AUTHOR=Chen Jia , Liu Geng , Li Quan , Deng Wei TITLE=Prolactin is associated with bone mineral density in subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus JOURNAL=Frontiers in Endocrinology VOLUME=13 YEAR=2022 URL=https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/endocrinology/articles/10.3389/fendo.2022.964808 DOI=10.3389/fendo.2022.964808 ISSN=1664-2392 ABSTRACT=Purpose

Prolactin (PRL) exerts actions in the bone besides lactation and reproduction. This study aimed to investigate whether PRL is related to bone mineral density (BMD) in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

Methods

A total of 642 patients with T2DM were divided into two groups with age and body mass index (BMI) matched: mildly increased PRL (HP group, n = 101) or normal PRL (NP group, n = 541). BMD was measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry and compared.

Results

1) BMD, T score at lumbar spine L1–4, right hip and femur neck, and Z score at the femur neck were significantly higher in the HP than in the NP group (0.96 ± 0.16 vs. 0.92 ± 0.15g/cm2, p = 0.019; 0.88 ± 0.15vs. 0.84 ± 0.14 g/cm2, p = 0.007; 0.75 ± 0.17 vs.0.70 ± 0.13 g/cm2, p = 0.001; -0.90 (-1.85, -0.20) vs. -1.40 (-2.20, -0.40), p = 0.018; -0.80 (-1.50, -0.30) vs. -1.10 (-1.80, -0.53), p = 0.026; -1.30 (-2.00, -0.60) vs. -1.70 (-2.20, -1.00), p = 0.001; -0.20 (-0.70, 0.30) vs. -0.40 (-0.90, 0.10), p = 0.026). In men, T and Z scores at the right hip and femur neck were significantly higher in the HP than in the NP group (-0.70 (-1.32, 0.20) vs. -0.90 (-1.50, -0.40), p = 0.038; -0.20 (-0.80, 0.20) vs. -0.50 (-0.10, 0.10), p = 0.027; -0.30 (-0.60, -0.30) vs. -0.40 (-0.90, 0.20), p = 0.038) but not in women. Bone turnover markers have no significant difference between groups (all p > 0.05). 2) BMD at the right hip and Z score at the right hip and femur neck were significantly positively associated with PRL (r = 0.087, p = 0.029; r = 0.089, p = 0.024; r = 0.087, p = 0.029). In men, BMD at L1–4 and the right hip; T score at L1–4, the right hip, and the femur neck; and Z score at the right hip and the femur neck were significantly positively associated with PRL (r = 0.122, p = 0.007; r = 0.105, p = 0.041; r = 0.123, p = 0.016; r = 0.110, p = 0.032; r = 0.115, p = 0.025; r = 0.121, p = 0.018; r = 0.138, p = 0.007) but not significant in women. 3) In men divided into two groups according to T score (T score at the right hip>-1 or T score at the right hip≤-1) or the median BMD at L1–4, the right hip or the femur neck, PRL was significantly higher in the higher BMD than in the lower BMD group (16.32 ± 6.12 vs. 14.78 ± 5.68 ng/ml, p = 0.012; 16.20 ± 6.21 vs. 14.73 ± 5.40 ng/ml, p = 0.014; 16.10 ± 6.01 vs. 14.80 ± 5.77 ng/ml, p = 0.032; 16.17 ± 6.04 vs. 14.76 ± 5.77 ng/ml, p = 0.02; 16.48 ± 6.05 vs. 14.98 ± 5.81 ng/ml, p = 0.020; 16.10 ± 5.98 vs. 14.80 ± 5.87 ng/ml, p = 0.035).

Conclusion

Increased PRL was associated with better BMD in patients with T2DM, especially in men. PRL within the biologically normal range may play a protective role in the BMD of T2DM.