ReviewEndocrinology, diabetes & metabolism2026
Long-Acting Growth Hormone Versus Daily Growth Hormone for Growth Hormone Deficiency Patients: A Network Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials.
Review in Endocrinology, diabetes & metabolism, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCurrent guidelines recognize daily recombinant human growth hormone (rhGH) as standard care and long-acting growth hormone (LAGH) as an alternative for paediatric growth hormone deficiency (CHD). In this network meta-analysis (NMA), we updated the evidence to evaluate comparative efficacy and safety of multiple dosing nodes of LAGH versus daily somatropin.
methodsMajor databases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central, Scopus, Web of Science, and http://ClinicalTrials.Gov, were searched through April 2026 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs)in children with CHD. Outcomes included height velocity (HV), height SDS, and adverse events. Direct and indirect evidence was synthesized using a frequentist random-effects NMA (OSF: https://doi.org/10.17605/osf.io/nugpe).
resultsEighteen RCTs (n = 3137) were analysed. In the primary random-effects model for HV, weekly YPEG-rhGH 0.1 mg/kg/week showed a significantly higher velocity compared to daily Somatropin (SMD: 5.02), whereas Somatrogon 0.25/0.48/0.66 mg/kg/week and Somapacitan 0.04 mg/kg/week showed lower HV. No significant differences were observed across treatments for height SDS. For IGF-1 SDS, Lonapegsomatropin 0.24 mg/kg/week significantly increased levels (SMD: 0.74 [0.36-1.12]), while Somatrogon and Somapacitan 0.04 mg/kg/week demonstrated reductions. Safety profiles showed that Somatrogon significantly increased the risk of localized injection site erythema (RR: 10.55) and pain. However, overall discontinuation rates did not differ significantly between LAGH formulations and daily therapy across the network.
conclusionsOnce-weekly LAGH provides an effective frontline alternative to daily acting growth hormone, without compromising overall linear growth or safety, while displaying no differences in overall treatment discontinuation. Selection should be based on the patients' clinical profiles, specifically considering higher localized reactions with Somatrogon. Clinicians should adhere to formulation-specific sampling windows (2-5 days post dose for Lonapegsomatropin; 96 h for Somatrogon) to accurately monitor steady-state IGF-1 levels.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.