ABSTRACT
ABSTRACT Prolactinomas are the most common pituitary adenomas (approximately 40% of cases), and they represent an important cause of hypogonadism and infertility in both sexes. The magnitude of prolactin (PRL) elevation can be useful in determining the etiology of hyperprolactinemia. Indeed, PRL levels > 250 ng/mL are highly suggestive of the presence of a prolactinoma. In contrast, most patients with stalk dysfunction, drug-induced hyperprolactinemia or systemic diseases present with PRL levels < 100 ng/mL. However, exceptions to these rules are not rare. On the other hand, among patients with macroprolactinomas (MACs), artificially low PRL levels may result from the so-called "hook effect". Patients harboring cystic MACs may also present with a mild PRL elevation. The screening for macroprolactin is mostly indicated for asymptomatic patients and those with apparent idiopathic hyperprolactinemia. Dopamine agonists (DAs) are the treatment of choice for prolactinomas, particularly cabergoline, which is more effective and better tolerated than bromocriptine. After 2 years of successful treatment, DA withdrawal should be considered in all cases of microprolactinomas and in selected cases of MACs. In this publication, the goal of the Neuroendocrinology Department of the Brazilian Society of Endocrinology and Metabolism (SBEM) is to provide a review of the diagnosis and treatment of hyperprolactinemia and prolactinomas, emphasizing controversial issues regarding these topics. This review is based on data published in the literature and the authors' experience.
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Pituitary Neoplasms/diagnosis , Pituitary Neoplasms/therapy , Hyperprolactinemia/diagnosis , Hyperprolactinemia/therapy , Prolactinoma/diagnosis , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Prolactin/blood , Brazil , Prolactinoma/therapy , Bromocriptine/therapeutic use , Dopamine Agonists/therapeutic use , Ergolines/therapeutic use , Cabergoline , Antineoplastic Agents/therapeutic useABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: The aim of the current study was to compare the objective and subjective effects of continuous positive airway pressure to the use of nasal dilator strips in patients with acromegaly and moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnea. METHODS: We studied 12 patients with acromegaly and moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnea (male/ females = 8/4, age = 52±8 ys, body mass index = 33.5±4.6 Kg/m², apnea-hypopnea index = 38±14 events/h) who had been included in a randomized, crossover study to receive three months of treatment with continuous positive airway pressure and nasal dilator strips. All patients were evaluated at study entry and at the end of each treatment by polysomnography, and Epworth Sleepiness Scale, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index and treatment satisfaction questionnaires. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01265121 RESULTS: The apnea-hypopnea index values decreased significantly with continuous positive airway pressure treatment but did not change with the use of nasal dilator strips. All of the subjective symptoms improved with both treatments, but these improvements were significantly greater with continuous positive airway pressure than with the nasal dilator strips CONCLUSION: The use of nasal dilator strips had a much smaller effect on the severity of obstructive sleep apnea in patients with acromegaly and moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnea in comparison to the use of continuous positive airway pressure. Moreover, the improvement in several subjective parameters without any significant objective improvement in obstructive sleep apnea resulting from the use of nasal dilator strips is compatible with a placebo effect.