Post-pituitary surgery copeptin analysis as a 'rule-out' test for post-operative diabetes insipidus.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes insipidus (DI) is a recognised complication of pituitary surgery, with diagnosis requiring clinical observation aided by plasma and urine electrolytes and osmolalities. Copeptin is a stable surrogate marker of AVP release and has potential to facilitate prompt diagnosis of post-operative DI. This assay has been shown to accurately predict which patients are likely to develop DI following pituitary surgery. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether copeptin analysis can be used to predict which patients are at risk of developing DI following trans-sphenoidal surgery (TSS). METHODS: Seventy-eight patients undergoing TSS had samples taken for copeptin pre-operatively and at day 1 post-TSS. The majority of patients also had samples from day 2, day 8, and week 6 post-TSS. Results from patients who developed post-operative DI (based on clinical assessment, urine and plasma biochemistry and the need for treatment with DDAVP) were compared to those who did not. Patients with any evidence of pre-operative DI were excluded. RESULTS: Of 78 patients assessed, 11 were clinically determined to have developed DI. Differences were observed between patients with DI and those without in post-operative samples. Of note, there was a significant difference in plasma copeptin at day 1 post-operation (p = 0.010 on Kruskal-Wallis test), with copeptin levels greater than 3.4 pmol/l helping to rule out DI (91% sensitivity, 55% specificity at this cut off). CONCLUSION: In the post-TSS setting, copeptin is a useful rule-out test in patients with values above a defined threshold, which may facilitate earlier decision making and shorter hospital stays.

Treating prolactinomas with dopamine agonists: always worth the gamble?

Dopamine agonists are the treatment of choice for all patients with prolactinomas. They are generally safe, effective, and well-tolerated. However, a link between their use and the development of impulse control disorders has been well recognized in the field of neurology for some time, and evidence for a similar effect in endocrine patients is emerging. This has mainly been revealed through clinical case reports, plus a small number of comparative studies of varying robustness. We review the current available literature and discuss the implications for clinical practice, in particular emphasizing the need for clinicians to be alert to these uncommon but serious adverse effects.