Open Access
Experimental and Clinical Endocrinology & Diabetes Reports 2015; 02(03): e17-e20
DOI: 10.1055/s-0035-1565236
Case Report
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Macroprolactin: the Role of Serial Measurement Throughout Pregnancy

Authors

  • M. Livingston

    1   Department of Blood Sciences, Walsall Manor Hospital, Walsall, United Kingdom
  • S. Nair

    2   Department of Diabetes and Endocrinology, Leighton Hospital, Crewe, United Kingdom
  • D. Radford

    2   Department of Diabetes and Endocrinology, Leighton Hospital, Crewe, United Kingdom
  • J. Kane

    3   Department of Clinical Biochemistry, Salford Royal Hospitals NHS Trust, Salford, United Kingdom
  • A. H. Heald

    2   Department of Diabetes and Endocrinology, Leighton Hospital, Crewe, United Kingdom
    4   The School of Medicine and Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
Further Information

Publication History

received 12 August 2015
first decision 07 October 2015

accepted 11 November 2015

Publication Date:
05 February 2016 (online)

Abstract

Introduction: Prolactin circulates predominantly as a 23 kDa monomer, and a high molecular weight form largely consisting of a complex of prolactin and anti-prolactin IgG autoantibody called macroprolactin. The latter cross-reacts with conventional laboratory assays for prolactin.

We here describe the use of serial macroprolactin measurement to assist in the management of a pregnant lady with pre-conception hyperprolactinaemia in whom a magnetic resonance imaging scan had not been performed.

Case Report: A 24-year old lady was found to have a raised prolactin level of 2 332 mu/L (reference range: 40–530 mu/L). Prolactin was checked because of primary infertility. Macroprolactin screening was positive, accounting for 54% of measured prolactin (estimated monomeric prolactin=1 073 mu/L).

As expected, measured prolactin levels rose through pregnancy to 6 975 mu/L at 20 weeks and to 8 374 mu/L at 36 weeks gestation.

Adjustment for macroprolactin and big prolactin gave estimated monomeric prolactin levels of 2 370 mu/L at 16 weeks (macroprolactin/big prolactin=66%), 2 441 mu/L at 20 weeks (macroprolactin/big prolactin=65%) and 2 596 mu/L at 36 weeks (macroprolactin/big prolactin=69%). Thus, adjusted prolactin fell within the reference range for pregnancy at these points.

Gel filtration chromatography was performed on the 20-week (second trimester) sample and compared with the pre-pregnancy sample. The pattern remained similar but all components were increased in the second trimester sample (including the monomeric, big prolactin and macroprolactin forms).

Conclusion: In this case report, serial measurement of macroprolactin with estimation of monomeric prolactin enhanced clinical management throughout pregnancy, saving unnecessary further investigations and avoiding unnecessary distress for the patient.