Ten-year clinical follow-up of a cohort of 51 patients with macroprolactinemia establishes it as a benign variant

Macroprolactin over time: Is there any point in rechecking it in people with a persistently elevated serum prolactin?

OBJECTIVE AND DESIGN

Macroprolactinemia may influence the interpretation of serum prolactin levels-a recognised phenomenon since 1981. The degree of macroprolactinaemia over time is less well described. We determined how macroprolactin status (based on polyethylene glycol (PEG) precipitation) varied by analysing serial measurements in hyperprolactinaemic individuals over a period of 9 years.

PATIENTS AND MEASUREMENTS

Results from 1810 individuals were included. All serum total prolactin results (measured using Roche Cobas 8000 analyser) were extracted from the laboratory information system for the period 1 January 2012 to 1 April 2021, along with relevant patient demographic/test data. Samples with a macroprolactin screening test performed (on samples with prolactin > 700 miu/L) were included in the main analysis.

RESULTS

During the study period, 2782 macroprolactin checks were performed (12.5% of all prolactin tests) in 1810 individuals (599 males/2183 females, median-age: 35, interquartile range: 25-47, range: 16-93 years). Multiple macroprolactin checks were carried out on 465 patients (1437 measurements) with 94 patients (141 measurements) screening positive (<60% recovery). Only 19 patients (18 female) had at least one result above and one below the 60% screening cut-off, with 10 of these patients having results close to the 60% cut-off; in 9 patients, results were clearly different between repeat samples. In seven cases, the adjusted monomeric prolactin showed a potentially clinically significant difference.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, only 19/465 patients appeared to change macroprolactin status based on a 60% PEG recovery cut-off. The majority of these 19 patients were on antipsychotic/antidepressant medication(s) or had a prolactinoma; in only 7 did monomeric prolactin change significantly. This suggests that once macroprolactin status has been determined, clinical decision making is rarely affected by repeating it.

Diagnosis and management of prolactin-secreting pituitary adenomas: a Pituitary Society international Consensus Statement

This Consensus Statement from an international, multidisciplinary workshop sponsored by the Pituitary Society offers evidence-based graded consensus recommendations and key summary points for clinical practice on the diagnosis and management of prolactinomas. Epidemiology and pathogenesis, clinical presentation of disordered pituitary hormone secretion, assessment of hyperprolactinaemia and biochemical evaluation, optimal use of imaging strategies and disease-related complications are addressed. In-depth discussions present the latest evidence on treatment of prolactinoma, including efficacy, adverse effects and options for withdrawal of dopamine agonist therapy, as well as indications for surgery, preoperative medical therapy and radiation therapy. Management of prolactinoma in special situations is discussed, including cystic lesions, mixed growth hormone-secreting and prolactin-secreting adenomas and giant and aggressive prolactinomas. Furthermore, considerations for pregnancy and fertility are outlined, as well as management of prolactinomas in children and adolescents, patients with an underlying psychiatric disorder, postmenopausal women, transgender individuals and patients with chronic kidney disease. The workshop concluded that, although treatment resistance is rare, there is a need for additional therapeutic options to address clinical challenges in treating these patients and a need to facilitate international registries to enable risk stratification and optimization of therapeutic strategies.

Macroprolactinemia: a mini-review and update on clinical practice

Hyperprolactinemia is common among infertile patients, with up to 15%-20% of women with oligomenorrhea having hyperprolactinemia. Suppression of the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis via inhibition of pulsatile gonadotropin releasing hormone because of hyperprolactinemia is a common endocrine etiology of infertility. There are 3 forms of human prolactin (PRL): monomeric PRL, dimeric PRL, and macro-PRL. Also known as big-big PRL, macro-PRL has a molecular weight >150 kDa and normally comprises 5%-10% of circulating PRL. When the predominant form of circulating PRL is macro-PRL, macroprolactinemia is diagnosed. Among patients with hyperprolactinemia, 10%-46% have macroprolactinemia. Patients with macroprolactinemia are at risk of unnecessary pituitary imaging and treatment with dopamine agonists if not correctly diagnosed. Given the high prevalence of macroprolactinemia among patients with elevated PRL levels and the different management of patients with macroprolactinemia vs true monomeric hyperprolactinemia, all patients with persistently elevated PRL levels should be screened for macro-PRL.

Cross-reactivity in assays for prolactin and optimum screening policy for macroprolactinaemia

OBJECTIVES

Macroprolactin cross-reacts in immunoassays for prolactin causing apparent hyperprolactinaemia (macroprolactinaemia) and consequent misdiagnosis and mismanagement of patients.

METHODS

We determined the prevalence of macroprolactinaemia using prolactin immunoassays with reported "high" (Tosoh) or "low" cross-reactivity (Roche) with macroprolactin. We additionally modelled the effects of increasing the screening threshold on workload and sensitivity in the detection of macroprolactinaemia.

RESULTS

A review of routine requests for prolactin received in a 12 month period identified 670 sera with hyperprolactinaemia (Tosoh assay). Treatment with polyethylene glycol (PEG) precipitation demonstrated normal levels of monomeric prolactin in 165 sera (24.6%) indicating macroprolactinaemia. In the macroprolactinaemic cohort, total prolactin levels were lower with the Roche assay (473 ± 132 mU/L; mean ± SD) compared to the Tosoh assay (683 ± 217 mU/L), p < 0.005. The prevalence of macroprolactinaemia was also lower with the Roche assay (6.2%). The number of samples that required screening for macroprolactinaemia fell by 14% when Roche gender specific total prolactin reference limits were applied. Use of a higher screening threshold (700 mU/L) reduced the screening workload considerably (Roche by 45%, Tosoh by 37%) however, the sensitivity of detection of macroprolactinaemia decreased markedly (Roche 90%, Tosoh 59%).

CONCLUSIONS

Macroprolactin interferes in both Tosoh and Roche prolactin immunoassays. Use of an assay with a relatively low cross reactivity with macroprolactin, e.g. Roche, will lead to a modest reduction in the screening workload. Increasing the screening threshold above the upper limit of the assay reference interval will also reduce the screening workload but leads to disproportionate increases in the number of cases of macroprolactinaemia which are missed.

Interference by macroprolactin in assays for prolactin: will the In Vitro Diagnostics Regulation lead to a solution at last?

Cross reactivity with high molecular weight complexes of prolactin known as macroprolactin is a common cause of positive interference in assays for serum prolactin. All prolactin assays currently available are affected with 5-25% of results indicating hyperprolactinaemia falsely elevated due to macroprolactinaemia - hyperprolactinaemia due to macroprolactin with normal concentrations of bioactive monomeric prolactin. Macroprolactinaemia has no pathological significance but, if it is not recognised as the cause, the apparent hyperprolactinaemia can lead to clinical confusion, unnecessary further investigations, inappropriate treatment and waste of healthcare resources. Macroprolactinaemia cannot be distinguished from true hyperprolactinaemia on clinical grounds alone but can be detected by a simple laboratory test based on the precipitation of macroprolactin with polyethylene glycol. Laboratory screening of all cases of hyperprolactinaemia to exclude macroprolactinaemia has been advised as best practice but has not been implemented universally and reports of clinical confusion caused by macroprolactinaemia continue to appear in the literature. Information provided by manufacturers to users of assays for prolactin regarding interference by macroprolactin is absent or inadequate and does not comply with the European Union Regulation covering in vitro diagnostic medical devices (IVDR). As the IVDR is implemented notified bodies should insist that manufacturers of assays for serum prolactin comply with the regulations by informing users that macroprolactin is a source of interference which may have untoward clinical consequences and by providing an estimate of the magnitude of the interference and a means of detecting macroprolactinaemia. Laboratories should institute a policy for excluding macroprolactinaemia in all cases of hyperprolactinaemia.

Macroprolactin: From laboratory to clinical practice

Prolactin measurement is very common in standard clinical practice. It is indicated not only in the study of pituitary adenomas, but also when there are problems with fertility, decreased libido, or menstrual disorders, among other problems. Inadequate interpretation of prolactin levels without contextualizing the laboratory results with the clinical, pharmacological, and gynecological/urological history of patients leads to erroneous diagnoses and, thus, to poorly based studies and treatments. Macroprolactinemia, defined as hyperprolactinemia due to excess macroprolactin (an isoform of a greater molecular weight than prolactin but with less biological activity), is one of the main causes of such erroneous diagnoses, resulting in poor patient management when not recognized. There is no unanimous agreement as to when macroprolactin screening is required in patients with hyperprolactinemia. At some institutions, macroprolactin testing by polyethylene glycol (PEG) precipitation is routinely performed in all patients with hyperprolactinemia, while others use a clinically based approach. There is also no consensus on how to express the results of prolactin/macroprolactin levels after PEG, which in some cases may lead to an erroneous interpretation of the results. The objectives of this study were: 1. To establish the strategy for macroprolactin screening by serum precipitation with PEG in patients with hyperprolactinemia: universal screening versus a strategy guided by the alert generated by the clinician based on the absence or presence of clinical symptoms or by the laboratory when hyperprolactinemia is detected. 2. To create a consensus document that standardizes the reporting of prolactin results after precipitation with PEG to minimize errors in the interpretation of the results, in line with international standards.

Establishment of reference intervals of monomeric prolactin to identify macroprolactinemia in Chinese patients with increased total prolactin

BACKGROUND

Macroprolactin is responsible for pseudohyperprolactinemia and is a common pitfall of the prolactin immunoassay. We aimed to determine the frequency of macroprolactinemia in Chinese hyperprolactinemic patients using monomeric prolactin discriminated by precipitation with polyethylene glycol (PEG).

METHODS

Post-PEG monomeric prolactin gender-specific reference intervals were established for the Elecsys immunoassay method (Roche Diagnostics) using sera from healthy female (n = 120) and male (n = 120) donors. The reference intervals were validated using 20 macroprolactinemic (as assessed by gel filtration chromatography (GFC)) sera samples, and presence of monomeric prolactin was discriminated by GFC. Patients with high total prolactin were then screened by PEG precipitation to analyze macroprolactin. The demographic and biochemical details of patients with true hyperprolactinemia and macroprolactinemia were compared.

RESULTS

Reference intervals for monomeric prolactin in females and males were 3.4-18.5 and 2.7-13.1 ng/mL, respectively. Among 1140 hyperprolactinemic patients, macroprolactinemia was identified in 261 (22.9 %) patients while the other 879 (77.1 %) patients were diagnosed with true hyperprolactinemia. Menstrual disturbances were the most common clinical feature in both groups. Galactorrhea, amenorrhea, and visual disturbances occurred more frequently in true hyperprolactinemic patients (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of macroprolactin in Chinese patients with hyperprolactinemia was described for the first time. Monomeric prolactin concentration, along with a reference interval screening with PEG precipitation, provides a diagnostic approach for hyperprolactinemia with improved accuracy.

Macroprolactin: From laboratory to clinical practice

Prolactin measurement is very common in standard clinical practice. It is indicated not only in the study of pituitary adenomas, but also when there are problems with fertility, decreased libido, or menstrual disorders, among other problems. Inadequate interpretation of prolactin levels without contextualizing the laboratory results with the clinical, pharmacological, and gynecological/urological history of patients leads to erroneous diagnoses and, thus, to poorly based studies and treatments. Macroprolactinemia, defined as hyperprolactinemia due to excess macroprolactin (an isoform of a greater molecular weight than prolactin but with less biological activity), is one of the main causes of such erroneous diagnoses, resulting in poor patient management when not recognized. There is no unanimous agreement as to when macroprolactin screening is required in patients with hyperprolactinemia. At some institutions, macroprolactin testing by polyethylene glycol (PEG) precipitation is routinely performed in all patients with hyperprolactinemia, while others use a clinically based approach. There is also no consensus on how to express the results of prolactin/macroprolactin levels after PEG, which in some cases may lead to an erroneous interpretation of the results. The objectives of this study were: 1. To establish the strategy for macroprolactin screening by serum precipitation with PEG in patients with hyperprolactinemia: universal screening versus a strategy guided by the alert generated by the clinician based on the absence or presence of clinical symptoms or by the laboratory when hyperprolactinemia is detected. 2. To create a consensus document that standardizes the reporting of prolactin results after precipitation with PEG to minimize errors in the interpretation of the results, in line with international standards.

Macroprolactinemia Detection by Magnetically Assisted Polyethylene Glycol Precipitation: Potential for Automation

BACKGROUND

Macroprolactin is an immunoglobulin-prolactin complex that is not bioactive in vivo but the prolactin component remains immunoreactive. The complex is a universal source of interference in prolactin immunoassays and commonly results in misdiagnosis of hyperprolactinemia with consequent clinical mismanagement of patients. Removal of macroprolactin by precipitation with polyethylene glycol (PEG) is an effective technique for identifying such patients but unfortunately not universally employed due to the manual nature of the procedure.

METHODS

We developed a modified PEG precipitation technique using magnetic nanoparticles that we termed Magnetically Assisted PEG Precipitation (MAPP). This procedure was verified against an established PEG precipitation procedure.

RESULTS

The MAPP procedure we developed was robust, reproducible, and affords the potential for automation of macroprolactin screening in clinical laboratories. Comparisons of prolactin levels obtained following MAPP in sera from patients with either true hyperprolactinemia or macroprolactinemia generated results comparable to that of conventional PEG precipitation.

CONCLUSIONS

The MAPP technique yields results comparable to those of traditional PEG precipitation. Elimination of the need for centrifugation affords the possibility of automation and hence more widespread adoption of routine PEG screening by clinical laboratories.

Biochemical diagnosis in prolactinomas: some caveats

Prolactinomas are the most frequently seen pituitary adenomas in clinical practice. A correct biochemical diagnosis of hyperprolactinemia is a prerequisite for further investigation but may be hampered by analytical difficulties as well as a large number of potentially overlapping conditions associated with increased prolactin levels. Suspicion should rise in patients whose symptoms and biochemical results do not match. Assay problems, macroprolactinemia, and high-dose hook effect are discussed as possible reasons for false positive or false negative prolactin levels. Physiological and pathological causes of hyperprolactinemia and their implications for interpreting prolactin results are reviewed.

Macroprolactin: an overlooked reason of hyperprolactinemia

Background

Immunoassays show variability in the detection of macroprolactin. The aim of this study was to detect the frequency of macroprolactinemia in hyperprolactinemic patients and the problems encountered in routine clinical practice.

Methods

The screening of macroprolactinemia was performed by precipitation with polyethylene glycol (PEG) in 900 patient samples with hyperprolactinemia over a period of approximately 6 months. Recovery values of less than 40% and greater than 60% were considered as macroprolactinemia and predominantly monomeric prolactin (PRL), respectively.

Results

A total of 900 (17.9%) of the 5007 PRL results were out of reference range. Thirty-one (3.4%) of the patients had less than 40% recovery after screening of all patients with hyperprolactinemia. However, the macroprolactin test was requested by clinics from only 171 patients and seven of these patients had less than 40% recovery. We also detected predominantly macroprolactin in 24 samples, overlooked in routine practice. The patients with PRL above 100 ng/mL had no macroprolactinemia.

Conclusions

The screening for macroprolactinemia of hyperprolactinemic patients who have <100 ng/mL and also with unexplained hyperprolactinemia should be the first approach before any further research or treatment is initiated. Thus, unnecessary test repetition, investigation and inappropriate treatment can be avoided. Each laboratory should inform clinicians about the frequency of macroprolactinemia.

Optimizing laboratory defined macroprolactin algorithm

INTRODUCTION

Macroprolactinaemia is a well-known analytical problem in diagnostics of hyperprolactinaemia usually detected with polyethylene glycol (PEG) precipitation method. Since there is no harmonization in macroprolactin detection and reporting results, this study proposes and evaluates the usefulness of in-house developed algorithm. The aims were to determine the most suitable way of reporting results after PEG treatment and the possibilities of rationalizing the precipitation procedure.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a retrospective study based on extracted data for 1136 patients. Prolactin concentrations were measured before and after PEG precipitation on Roche cobas e601. Macroprolactinaemia was defined by percentage recovery and post-PEG prolactin concentrations.

RESULTS

Prevalence of macroprolactinaemia using recovery criteria of ≤ 40%, ≤ 60%, and post-PEG prolactin concentrations was 3.3%, 8.8% and 7.8%, respectively. Raising the cut-off value from the upper limit of the manufacturer's reference interval to 32.9 µg/L does not drastically change detected macroprolactinaemia with recovery criteria. Post-PEG prolactin concentrations showed more than half of the patients with macroprolactinaemia would be overlooked. Regardless of the criteria, a cut-off of 47.0 µg/L would miss most of the macroprolactinaemic patients. Repeated recovery measurements of follow-up patients showed there is a significant difference with mean absolute bias of 9%.

CONCLUSIONS

Post-PEG prolactin concentration with corresponding reference interval is the most suitable way of reporting results. All samples with prolactin concentration above the upper limit of the manufacturer's reference interval should be submitted to PEG precipitation. Follow-up period could be prolonged since the difference between the recoveries of repeated measurements is not clinically significant.

Prevalence and reproductive manifestations of macroprolactinemia

PURPOSE

Macroprolactinemia is characterized by predominance of macroprolactin molecules in circulation and generally has extra-pituitary origin. Macroprolactin is viewed as biologically inactive, therefore asymptomatic, and thus may not require any treatment or prolonged follow-up. In addition, data on prevalence of macroprolactinemia and its clinical manifestation are also rare. Therefore, the present study was aimed to find out prevalence of macroprolactinemia and its association, if any, with reproductive manifestations.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Macroprolactin was measured in 102 hyperprolactinemia cases (>100 ng/ml prolactin level), 135 physiological hyperprolactinemia cases (50 pregnant and 85 lactating females; >100 ng/ml prolactin level) and 24 controls. Poly ethylene glycol (PEG) precipitation method was carried out to screen macroprolactin. Prolactin recovery of <25% was considered overt macroprolactinemia. Detailed clinical data was recorded which included complete medical history, physical examination and hormone measurements besides CT/MRI for pituitary abnormalities.

RESULTS

Prevalence of macroprolactinemia was 21.57% (22/102) in hyperprolactinemia (prolactin >100 ng/ml). There was no case of macroprolactinemia in physiological hyperprolactinemia, or healthy control females. Reproductive manifestations were present in 72.73% (16/22) macroprolactinemia cases, out of which macroprolactinemia was the sole cause of associated reproductive manifestations in 68.7% (11/16) cases. Reversal of reproductive dysfunction/s was observed in five cases with appropriate treatment for high macroprolactin.

CONCLUSION

Macroprolactinemia prevalence was found to be 21.5%, out of which 72.73% cases had associated reproductive dysfunctions.

Laboratory and clinical significance of macroprolactinemia in women with hyperprolactinemia

The role of macroprolactinemia in women with hyperprolactinemia is currently controversial and can lead to clinical dilemmas, depending upon the origin of macroprolactin, the presence of hyperprolactinemic symptoms and monomeric prolactin (PRL) levels. Macroprolactinemia is mostly considered an extrapituitary phenomenon of mild and asymptomatic hyperprolactinemia associated with normal concentrations of monomeric PRL and a predominance of macroprolactin confined to the vascular system, which is biologically inactive. Patients can therefore be reassured that macroprolactinemia should be considered a benign clinical condition, resistant to antiprolactinemic drugs, and that no diagnostic investigations or prolonged follow-up should be necessary. However, a significant proportion of macroprolactinemic patients appears to suffer from hyperprolactinemia-related symptoms and radiological pituitary findings commonly associated with true hyperprolactinemia. The symptoms of hyperprolactinemia are correlated to the levels of monomeric PRL excess, which may be explained as coincidental, by dissociation of macroprolactin, or by physiological, pharmacological and pathological causes. The excess of monomeric PRL levels in such cases is of primarily importance and the diagnosis of macroprolactinemia is misleading or inadequate. However, macroprolactinemia of pituitary origin associated with radiological findings of pituitary adenomas may rarely occur with similar hyperprolactinemic manifestations, exclusively due to bioactivity of macroprolactin. Therefore, in such cases with hyperprolactinemic signs and pituitary findings, macroprolactinemia should be considered a pathological biochemical condition of hyperprolactinemia. Accordingly, individualized diagnostic investigations with the introduction of dopamine agonists, or other treatment with prolonged follow-up, should be mandatory. The review analyses the laboratory and clinical significance of macroprolactinemia in hyperprolactinemic women suggesting clinically useful diagnostic and treatment strategies.

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.

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGISTS, AMERICAN COLLEGE OF ENDOCRINOLOGY DISEASE STATE CLINICAL REVIEW: CLINICAL RELEVANCE OF MACROPROLACTIN IN THE ABSENCE OR PRESENCE OF TRUE HYPERPROLACTINEMIA

OBJECTIVE

To review the current literature regarding the prevalence of macroprolactin (macroPRL) in hyperprolactinemic patients and determine recommendations for testing.

METHODS

An electronic United States National Library of Medicine PubMed search (through October, 2014) was conducted for search term "macroprolactin." Only English-language articles were considered.

RESULTS

MacroPRL is an under-recognized cause of elevated prolactin (PRL) and is present in approximately 4% to 40% of hyperprolactinemic patients depending on the referral population. Clinical findings which could be due to hyperprolactinemia are the impetus for testing for PRL. Because of this there is significant overlap in the clinical presentation of patients with true hyperprolactinemia and those with macroPRL, differentiation cannot always be made on the basis of symptoms. A lack of recognition of the presence of macroPRL can lead to unnecessary laboratory investigations, imaging, and pharmacologic or surgical treatment.

CONCLUSION

Until there is a commercially available PRL assay that is not subject to interference by macroPRL, clinicians should consider the possibility of macroPRL, especially if the clinical presentation, imaging findings, and/or response to therapy reveal inconsistencies.

Hyperprolactinemia and prolactinoma

Prolactinomas are the most frequent pituitary adenomas. In patients with prolactinomas the primary cause of hyperprolactinemia is excessive and autonomic production of prolactin by lactotroph cells. In other conditions, except in case of macroprolactinemia, hyperprolactinemia is secondary to circumstances that stimulate secretion of prolactin by intrinsically normal lactotroph cells, or, rarely, that are the result of decreased clearance of prolactin. In general, cabergoline is the preferred treatment for micro- and macroprolactinomas, because it is more effective with respect to normalization of prolactin levels and reduction of prolactinoma size and because it has fewer side-effects compared to bromocriptine. Recently, it has been suggested that a standardized, individualized, stepwise, dose-escalating regimen of cabergoline may normalize prolactin levels and reduce prolactinoma size in patients who were otherwise considered to be dopamine agonist resistant. In general, the cardiac adverse effects of dopamine agonists reported in Parkinson's disease are not of clinical concern in the treatment of prolactinomas, which are treated with much lower doses. Nonetheless, there is uncertainty with respect to the dose and duration of cabergoline treatment, which requires echocardiographic follow-up. Although withdrawal of dopamine agonists may be considered in patients with prolactinomas well controlled by dopamine agonists, especially in postmenopausal women, recurrence of signs and symptoms may occur in a considerable portion of patients.

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.

Possible involvement of matrix metalloproteinase-3 in the pathogenesis of macroprolactinaemia in some patients with rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE

Macroprolactin primarily comprises a complex of prolactin (PRL) and IgG molecules, particularly anti-PRL autoantibodies. However, it is unknown why autoantibodies against PRL develop in certain subjects. This study aimed to elucidate post-translational modifications in the PRL molecule that may be involved in the pathogenesis of macroprolactinaemia.

METHODS

Macroprolactinaemia was screened with a polyethylene glycol method in 238 patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and 302 control subjects and confirmed by gel chromatography. We examined the relationship between macroprolactinaemia and several RA-related laboratory tests including matrix metalloproteinase-3 (MMP-3) and anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide (CCP) antibody titres. The effect of MMP-3 on the PRL molecule was examined by western blotting.

RESULTS

Patients with RA exhibited a significantly higher prevalence of macroprolactinaemia (15/238; 6.3%) than the young control subjects (5/219 subjects; 2.3%), but the prevalence was not different from that observed in the elderly control subjects (5/83 subjects; 6.0%). The prevalence of macroprolactinaemia in patients with elevated MMP-3 levels (9.68%) was significantly higher than that in those with normal MMP-3 levels (2.63%). Digestion of PRL with MMP-3 produced vasoinhibins with several molecular species. Serum total and free PRL levels in RA patients were higher than those in the age- and gender-matched control subjects. The levels of macroprolactin were not significantly correlated with those of RA-specific anti-CCP antibody.

CONCLUSIONS

We speculate that elevated MMP-3 levels may lead to the formation of new epitopes on the PRL molecule that might trigger an immune response to produce anti-PRL autoantibodies in some patients with RA. Such post-translational modifications may possibly contribute to the increased prevalence of macroprolactinaemia in elderly subjects.

Frequency of Macroprolactinemia in Hyperprolactinemic Women Presenting with Menstrual Irregularities, Galactorrhea, and/or Infertility: Etiology and Clinical Manifestations

Aim. To determine the frequency of macroprolactinemia, its etiology, and the clinical manifestations in patients with hyperprolactinemia presenting with menstrual irregularities, galactorrhea, and/or infertility who were attended by the gynecology-endocrinology service. Methods. In a cross-sectional study, 326 hyperprolactinemic women were tested for serum prolactin (PRL) concentrations before and after chromatographic separation (gel filtration and affinity with protein G) and extraction of free PRL with polyethylene glycol (PEG). Results. Sera from 57 patients (17.5%) were found to have macroprolactinemia. The presence of macroprolactinemia was attributable to anti-PRL autoantibodies in 54 (94.7%) patients. The median serum PRL levels were similar in patients with or without macroprolactinemia (42.0 versus 38.1 ng/mL). In contrast, patients with macroprolactinemia had lower serum-free PRL levels (median 9.2 versus 31.7 ng/mL, P < 0.001). Patients without macroprolactinemia had a higher frequency of galactorrhea and abnormal pituitary imagine findings (P < 0.002). Conclusions. We can conclude that macroprolactinemia should be considered as a benign variant, and it must be ruled out in women presenting with menstrual irregularities, galactorrhea, and/or infertility in order to investigate other causes different than hyperprolactinemia. Serum PRL precipitated with PEG is a convenient and simple procedure to screen for the presence of macroprolactinemia.

Macroprolactinemia: diagnostic, clinical, and pathogenic significance

Macroprolactinemia is characterized by a large molecular mass of PRL (macroprolactin) as the main molecular form of PRL in sera, the frequent elevation of serum PRL (hyperprolactinemia), and the lack of symptoms. Macroprolactin is largely a complex of PRL with immunoglobulin G (IgG), especially anti-PRL autoantibodies. The prevalence of macroprolactinemia is 10–25% in patients with hyperprolactinemia and 3.7% in general population. There is no gender difference and a long-term followup demonstrates that macroprolactinemia develops before middle age and is likely a chronic condition. Polyethylene-glycol- (PEG-) precipitation method is widely used for screening macroprolactinemia, and gel filtration chromatography, protein A/G column, and I125-PRL binding studies are performed to confirm and clarify its nature. The cross-reactivity of macroprolactin varies widely according to the immunoassay systems. The epitope on PRL molecule recognized by the autoantibodies is located close to the binding site for PRL receptors, which may explain that macroprolactin has a lower biological activity. Hyperprolactinemia frequently seen in macroprolactinemic patients is due to the delayed clearance of autoantibody-bound PRL. When rats are immunized with rat pituitary PRL, anti-PRL autoantibodies are produced and hyperprolactinemia develops, mimicking macroprolactinemia in humans. Screening of macroprolactinemia is important for the differential diagnosis of hyperprolactinemia to avoid unnecessary examinations and treatments.

The various faces of autoimmune endocrinopathies: non-tumoral hypergastrinemia in a patient with lymphocytic colitis and chronic autoimmune gastritis

Serum gastrin levels exceeding 1000pg/ml (normal, <100) usually raise the suspicion for a neuroendocrine tumor (NET) that secretes gastrin. Rarely, such elevated gastrin levels are seen in patients with pernicious anemia which most commonly is associated with autoimmune gastritis (AG). AG can occur concomitantly with other autoimmune disorders including lymphocytic colitis (LC). Gastrin stimulates enterochromaffin-like cells which increase histamine secretion. Histamine excess can cause diarrhea as can bacterial overgrowth or LC. We present a 57-year-old woman with diarrhea, sporadic epigastric pain, and bloating. She also had a history of interstitial cystitis and took pentosan polysulfate and cetirizine. She had no history of ulcers, renal impairment or carcinoid syndrome. Fasting serum gastrin was 1846pg/ml. Esophagoduodenal gastroscopy and biopsies revealed chronic gastritis and a pH of 7 with low stomach acid. Serum gastrin and plasma chromogranin A were suggestive of a gastrinoma or NET. Pernicious anemia was unlikely. Imaging studies did not reveal any tumor. Random colonic biopsy was compatible with LC, possibly explaining her diarrhea, although we also considered excessive histamine from elevated gastrin, bacterial overgrowth, and pentosan polysulfate which can cause diarrhea and be misleading in this setting, pointing to the diagnosis of gastrinoma. At 4year follow-up in 2012, fasting serum gastrin was 1097pg/ml and the patient asymptomatic taking only cetirizine for nasal allergies. This case illustrates that diarrhea may be associated with very high serum gastrin levels in the setting of chronic gastritis, LC, and interstitial cystitis (pentosan use), without clear evidence for a gastrinoma or NET. If no history of ulcers or liver metastases is present in such cases, watchful observation rather than an extensive/invasive and costly search for a NET may be justified. Considering the various forms of polyglandular syndrome, this may represent a variant and we here provide an algorithm for working up such patients, while also reviewing literature on the intertwined relationship between the immune and endocrine systems.

Hormonal causes of male sexual dysfunctions and their management (hyperprolactinemia, thyroid disorders, GH disorders, and DHEA)

INTRODUCTION

Besides hypogonadism, other endocrine disorders have been associated with male sexual dysfunction (MSD).

AIM

To review the role of the pituitary hormone prolactin (PRL), growth hormone (GH), thyroid hormones, and adrenal androgens in MSD.

METHODS

A systematic search of published evidence was performed using Medline (1969 to September 2011). Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine-Levels of Evidence (March 2009) was applied when possible.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The most important evidence regarding the role played by PRL, GH, thyroid, and adrenal hormone was reviewed and discussed.

RESULTS

Only severe hyperprolactinemia (>35 ng/mL or 735 mU/L), often related to a pituitary tumor, has a negative impact on sexual function, impairing sexual desire, testosterone production, and, through the latter, erectile function due to a dual effect: mass effect and PRL-induced suppression on gonadotropin secretion. The latter is PRL-level dependent. Emerging evidence indicates that hyperthyroidism is associated with an increased risk of premature ejaculation and might also be associated with erectile dysfunction (ED), whereas hypothyroidism mainly affects sexual desire and impairs the ejaculatory reflex. However, the real incidence of thyroid dysfunction in subjects with sexual problems needs to be evaluated. Prevalence of ED and decreased libido increase in acromegalic patients; however, it is still a matter of debate whether GH excess (acromegaly) may create effects due to a direct overproduction of GH/insulin-like growth factor 1 or because of the pituitary mass effects on gonadotropic cells, resulting in hypogonadism. Finally, although dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) and its sulfate have been implicated in a broad range of biological derangements, controlled trials have shown that DHEA administration is not useful for improving male sexual function.

CONCLUSIONS

While the association between hyperprolactinemia and hypoactive sexual desire is well defined, more studies are needed to completely understand the role of other hormones in regulating male sexual functioning.

The natural history of macroprolactinaemia

OBJECTIVE

Macroprolactinaemia is a condition in which serum prolactin (PRL) consists mainly of large molecular weight PRL (macroPRL). The aim of this study was to examine the natural history of macroprolactinaemia.

DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS

Six hundred and fifty-four hospital workers participated in this study, including 27 subjects with macroprolactinaemia and 627 controls. MacroPRL and serum PRL concentrations were evaluated over a 4-year period. The ratio of macroPRL was examined by the polyethylene glycol (PEG) method and gel filtration chromatography. IgG-bound PRL and anti-PRL autoantibodies were examined by protein G and (125)I-PRL binding studies respectively.

RESULTS

Over the 4 years of the study, all 27 macroprolactinaemic subjects had persistent macroprolactinaemia without the development of raised free PRL, while none of the 627 controls developed macroprolactinaemia. The ratios of PEG-precipitable PRL and IgG-bound PRL did not significantly change, but (125)I-PRL binding ratios significantly increased. As a whole, total and free serum PRL concentrations did not significantly change in subjects with macroprolactinaemia over the 4-year period. However, hyperprolactinaemia developed in five of the 18 macroprolactinaemic subjects who were initially normoprolactinaemic along with an increase in anti-PRL autoantibody titres. One of the remaining nine macroprolactinaemic subjects who were initially hyperprolactinaemic showed a decrease in serum PRL concentrations, which occurred concomitantly with a decrease in the anti-PRL autoantibody titre.

CONCLUSIONS

Macroprolactinaemia may develop before middle age and is likely a chronic condition leading to hyperprolactinaemia.

Clinical and radiological findings in macroprolactinemia

Hyperprolactinemia is the most common abnormality of the hypothalamic-pituitary axis. The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical and radiological features of patients with macroprolactinemia. The study population consisted of patients with elevated serum prolactin (PRL) concentrations who presented to our Endocrinology outpatient clinic. Detection of macroprolactin (macroPRL) was performed using the polyethylene glycol precipitation method. Patients in which macroPRL made up more than 60% of total PRL levels were stratified into the macroPRL group, while the remaining patients were placed in the monomeric prolactin (monoPRL) group. A total of 337 patients were enrolled with a mean age of 33.8 ± 10.8 (16-66) years and a male/female ratio of 29/308. Eighty-eight of the patients (26.1%) had an elevated macroPRL level. The mean age in the monoPRL group was higher than in the macroPRL group (35.0 ± 10.1 vs. 30.7 ± 9.8, P = 0.016). The mean PRL levels (ng/ml) in the macroPRL and monoPRL groups were similar (168.0 ± 347.0 vs. 238.8 ± 584.9, P = 0.239). Frequency of amenorrhea, infertility, irregular menses, gynecomastia, and erectile dysfunction were also similar in both groups. More patients in the macroPRL group were asymptomatic compared to the monoPRL group (30.2 vs. 12.0%, P = 0.006). Compared to the macroPRL group, the monoPRL group had a higher frequency of galactorrhea (39.2 vs. 57.1%, P = 0.04) and abnormal magnetic resonance imaging findings (65.3 vs. 81.1%, P = 0.02). Elevated macroPRL levels should be considered a pathological biochemical variant of hyperprolactinemia that may present with any of the conventional symptoms and radiological findings generally associated with elevated PRL levels.

Detection of Macroprolactinemia and Molecular Characterization of Prolactin Isoforms in Blood Samples of Hyperprolactinemic Women

Prolactin (PRL) circulates in the blood in the form of monomeric prolactin, dimeric prolactin and macroprolactin. Macroprolactin is a common cause of hyperprolactinemia. The objective of this study was to assess the prevalence of macroprolactinemia in hyperprolactinemic women and to undertake the biochemical characterization of macroprolactin. A retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted on one hundred hyperprolactinemic patients. All the sera were subjected to polyethylene glycol (PEG) precipitation and were divided into true hyperprolactinemics (PRL recovery >60%), probable macroprolactinemics (PRL recovery between 40 and 60%) and macroprolactinemics (PRL recovery < 40%). The prevalence of macroprolactinemia was found to be 34%. Sera from each group were further analyzed for isoforms of prolactin by gel filtration chromatography (GFC). The clinical spectrum of presenting complaints in the hyperprolactinemic cohort included oligomenorrhea, galactorrhea and infertility, but the presentation did not differ between macroprolactinemic and truly hyperprolactinemic patients. GFC showed three major PRL isoforms, viz., 23.5 kDa (monomeric), 47 kDa (dimeric) and 150-174.6 kDa (PRL-IgG complexes) along with the medium and heavy weight aggregates of prolactin. The results of the study showed that macroprolactinemia is one of the causes of hyperprolactinemia with high prevalence. It is recommended that all hyperprolactinemic patients be screened for macroprolactinemia.

Macroprolactinaemia in patients with hyperprolactinaemia: composition of macroprolactin and stability during long-term follow-up

OBJECTIVE

Macroprolactin, which comprises immunoglobulin G (IgG) or anti-prolactin (PRL) autoantibody-bound PRL, is one of the causes of hyperprolactinaemia. This study evaluated the composition and stability of macroprolactin and determined whether the condition was long lasting. We also investigated whether we could predict the composition of macroprolactin based on the ratio of polyethylene glycol (PEG)-precipitable PRL.

PATIENTS

Two hundred and ninety-two patients with hyperprolactinaemia (252 women and 40 men).

DESIGN

We used PEG precipitation to screen for macroprolactinaemia in 625 serum samples from 292 patients with hyperprolactinaemia visiting a city hospital over the last 5·5 years. Macroprolactinaemia was defined by PEG-precipitable PRL ratio greater than 60%. IgG-bound PRL and anti-PRL autoantibodies were measured by protein G and (125) I-hPRL binding studies, respectively. We also examined the autoantibody specificity and binding characteristics.

RESULTS

In 39 patients with macroprolactinaemia, IgG-bound PRL was present in 87% and anti-PRL autoantibodies in 67%. A non-IgG-bound form of macroprolactin was found mainly in sera with marginally elevated PEG-precipitable PRL. The higher the PEG-precipitable PRL ratio, the greater the likelihood that autoantibodies were involved in the composition of macroprolactin. The autoantibodies were IgG type and specific to human PRL and had a low affinity and high capacity. Long-term follow-up (2-17 years) revealed that the ratios of PEG-precipitable PRL, IgG-bound PRL and anti-PRL autoantibody-bound PRL were relatively stable.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that higher PEG-precipitable PRL ratio in macroprolactinaemic sera might preferentially indicate the presence of anti-PRL autoantibodies and that macroprolactinaemia might be a long-lasting condition.

Serum prolactin and macroprolactin in heart failure: no relation to established laboratory or clinical parameters

Background

A few smaller studies have reported that the prolactin concentration is elevated in connection with heart failure. As heart failure is combined with disturbances of several biological systems any or all of which may also influence prolactin concentrations, we wanted to evaluate the relation of prolactin to prognosis in elderly patients.

Methods

A total of 462 elderly patients from a primary health-care centre, all with symptoms of heart failure, were included. In addition to clinical examination including echocardiography, concentrations of prolactin, macroprolactin, C-reactive protein, thyroid-stimulating hormone and N-terminal pro B-type natriuretric peptide (NT-proBNP) were measured. Patients were then followed for 10 y, and all incidents of cardiovascular mortality were registered.

Results

After excluding patients with macroprolactin, hyperprolactinaemia was found in 3.7% of the patients. There were no differences in prolactin concentrations or in the frequency of macroprolactin between patients with heart failure and those with normal cardiac function, defined as left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 50%. No significant correlation could be found between NT-proBNP and prolactin. Neither could any association be found between cardiovascular mortality and prolactin concentration during 10 y of follow-up.

Conclusions

Prolactin concentrations were not associated with cardiovascular mortality or any clinical or biochemical marker of heart failure. Macroprolactin was found in similar frequency among patients with and without heart failure, and showed no correlation with mortality risk.