Search

In order to delineate more accurately the dopaminergic control of anterior pituitary function in normal subjects and in patients with pathological hyperprolactinemia, we investigated the nature of the circadian variation in the dopaminergic inhibition of TSH release in such subjects. Ten euthyroid women with hyperprolactinemia due to presumed PRL-secreting microadenomas (aged 18-60 yr) were compared with 11 normal, euthyroid women (aged 18-32 yr). Each received the dopamine receptor blocking drug domperidone (10 mg, iv) at 1100 and 2300 h (tests randomized and separated by at least 1 week). Blood was sampled 10, 20, 30, 45, and 60 min after drug administration. Normal women had a greater TSH response to domperidone and, hence, greater dopaminergic inhibition of TSH release at 2300 than at 1100 h (sum of TSH increments; mU/liter mean +/- SE, 8.5 +/- 1.3 vs. 4.8 +/- 0.5, P less than 0.01), whereas there was no difference in the dopaminergic inhibition of PRL release at each time of day. Hyperprolactinemic women also had a significantly greater TSH response to domperidone at 2300 than at 1100 h (42.0 +/- 10.2 vs. 19.1 +/- 2.8, P less than 0.001). The hyperprolactinemic women had a greater TSH response to domperidone than normal women at each time of day studied (1100 h, 19.1 +/- 2.8 vs. 4.8 +/- 0.5, P less than 0.001; 2300 h, 42.0 +/- 10.2 vs. 8.5 +/- 1.3, P less than 0.001). The incremental PRL responses to domperidone were significantly less in hyperprolactinemic than in normal women and did not differ at each time of day. In conclusion, the circadian change in the dopaminergic inhibition of TSH secretion is specific for TSH and not PRL. This indicates that the dopaminergic control of TSH and PRL secretion can be dissociated in normal subjects. Second, hyperprolactinemic women with presumed PRL-secreting microadenomas had qualitatively normal but quantitatively exaggerated circadian pattern of dopaminergic inhibition of TSH release. These data argue against a hypothalamic dopaminergic defect in hyperprolactinemia and support the view that the established dopaminergic defect in the inhibition of PRL release is related specifically to PRL control and may well be at the anterior pituitary level.

Since dopamine (DA) has been implicated in the inhibitory control of both TSH and LH, we have compared TSH and LH levels following dopamine (DA) receptor blockade with domperidone in patients with hyperprolactinemia due to presumed prolactinomas. Eight euthyroid patients (aged 19-37 yr) with presumed prolactinomas each received domperidone (10 mg iv) at 11:00 and 23:00 h and tests were separated by at least one week. Basal TSH levels were significantly greater at 23:00 than at 11:00 h (2.7 +/- 0.5 vs 1.7 +/- 0.4 mU/l, mean +/- SE, p less than 0.01) whereas basal LH levels did not differ. All subjects showed clear rises in basal TSH levels following drug administration and these were significantly greater at 23:00 than at 11:00 h (p less than 0.02 at each time point). In contrast there was no alteration in LH levels following drug administration at either time of day. These data suggest that the mechanisms underlying the dopaminergic control of TSH and LH are different in these patients. Furthermore the data argue against an anterior pituitary or median eminence site of action of DA in the inhibition of LH release in hyperprolactinemia since domperidone does not penetrate the blood brain barrier to any appreciable extent.

It is well known that muscarinic cholinergic blockade either reduces or abolishes stimulated GH release in normal subjects. In this study we have investigated whether cholinergic muscarinic blockade could reduce the GH responses to GRF 1-29 and TRH in acromegalic subjects. Eight acromegalic subjects underwent two GRF tests (GRF 1-29, 1 microgram/kg i.v.) with and without pirenzepine (0.6 mg/kg, i.v.). A further four of these patients received TRH (200 micrograms/kg, i.v.) on separate occasions with and without pirenzepine (0.6 mg/kg, i.v.). Cholinergic muscarinic blockade did not alter the GH responses to GRF and TRH in patients with acromegaly. These findings are in contrast with previous data reported on the effects of cholinergic blockade on stimulated GH levels in normal subjects and in patients with type I diabetes mellitus and are compatible with the view that somatotroph adenomas are functionally disconnected from hypothalamic control mechanisms.