Determination of prolactin: the macroprolactin problem

Serum prolactin is frequently measured when investigating patients with reproductive disorders and elevated concentrations are found in up to 17% of such cases. Clinical laboratories rely predominantly on automated analysers to quantify prolactin levels using sandwich immunometric methodologies. Though generally robust and reliable, such immunoassays are susceptible to interference from a high molecular mass prolactin/IgG autoantibody complex termed macroprolactin. While macroprolactin remains reactive to varying degrees in all prolactin immunoassays, it exhibits little if any biological activity in vivo and consequently its presence is considered clinically irrelevant. Macroprolactinaemia, defined as hyperprolactinaemia due to excess macroprolactin with normal concentrations of bioactive monomeric prolactin, may lead to misdiagnosis and mismanagement of hyperprolactinemic patients if not recognised. Current best practice recommends that all sera with elevated total prolactin concentrations are sub-fractionated using polyethylene glycol precipitation to provide a more meaningful clinical measurement of the bioactive monomeric prolactin content. Manufacturers of prolactin assays should strive to minimise interference from macroprolactin in their assays. Clinical laboratories should introduce screening procedures to exclude macroprolactinaemia in all patients identified as having hyperprolactinaemia. Clinicians should be aware of this potential diagnostic pit fall and insist on PEG screening of all hyperprolactinaemic sera.

Determination of Ultrafilterable Prolactin: Elimination of Macroprolactin Interference With a Monomeric Prolactin-Selective Sample Pretreatment

Context.—Macroprolactin (macroPRL), present in as many as 25% of serum specimens with elevated serum prolactin concentrations, can cause apparent hyperprolactinemia in the absence of clinical features and lead to unnecessary clinical, laboratory, and neuroradiological workups.

Objective.—To develop an ultrafiltration method that eliminates macroPRL interference from PRL immunoassays.

Design.—The method involves centrifugation of undiluted serum in a Centricon-100 filter device followed by a PRL assay of the serum ultrafiltrate.

Results.—Ultrafiltrates prepared by this technique are devoid of gamma globulins and contain (mean ± SE) 19% ± 7% of the albumin concentration of the original serum. These ultrafiltrates contain 85% ± 7% of the total PRL immunoreactivity of serum spiked with 23 kd recombinant human prolactin (rHuPRL) and less than 2% of the 50 kd big PRL (bPRL) of whole serum. The fractional recovery of ultrafilterable PRL (uPRL) from serum samples of 54 female patients was 0.78 (confidence interval 0.73–0.83) of the total. The run-to-run coefficient of variation of the uPRL assay was 4.3%. The uPRL concentration (mean ± SD) in a group of healthy female controls was 8.0 ± 3.1 ng/mL.

Conclusions.—Ultrafiltration is a rapid and simple method for eliminating analytical interference by macroPRL. Ultrafiltrates can be analyzed by most, if not all, currently available PRL immunoassays and represent a practical and precise alternative to gel filtration chromatography for the estimation of the monomeric prolactin concentration of serum.

Identification of IgG-immunocomplex macroprolactin with an immunometric "sandwich" system: technical and clinical considerations

MacroPRL can be due either to anti-PRL autoantibodies IgG (IgG-macroPRL) or other PRL containing molecules without IgG-PRL immuncomplexes (nIgG-macroPRL), the composition of which is not fully clarified. The aims of this study were: a) testing a new immunometric assay, capable of recognising IgG-macroPRL, b) looking for any biological and/or clinical discrepancy between nlgG-macroPRL and IgG-macroPRL. Clinical, biological and neuroradiological data were recorded from 28 hyperprolactinemic women classified as macroprolactinemic on the basis of PRL recoveries after polyethylene glycol (PEG) precipitation <50% on a Roche Elecsys analyser. Fourteen sera with recoveries >70% were employed as controls for the IgG-macroPRL assay. An immunometric "sandwich" assay for IgG-macroPRL was performed employing an anti-PRL antibody to capture PRL and a second one binding and tracing the immunoglobulin G (IgG) component. For this purpose, 2 kits were simultaneously employed, the first for PRL assay and the second for Anti-Toxoplasma IgG assay. The procedure was applied to both DiaSorin LIAISON and Abbott AxSYM systems. IgG-macroPRL immunometric detection was obtained with DiaSorin LIAISON. Twenty out of 28 (72%) sera gave luminescent signal higher than the maximum control serum and were considered as IgG-macroPRL carriers. Our results confirm the high IgG-macroPRL prevalence in macroprolactinemia. No significant clinical differences appear between IgG and nIgG-macroPRL. Conversely, significantly higher PRL values (p =0,039) and lower recoveries (p = 0.001) were found in IgG-macroPRL. Further studies with reference methods, such as gel chromatography and human IgG (h-IgG) affinity columns, are needed to fully validate this IgG-macroPRL immunometric assay.