on bone density, with the greatest BMD increments observed around year six of treatment [10]. Interestingly, while hip BMD increased significantly (11%) over the decade, trabecular bone score did not show significant change, suggesting that GH replacement may predominantly affect cortical bone or that TBS might be less sensitive to microarchitectural changes in this context [10].

GH/IGF-1 in Osteoporosis Management

The potential application of GH and IGF-1 in osteoporosis management stems from their fundamental role as bone anabolic agents. A comprehensive review of 39 clinical studies reported that both GH and IGF-1 administration significantly increased bone resorption and formation markers in osteopenic and osteoporotic human subjects [1]. This dual activation of bone remodeling ultimately favors bone formation, particularly with prolonged treatment.

Clinical studies in patients with hip or tibial fractures have demonstrated that GH/IGF-1 administration can accelerate bone healing and facilitate rapid clinical improvement [1]. However, the therapeutic application in established osteoporosis presents challenges, including the initial transient increase in bone resorption which may theoretically increase fracture risk in the short term. The anabolic effects of GH/IGF-1 are modulated by interactions with sex steroids, and a GH resistance process may develop in some individuals, potentially limiting long-term efficacy [1].

Comparative Analysis: GH versus IGF-1 Therapeutic Effects

Differential Effects on Bone Compartments and Turnover

The comparative analysis of GH versus IGF-1 therapy reveals distinct mechanistic profiles and skeletal effects. While both agents stimulate bone formation, they operate through different primary mechanisms with implications for their therapeutic applications.

GH therapy produces a more comprehensive stimulation of the GH/IGF-1 axis, increasing both systemic IGF-1 and local tissue IGF-1 production. This results in initial increases in both bone formation and resorption markers, reflecting the activation of bone remodeling units [94]. Over the long term (12-24 months), this leads to a net increase in bone mass, particularly in cortical bone, as evidenced by significant improvements in femoral neck BMD and total hip BMD in adult studies [94] [10]. The dual action of GH—direct receptor activation and IGF-1 induction—may provide more balanced effects on both trabecular and cortical compartments, though evidence suggests possibly greater efficacy for cortical bone [19].

IGF-1 therapy directly targets the downstream effector of GH, potentially bypassing certain resistance mechanisms. However, it may lack the direct differentiative effects of GH on progenitor cells [1]. IGF-1 administration primarily increases bone formation markers but may produce a less pronounced effect on bone resorption compared to GH [1]. This differential effect might be advantageous in certain clinical scenarios, though the overall anabolic potency may be less than that of GH, especially when considering their synergistic effects when administered together [1].

Table 1: Comparative Effects of GH Therapy and IGF-1 Therapy on Bone Parameters

Parameter	GH Therapy	IGF-1 Therapy	Clinical Implications
Bone Formation Markers	Significant increase [94]	Moderate increase [1]	GH produces more robust bone formation stimulus
Bone Resorption Markers	Significant initial increase [94]	Less pronounced increase [1]	IGF-1 may have more favorable resorption profile
Cortical Bone	Significant improvement [39] [10]	Potentially moderate improvement [19]	GH particularly effective for cortical compartments
Trabecular Bone	Moderate improvement [94]	Possibly more direct effect [19]	IGF-1 may preferentially benefit trabecular bone
Therapeutic Onset	Delayed BMD response (12-24 months) [94]	Not well established	Both require long-term commitment for BMD changes
Linear Growth (Pediatrics)	Significant improvement [39]	Effective but less than GH [1]	GH remains primary for growth promotion

Temporal Patterns of Treatment Response

A critical consideration in both GH and IGF-1 therapy is the distinct temporal pattern of skeletal response. In adult GHD patients receiving GH replacement, BMD typically shows an initial decrease or no change during the first 6-12 months, followed by a progressive increase with continued treatment [94] [10]. This biphasic response pattern is attributed to the initial expansion of the bone remodeling space—where activation of new remodeling units temporarily increases porosity—followed by a gradual refilling and mineralization of these sites, ultimately leading to a net gain in bone mass.

The greatest increments in BMD are generally observed after 2-7 years of continuous therapy, with effects potentially plateauing thereafter [10]. This temporal pattern underscores the necessity for long-term treatment commitment and the inadequacy of short-term studies for evaluating the ultimate skeletal benefits of GH/IGF-1 therapies.

Methodological Approaches in GH/IGF-1 Research

Advanced Bone Assessment Technologies

Contemporary research on GH and IGF-1 effects on bone employs sophisticated assessment methodologies that extend beyond conventional bone mineral density (BMD) measurement by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). These advanced techniques provide deeper insights into bone quality and microarchitecture:

• Trabecular Bone Score (TBS): A textural index derived from DXA images that assesses trabecular microarchitecture. GH replacement in adults has been shown to improve TBS, indicating enhanced bone quality independent of BMD changes [94].
• High-Resolution Peripheral Quantitative Computed Tomography (HR-pQCT): Considered a "gold standard" for in vivo bone quality assessment, this technology can detect improvements in volumetric BMD, cortical area, and thickness following GH treatment that may not be apparent with DXA [10].
• Bone Health Index (BHI): Used particularly in pediatric populations, BHI calculated from hand radiographs provides a measure of cortical bone health and has shown significant improvement with GH therapy [39].
• Bone Turnover Markers: Serum biomarkers including osteocalcin (formation marker) and carboxy-terminal collagen crosslinks (CTx, resorption marker) are essential for monitoring the dynamic phases of GH/IGF-1 action on bone metabolism [94].

