Two high molecular mass forms of prolactin (PRL) in serum have been identified by gel filtration chromatography (GFC): macroprolactin (big-big PRL, > 100 kDa) and big PRL (40-60 kDa). Macroprolactin has a variable composition and structure, but is most frequently a complex of PRL and IgG, with a molecular mass of 150-170 kDa. It is formed in the circulation following pituitary secretion of monomeric PRL but has a longer half-life, and the PRL in the complex remains reactive to a variable extent in immunoassays. In the majority of subjects little or no macroprolactin can be detected in serum, but in some individuals it may be the predominant immunoreactive component of circulating PRL and the cause of apparent hyperprolactinaemia. Owing to its high molecular mass, macroprolactin appears to be confined to the intravascular compartment and much evidence indicates that it has minimal bioactivity in vivo and is not of pathological significance. Nevertheless, hyperprolactinaemia due to macroprolactin can lead to diagnostic confusion and unnecessary further investigation and treatment if it is not recognized as such. Macroprolactin is a common cause of apparent hyperprolactinaemia with some assays and it is essential that laboratories introduce screening programmes to examine samples with elevated total immunoreactive PRL for the presence of macroprolactin and determine the monomeric PRL component which is known to be bioactive in vivo. A number of screening tests have been described; that based on the precipitation of macroprolactin with polyethylene glycol has been the most widely validated and applied. The reference technique of GFC should be available for confirmation and further investigation of samples, giving equivocal results in screening tests. In comparison with macroprolactin, little is known about big PRL. It is a more consistent component of total serum PRL but rarely, if ever, the cause of hyperprolactinaemia. Further research is required into the nature of macroprolactin and big PRL, the relationships between high molecular mass forms of PRL, and their clinical significance.

SummaryBackground There is increasing reliance on consensus criteria for decision making. Recent criteria state that acromegaly is excluded by a nadir GH during an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) of < 1 µ g/l and a normal level of IGF-I. Objective To study GH and IGF-I assay performance close to cut-off values for active acromegaly. Design and methods Two serum samples known to give borderline results were sent to all centres participating in the UK National External Quality Assessment Service (NEQAS). Sample A was assigned to be a nadir during an OGTT and sent for GH assessment to 104 centres. Sample B, with a clinical scenario, was sent to 23 centres that measure IGF-I, and these centres were asked to measure IGF-I, interpret the result and provide the source of their reference ranges (RRs). Results For sample A, the median GH was 2·6 mU/l (range 1·04-3·5 mU/l). Applying a conversion factor (CF) of 2·0 (1 µ g/l = 2 mU/l), the most negatively biased method classified 10% of the values consistent with acromegaly, while the most positively biased method classified all values as consistent with the diagnosis. Applying a CF of 3·0 (1 µ g/l = 3 mU/l), only 11% of results were consistent with acromegaly. For sample B, the median IGF-I was 50·8 nmol/l (range 24·3-60·9 nmol/l). All centres used age-related RRs. There was a 50% variation in the upper limit of the RRs between centres. Overall, 30% of the IGF-I results were against the diagnosis. There was little agreement in the RRs quoted by centres using the same method. Conclusion Variability in assay performance, coupled with use of inappropriate CFs and RRs, undermines the applicability of international consensus criteria to local practice.

Background: There are significant differences in plasma parathyroid hormone (PTH) results obtained by current immunoassay methods. However, many clinical guidelines relevant to patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) that recommend PTH target values do not take account of these differences. This raises major questions about the validity of the evidence underpinning current use of PTH measurements in the management of CKD as well as of published relevant audit data. Methods: PTH was measured in plasma from patients with CKD in six commercially available immunoassays. The initial pilot study included 19 patients while 98 patients were included in a second extended study. Data from the second study were analysed by regression analysis to obtain assay-specific targets for each immunoassay. Results: Although similar PTH reference intervals are provided by most manufacturers, both studies confirmed substantial between-method differences in observed PTH for all patients, with results varying by as much as 4.2-fold between the lowest and highest reading methods. These differences were sufficient to have treatment implications for 79% of the patients in the pilot study. Applying the assay-specific targets derived here to results from the extended study decreased treatment misclassifications from 53% to 12%. Conclusions: Existing between-method differences in PTH measurements clearly have treatment implications. International initiatives to address these differences are in progress and will require support and input from all stakeholders. Adoption of assay-specific target values such as those reported here provides a convenient and practical interim solution that should lead to significant improvement in patient management, while also enabling meaningful audit.

It is recommended practice that prior to prenatal screening, women receive information about the condition(s) being tested for. The present study critically evaluated information about Down syndrome as contained in 80 leaflets provided to pregnant women in the UK prior to serum screening. First, a content analysis by information type was conducted to give an overall picture of the material provided. Second, the image of the condition as conveyed by the content was analysed and compared with a similar study of cystic fibrosis (CF) screening leaflets. The majority of information (89%) was of a medico-clinical nature, with 11% addressing other issues associated with Down syndrome. The median number of sentences describing the condition was one, with 33% of the leaflets containing no descriptive information. Overall, a negative image of Down syndrome was conveyed by the leaflets, which contrasted with a more neutral image of CF in the comparison study. In order to facilitate informed choices, more attention should be paid to providing women with information about Down syndrome prior to serum screening. Such information needs to be more balanced in its construction, with thought given to the needs of the reader, and to the tone and the content of the message conveyed.

The replacement of growth hormone (GH) radioimmunoassays with a variety of more specific immunometric methods in diagnostic service laboratories has led to a worsening of between-laboratory agreement, reflecting differences in method bias. Incorrect calibration and differences in specificity are important causes of method bias, but the impact of this on interpretation is not clear. In order to maximize the diagnostic reliability of GH testing for small stature, manufacturers should carefully calibrate their methods against the appropriate GH International Standard, and should use antibodies of broadly agreed specificity. Laboratories performing GH tests should participate in a reliable External Quality Assessment (EQA) scheme and guidelines for investigation that incorporate normal GH responses should be agreed.