Sorana Marcovitz

Bio: Sorana Marcovitz is an academic researcher from McGill University Health Centre. The author has contributed to research in topics: Macroprolactin & Light therapy. The author has an hindex of 2, co-authored 2 publications receiving 54 citations.

Gross variability in the detection of prolactin in sera containing big big prolactin (macroprolactin) by commercial immunoassays.

Abstract: A high molecular mass form of prolactin (PRL), macroprolactin, accumulates in the sera of some subjects. Although macroprolactin exhibits limited bioactivity in vivo, it retains immunoreactivity. We examined the frequency of macroprolactinemia in clinical practice and the ability of immunoassay systems to distinguish between macroprolactin and monomeric PRL. Of 300 hyperprolactinemic sera identified, 71 normalized following treatment of sera with polyethylene glycol, indicating that 24% of hyperprolactinemia could be accounted for by macroprolactin. Ten of these macroprolactinemic sera were circulated to 18 clinical laboratories. Two sets of PRL measurements of the 10 untreated sera were obtained from each of the nine most commonly used immunoassay systems. Across the nine assay systems, differences in the PRL estimates ranged from 2.3- to 7.8-fold. Elecsys users reported the highest PRL levels. Somewhat lower values were reported for DELFIA systems followed by Immuno-1, AxSYM, and Architect assays. The Immulite 2000 assay generated PRL levels equivalent to approximately 50% of those reported by the high-reading methods. The lowest PRL levels were reported by Access, ACS:180, and Centaur systems. To avoid confusion caused by the frequent presence of macroprolactin accounting for hyperprolactinemia, secondary screening for the presence of macroprolactin is recommended.

Frequent Misdiagnosis and Mismanagement of Hyperprolactinemic Patients before the Introduction of Macroprolactin Screening: Application of a New Strict Laboratory Definition of Macroprolactinemia

Abstract: Background: Macroprolactin (big big prolactin) has reduced bioactivity and is measured by immunoassays for prolactin when it accumulates in the plasma of some individuals. We applied normative data for serum prolactin after treatment of sera to remove macroprolactin to elucidate the contribution of macroprolactin to misleading diagnoses, inappropriate investigations, and unnecessary treatment. Methods: We reviewed records of women attending a tertiary referral center who had prolactin >1000 mIU/L. Application of a reference interval to polyethylene glycol (PEG)-treated hyperprolactinemic sera identified 21 patients in whom hyperprolactinemia was accounted for entirely by the presence of macroprolactin. Presenting clinical features, diagnoses, and treatment were compared in these patients and 42 age-matched true hyperprolactinemic patients. Results: Prolactin concentrations in sera of 110 healthy individuals ranged from 78 to 564 mIU/L. The range of values for the sera after PEG treatment was 70–403 mIU/L. For macroprolactinemic samples, PEG treatment decreased mean (SD) prolactin from 1524 (202) mIU/L to 202 (27) mIU/L but decreased it only from 2096 (233) mIU/L to 1705 (190) mIU/L in true hyperprolactinemic patients ( P <0.01 between groups). Oligomenorrhea or amenorrhea and galactorrhea were the most common clinical features in both groups, although they occurred more frequently in true hyperprolactinemic patients ( P <0.05). Serum estradiol and luteinizing hormone concentrations were significantly higher in participants with macroprolactinemia than in those with true hyperprolactinemia ( P <0.05). Among participants with retrospectively identified macroprolactinemia, pituitary imaging was performed in 93% and treatment with dopamine agonist was prescribed in 87%. Conclusions: Macroprolactin is a significant cause of misdiagnosis, unnecessary investigation, and inappropriate treatment. The use of an appropriate reference interval for the PEG immunoprecipitation procedure may be of particular importance in those patients who have an excess of both macroprolactin and monomeric prolactin.

The Impact on Clinical Practice of Routine Screening for Macroprolactin

Abstract: Background: Macroprolactin has reduced bioactivity in vivo and accumulates in the sera of some subjects, resulting in pseudo-hyperprolactinemia and consequent misdiagnosis. Methods: We have audited our experience of routine screening for macroprolactin using polyethylene glycol (PEG) precipitation over a 5-yr period in a single center. Results: 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 3000 mU/liter, respectively). Application of an absolute prolactin threshold after polyethylene glycol treatment of sera, rather than the traditional method, i.e. less than 40% rec...

Clinical relevance of macroprolactin.

Abstract: The anterior pituitary hormone PRL was identified in animal species as early as 1933 1 but only purified in humans in 1972. 2 Since then, the clinical syndrome of hyperprolactinaemia has been characterized extensively, the predominant symptoms being galactorrhoea, oligomenorrhoea or amenorrhoea and infertility in women and reduced libido, impotence and galactorrhoea in men. 3–8 Hyperprolactinaemia has an estimated prevalence of 15% in women with secondary amenorrhoea, 9,10 a condition that affects at least 3% of women of reproductive age. 11

Glucocorticoid dysregulations and their clinical correlates. From receptors to therapeutics.

Abstract: Clinicians have long known that a substantial proportion of patients treated with high-dose glucocorticoids experience a variety of serious side effects, including metabolic syndrome, bone loss, and mood shifts, such as depressive symptomatology, manic or hypomanic symptoms, and even suicide. The reason for individual variability in expression or severity of these side effects is not clear. However, recent emerging literature is beginning to shed light on possible mechanisms of these effects. As an introduction to this volume, this chapter will review the basic biology of glucocorticoid release and molecular mechanisms of glucocorticoid receptor function, and will discuss how dysregulation of glucocorticoid action at all levels could contribute to such side effects. At the molecular level, glucocorticoid receptor polymorphisms may be associated either with receptor hypofunction or hyperfunction and could thus contribute to differential individual sensitivity to the effects of glucocorticoid treatment. Numerous factors regulate hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis responsiveness, which could also contribute to individual differences in glucocorticoid side effects. One of these is sex hormone status and the influence of estrogen and progesterone on HPA axis function and mood. Another is immune system activity, in which immune molecules, such as interleukins and cytokines, activate the HPA axis and alter brain function, including memory, cognition, and mood. The effects of cytokines in inducing sickness behaviors, which overlap with depressive symptomatology, could also contribute to individual differences in such symptomatology. Taken together, this knowledge will have important relevance for identifying at-risk patients to avoid or minimize such side effects when they are treated with glucocorticoids. A framework for assessment of patients is proposed that incorporates functional, physiological, and molecular biomarkers to identify subgroups of patients at risk for depressive symptomatology associated with glucocorticoid treatment, and for prevention of side effects, which in many cases can be life-threatening.