Experimental Protocols for GH/IGF-1 Studies

Well-designed experimental protocols are essential for generating reliable evidence on the skeletal effects of GH and IGF-1 therapies. Key methodological considerations include:

Diagnostic Protocols for GHD:

• Pediatric diagnosis typically requires subnormal peak GH response (<10 ng/mL) to two stimulation tests, supported by clinical and auxological criteria [39].
• Adult diagnosis uses more stringent cutoffs (typically <3 μg/L during insulin tolerance test) [10].

Treatment and Monitoring Protocols:

• GH dosing is typically weight-based in children (e.g., 0.23-0.27 mg/kg/week) [95] and titrated to IGF-1 levels in adults [10].
• Regular monitoring of IGF-1 levels to ensure appropriate dosing and avoid over-replacement [10].
• Bone density assessments at standardized intervals (e.g., baseline, 12 months, 24 months) with consistent positioning and calibration [94].

Outcome Assessment:

• Primary outcomes often include change in height SDS (pediatrics) and BMD (adults) [39] [94].
• Secondary outcomes may encompass body composition changes, bone turnover markers, and quality of life measures [95].
• Long-term safety monitoring for potential adverse effects including glucose intolerance, cancer risk, and cardiovascular outcomes [92].

Figure 2: Experimental Workflow for GH/IGF-1 Bone Research. Comprehensive research methodology encompasses precise patient selection, rigorous diagnostic confirmation, multidimensional baseline assessment, standardized intervention protocols, and systematic monitoring of therapeutic outcomes.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions for GH/IGF-1 Bone Studies

Reagent/Assay	Primary Function	Application Notes
Recombinant Human GH	Therapeutic intervention	Weight-based dosing (pediatrics); IGF-1 titrated dosing (adults) [94]
IGF-1 Immunoassays	Serum level quantification	Methods: Immulite 2000/2500; Must address IGFBP interference [1] [10]
GH Immunoassays	Diagnostic measurement & monitoring	Challenge: GH isoform heterogeneity affects cross-reactivity [1]
Bone Turnover Markers	Dynamic bone remodeling assessment	Formation: Osteocalcin; Resorption: CTX [94]
DXA Systems	Areal BMD measurement	Brands: Hologic Discovery/Horizon; Requires cross-calibration between devices [10]
HR-pQCT	3D bone microarchitecture analysis	Gold standard for volumetric BMD and cortical structure [10]
TBS iNsight Software	Trabecular microarchitectural assessment	Derived from DXA images; complements BMD [94]
Flow Cytometry Antibodies	Stem cell population analysis	Panels for VSELs (CD34+/CD133+Lin-CD45-), HSCs, MSCs [93]

The synthesis of long-term real-world evidence from pediatric GHD and adult osteoporosis cohorts reveals both the substantial promise and remaining challenges of GH/IGF-1-based therapies for skeletal disorders. GH therapy demonstrates durable benefits on bone density, structure, and strength when administered over extended periods, with distinct temporal response patterns and demographic modifiers of efficacy. The differential effects of GH versus IGF-1 therapy reflect their distinct physiological roles, with GH providing more comprehensive skeletal stimulation while IGF-1 may offer targeted benefits for specific bone compartments.

Future research directions should focus on optimizing patient selection through biomarker identification, developing combination therapies that maximize anabolic potential while minimizing side effects, and further elucidating the molecular mechanisms underlying the variable treatment response between individuals. Additionally, more long-term studies are needed to definitively establish the anti-fracture efficacy of both GH and IGF-1 therapies across different patient populations and to refine monitoring strategies that incorporate advanced bone assessment technologies beyond conventional DXA. As our understanding of the GH/IGF-1 axis in skeletal homeostasis continues to evolve, so too will our ability to harness its therapeutic potential for the benefit of patients with growth and skeletal disorders across the lifespan.

The growth hormone (GH) and insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) axis represents a crucial regulatory system in skeletal metabolism and fracture healing. GH, secreted by the pituitary gland, exerts both direct effects on target tissues and indirect effects primarily through the stimulation of IGF-1 production. IGF-1, a polypeptide hormone predominantly synthesized in the liver, functions as a primary mediator of GH's anabolic effects on bone tissue [96] [1]. The interplay between these two hormones creates a complex signaling network that influences multiple aspects of bone repair, from the initial inflammatory response to final bone remodeling. Understanding the distinct and synergistic contributions of GH and IGF-1 is essential for developing targeted therapeutic strategies to accelerate fracture healing, particularly in compromised clinical scenarios.

This review systematically compares the preclinical and clinical evidence for GH and IGF-1 in fracture healing acceleration, with particular emphasis on their mechanistic differences, efficacy profiles, and long-term impacts on bone density. By synthesizing data from animal studies, clinical trials, and mechanistic investigations, we provide a comprehensive analysis of the therapeutic potential of these two interconnected hormonal systems for orthopaedic applications.

