Optimizing Medical Therapy of Acromegaly: Beneficial Effects of Cabergoline in Patients Uncontrolled with Long-Acting Release Octreotide

Background: Previous data indicate a beneficial effect of cabergoline (CAB) association to somatostatin analogs (SA) in acromegalics resistant to SA monotherapy. Objective: To assess the efficacy of CAB association on acromegalics with high IGF-I on stable long-acting release octreotide (OCT-LAR) (30 mg/28 days). Design, Subjects and Methods: 34 patients (17 male, 25-85 years, 33 macroadenomas) were enrolled in this prospective study. OCT-LAR was administered as primary (n = 4) and as secondary (n = 30) treatment: after surgery (n = 16), after surgery + radiotherapy (RT) (n = 11), and after RT only (n = 3). Duration of OCT-LAR therapy prior to CAB was 24 8 12 months. The immunohistochemical features of the tumors disclosed GH/PRL co-secretion in 11/21 patients. 13 patients had high PRL levels prior to CAB. The initial CAB dose was 1.5 mg/week. No IGF-I normalization led to a dose increase to 3.5 mg/week. The OCT-LAR dose was kept stable during treatment. IGF-I, GH and PRL levels were compared before and after CAB association. OCT-LAR was withdrawn in patients who achieved IGF-I normalization, in order to assess the influence of CAB. Results: Comparing OCT-LAR to OCT-LAR/CAB treatment, there was a significant decrease in mean GH, IGF-I, %ULNR- IGF-I and PRL levels. During OCT-LAR/CAB treatment, IGF-I normalized in 19 patients (56%). IGF-I normalization was correlated to lowest IGF-I levels on OCT-LAR monotherapy, but not to baseline PRL levels or GH/PRL co-expression. OCT-LAR withdrawn in all who had achieved IGF-I normalization on combined therapy resulted in IGF-I elevation to abnormal levels in all patients. Gastro intestinal symptoms were reported by 12 patients. Conclusion: OCT-LAR and CAB association has been shown to be an effective alternative therapy for those acromegalics who still have active acromegaly despite monotherapy with SA, mainly for those with lower pretreatment IGF-I concentrations. According to previous studies, the beneficial effects of CAB occur even when pretreatment PRL is normal and/or there is no tumor GH/PRL co-expression. Copyright (C) 2009 S. Karger AG, Basel

Diagnosis and management of hyperprolactinemia: Results of a Brazilian multicenter study with 1234 patients

Objective: The aim of the study was to evaluate clinical and laboratorial features of 1234 patients with different etiologies of hyper-prolactinemia, as well as the response of 388 patients with prolactinomas to dopamine agonists. Design, setting, and patients: A total of 1234 hyperprolactinemic patients from 10 Brazilian endocrine centers were enrolled in this retrospective study. Main outcome measure: PRL measurement, thyroid function tests, and screening for macroprolactin were conducted. Results: Patients were subdivided as follows: 56.2% had prolactinomas, 14.5% drug-induced hyperprolactinemia, 9.3% macroprolactinemia, 6.6% non-functioning pituitary adenomas, 6.3% primary hypothyroidism, 3.6% idiopathic hyperprolactinemia, and 3.2% acromegaly. Clinical manifestations were similar irrespective of the etiology of the hyperprolactinemia. The highest PRL levels were observed in patients with prolactinomas but there was a great overlap in PRL values between all groups. However, PRL>500 ng/ml allowed a clear distinction between prolactinomas and the other etiologies. Cabergoline (CAB) was more effective than bromocriptine (BCR) in normalizing PRL levels (81.9% vs 67.1%, p<0.0001) and in inducing significant tumor shrinkage and complete disappearance of tumor mass. Drug resistance was observed in 10% of patients treated with CAB and in 18.4% of those that used BCR (p=0.0006). Side-effects and intolerance were also more common in BCR-treated patients. Conclusion: Prolactinomas, drug-induced hyperprolactinemia, and macroprolactinemia were the 3 most common causes of hyperprolactinemia. Although PRL levels could not reliably define the etiology of hyperprolactinemia, PRL values >500 ng/ml were exclusively seen in patients with prolactinomas. CAB was significantly more effective than BCR in terms of prolactin normalization, tumor shrinkage, and tolerability.