Long-acting growth hormone: An updated Growth Hormone Research Society consensus statement.
This consensus statement concludes that long-acting growth hormone has short- to mid-term efficacy broadly comparable to daily somatropin in indicated populations, while emphasizing that recurrence and second-neoplasm safety data are not yet available for cancer survivors.
Open original publication →What the AI sees
This consensus statement concludes that long-acting growth hormone has short- to mid-term efficacy broadly comparable to daily somatropin in indicated populations, while emphasizing that recurrence and second-neoplasm safety data are not yet available for cancer survivors.
Research significance
The record supports long-acting growth hormone as a clinically available option for growth hormone deficiency with individualized dosing and IGF-I monitoring; it is only an inference that reduced injection frequency could improve adherence or survivorship outcomes in pediatric cancer survivors, because oncology-specific efficacy, recurrence, and second-neoplasm data are absent.
Source abstract
Long-acting growth hormone (LAGH) preparations have moved from development to routine clinical use over the past decade. Several products are now approved for paediatric growth hormone deficiency (GHD), selected non-GHD short-stature indications, and, in some regions, for adult GHD. The Growth Hormone Research Society convened an international workshop in October 2025 to reappraise the evidence base and refine clinical recommendations. Currently, data are available for up to 7 years of LAGH treatment in over 8,000 individuals. This remains substantially shorter and smaller than for daily GH. Across preparations, short- to mid-term efficacy appears comparable to daily somatropin, provided dosing is individualised and monitored appropriately. Approvals and pivotal trials include both, treatment initiation and switching from daily GH, depending on product and regional label. No new major safety signals have been identified in trials and real-world reports, although data on BMI trajectories require further evaluation. Injection-site reactions remain the most frequent adverse event and vary by formulation. Anti-drug-antibodies have been observed, yet evidence suggests they have limited clinical impact. Effects on glucose metabolism resemble those of daily therapy, but metabolically high-risk groups are under-represented in studies. Among cancer survivors, data on tumour recurrence and second neoplasms with LAGH are not yet available. Recommendations and practice points emphasised careful patient selection and counselling, product-specific dosing, and insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-I) monitoring. Urgent knowledge gaps include transition care, long-term efficacy, adherence and safety in cancer survivors. Well-resourced registries are essential for addressing these gaps and supporting safe, effective, and patient-centred use of LAGH.