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.

Lead in a case of encephalopathy.

A 2-year-old boy with a history of pica was admitted with vomiting and treated overnight for viral tonsillitis. A week later, he presented with a prolonged afebrile seizure and required intubation and ventilation. Antibiotics and acyclovir were started. Despite extensive investigations including MRI head, no cause was identified. Four days later, he deteriorated with signs of raised intracranial pressure. On day 5, blood lead concentration in the sample collected at admission was reported as grossly elevated, consistent with a diagnosis of severe lead poisoning from ingesting lead-containing paint at the family home. Chelation therapy was started but, unfortunately, he did not make a neurological recovery, and care was withdrawn. A serious case review identified a lack of awareness of lead poisoning and its relation to pica as a root cause. We report this case to share our experience and the importance of considering lead poisoning in children with pica.