Macroprolactinaemia: a biological diagnostic strategy from the study of 222 patients

When discordant insulin and C-peptide levels lead to a medical diagnosis in a patient with transient hypoglycemia: Varying degrees of interference of insulin-antibody complexes on three insulin immunoassays

Background

Determining the cause of hypoglycemia partly relies on blood insulin and C-peptide assays. Although the pancreatic secretion of these peptides is equimolar, discrepancies in their concentrations may occur.

Case presentation

We report the case of a 73-year-old woman with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and a history of gastric bypass. The T2DM was initially treated with insulin analogs, which were interrupted due to transient hypoglycemia episodes three years before hospitalization in our endocrinology department. During this hospitalization, the most common etiologies of hypoglycemia were excluded. Fasting insulin level was high (190 mIU/L, reference values (RV): 5-25) on Architect i2000 (an assay recognizing insulin analogs) despite normal blood C-peptide (4.5 μg/L, RV: 0.8-5.2) and slight hypoglycemia (4.5 mmol/L, RV: 4.6-6.1). Insulin level using the Elecsys assay (an assay with low sensitivity to insulin analogs) was very high (>1000 mIU/L, RV: 2.6-24.9). This pattern was observed on several samples, including some taken during a fasting test. Insulin level was only slightly increased using the Mercodia iso-insulin ELISA kit (an assay recognizing insulin analogs). These results excluded an exogenous insulin intake and were suggestive of an interference on insulin assays. To explore the latter possibility, free anti-insulin antibodies were measured and found strongly positive. The presence of interfering insulin-antibody complexes was further investigated using gel filtration chromatography, polyethylene glycol precipitation, and dilution test. Based on these findings, an insulin autoimmune syndrome (IAS) was suspected to cause the hypoglycemic episodes observed.

Conclusion

Although a discrepancy between blood insulin and C-peptide levels points to insulin analog intake, IAS should also be considered, particularly in a patient with transient hypoglycemia. IAS is characterized by the presence of insulin-antibody complexes, which can induce varying degrees of interference on insulin immunoassays and may lead to discordant insulin and C-peptide levels according to the insulin immunoassay used.

Prolactin immunoassay: does the high-dose hook effect still exist?

PURPOSE

Measurement of prolactin in clinical laboratories is an important component in the management of patients with pituitary adenoma. Prolactin measurement is known to be sensitive to the high-dose hook effect, in the presence of extremely high prolactin concentrations. This interference is referred to in most recent articles discussing prolactin assays and the management of prolactin-secreting pituitary adenomas. The objective of our study was to evaluate if the high-dose hook effect remains relevant in current practice, when using currently available assays.

METHODS

Serum from a patient with a giant macroprolactinoma was assayed using all of the available prolactin assays in France in 2020, using native serum and after dilution. Technical inserts from assays were reviewed to assess the information on analytical principles, numbers of steps, and any reference to high dose hook effect.

RESULTS

Fourteen assay kits were studied by 16 laboratories; all were two-site immunometric assays, mostly using one step (11/14). Results obtained after dilution varied from 17,900 µg/L to 86,900 µg/L depending on the assay used. One tested assay was sensitive to the high-dose hook effect leading to a falsely lower prolactin concentration when measuring native serum (150 µg/L compared to 17,900 µg/L after dilution).

CONCLUSION

The high-dose hook effect still exists in a very small minority of prolactin assays. The evolution of assay methods may lead to new assays that remain sensitive to this effect in the future. We therefore advise that the hook effect should still be mentioned in prolactin assay recommendations.

Gender-specific reference intervals for serum prolactin concentrations before and after precipitation by polyethylene glycol

Prolactin, a hormone secreted by the anterior pituitary, exists in three major forms in circulation. The macroprolactin form is biologically inactive but contributes to elevated serum prolactin concentrations. Precipitation of macroprolactin by polyethylene glycol (PEG) is widely used in clinical laboratories for the screening of macroprolactin. The aim of this study was two-fold. Firstly, we sought to establish locally relevant reference intervals for serum prolactin and post-PEG precipitation prolactin concentrations in both genders on the Roche Cobas Prolactin II electrochemiluminescence immunoassay. Secondly, the prolactin concentrations after precipitation by PEG dissolved in phosphate-buffered saline (post-PEG(PBS)) were compared with those after precipitation by PEG dissolved in deionised water (PEG(diH2O)). Prolactin concentrations were measured by using the Prolactin Gen II assay on a Roche Cobas e601 analyser. Recoveries of prolactin after precipitation by PEG in PBS and PEG in diH2O were 64.7%–115.8% and 60.9–100.8%, respectively. Post-PEG (PBS) prolactin concentrations were not statistically different from post-PEG (diH2O) prolactin concentrations in either gender.