Molecular Mechanisms and Signaling Pathways

Distinct but Interconnected Signaling Cascades

GH and IGF-1 operate through separate but functionally intertwined molecular pathways. GH initiates signaling by binding to its transmembrane receptor (GHR), leading to receptor dimerization and activation of the JAK2/STAT5 intracellular signaling pathway [97]. The activated STAT5 proteins translocate to the nucleus where they function as transcription factors for target genes, including IGF-1 [97] [1]. This canonical pathway underscores GH's direct role in modulating gene expression relevant to bone formation.

IGF-1 signals primarily through the type 1 IGF receptor (IGF-1R), a receptor tyrosine kinase that activates downstream pathways including the MAPK and PI3K/Akt cascades [96] [1]. These signaling networks promote cellular proliferation, differentiation, and survival—critical processes in bone healing. The structural similarity between IGF-1 and insulin allows IGF-1 to bind, albeit with lower affinity, to the insulin receptor, creating potential cross-talk between metabolic and growth pathways [98].

Figure 1: GH (yellow) and IGF-1 (green) signal through distinct receptor systems and intracellular pathways. Note that GH signaling can induce IGF-1 gene transcription (red dashed line), creating functional interconnection between the two systems.

Cellular Targets in Bone Healing

The skeletal effects of GH and IGF-1 are mediated through actions on multiple cell types involved in fracture repair:

• Chondrocytes: GH stimulates proliferation of pre-chondrocytes in the fracture callus, while IGF-1 promotes maturation of these cells [1]. This sequential action facilitates the endochondral ossification process critical for fracture healing.

• Osteoblasts: Both GH and IGF-1 stimulate osteoblast proliferation and bone matrix synthesis [97] [1]. However, GH appears particularly important for initiating osteoblast differentiation, while IGF-1 exerts stronger mitogenic effects on committed osteoblasts.

• Mesenchymal Stem Cells (MSCs): GH promotes commitment of MSCs to the osteoblastic lineage, while IGF-1 enhances proliferation of these progenitor populations [1]. This complementary action expands the osteoprogenitor pool during early fracture healing.

• Osteoclasts: The effects on bone resorption are complex—GH stimulates osteoprotegerin expression, inhibiting RANK-L-mediated osteoclastogenesis, while IGF-1 can stimulate RANK-L expression, potentially promoting bone resorption [97]. This dual regulation likely facilitates the coupled bone remodeling essential for fracture callus maturation.

Preclinical Models: Efficacy and Mechanisms

Animal Models of Fracture Healing

Preclinical studies in rodent and other animal models have provided fundamental insights into the distinct roles of GH and IGF-1 in bone repair. The following table summarizes key findings from representative animal studies:

Table 1: Preclinical Evidence for GH and IGF-1 in Fracture Healing

Model System	GH Intervention	IGF-1 Intervention	Key Findings	Reference
Hypophysectomized rats	GH administration	IGF-1 administration	Both stimulated longitudinal bone growth; GH more effective when combined with IGF-1	[1]
GHR knockout mice	Not applicable	IGF-1 treatment	IGF-1 partially rescued cortical bone defects	[1]
Fracture healing models	GH administration	IGF-1 administration	Enhanced fracture callus formation with both agents; synergistic effects when combined	[1]
Chondrocyte culture systems	GH stimulation	IGF-1 stimulation	GH stimulated pre-chondrocyte formation; IGF-1 promoted chondrocyte maturation	[1]

Experimental Protocols for Preclinical Assessment

Standardized methodologies have been developed to evaluate the efficacy of GH and IGF-1 in animal fracture models:

Fracture Model Creation:

• Surgical osteotomy (closed or open) of long bones (typically femur or tibia) in rodent models
• Stabilization using internal pinning or external fixation to allow standardized healing
• Randomization to treatment groups post-operatively

Dosing Protocols:

• GH: Typically administered daily via subcutaneous injection at doses ranging from 2.5-5.0 mg/kg
• IGF-1: Usually delivered via continuous infusion or daily injection at doses of 1-4 mg/kg
• Treatment duration: Generally 2-6 weeks, spanning the inflammatory through remodeling phases

Outcome Assessment:

• Biomechanical testing: Torsional strength, stiffness, and energy to failure at explanation
• Radiographic analysis: Regular X-ray or µCT monitoring of callus formation and mineralization
• Histomorphometry: Quantitative assessment of cartilage area, bone volume, and tissue composition
• Molecular analyses: Gene expression profiling of osteogenic markers in callus tissue

Clinical Evidence: Trials and Outcomes

Clinical Studies in GH Deficiency and Normal Subjects

Clinical investigations have evaluated the effects of GH and IGF-1 on fracture healing in both GH-deficient and euthyroid populations. The following table summarizes key findings from clinical trials:

Table 2: Clinical Evidence for GH and IGF-1 in Bone Healing and Metabolism

Patient Population	GH Intervention	IGF-1 Intervention	Primary Outcomes	Reference
Adult GH deficiency (10-year study)	Long-term GH replacement	Not applicable	L-spine BMD increased ~7%; total hip BMD increased ~11%	[10]
Osteoporotic patients	GH treatment	IGF-1 treatment	Increased bone formation and resorption markers	[1]
Hip or tibial fracture patients	GH administration	IGF-1 administration	Accelerated bone healing and clinical improvement	[1]
AGHD with organic etiology	GH replacement	Not applicable	Initial decrease in BMD during first year, followed by progressive increase	[10]

