Skip to main content
. 2009 Apr 7;94(7):2360–2366. doi: 10.1210/jc.2008-2606

Table 2.

Effects of 7 d of oral E2 and P in NC and HA adolescent girls

Tanner 1-2 NC (n = 4) Tanner 3-5 NC (n = 18) Tanner 3-5 HA
All (n = 24) P-sensitive (n = 15) P-insensitive (n = 9)
Day 0
 E2 (pg/ml) 38 ± 21 (11, 44) 57 ± 17 (4, 57) 63 ± 18 (4, 62) 67 ± 14 (4, 66) 57 ± 24 (8, 54)
 P (ng/ml) 0.4 ± 0.1 (0.1, 0.3) 0.4 ± 0.2 (0.0, 0.4) 0.6 ± 0.2 (0.0, 0.6)b 0.6 ± 0.1 (0.0, 0.6) 0.6 ± 0.2 (0.1, 0.6)
 FSH (IU/liter) 2.0 ± 1.2 (0.6, 2.1)b 4.6 ± 1.5 (0.4, 4.4) 3.9 ± 0.8 (0.2, 3.8) 3.8 ± 0.5 (0.1, 3.8) 4.0 ± 1.1 (0.4, 3.5)
 LH (IU/liter) 1.5 ± 1.6 (0.8, 1.1)b 5.6 ± 3.2 (0.8, 4.7) 7.9 ± 4.4 (0.9, 7.3) 7.7 ± 3.7 (1.0, 7.5) 8.4 ± 5.5 (1.8, 6.4)
 LH pulses/11 h 5.3 ± 3.0 (1.5, 5.0) 6.9 ± 1.7 (0.4, 7.0) 9.5 ± 1.4 (0.3, 9.5)c 10.0 ± 1.0 (0.3, 10.0) 8.8 ± 1.6 (0.6, 8.0)d
 Mean LH amplitude (IU/liter) 1.4 ± 1.0 (0.5, 1.7)b 4.3 ± 2.0 (0.5, 3.8) 3.3 ± 2.0 (0.4, 2.8)a 3.0 ± 1.5 (0.4, 2.9) 3.7 ± 2.7 (0.9, 2.7)
Day 7
 E2 (pg/ml) 145 ± 50 (25, 148) 166 ± 103 (24, 139) 122 ± 47 (10, 117) 128 ± 49 (13, 114) 114 ± 44 (15, 123)
 P (ng/ml) 5.3 ± 1.2 (0.6, 5.7) 6.8 ± 3.8 (0.9, 6.3) 7.7 ± 2.9 (0.6, 7.9) 6.9 ± 2.0 (0.5, 7.6) 8.9 ± 3.9 (1.3, 9.7)
 FSH (IU/liter) 0.1 ± 0.2 (0.1, 0.0)c 2.8 ± 1.7 (0.4, 2.3) 3.2 ± 0.8 (0.2, 3.0) 3.1 ± 0.5 (0.1, 3.0) 3.4 ± 1.1 (0.4, 2.9)
 LH (IU/liter) 0.1 ± 0.1 (0.0, 0.1)c 5.2 ± 4.7 (1.1, 5.0) 6.6 ± 3.1 (0.6, 6.0) 6.4 ± 3.1 (0.8, 6.4) 7.0 ± 3.3 (1.1, 5.1)
 LH pulses/11 h 0.3 ± 0.5 (0.3, 0.0)b 3.5 ± 2.0 (0.5, 4.0) 6.3 ± 1.5 (0.3, 6.5)c 5.7 ± 1.4 (0.4, 6.0) 7.3 ± 0.9 (0.3, 8.0)e
 Mean LH amplitude (IU/liter) 0.3g 7.9 ± 5.8 (1.4, 6.3) 5.3 ± 2.9 (0.6, 4.3) 5.7 ± 3.2 (0.8, 4.5) 4.6 ± 2.4 (0.8, 3.9)
Reduction in LH pulses
 Absolute 5.0 ± 2.6 (1.3, 5.0) 3.4 ± 1.4 (0.3, 3.0) 3.3 ± 1.9 (0.4, 3.5) 4.3 ± 1.2 (0.3, 5.0) 1.4 ± 1.3 (0.4, 1.0)f
 Percent 97 ± 6 (3, 100)b 51 ± 26 (6, 45) 33 ± 18 (4, 33)a 43 ± 12 (3, 44) 15 ± 12 (4, 14)f
% Reduction LH pulses/d 7 P 19.3 ± 5.8 (2.9, 17.8)a 10.3 ± 7.7 (1.8, 8.2) 4.7 ± 3.4 (0.7, 4.6)b 6.7 ± 2.8 (0.7, 5.9) 1.5 ± 1.0 (0.3, 1.5)f

Data are presented as mean± sd (sem, median). 

a

P < 0.05 vs. Tanner 3-5 NC; 

b

P < 0.01 vs. Tanner 3-5 NC; 

c

P < 0.001 vs. Tanner 3-5 NC; 

d

P < 0.05 vs. HA P-sensitive; 

e

P < 0.01 vs. HA P-sensitive; 

f

P < 0.001 vs. HA P-sensitive; 

g

Only one pulse was present in the Tanner 1-2 NC population on d 7.