کد مقاله | کد نشریه | سال انتشار | مقاله انگلیسی | نسخه تمام متن |
---|---|---|---|---|
1971684 | 1059879 | 2006 | 7 صفحه PDF | دانلود رایگان |

ObjectiveTo examine whether use of the Beckman Coulter Access Prolactin (PRL) assay, which has low reactivity with macro-PRL, obviates the need for screening hyperprolactinemic samples.Design and methodsSamples from 1020 hyperprolactinemic individuals and 401 healthy volunteers were treated with polyethylene glycol (PEG). Macro-PRL was assessed from (1) percent PRL recovery, using cut-off values derived by gel filtration chromatography (GFC) and (2) significant (p < 0.05) normalisation of PRL following PEG.ResultsPRL recovery was similar in volunteer and hyperprolactinemic samples (mean ± SD 101 ± 13% and 101 ± 19%, respectively). In hyperprolactinemic samples, macro-PRL was identified from PRL recovery in 9.7%, although levels were moderate to high in only 3.9%. The total PRL normalised following PEG in 7.4%. Correlations of PRL recovery with the proportions of macro-, big- and monomeric PRL following GFC (n = 30 samples, range of PRL and macro-PRL levels) were − 0.89, − 0.20 and 0.92, respectively. The big-PRL content was 0–28%. Regression analysis suggested that PEG precipitated both macro-PRL and big-PRL.ConclusionsUsing the Access assay, macro-PRL can cause apparent hyperprolactinemia and big-PRL may cause misclassification of individuals. Screening using PEG is applicable to assays with low macro-PRL reactivity provided specific reference values are derived.
Journal: Clinical Biochemistry - Volume 39, Issue 10, October 2006, Pages 1028–1034