Long-term Bone Density Outcomes

The temporal patterns of bone response to GH and IGF-1 therapy reveal important differences in their mechanisms of action:

GH Therapy Response Pattern:

• Months 0-12: Initial increase in bone remodeling space with decreased or unchanged BMD
• Years 1-3: Progressive increase in BMD as formation exceeds resorption
• Years 3-15: Continued BMD gains, with maximal increases observed after 7-10 years of therapy [10]

IGF-1 Therapy Response:

• More rapid stimulation of bone formation markers
• Potential for earlier initial BMD improvements
• Less extensive long-term data on durability of response

The most significant BMD improvements with GH therapy occur at trabecular-rich sites (lumbar spine) compared to cortical sites, suggesting particular efficacy for preserving cancellous bone structure [10]. Notably, long-term GH replacement for up to 15 years demonstrates continuous BMD increases, with the greatest gains occurring during the first 7-10 years of treatment [10].

Comparative Efficacy Analysis

Temporal Response Patterns in Fracture Healing

The distinct mechanisms of GH and IGF-1 translate into different temporal response patterns in fracture healing:

Figure 2: Proposed temporal sequence of GH (yellow) and IGF-1 (green) dominance during fracture healing phases. GH actions predominate in early inflammatory/chondrogenic phases, while IGF-1 effects are more prominent during angiogenic/osteogenic phases, with both contributing to remodeling.

Differential Effects on Bone Parameters

GH and IGF-1 exhibit distinct effects on various bone quality parameters, as demonstrated in preclinical and clinical studies:

Table 3: Differential Effects of GH and IGF-1 on Bone Parameters

Parameter	GH Effects	IGF-1 Effects	Clinical Implications
Bone formation markers	Slow, sustained increase	Rapid, pronounced increase	IGF-1 may provide faster initial response
Bone resorption markers	Moderate increase	Mild to moderate increase	GH may initially increase remodeling space
Cortical bone	Significant improvement	Moderate improvement	GH particularly effective for cortical bone
Trabecular bone	Moderate improvement	Significant improvement	IGF-1 may preferentially benefit trabecular bone
Bone size	Increased periosteal expansion	Limited effect on bone size	GH uniquely promotes bone dimensional increases
Fracture callus volume	Significant increase	Moderate increase	GH may produce more robust callus formation
Bone material properties	Improved mineralization	Enhanced matrix synthesis	Complementary effects on bone quality

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

For researchers investigating GH and IGF-1 in bone healing, the following reagents and methodologies are essential:

Table 4: Essential Research Reagents and Methods for GH/IGF-1 Bone Healing Studies

Reagent/Method	Function	Application Notes
Recombinant human GH	Direct GH receptor activation	Typically administered daily via SC injection in preclinical models
Recombinant human IGF-1	Direct IGF-1 receptor activation	Can be delivered via continuous infusion for stable levels
GH receptor antibodies	GHR detection and blockade	Useful for mechanistic studies of GH-specific actions
IGF-1 receptor antibodies	IGF-1R detection and inhibition	Helps distinguish IGF-1-mediated vs. direct GH effects
JAK2/STAT5 inhibitors	GH signaling blockade	Tools for validating GH-specific signaling pathways
PI3K/Akt inhibitors	IGF-1 signaling blockade	Helps elucidate IGF-1-specific mechanisms
IGFBP modulation tools	IGF-1 bioavailability control	Critical for understanding IGF-1 regulation
Bone turnover markers (P1NP, CTX)	Treatment response monitoring	Serum biomarkers for bone anabolic and resorptive activity
µCT imaging	3D bone microstructure analysis	Enables quantification of cortical and trabecular parameters

• Hormone Assay Methods: Validated immunoassays for GH and IGF-1 measurement are critical, with attention to standardization across laboratories. The Immulite 2000/2500 assays provide reliable IGF-1 quantification with interassay CV of 2.4-4.7% [10]. For GH measurement, the Beckman Access Ultrasensitive hGH chemiluminescent assay offers 96% specificity for the 22 kDa GH isoform [1].

• IGF-1 Standardization Challenges: Researchers must account for IGF-1 assay variability, as different commercial assays may yield substantially different absolute values. The WHO International Standard 02/254 provides a reference point for assay calibration [99]. Reporting IGF-1 values as standard deviation scores relative to age- and sex-matched reference populations facilitates cross-study comparisons.

The comparative analysis of GH and IGF-1 reveals distinct but complementary roles in fracture healing acceleration. GH appears particularly effective for stimulating the early phases of fracture repair, including inflammation and chondrogenesis, while promoting long-term increases in bone size and cortical mass. IGF-1 demonstrates stronger effects on osteogenic differentiation and matrix synthesis, with potentially more rapid effects on trabecular bone. The temporal sequence of healing suggests that optimal therapeutic strategies might involve sequential or combined administration to capitalize on the unique strengths of each hormone.

