4.4 Article

Long-term remission following withdrawal of dopamine agonist therapy in subjects with microprolactinomas

期刊

CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGY
卷 63, 期 1, 页码 26-31

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2265.2005.02293.x

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective Reports suggest that up to 70% of patients with microprolactinomas treated with dopamine agonist therapy may achieve long-term normoprolactinaemic remission following drug withdrawal. Yet, there is no consensus on the duration of therapy nor is therapeutic interruption universally practised. We have assessed remission rates in a large cohort of treatment-naive subjects with microprolactinomas. Subjects received dopamine agonist (DA) therapy with either cabergoline or bromocriptine for a period of 2 to 3 years in the majority of cases, followed by a trial of treatment withdrawal. Design Retrospective analysis of clinic records of 89 patients (mean age 32.7 +/- 8.4 years, 84 women and 5 men) who had received either cabergoline (n = 67) (0.5-3 mg weekly) or bromocriptine (n = 22) (2.5-10 mg daily) for a mean duration of 3.1 years. Results Following withdrawal of therapy, 57 subjects developed recurrence (64%) and the mean time to recurrence was 9.6 months (range 1-44 months), while 32 subjects (36%) remained in remission beyond 1 year (mean 3.6 years, range 1-7 years). There was no difference in remission rates between subjects treated with cabergoline (n = 21) and bromocriptine (n = 11), but a direct relationship between pretreatment prolactin concentration and risk of recurrent symptomatic hyperprolactinaemia was observed. No subjects developed clinical features to suggest tumour expansion following therapeutic discontinuation. Conclusions This study confirms that abrupt withdrawal of chronic dopamine agonist therapy, following 2 to 3 years of treatment is safe and associated with long-term remission in 30-40% of subjects with microprolactinomas. This therapeutic strategy is convenient and applicable in clinical practice.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据