Global Prevalence of Macroprolactinemia among Patients with Hyperprolactinemia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Hyperprolactinemia (hPRL) often poses a diagnostic dilemma due to the presence of macroprolactin. Understanding the prevalence of macroprolactinemia (mPRL) has an important implication in managing patients with hPRL. The primary aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of mPRL globally and to explore selected factors influencing the prevalence estimate. Studies with original data related to the prevalence of mPRL among patients with hPRL from inception to March 2020 were identified, and a random effects meta-analysis was performed. Of the 3770 records identified, 67 eligible studies from 27 countries were included. The overall global prevalence estimate was 18.9% (95% CI: 15.8%, 22.1%) with a substantial statistical heterogeneity (I² = 95.7%). The highest random effects pooled prevalence was observed in the African region (30.3%), followed by Region of the Americas (29.1%), European (17.5%), Eastern Mediterranean (13.9%), South-East Asian (12.7%), and Western Pacific Region (12.6%). Lower prevalence was observed in studies involving both sexes as compared to studies involving only female participants (17.1% vs. 25.4%) and in more recent studies (16.4%, 20.4%, and 26.5% in studies conducted after 2009, between 2000 and 2009, and before 2000, respectively). The prevalence estimate does not vary according to the age group of study participants, sample size, and types of polyethylene glycol (PEG) used for detection of macroprolactin (PEG 6000 or PEG 8000). With macroprolactin causing nearly one-fifth of hPRL cases, screening for mPRL should be made a routine before an investigation of other causes of hPRL.

Pitfalls in the Diagnostic Evaluation of Hyperprolactinemia

An appropriate diagnostic evaluation is essential for the most appropriate treatment to be performed. Currently, macroprolactinemia is the third most frequent cause of nonphysiological hyperprolactinemia after drugs and prolactinomas. Up to 40% of macroprolactinemic patients may present with hypogonadism symptoms, infertility, and/or galactorrhea. Thus, the screening for macroprolactin is indicated not only for asymptomatic subjects but also for those without an obvious cause for their prolactin (PRL) elevation. Before submitting patients to macroprolactin screening and pituitary magnetic resonance imaging, one should rule out pregnancy, drug-induced hyperprolactinemia, primary hypothyroidism, and renal failure. The magnitude of PRL elevation can be useful in determining the etiology of hyperprolactinemia. PRL values >250 ng/mL are highly suggestive of prolactinomas and virtually exclude nonfunctioning pituitary adenomas (NFPAs) and other sellar masses as the etiology of hyperprolactinemia. However, they can also be found in subjects with macroprolactinemia, drug-induced hyper-prolactinemia or chronic renal failure. By contrast, most patients with NFPAs, drug-induced hyperprolactinemia, macroprolactinemia, or systemic diseases present with PRL levels <100 ng/mL. However, exceptions to these rules are not rare. Indeed, up to 25% of patients harboring a microprolactinoma or a cystic macroprolactinoma may also have PRL <100 ng/mL. Falsely low PRL levels may result from the so-called "hook effect," which should be considered in all cases of large (≥3 cm) pituitary adenomas associated with normal or mildly elevated PRL levels (≤250 ng/mL). The hook effect may be unmasked by repeating PRL measurement after a 1:100 serum sample dilution.

Observational studies on macroprolactin in a routine clinical laboratory

Background:

It is now recommended that all samples with raised prolactin should be examined for the presence of macroprolactin. We performed a retrospective review of our experience of macroprolactin to determine the incidence and the natural history of macroprolactin.

