Withdrawal of dopamine agonist treatment in patients with hyperprolactinaemia: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the proportion of patients with persistent normoprolactinaemia following dopamine agonist (DA) withdrawal and to identify predictors of successful withdrawal in patients with hyperprolactinaemia. DESIGN, PATIENTS, AND MEASUREMENTS: A systematic review of observational eligible studies were identified by searching PubMed and Embase. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with normoprolactinaemia after cessation of DA treatment. Secondary outcome included the proportion of patients with normoprolactinaemia after DA withdrawal using individual patient data. Risk of bias was assessed by using Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Pooled proportions were estimated using a random effects model in case I2 ≤ 75% or by reporting range of effects if I2 > 75%. RESULTS: Thirty-two observational studies enroling 1563 patients were included. The proportion of patients with persistent normoprolactinaemia ranged from 0% to 75% (I2 = 84%). Heterogeneity was partly explained by age with more successful withdrawal in patients of higher age. Individual patient data analyses suggested that the proportion of patients with persistent normoprolactinaemia 6 months after DA withdrawal with a low maintenance dose and full regression of the prolactinoma was 87.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 60.7-97.1; I2 = 0%) and 58.4% (95% CI = 23.8-86.3; I2 = 75%) for microadenomas and macroadenomas, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of patients with persistent normoprolactinaemia following DA withdrawal treatment varied greatly, partly explained by the mean age of participants of the individual studies. Individual patient data analysis suggested that successful withdrawal was likely in patients with full regression of prolactinomas using a low maintenance dose before cessation.

Performance of absolute CD4+ count in predicting co-infection with human T-lymphotropic virus type 1 in antiretroviral-naive HIV-infected patients.

Early identification of patients co-infected with HIV and human T-lymphotropic virus type 1 (HTLV-1) is essential to improve care, as CD4+ T-cell counts have been revealed to be an unreliable laboratory parameter to monitor HIV infection in co-infection. Unfortunately, HTLV-1 testing is not currently available in sub-Saharan Africa. We conducted this study to determine the performance of absolute CD4+ T-cell count estimation in guiding the clinical suspicion of co-infection. A cross-sectional survey was conducted in antiretroviral-naïve HIV (AN-HIV) patients attending an HIV outpatient clinic in Maputo city, Mozambique. Seven hundred and one AN-HIV patients were enrolled in the study. The prevalence of HTLV-1 co-infection was 4.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.0-6.0%). Logistic regression analysis showed that CD4+ T-cell count was an independent predictor of co-infection (P value: 0.000). The performance of absolute CD4+ T-cell counts in predicting co-infection was higher in symptomatic HIV patients when compared with asymptomatic HIV patients. The best performance was achieved with the cut-off of CD4+ count of 500 cells/mm(3), which gave sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of 54.2%, 87.2%, 24.0% and 96.2%, respectively. In conclusion, our data provide evidence that the absolute CD4+ T-cell count is of moderate accuracy in guiding the clinical suspicion of co-infection in AN-HIV and its implementation could improve the care provided to a significant number of HIV patients in Mozambique.

Loss of correlation between HIV viral load and CD4+ T-cell counts in HIV/HTLV-1 co-infection in treatment naive Mozambican patients.

Seven hundred and four HIV-1/2-positive, antiretroviral therapy (ART) naïve patients were screened for HTLV-1 infection. Antibodies to HTLV-1 were found in 32/704 (4.5%) of the patients. Each co-infected individual was matched with two HIV mono-infected patients according to World Health Organization clinical stage, age +/-5 years and gender. Key clinical and laboratory characteristics were compared between the two groups. Mono-infected and co-infected patients displayed similar clinical characteristics. However, co-infected patients had higher absolute CD4+ T-cell counts (P = 0.001), higher percentage CD4+ T-cell counts (P < 0.001) and higher CD4/CD8 ratios (P < 0.001). Although HIV plasma RNA viral loads were inversely correlated with CD4+ T-cell-counts in mono-infected patients (P < 0.0001), a correlation was not found in co-infected individuals (P = 0.11). Patients with untreated HIV and HTLV-1 co-infection show a dissociation between immunological and HIV virological markers. Current recommendations for initiating ART and chemoprophylaxis against opportunistic infections in resource-poor settings rely on more readily available CD4+ T-cell counts without viral load parameters. These guidelines are not appropriate for co-infected individuals in whom high CD4+ T-cell counts persist despite high HIV viral load states. Thus, for co-infected patients, even in resource-poor settings, HIV viral loads are likely to contribute information crucial for the appropriate timing of ART introduction.