For clinical translation, GH demonstrates compelling long-term data for increasing bone mineral density in deficient populations, with progressive gains observed over 10-15 years of therapy [10]. IGF-1 shows promise for more rapid anabolic effects but with less extensive long-term bone quality data. Future research should focus on optimizing delivery timing, exploring combination therapies, and identifying patient subgroups most likely to benefit from each intervention. The development of targeted delivery systems that spatially and temporally control GH or IGF-1 exposure within the fracture microenvironment represents a promising direction for enhancing therapeutic efficacy while minimizing systemic effects.

For researchers and drug development professionals, optimizing patient adherence is a fundamental challenge that directly influences the real-world efficacy of therapeutic interventions. In the context of long-term management of chronic conditions, such as those requiring bone density maintenance, the dosing regimen itself—specifically, the frequency of administration—can be a decisive factor in clinical outcomes. The transition from daily to weekly oral dosing represents a significant paradigm shift in drug development, aimed at enhancing adherence by reducing the burden on patients. This analysis objectively compares the performance of weekly versus daily dosing regimens, synthesizing empirical data on adherence rates, cost-effectiveness, and the methodological frameworks used to generate this evidence. The principles derived from this comparison are highly relevant for the development of long-term therapies, including growth hormone and IGF-1 treatments, where sustained adherence is critical for achieving positive bone density outcomes.

Thesis Context Integration: While the data presented here primarily draws from osteoporosis research—a field with a mature evidence base for comparing dosing frequencies—the findings provide a vital methodological and conceptual framework for ongoing research into growth hormone and IGF-1 therapies. The adherence challenges and solutions identified are directly transferable to the design and evaluation of any long-term anabolic treatment for bone health.

Comparative Adherence and Persistence Data

The core hypothesis that less frequent dosing improves adherence is robustly supported by multiple studies. The data consistently demonstrates that weekly dosing regimens achieve significantly higher rates of medication persistence compared to daily regimens.

Table 1: Adherence and Persistence Metrics: Weekly vs. Daily Dosing

Metric	Weekly Dosing Performance	Daily Dosing Performance	Data Source & Context
12-Month Persistence	56.7% of patients continued therapy	39.0% of patients continued therapy	Analysis of 211,319 patients prescribed bisphosphonates [100]
Adherence Measure (PILLCOUNT)	89% - 92% (proportion of doses taken)	Not directly comparable (same method)	Study of patients with comorbid conditions [101]
Adherence Measure (TIMING)	62% - 68% (doses taken on time)	Not directly comparable (same method)	Study of patients with comorbid conditions [101]
Therapeutic Efficacy	Lumbar Spine BMD: +5.20%Total Hip BMD: +2.14%	Lumbar Spine BMD: -0.08%Total Hip BMD: -1.3%	12-month RCT on alendronate in adults with cystic fibrosis [102]
Habit Strength Correlation	Higher weekly cross-correlation (ρS=0.55) associated with better adherence	Higher day-to-day variability (SD of intake hour) associated with poorer adherence (ρS=-0.62)	Analysis of 15,818 participants from 108 studies [103]

The data in Table 1 underscores two key points. First, the magnitude of the persistence advantage for weekly dosing is clinically meaningful, with a near 18-percentage-point absolute difference over one year [100]. Second, the choice of adherence metric (e.g., PILLCOUNT vs. TIMING) can substantially influence the reported adherence rate, a critical methodological consideration for clinical trial design [101]. The positive impact of weekly dosing on habit strength, as measured by objective metrics like weekly cross-correlation, provides a behavioral mechanism for its superior performance [103].

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

To critically appraise the data on dosing regimens, it is essential to understand the experimental designs and measurement techniques used to generate it. The following protocols are representative of the highest quality research in this field.

Protocol 1: Randomized Controlled Trial of Weekly Dosing Efficacy

This protocol assesses the efficacy and safety of a weekly dosed drug against a placebo control, with bone mineral density (BMD) as the primary endpoint [102].

• Objective: To evaluate the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of oral alendronate, 70 mg once weekly, compared to placebo in adults with cystic fibrosis and low bone mass.
• Study Design: Multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial.
• Participants: Adults with confirmed CF and a bone mineral density T-score of < -1.0. Key exclusion criteria included prior organ transplantation or endoscopy-proven upper GI disease.
• Intervention:
  • Treatment Group: Oral alendronate, 70 mg once weekly for 12 months.
  • Control Group: Matching placebo once weekly for 12 months.
  • All participants received 800 IU of vitamin D and 1,000 mg of calcium daily.
• Methodology:
  • Randomization: Computer-generated, stratified by institution, with block allocation. The medication treatment arm was concealed from all participants and study personnel.
  • Dosing Administration: Participants were instructed to take the medication while sitting upright with water on an empty stomach at least 30 minutes before the first food or beverage of the day.
  • Compliance Measurement: Assessed through pill counts at clinic visits and patient self-report during telephone contacts. Participants receiving ≥80% of the study drug were classified as adherent.
  • Primary Outcome Measure: Mean percentage change in lumbar spine BMD from baseline to 12 months, measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). All DXA scans were analyzed centrally by a blinded medical physicist.
  • Secondary Measures: Percentage change in total hip BMD, incidence of new vertebral fractures (assessed via central reading of spine radiographs using the Genant method), and quality of life.
  • Safety Monitoring: All adverse events were documented and adjudicated by an external Data Safety Monitoring Committee.

