Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) can have profound impact on the function of the pituitary gland. We have performed an electronic literature search using the following database: PubMed, Medline, Scopus, and Google Scholar. These databases were searched using the keywords HIV, pituitary glands, cancer, pituitary apoplexy, and infertility. HIV can cause hypopituitarism and also can lead to diabetes insipidus. The impact can be slow and insidious, and diagnosis depends on high index of clinical suspicion. The effect on anterior pituitary gland can be associated with growth hormone deficiency, hypothyroidism, adrenal insufficiency, premature menopause, erectile dysfunction, and infertility. HIV can cause pituitary apoplexy, and this should be treated as an endocrine emergency. Importantly, HIV can be associated with pituitary lymphoma and pituitary cancer. Therefore, joined management between HIV physicians, clinical biochemists and endocrinologists may help in establishing pituitary dysfunction.

No abstract

No abstract

BackgroundHbA1c is a quality measurement for a population’s diabetes care. Currently, discrete values are used to judge the care quality. However, an improved trend may have been achieved without reaching a discrete threshold. We aimed to compare the quality of glycaemic care using discrete thresholds versus longitudinal trends of a patient’s HbA1c.MethodsWe derived a study population of 4062 with two consecutive HbA1c’s within 1–6 months. We used current discrete thresholds and then used these to define the longitudinal thresholds (the change in HbA1c between the first and second measurement).ResultsWe found that even with discrete thresholds, overall care was improving with 61% (Excellent care), 13% (Good care), 13% (Average care) and 13% (Poor care) turning into 68%, 12%, 11% and 9%, respectively (χ² 3335, p<0.0001). Using longitudinal trends shows a greater improvement of care with the original values achieving 74%, 7%, 9%, 7% and 4%, respectively (χ² 4111.3, p<0.0001). There was an additional 28% (Good care), 15% (Average care) and 12% (Poor and Very poor care) who with longitudinal trends improved to an excellent category without being identified as such.ConclusionOur study highlights the need to consider longitudinal trends when measuring quality of diabetes care.