Prolactin and macroprolactin in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus

Circulating prolactin level in Juvenile Systemic Lupus Erythematosus and its correlation with disease activity: a case control study

BACKGROUND

The linkage between prolactin (PRL) and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is still vague. Determination of serum levels of prolactin to reveal its role in patients with SLE is the aim of the study.

METHODS

This is a case-control study performed on 40 children with SLE and 40 age- and sex-matched controls. Cases were further subdivided according to disease activity into mild, moderate, and severe groups using the SLEDAI (Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index) score. Serum prolactin levels were assayed by ELISA (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay).

RESULTS

prolactin level was significantly higher in SLE patients (17.3 ± 6.6 µg/L) than in controls (13.5 ± 5.3 µg/L) (P value = 0.005). Although the prolactin level was highest in severe cases (19.3 ± 7.7 µg/L), followed by moderate cases (17.0 ± 5.3 µg/L), and lowest in mild cases (14.0 ± 6.2 µg/L), the variance between the 3 groups was not statistically significant (P value = 0.212). A significant positive correlation between prolactin level and SLEDAI score was detected (r = 0.368) (P value = 0.019). Hyperprolactinemia was found in 8 patients (20%) but not in controls; 4 out of 8 patients with hyperprolactinemia (50%) showed neurological manifestations compared to only 3 out of 32 patients with a normal prolactin level (9.4%) (P value = 0.007).

CONCLUSION

A relationship between serum prolactin levels and juvenile SLE disease was detected. Neurological manifestations were more prevalent among SLE patients with hyperprolactinemia.

Global Prevalence of Macroprolactinemia among Patients with Hyperprolactinemia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Hyperprolactinemia (hPRL) often poses a diagnostic dilemma due to the presence of macroprolactin. Understanding the prevalence of macroprolactinemia (mPRL) has an important implication in managing patients with hPRL. The primary aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of mPRL globally and to explore selected factors influencing the prevalence estimate. Studies with original data related to the prevalence of mPRL among patients with hPRL from inception to March 2020 were identified, and a random effects meta-analysis was performed. Of the 3770 records identified, 67 eligible studies from 27 countries were included. The overall global prevalence estimate was 18.9% (95% CI: 15.8%, 22.1%) with a substantial statistical heterogeneity (I² = 95.7%). The highest random effects pooled prevalence was observed in the African region (30.3%), followed by Region of the Americas (29.1%), European (17.5%), Eastern Mediterranean (13.9%), South-East Asian (12.7%), and Western Pacific Region (12.6%). Lower prevalence was observed in studies involving both sexes as compared to studies involving only female participants (17.1% vs. 25.4%) and in more recent studies (16.4%, 20.4%, and 26.5% in studies conducted after 2009, between 2000 and 2009, and before 2000, respectively). The prevalence estimate does not vary according to the age group of study participants, sample size, and types of polyethylene glycol (PEG) used for detection of macroprolactin (PEG 6000 or PEG 8000). With macroprolactin causing nearly one-fifth of hPRL cases, screening for mPRL should be made a routine before an investigation of other causes of hPRL.