Protocol 2: Longitudinal Cohort Study of Dosing Persistence

This protocol uses real-world prescription data to compare long-term persistence between two dosing regimens [100].

• Objective: To compare medication persistence among patients receiving daily versus weekly orally administered bisphosphonates over a one-year period.
• Study Design: Large, longitudinal cohort study.
• Data Source: Prescription information from approximately 14,000 US retail pharmacies (∼25% of all US retail pharmacies) via NDCHealth.
• Participants: 211,319 female patients with a new prescription for either daily or weekly alendronate or risedronate. Demographics were similar between the two groups.
• Methodology:
  • Exposure Definition: Patients were categorized into the "weekly" or "daily" cohort based on the formulation they were initially prescribed.
  • Persistence Definition: The percentage of patients who continued to take bisphosphonate therapy during each month of the 12-month observation period, operationalized as having at least one day of medication supply in that month. This was derived from prescription refill patterns.
  • Data Analysis: Persistence rates were calculated monthly for both cohorts and compared statistically at each time point, including the critical 12-month endpoint.

Molecular and Pathophysiological Context

Understanding the biological environment in which these therapies operate is crucial for drug development. The following diagram illustrates the key signaling pathways involved in bone remodeling, a process targeted by many osteoporosis treatments and relevant to the anabolic action of growth hormone and IGF-1.

Pathway Logic: Bone remodeling is a coupled process between bone-resorbing osteoclasts and bone-forming osteoblasts. Estrogen plays a central role by promoting the production of osteoprotegerin (OPG), which acts as a decoy receptor for RANKL, thereby inhibiting osteoclast activation and bone resorption [104]. Simultaneously, estrogen activates the Wnt signaling pathway, which promotes osteoblast survival and function, thereby enhancing bone formation [104]. Androgens contribute significantly to bone metabolism primarily through their conversion to estrogen in bone tissue [104] [105]. In primary osteoporosis, deficiencies in estrogen and androgen disrupt this balance, leading to increased bone resorption and decreased formation. Therapies aim to restore this balance, either by inhibiting resorption (e.g., bisphosphonates, RANKL inhibitors) or stimulating formation (e.g., PTH analogues).

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 2: Key Reagents and Tools for Bone Therapy Research

Research Tool	Function & Application in Dosing Studies
Dual-Energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DEXA)	The gold standard for non-invasive measurement of Bone Mineral Density (BMD) at sites like the lumbar spine and hip. It is the primary endpoint in trials assessing therapeutic efficacy on bone mass [102] [105].
Electronic Medication Monitors (e.g., MEMS)	Smart packaging (pill bottles, blister packs) that timestamp each opening. Provides objective, high-resolution data on dosing timing and frequency, enabling calculation of adherence metrics like timing adherence and habit strength [106] [103] [101].
Genant Semiquantitative Method	A standardized visual method for grading vertebral fractures from spine radiographs. Used as a key secondary endpoint (morphometric vertebral fracture) in pivotal clinical trials [102].
Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX)	A diagnostic algorithm that integrates clinical risk factors with (optional) femoral neck BMD to calculate a patient's 10-year probability of a major osteoporotic fracture. Used for risk stratification [105].
Biomarkers of Bone Turnover (e.g., NTX, CTX)	Biochemical markers (in blood or urine) that reflect the rate of bone resorption. Used to monitor early response to treatment (e.g., within 3 months) before BMD changes are detectable [107].

The evidence conclusively demonstrates that weekly dosing regimens offer a significant advantage over daily regimens in terms of medication adherence and persistence, which in turn supports long-term therapeutic efficacy. For drug development professionals, these findings underscore that optimizing a drug's dosing schedule is as crucial as optimizing its molecular target. The experimental protocols and tools detailed here provide a blueprint for rigorously evaluating adherence and its impact on clinical outcomes.

Future research in long-term bone density outcomes, particularly for growth hormone and IGF-1 therapies, should integrate these lessons. Evaluating less frequent administration of these anabolic agents—while carefully monitoring for safety and biochemical efficacy—could unlock substantial improvements in patient adherence and real-world effectiveness, ultimately leading to better skeletal health.

Conclusion

The evidence confirms that both GH and IGF-1 are potent anabolic agents for bone, but their long-term efficacy is highly context-dependent, influenced by the patient's underlying condition, age, and sex. GH exerts broad effects through both direct action and the stimulation of systemic and local IGF-1, making it particularly effective in GH-deficient states. In contrast, IGF-1 therapy may offer a more direct route in cases of GH resistance. Future research must focus on personalized medicine approaches, identifying biomarkers that predict individual response, and developing next-generation therapies that maximize the anabolic bone response while minimizing off-target effects. Combining pharmacological therapy with specific mechanical loading protocols, as suggested by contemporary bone adaptation models, represents a promising frontier for optimizing long-term bone health outcomes.

