Lymphocytic prolactin does not contribute to systemic lupus erythematosus hyperprolactinemia

Introduction Lymphocytic prolactin (PRL) gene expression is detected in the majority of the immune cells and it is not known if this source contributes to hyperprolactinemia in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). We have therefore evaluated lymphocytic PRL secretion and gene expression in SLE and healthy controls. Methods Thirty SLE patients (ACR criteria) and 10 controls were selected for the study. Serum levels of PRL and macroprolactin were detected by immunofluorometric assay and gel filtration chromatography, respectively. The lymphocytic biological activity was determined by Nb2 cells bioassays. Lymphocytic PRL gene expression was evaluated by RT-PCR assay. Results The median serum PRL levels of the 30 SLE patients was higher than the control group (9.65 (1.9-38.9) vs. 6.40 (2.4-10.3) ng/mL, p=0.03). A significant difference was detected between median serum PRL levels of active SLE, inactive SLE and controls (10.85 (5-38.9) vs. 7.65 (1.9-15.5) vs. 6.40 (2.4-10.3) ng/mL), p=0.01). The higher frequency of mild hyperprolactinemia was detected among active SLE in comparison with inactive SLE and controls (7(38.9%) vs. 1 (8.3%) vs. 0(0%)), with statistical significance (p=0.02). Nb2 cells assay revealed uniformly low levels of lymphocytic PRL in active, inactive and control groups without statistical significance among them (24.2 (8-63) vs. 27 (13.6-82) vs. 29.5 (8-72) ng/mL), p=0.84). Furthermore, median lymphocytic PRL gene expression evaluated by RT-PCR assay was comparable in both active and inactive SLE groups (p=0.12). Conclusion This is the first study to exclude a lymphocytic source of PRL, pointing out a pituitary etiology for hyperprolactinemia in SLE. However, other sources from the immune system cannot be ruled out.

Management of prolactinomas in Brazil: an electronic survey

Dopamine agonists are the treatment of choice for prolactinomas. However, there are still controversies concerning dose, treatment duration and criteria for drug withdrawal in different clinical situations. The aim of this study was to assess diagnostic and therapeutic approaches to prolactinomas among members of the Brazilian Society of Endocrinology and Metabolism (SBEM). SBEM members answered a questionnaire sent by e-mail that included 18 questions related to controversial issues about the management of prolactinomas. Among SBEM members, 721 (approximately 24% of total) answered the questionnaire. Concerning the diagnosis, 38% of the respondents stated that prolactin levels < 100 ng/ml would exclude the presence of a prolactinoma. Most of them favored the screening for macroprolactin in asymptomatic individuals instead of a routine screening (74% vs. 26%). Regarding the treatment, 70% of the respondents chose cabergoline as the drug of choice to treat macroprolactinomas whereas similar proportions advised cabergoline or bromocriptine as the best treatment for microprolactinomas (52% vs. 48%). Only 20% and 34% of respondents favored treatment withdrawal 2-3 years after prolactin normalization in patients with macroprolactinomas and microprolactinomas, respectively. In case of pregnancy, only 58 and 70% of respondents advocated discontinuation of treatment with dopamine agonists in patients with macroprolactinomas and microprolactinomas, respectively. Finally, only 36% would allow breast-feeding without restriction, 44% would restrict it to patients with microprolactinomas and 20% would not recommend it for women with prolactinomas There are several points of disagreement among SBEM members regarding the management of prolactinomas.

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.

Approach to the Patient with Persistent Hyperprolactinemia and Negative Sellar Imaging

Hyperprolactinemia is a common cause of menstrual disturbances affecting young women. There is a diversity of causes, from physiological, such as pregnancy, to pharmacological and pathological, such as hypothyroidism. Renal and hepatic failure, intercostal nerve stimulation by trauma or surgery, prolactinomas, other tumors in the hypothalamus-pituitary region, as well as macroprolactinemia can also be considered. Identifying the correct cause is important to establish the correct treatment. Should all these causes be ruled out and pituitary imaging revealed as negative, idiopathic hyperprolactinemia is therefore diagnosed. In symptomatic patients, treatment with dopaminergic agonists is indicated. As for the asymptomatic hyperprolactinemic individuals, macroprolactinemia should be screened, and once it is detected, there is no need for pituitary imaging study or for dopaminergic agonist use. (J Clin Endocrinol Metab 97: 2211-2216, 2012)