Methods:

A retrospective study of macroprolactin was made in a large clinical laboratory. Macroprolactin was measured on those samples where it is requested and where the total prolactin is >1000 mIU/L. Prolactin was measured using the Siemens Centaur and macroprolactin was measured following polyethylene glycol (PEG)-precipitation.

Results:

The incidence of macroprolactin in samples where the total prolactin was >1000 mIU/L was 36/670 (5.4%). During this period, 12,064 samples were received for prolactin analysis. Over the period since 2006, 22 subjects had a sample with an isolated macroprolactin measurement followed by another sample without macroprolactin after a median period of 0.46 years. Twenty-five subjects had multiple consecutive measurements of macroprolactin lasting a median period of 2.1 years. Fourteen subjects had more than six samples which had been subjected to PEG precipitation. In these subjects, the reproducibility of PEG precipitation over a median of 6 years was 1.1% CV (recovery 75% [26–110] (median [range])).

Conclusions:

The presence of macroprolactin can change over time and we cannot advise that once a test for macroprolactinemia has been performed that it is not necessary to repeat the investigation if a subsequent sample is hyperprolactinemic; nor can one assume that macroprolactin will not develop even if it has been excluded previously.

Controversial issues in the management of hyperprolactinemia and prolactinomas - An overview by the Neuroendocrinology Department of the Brazilian Society of Endocrinology and Metabolism

Prolactinomas are the most common pituitary adenomas (approximately 40% of cases), and they represent an important cause of hypogonadism and infertility in both sexes. The magnitude of prolactin (PRL) elevation can be useful in determining the etiology of hyperprolactinemia. Indeed, PRL levels > 250 ng/mL are highly suggestive of the presence of a prolactinoma. In contrast, most patients with stalk dysfunction, drug-induced hyperprolactinemia or systemic diseases present with PRL levels < 100 ng/mL. However, exceptions to these rules are not rare. On the other hand, among patients with macroprolactinomas (MACs), artificially low PRL levels may result from the so-called "hook effect". Patients harboring cystic MACs may also present with a mild PRL elevation. The screening for macroprolactin is mostly indicated for asymptomatic patients and those with apparent idiopathic hyperprolactinemia. Dopamine agonists (DAs) are the treatment of choice for prolactinomas, particularly cabergoline, which is more effective and better tolerated than bromocriptine. After 2 years of successful treatment, DA withdrawal should be considered in all cases of microprolactinomas and in selected cases of MACs. In this publication, the goal of the Neuroendocrinology Department of the Brazilian Society of Endocrinology and Metabolism (SBEM) is to provide a review of the diagnosis and treatment of hyperprolactinemia and prolactinomas, emphasizing controversial issues regarding these topics. This review is based on data published in the literature and the authors' experience.

Impact of macroprolactin on galactorrhea and the rate of patients possibly affected by macroprolactin

The clinical influence of macroprolactin (MPRL) is not clearly understood and the rate of patients potentially affected by MPRL is unknown. We investigated the influence of MPRL on the onset of galactorrhea and estimated the rate of patients with a proportion of MPRL fraction that may possibly affect galactorrhea. Data of patients with obstetric or gynecological symptoms who had undergone PRL fractionation testing were retrospectively analyzed. To evaluate factors influencing galactorrhea, a multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed and the adjusted odds ratios of MPRL for galactorrhea were calculated. Cutoff values for the total PRL level and the proportion of MPRL fractions for galactorrhea were determined by ROC analysis using a multivariate logistic model. The prevalence of patients with a proportion of MPRL fraction greater than or equal to the cutoff value for galactorrhea was estimated. The median proportion of MPRL fraction was 30.1% and increased as PRL level increased. Total PRL and MPRL had a significant influence on the onset of galactorrhea and the adjusted odds ratio was 1.09 in total PRL and 0.94 in MPRL. The rate of patients with a proportion of MPRL fraction that may possibly affect galactorrhea was estimated to be 33.5% of the study population, and thus found to be twelve times or more the number of macroprolactinemia patients. Future prospects for hyperprolactinemia may require diagnostic criteria using free prolactin levels and so MPRL fraction measurement is important for the diagnosis and treatment of patients with obstetric and gynecological symptoms.