References

• 1. Effect of GH/IGF-1 on Bone Metabolism and Osteoporsosis [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4132406/]
• 2. Growth Hormone and Bone: Preclinical and Clinical ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40669822/]
• 3. Circulating levels of IGF-1 directly regulate bone growth ... [https://www.jci.org/articles/view/15463]
• 4. Dental Implantology in Acromegaly - PubMed Central - NIH [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12653762/]
• 5. Anabolic effects of IGF-1 signaling on the skeleton [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/endocrinology/articles/10.3389/fendo.2013.00006/full]
• 6. Autocrine and Paracrine Actions of IGF-I Signaling in ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4472106/]
• 7. and Autocrine Actions of Paracrine - IGF in Skeletal... I Signaling [https://www.nature.com/articles/boneres201318?error=cookies_not_supported&code=d95557ab-c0ac-4535-a2ca-1695254cb614]
• 8. - IGF regulation of key 1 pathways in signaling - PMC bone [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3818534/]
• 9. Interaction of IGF-I and 1α,25(OH)2D3 on receptor ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0085253815305238]
• 10. The Long-Term Effects of Growth Hormone Replacement ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8884382/]
• 11. Favorable long-term effects of growth hormone ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1096637411000025]
• 12. Minireview: Mechanisms of Growth Hormone-Mediated Gene ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4075164/]
• 13. Skeletal disorders associated with the growth –insulin-like... hormone [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41574-022-00649-8?error=cookies_not_supported&code=5705e07c-5cdb-4a6a-817f-9d183fb7d058]
• 14. Growth Hormone and Bone: Preclinical and Clinical ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1530891X25009632]
• 15. Molecular mechanisms of long bone growth and ... [https://www.pfmjournal.org/journal/view.php?number=151]
• 16. The role of insulin-like growth factor-1 in bone remodeling [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S014181302301019X]
• 17. Signaling Mechanisms Leading to the Regulation of ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002192582083470X]
• 18. Mode of Growth Hormone Action in Osteoblasts [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021925820686926]
• 19. Differences between bone health parameters in adults with ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1521690X23000982]
• 20. The association between sex hormones and bone mineral ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-89985-z]
• 21. Insights and implications of sexual dimorphism in ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41413-023-00306-4]
• 22. Exploring the Role of Hormones and Cytokines in ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11351445/]
• 23. Impact of menopause hormone therapy, exercise, and their ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/reproductive-health/articles/10.3389/frph.2025.1542746/full]
• 24. Adult height and long-term outcomes after rhIGF-1 therapy ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1096637421000423]
• 25. Regulation of skeletal growth and mineral acquisition by the ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4809789/]
• 26. Effects of GH/IGF axis on bone and cartilage [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0303720720303543]
• 27. Degradation of Bone Quality in a Transgenic Mouse Model ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9772191/]
• 28. Cortical Bone Loss and Fragility in a 2-Month Triple ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4409/14/22/1816]
• 29. A murine model of large-scale bone regeneration reveals ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41536-022-00225-8]
• 30. Effects of physiologic growth hormone therapy on bone ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8967668/]
• 31. The Bone Strain Index: An Innovative Dual X-ray ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/11/9/2284]
• 32. Beyond Bone Mineral Density: A New Dual X-Ray ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7843921/]
• 33. Novel Imaging Biomarkers for Assessment of Bone Health ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/research-topics/11196/novel-imaging-biomarkers-for-assessment-of-bone-health-and-fracture-risk/magazine]
• 34. Similarities and differences between bone quality parameters ... [https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0260924]
• 35. An update on methods for assessing bone quality and ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214623721000338]
• 36. Effects of 18 Months of Growth Hormone Replacement ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10081901/]
• 37. Optimizing the Design of Clinical Trials to Evaluate ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10272979/]
• 38. Bone Biology and Anabolic Therapies for Bone [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3970295/]
• 39. Real-World Efficacy of Weekly Somatrogon on Growth and ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41025548/]
• 40. Evaluation of early biomarkers of muscle anabolic ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3063869/]
• 41. The influence of growth hormone deficiency on bone health ... [https://reu.termedia.pl/The-influence-of-growth-hormone-deficiency-on-bone-health-and-metabolism,170244,0,2.html]
• 42. Comparative Efficacy of Once-Weekly Somatrogon Versus ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12103926/]
• 43. Comparison of children with bioinactive growth hormone ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/endocrinology/articles/10.3389/fendo.2025.1596976/full]
• 44. Effect of growth hormone on bone density and body ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12401361/]
• 45. Impact of non-weight-dependent low-dose somatropin on ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021755724001608]
• 46. The Impact of Weight on IGF-1 Levels in Short-Statured ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1530891X25012558]
• 47. Long-acting drug delivery systems: Current landscape and ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1359644625001606]
• 48. Long-acting parenteral formulations of hydrophilic drugs ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11870889/]
• 49. of Optimization for the dosing - regimens growth... long acting [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40618-025-02749-4]
• 50. - Long injectable antipsychotics in schizophrenia | NDT acting [https://www.dovepress.com/the-effect-of-longer-dosing-intervals-for-long-acting-injectable-antip-peer-reviewed-fulltext-article-NDT]
• 51. Building an adaptive dose simulation framework to aid ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10681481/]
• 52. Target-mediated pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic model based... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25727954/]
• 53. Skeletal Effects of Growth Hormone and Insulin-like ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4808510/]
