Joshua Yang, MD

In the final segment, Joshua Yang, MD, synthesizes his views on the clinical role of long-acting growth hormone analogs, arguing that these agents should be understood as a meaningful advancement for selected patients rather than merely a convenience upgrade over daily therapy.

Long-Acting Growth Hormone Analogs: Beyond Convenience to Individualized Care

He reiterates that treatment burden is not a trivial consideration in a chronic, injectable therapy often initiated in childhood and continued for many years. For families struggling with daily injections, weekly long-acting formulations can substantially reduce logistical challenges and psychological fatigue associated with treatment.

Yang places particular emphasis on adherence as a key mediator between dosing schedule and long-term outcomes. Drawing parallels with other therapeutic areas in which extended-interval regimens have improved adherence, he suggests that if long-acting GH analogs consistently enhance treatment persistence, clinicians should expect to see corresponding gains in auxologic outcomes over time.

However, he cautions that these expectations must be confirmed through robust real-world data, including ongoing and future registries that capture long-term growth trajectories and safety findings in diverse patient populations. The promise of better adherence must be matched by careful monitoring and evidence generation.

Looking ahead, Yang envisions a shift toward more sophisticated individualization of GH therapy that extends beyond simple weight-based dosing. He anticipates that clinicians will increasingly tailor treatment based on dynamic parameters such as IGF-1 profiles, adherence patterns, and potentially other biomarkers or digital health data captured in real-world practice. In his view, real-world observations and registry analyses will be essential in defining optimal dosing strategies that maximize efficacy while minimizing risk.

By leveraging these data, clinicians can refine the use of long-acting GH analogs to deliver more precise, patient-centered care for children with GHD and related growth disorders.

Videos

An expert explains why long-acting growth hormone analogs represent more than a convenience upgrade, emphasizing adherence, treatment burden, and future directions in individualized dosing.


In this segment, Joshua Yang, MD, offers a practical perspective on how clinicians should incorporate registry data into decision-making for patients receiving growth hormone therapy, including long-acting formulations. He emphasizes that registries should be viewed as a complement, rather than a replacement, for randomized clinical trials.

Leveraging Growth Hormone Registries to Inform Long-Term Treatment Decisions

Randomized trials remain the gold standard for demonstrating efficacy under controlled conditions, but their relatively short duration and selective inclusion criteria limit the ability to fully characterize rare safety events, long-term outcomes, and treatment patterns in heterogeneous populations.

Yang highlights treatment persistence as a central domain where registries provide critical insights beyond those available from trials. In randomized studies, adherence is typically high and closely monitored, whereas registry data reflect the realities of day-to-day use in the community. With long-acting GH analogs, registries can help determine whether reduced injection frequency translates into improved persistence and, ultimately, better growth outcomes such as height velocity and near-adult height.

Additionally, he notes that registries allow clinicians to answer questions that families frequently pose, such as what to expect at 5, 10, or 15 years of therapy and how outcomes compare among patients with similar diagnoses or baseline characteristics.

Looking ahead, Yang anticipates that growth hormone registries will become even more informative as they integrate electronic health records, adherence metrics, and patient-reported outcomes. This evolution will expand their role from primarily safety surveillance to a more comprehensive characterization of real-world effectiveness, quality of life, and care patterns.

By synthesizing data from randomized trials and registries, clinicians will be better equipped to counsel families about long-term expectations, balance benefits and risks, and individualize therapy across the spectrum of GHD and related indications. Yang suggests that this trajectory mirrors the historical experience with daily GH and will be essential for building similar confidence in long-acting analogs over the coming decades.

An expert discusses how clinicians can apply registry data alongside randomized trial evidence to address long-term safety, persistence, and real-world outcomes in growth hormone therapy.


