The medical literature of the decade contains hundreds of reports of small trials of GH use in nearly every type of growth failure and shortness imaginable. In most cases, the growth responses were modest. For conditions with a large enough potential market, more rigorous trials were sponsored by pharmaceutical companies that were making growth hormone to achieve approval to market for those specific indications. Turner syndrome and chronic kidney failure were the first of these “nonGH-deficient causes of shortness” to receive FDA approval for GH treatment, and Prader-Willi syndrome and intrauterine growth retardation followed. Similar expansion of use occurred in Europe.One obvious potential market was adult GH deficiency. By the mid-1990s, several GH companies had sponsored or publicized research into the quality of life of adults with severe GH deficiency. Most were people having been treated with GH in childhood for severe deficiency. Although the injections are painless, many of them had been happy to leave injections behind as they reached final heights in the low-normal range. However, as adults in their 30s and 40s, these people, who had been children with growth hormone deficiency, were now adults with growth hormone deficiency and had more than their share of common adult problems: reduced physical, mental, and social energy, excess adipose and diminished muscle, diminished libido, poor bone density, higher cholesterol levels, and higher rates of cardiovascular disease. Research trials soon confirmed that a few months of GH could improve nearly all of these parameters. However, despite marketing efforts, most GH-deficient adults remain untreated.
If early catch-up growth does not occur and their heights remain below the third percentile by 2 or 3 years of age, adult height is likely to be similarly low. High-dose GH treatment has been shown to accelerate growth, but data on long term benefits and risks are limited. Idiopathic short stature (ISS) is one of the most controversial indications for GH as pediatric endocrinologists do not agree on its definition, diagnostic criteria, or limits. The term has been applied to children with severe unexplained shortness that will result in an adult height below the 3rd percentile. In the late 1990s, the pharmaceutical manufacturer Eli Lilly and Company sponsored trials of their brand of rHGH (Humatrope) in children with extreme ISS, those at least 2.25 standard deviations below mean (in the lowest 1.2 percent of the population). These boys and girls appeared to be headed toward heights of less than 63" (160 cm) and 59" (150 cm) respectively. They were treated for about 4 years and gained 1.5–3 in (3.8–7.6 cm) in adult height. Controversy has arisen as to whether all of these children were truly "short normal" children, since the average IGF1 was low. Approval of HGH for the treatment of this extreme degree of shortness led to an increase in the number of parents seeking its use to make otherwise normal children a little taller.