• 54. Growth hormone deficiency and replacement effect on ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2451965017300121]
• 55. Interpreting IGF-1 in children treated with recombinant ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/endocrinology/articles/10.3389/fendo.2024.1514935/full]
• 56. Insulin-Like Growth Factor-1 (IGF-1) and Its Monitoring in ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7913862/]
• 57. Serum Markers of Bone Turnover and Bone Remodeling in ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12193694/]
• 58. Relationship of serum GDF11 levels with bone mineral ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/boneres201612]
• 59. Distinct mechanisms of induction of hepatic growth ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4101637/]
• 60. Liver-specific Deletion of the Growth Hormone Receptor ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021925817492775]
• 61. Investigating the role of the growth hormone–insulin-like ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S8756328205003182]
• 62. Towards Understanding the Direct and Indirect Actions of ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8533955/]
• 63. Biphasic dose responses in biology, toxicology and medicine [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0269749113004235]
• 64. Biphasic and Dosage-Dependent Regulation of ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3232928/]
• 65. Biphasic Dose-Response Induced by Phytochemicals [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7141213/]
• 66. Biphasic calcium phosphate recruits Tregs to promote ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1742706124000011]
• 67. HGH (Human Growth Hormone): What It Is, Benefits & Side ... [https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/23309-human-growth-hormone-hgh]
• 68. Insulin-like growth factor-1 in articular cartilage repair for ... [https://arthritis-research.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13075-021-02662-0]
• 69. Human Growth Hormone (HGH): Benefits, Risks, and Uses [https://www.webmd.com/fitness-exercise/human-growth-hormone-hgh]
• 70. Effect of growth hormone treatment on energy expenditure ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6373369/]
• 71. what should be performed when GH and IGF-1 levels ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3654652/]
• 72. Understanding the Role of IGF-1 in Managing Acromegaly [https://crinetics.com/understanding-the-role-of-igf-1-in-managing-acromegaly/]
• 73. The association between IGF-1 levels and four types of ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/genetics/articles/10.3389/fgene.2024.1366138/full]
• 74. The influence of growth hormone deficiency on bone health ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10515129/]
• 75. Circulating IGF-1 levels and trends in response to daily and ... [https://www.endocrine-abstracts.org/ea/0110/ea0110ep799]
• 76. Obesity and Its Comorbidities: Current Treatment Options ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12439710/]
• 77. Effects of age, sex, and treatment on weight-loss dynamics ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23905663/]
• 78. Comparison of children with bioinactive growth hormone, ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41019338/]
• 79. Effects of different combinations of mechanical loading ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11286701/]
• 80. PTH pre-treatment prior to tibial mechanical loading ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40164271/]
• 81. Essential Nutrients for Bone Health and a Review of their ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3330619/]
• 82. Current Evidence on the Association of Dietary Patterns ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2161831323002181]
• 83. Meta-Analysis of Clinical Fracture Risk Reduction ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34252583/]
• 84. Fracture risk reduction and safety by osteoporosis ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37130601/]
• 85. Treatment-related changes in total hip bone mineral ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40720735/]
• 86. Benefits of growth hormone treatment on bone metabolism ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1096637498800166]
• 87. Meta‐analysis of peripheral insulin‐like growth factor 1 levels ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9847627/]
• 88. Circulating levels of IGF-1 directly regulate bone growth and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC151128/]
• 89. Association between serum insulin-like growth factor-1 and ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/endocrinology/articles/10.3389/fendo.2024.1457050/full]
• 90. Efficacy of different measures of long-acting growth ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41230707/]
• 91. Impact of strict IGF1 control on quality-of-life scores in ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/endocrinology/articles/10.3389/fendo.2025.1516899/full]
• 92. Long-term safety of childhood growth hormone treatment [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12519-024-00862-7]
• 93. Positive influence of long-term growth hormone therapy on ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-20532-6]
• 94. Impact of the growth hormone replacement on bone status ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1096637413001093]
• 95. Impact of growth hormone therapy on bone and body ... [https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/jpem-2025-0085/html?lang=en&srsltid=AfmBOopnavRZNCBW-XwmFMnR6QYe4tEh5ErOboYBf7G3bCY0BYibd06T]
• 96. Insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1): a growth hormone - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1187088/]
• 97. 从基础到临床：解析生长激素对骨骼健康的影响 - CN-Healthcare [https://www.cn-healthcare.com/articlewm/20251121/content-1661276.html]
• 98. The Fascinating Interplay between Growth Hormone ... [https://www.e-enm.org/journal/view.php?doi=10.3803/EnM.2024.101]
• 99. Insulin-like growth factor-1 level is a poor diagnostic ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-95632-0]
• 100. Medication Persistence With Weekly Versus Daily Doses of ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1530891X20422827]
• 101. Variation in adherence measures as a function of ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/pharmacology/articles/10.3389/fphar.2024.1460327/full]
• 102. Alendronate Once Weekly for the Prevention and Treatment of ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5104558/]
• 103. Correlation Between Objective Habit Metrics and ... [https://www.i-jmr.org/2025/1/e63987]
• 104. Primary Osteoporosis Induced by Androgen and Estrogen ... [https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/25/22/12139]
• 105. Osteoporosis: A Review of Treatment Options - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5768298/]
• 106. Association between day of the week and medication ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6940530/]
• 107. Osteoporosis Update [https://www.hopkinsarthritis.org/physician-corner/education/osteoporosis-update/]