In this portion of the discussion, Joshua Yang, MD, contrasts the roles of randomized clinical trials and real-world registries in assessing growth hormone therapies, with a particular focus on long-acting GH analogs. He frames clinical trials as essential for determining whether a therapy can work under controlled conditions, whereas registries are critical for understanding how that therapy performs in routine clinical practice.

Real-World Registries vs Clinical Trials in Long-Acting Growth Hormone Therapy

Historically, large registries such as KIGS (Pfizer International Growth Database) and NCGS (National Cooperative Growth Study) accumulated decades of data on daily GH therapy, providing robust evidence for long-term efficacy and safety that underpinned clinical confidence in daily GH use.

Yang notes that long-acting GH analogs represent a different class of molecules, even though they are related to daily GH, and therefore warrant their own extensive real-world evaluation. He explains that emerging long-acting GH registries are beginning to generate meaningful longitudinal data, mirroring the process that occurred with daily GH several decades ago.

These registries capture diverse patient populations, extended follow-up periods, and broader clinical scenarios than those represented in registration trials. Over time, these data will help confirm whether the long-term efficacy and safety of long-acting GH analogs align with or differ from those of traditional daily formulations.

Importantly, Yang underscores that registries are particularly valuable for evaluating populations and clinical questions not fully addressed in clinical trials. He highlights, for example, patients with a prior history of malignancy, who are often excluded from randomized trials but appear in real-world datasets. In addition, he points to expanded indications for long-acting GH—such as small for gestational age (SGA), idiopathic short stature, and Noonan syndrome—as areas where registry data can help define expected outcomes across varied clinical settings and geographies.

By capturing real-world patterns of use, efficacy, and safety across diagnoses and regions, registries offer clinicians a more comprehensive evidence base to guide counseling and long-term management decisions for patients treated with long-acting GH analogs.


An expert compares insights from historical and contemporary growth hormone registries with randomized trial data, highlighting their complementary roles in evaluating long-acting GH analogs.


An expert reviews key considerations for IGF-1 monitoring, timing of blood draws, and dose individualization when transitioning patients from daily growth hormone to long-acting analogs.

IGF-1 Monitoring and Dose Optimization With Long-Acting Growth Hormone Analogs

In the second segment, Joshua Yang, MD, focuses on dose optimization and monitoring strategies for patients receiving long-acting growth hormone (GH) analogs, with particular attention to the interpretation of IGF-1 levels. He explains that clinicians transitioning from daily to long-acting GH must adapt their monitoring practices because the pharmacokinetics of weekly formulations differ substantially from those of daily injections. Whereas daily GH therapy generally produces relatively flat IGF-1 profiles over 24 hours, long-acting analogs are characterized by a weekly peak and trough pattern, making the timing of blood draws critical for accurate assessment.

Yang stresses that each long-acting GH analog has distinct pharmacokinetic properties, molecular structure, and dosing parameters, and that these products are not interchangeable. As a result, clinicians must be familiar with product-specific recommendations regarding when to obtain IGF-1 measurements—whether at or near peak, trough, or at a timepoint that best approximates average weekly exposure.

He notes that, for the long-acting products currently in use, consensus and practical experience often support measuring IGF-1 around day 4 after the injection to approximate mean exposure over the dosing interval. When patients cannot access the laboratory on the ideal day, validated calculators can assist in estimating average IGF-1 exposure from off-schedule draws.

Despite the emphasis on precise timing, Yang reiterates that IGF-1 is one component of a broader clinical assessment rather than a sole determinant of management decisions. In his approach, IGF-1 data are interpreted alongside growth velocity, duration of treatment, pubertal status, and indicators of adherence. For example, suboptimal height velocity in the context of appropriate IGF-1 levels may prompt a reassessment of adherence, comorbidities, or pubertal progression rather than immediate dose escalation.

By integrating pharmacokinetic understanding with individualized clinical judgment, Yang suggests that clinicians can safely optimize long-acting GH dosing while maintaining a focus on both efficacy and long-term safety.

Joshua Yang, MD

Articles