SUMMARY. For a period of 12 months all samples submitted for serum prolactin (PRL) assay and with PRL> 700 mUlL were examined by gel filtration chromatography. In 17 (25%) of 69 samples we found macroprolactin. The Delfia and Immuno I immunoassay systems gave similar PRL results with samples containing macroprolactin whereas the ACS 180 system gave lower results. With the De1fia and Immuno 1 systems samples containing substantial quantities of macroprolactin showed low recovery of PRL after precipitation with polyethylene glycol 6000 (PEG 6000) and this technique can be used as a screening test for macroprolactinaemia.We conclude that macroprolactinaemia is a common phenomenon and, in assays which detect this species, is a common cause of hyperprolactinaemia. Macroprolactinaemia may contribute to the difficulty in establishing an upper limit of the reference range for serum PRL. In our experience, patients with macroprolactinaemia do not exhibit features of the hyperprolactinaemia syndrome and it is important to recognize macroprolactin as the cause of hyperprolactinaemia to avoid unnecessary investigation and treatment.

A high molecular mass form of prolactin (PRL), macroprolactin, accumulates in the sera of some subjects. Although macroprolactin exhibits limited bioactivity in vivo, it retains immunoreactivity. We examined the frequency of macroprolactinemia in clinical practice and the ability of immunoassay systems to distinguish between macroprolactin and monomeric PRL. Of 300 hyperprolactinemic sera identified, 71 normalized following treatment of sera with polyethylene glycol, indicating that 24% of hyperprolactinemia could be accounted for by macroprolactin. Ten of these macroprolactinemic sera were circulated to 18 clinical laboratories. Two sets of PRL measurements of the 10 untreated sera were obtained from each of the nine most commonly used immunoassay systems. Across the nine assay systems, differences in the PRL estimates ranged from 2.3- to 7.8-fold. Elecsys users reported the highest PRL levels. Somewhat lower values were reported for DELFIA systems followed by Immuno-1, AxSYM, and Architect assays. The Immulite 2000 assay generated PRL levels equivalent to approximately 50% of those reported by the high-reading methods. The lowest PRL levels were reported by Access, ACS:180, and Centaur systems. To avoid confusion caused by the frequent presence of macroprolactin accounting for hyperprolactinemia, secondary screening for the presence of macroprolactin is recommended.

Background: Macroprolactin is an important source of immunoassay interference that commonly leads to misdiagnosis and mismanagement of hyperprolactinemic patients. We used the predominant immunoassay platforms for prolactin to assay serum samples treated with polyethylene glycol (PEG) and establish and validate reference intervals for total and monomeric prolactin. Methods: We used the Architect (Abbott), ADVIA Centaur and Immulite (Siemens Diagnostics), Access (Beckman Coulter), Elecsys (Roche Diagnostics), and AIA (Tosoh) analyzers with samples from healthy males (n = 53) and females (n = 93) to derive parametric reference intervals for total and post-PEG monomeric prolactin. Concentrations of immunoreactive prolactin isoforms in serum samples from healthy individuals were established by gel filtration chromatography (GFC). We then used samples from 22 individuals whose hyperprolactinemia was entirely attributable to macroprolactin and 32 patients with true hyperprolactinemia to compare patient classifications and prolactin concentrations measured by GFC with the newly derived post-PEG reference intervals. Results: Parametric reference intervals for post-PEG prolactin in male and female serum samples, respectively, were (in mIU/L): 61–196, 66–278 (Centaur); 63–245, 75–381 (Elecsys); 70–301, 92–469 (Access); 72–229, 79–347 (Architect); 73–247, 83–383 (AIA); and 78–263, 85–394 (Immulite). Concordance between GFC and immunoassay-specific post-PEG reference intervals was observed in 311 of 324 cases and for 31 of 32 patients with true hyperprolactinemia and 17 of 22 patients with macroprolactinemia. Results leading to misclassification occurred in a few analyzers for 5 macroprolactinemia patient samples with relatively minor increases in post-PEG prolactin (mean 61 mIU/L). Conclusions: Our validated normative reference data for sera pretreated with PEG and analyzed on the most commonly used immunoassay platforms should facilitate the more widespread introduction of macroprolactin screening by clinical laboratories.

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.

No abstract

Background: Increased serum concentrations of macroprolactin are a relatively common cause of misdiagnosis and mismanagement of hyperprolactinemic patients. Methods: We studied sera from a cohort of 42 patients whose biochemical hyperprolactinemia was explained entirely by macroprolactin. Using 5 pretreatments, polyethylene glycol (PEG), protein A (PA), protein G (PG), anti-human IgG (anti-hIgG), and ultrafiltration (UF), to deplete macroprolactin from sera before immunoassay, we compared residual prolactin concentrations with monomer concentrations obtained by gel-filtration chromatography (GFC). A monomeric prolactin standard was used to assess recovery and specificity of the pretreatment procedures. Results: Residual prolactin concentrations in all pretreated sera differed significantly (P <0.001) from monomeric concentrations obtained after GFC. PEG underestimated (mean, 75%), whereas PA, PG, anti-hIgG, and UF overestimated (means, 178%, 151%, 178%, and 112%, respectively) the amount of monomer present. Of the 5 methods examined, PEG correlated best with GFC (r ‫؍‬ 0.80) followed by PG (r ‫؍‬ 0.78), PA (r ‫؍‬ 0.72), anti-hIgG (r ‫؍‬ 0.70), and UF (r ‫؍‬ 0.61). After UF or pretreatment with anti-hIgG or PEG, recovery of monomeric prolactin standard was low: 60%, 85%, and 77% respectively. In contrast, pretreatment with PA or PG gave almost quantitative recovery. Conclusions: None of the methods examined yielded results identical to the GFC method. PEG pretreatment

Background:The clinical significance of the increased concentrations of cardiac troponins observed in patients with end stage renal disease (ESRD) in the absence of an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is controversial. One proposed explanation is that immunoreactive fragments of cardiac troponin T (cTnT) accumulate in ESRD. We used gel-filtration chromatography (GFC) to ascertain whether fragments of cTnT, which could cross-react in the commercial diagnostic immunoassay (Roche Diagnostics), were the cause of the increased cTnT in the serum of patients with ESRD. Methods: We subjected sera from ESRD patients (n ‫؍‬ 21) receiving dialysis and having increased cTnT concentrations to size-separation GFC. We detected cTnT in the chromatography fractions by use of the same antibodies used in the commercial assay for serum cTnT. Results: In all patients, cTnT immunoreactivity eluted as a major, homogeneous peak in an identical position between the peaks of serum prolactin [relative molecular mass (M r ) 23 000] and albumin (M r 67 000): the elution pattern of cTnT in samples obtained from ACS patients was identical to that of the ESRD patients. There was no evidence that low-molecular-mass (M r <23 000) cTnT fragments were the cause of the increased cTnT in the patients studied. Conclusions: The form of cTnT observed in the serum of patients with kidney failure and immunoreactive in the diagnostic assay is predominantly the free intact form, as in patients with ACS. Our data are consistent

No abstract