Retrospective cohort study identifies sex-based risk factors for hyperprolactinemia in schizophrenia, suggesting health implications.
Background: Hyperprolactinemia (HPRL) can lead to various health complications. Among patients with schizophrenia, it may be linked to antipsychotic medications and other contributing factors. Sex-based differences in HPRL have been observed, and its association with breast cancer in this population remains unclear. Objective: To investigate overall and sex-specific risk factors for HPRL in patients with schizophrenia and to examine the incidence of breast cancer in this population. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted among inpatients with schizophrenia who underwent prolactin monitoring in a Chinese hospital. Participants were categorized into HPRL and non-HPRL groups, and binary logistic regression was performed to identify factors associated with HPRL. Results: Among 1,425 patients analyzed, the overall incidence of HPRL was 63.37%, with higher rates in females (67.99%) compared to males (57.31%). HPRL was positively associated with thyroid- stimulating hormone levels, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation frequency, female sex, and the use of first-generation antipsychotics, amisulpride, olanzapine, risperidone, paliperidone, perospirone, and trihexyphenidyl. Negative associations were found with aspartate aminotransferase, fasting plasma glucose, total bilirubin levels, and aripiprazole use. Sex-specific factors included thyroid- stimulating hormone and sulpiride use in men; olanzapine use in women; and differing associations of aspartate aminotransferase, direct bilirubin, age, and urea nitrogen depending on sex. Four female patients developed breast cancer. Conclusion: Multiple pharmacological and non-pharmacological factors contribute to HPRL in patients with schizophrenia, with notable sex-specific differences. The potential role of HPRL in breast cancer development among female patients requires further investigation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: