help button home button Endocrine Society JCEM
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH

This version published online on April 5, 2005
Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, doi:10.1210/jc.2004-2234
A more recent version of this article appeared on July 1, 2005
This Article
Right arrow Author Manuscript (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
90/7/3927    most recent
Author Manuscript (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a related Letter to the Editor
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Request Copyright Permission
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Gibney, J
Right arrow Articles by McKenna, T J
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Gibney, J
Right arrow Articles by McKenna, T J

Submitted on November 12, 2004
Accepted on March 25, 2005

The Impact on Clinical Practice of Routine Screening for Macroprolactin

J Gibney, T P Smith, and T J McKenna*

Department of Endocrinology and Diabetes Mellitus, St. Vincent's University Hospital, Elm Park and The Conway Institute of Biomolecular and Biomedical Research, University College Dublin, Ireland

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: tjmckenna{at}ucd.ie.

Macroprolactin has reduced bioactivity in vivo and accumulates in the sera of some subjects resulting in pseudo-hyperprolactinemia and consequent misdiagnosis. We have audited our experience of routine screening for macroprolactin using PEG precipitation over a 5-year period in a single center.

Application of a reference range for monomeric prolactin (the residual prolactin present in macroprolactin depleted serum) for normal individuals revealed that 453 of 2089 hyperprolactinemic samples (22%) identified by Delfia immunoassay were explained entirely by macroprolactin. The percentage of hyperprolactinemic samples explained by macroprolactinemia was similar across all levels of total prolactin (18%, 21%, 19% and 17% of samples from 700-1000, 1000-2000, 2000-3000 and greater than 3000mU/L respectively). Application of an absolute PRL threshold following PEG treatment of sera, rather than the traditional method, i.e. < 40% recovery, minimizes the opportunity for misclassification of patients where macroprolactin accounted for > 60% of PRL and the residual bioactive prolactin was present in excess.

Macroprolactinemic patients could not be differentiated from true hyperprolactinemic patients on the basis of clinical features alone. While oligomenorrhea/amenorrhea and galactorrhea were more common in patients with true hyperprolactinemia (P < 0.05), they were also frequently present in macroprolactinemic patients. Plasma levels of estradiol and LH and the LH/FSH ratio were significantly greater in macroprolactinemic compared with true hyperprolactinemic subjects (P < 0.05). Reduced use of imaging and dopamine agonist prescription resulted in a net cost saving offsetting the additional cost associated with the introduction of screening. Routine screening of all hyperprolactinemic sera for macroprolactin is recommended.


Key words: Prolactin • Macroprolactin • Screening • Clinical Practice




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Clin. Chem.Home page
L. Beltran, M. N. Fahie-Wilson, T. J. McKenna, L. Kavanagh, and T. P. Smith
Serum Total Prolactin and Monomeric Prolactin Reference Intervals Determined by Precipitation with Polyethylene Glycol: Evaluation and Validation on Common ImmunoAssay Platforms
Clin. Chem., October 1, 2008; 54(10): 1673 - 1681.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
EndocrinologyHome page
N. Hattori, Y. Nakayama, K. Kitagawa, T. Li, and C. Inagaki
Development of Anti-PRL (Prolactin) Autoantibodies by Homologous PRL in Rats: A Model for Macroprolactinemia
Endocrinology, May 1, 2007; 148(5): 2465 - 2470.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J EndocrinolHome page
N Hattori, Y Nakayama, K Kitagawa, T Ishihara, Y Saiki, and C Inagaki
Anti-prolactin (PRL) autoantibody-binding sites (epitopes) on PRL molecule in macroprolactinemia.
J. Endocrinol., August 1, 2006; 190(2): 287 - 293.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Clin. Chem.Home page
L. Kavanagh, T. J. McKenna, M. N. Fahie-Wilson, J. Gibney, and T. P. Smith
Specificity and Clinical Utility of Methods for the Detection of Macroprolactin
Clin. Chem., July 1, 2006; 52(7): 1366 - 1372.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
Endocrinology Endocrine Reviews J. Clin. End. & Metab.
Molecular Endocrinology Recent Prog. Horm. Res. All Endocrine Journals
Copyright © 2005 by The Endocrine Society