Incidence of Cabergoline-Associated Valvulopathy in Primary Care Patients With Prolactinoma Using Hard Cardiac Endpoints.

BACKGROUND: Controversy exists as to whether low-dose cabergoline is associated with clinically significant valvulopathy. Few studies examine hard cardiac endpoint data, most relying on echocardiographic findings. OBJECTIVES: To determine the prevalence of valve surgery or heart failure in patients taking cabergoline for prolactinoma against a matched nonexposed population. DESIGN: Population-based cohort study based on North East London primary care records. METHODS: Data were drawn from ~1.5 million patients' primary care records. We identified 646 patients taking cabergoline for >6 months for prolactinoma. These were matched to up to 5 control individuals matched for age, gender, ethnicity, location, diabetes, hypertension, ischemic heart disease, and smoking status. Cumulative doses/durations of treatment were calculated. Cardiac endpoints were defined as cardiac valve surgery or heart failure diagnosis (either diagnostic code or prescription code for associated medications). RESULTS: A total of 18 (2.8%) cabergoline-treated patients and 62 (2.33%) controls reached a cardiac endpoint. Median cumulative cabergoline dose was 56 mg (interquartile range [IQR] 27-123). Median treatment duration was 27 months (IQR 15-46). Median weekly dose was 2.1 mg. Neither univariate nor multivariate analysis demonstrated a significant association between cabergoline treatment at any cumulative dosage/duration and an increased incidence of cardiac endpoints. In a matched analysis, the relative risk for cardiac complications in the cabergoline-treated group was 0.78 (95% CI, 0.41-1.48; P = 0.446). Reanalysis of echocardiograms for 6/18 affected cabergoline-treated patients showed no evidence of ergot-derived drug valvulopathy. CONCLUSIONS: The data did not support an association between clinically significant valvulopathy and low-dose cabergoline treatment and provide further evidence for a reduction in frequency of surveillance echocardiography.

Cost and efficacy comparison of prenatal recall and reflex DNA screening for trisomy 21, 18 and 13.

OBJECTIVE: To compare costs and efficacy of reflex and recall prenatal DNA screening for trisomy 21, 18 and 13 (affected pregnancies). In both methods women have Combined test markers measured. With recall screening, women with a high Combined test risk are recalled for counselling and offered a DNA blood test or invasive diagnostic testing. With reflex screening, a DNA analysis is automatically performed on plasma collected when blood was collected for measurement of the Combined test markers. METHODS: Published data were used to estimate, for each method, using various unit costs and risk cut-offs, the cost per woman screened, cost per affected pregnancy diagnosed, and for a given number of women screened, numbers of affected pregnancies diagnosed, unaffected pregnancies with positive results, and women with unaffected pregnancies having invasive diagnostic testing. RESULTS: Cost per woman screened is lower with reflex v recall screening: £37 v £38, and £11,043 v £11,178 per affected pregnancy diagnosed (DNA £250, Combined test markers risk cut-off 1 in 150). Reflex screening results in similar numbers of affected pregnancies diagnosed, with 100-fold fewer false-positives and 20-fold fewer women with unaffected pregnancies having invasive diagnostic testing. CONCLUSIONS: Reflex DNA screening is less expensive, more cost-effective, and safer than recall screening.