Endocrine Abstracts

Introduction: The aim of this study was to compare quality of life among premenopausal women with vitamin D deficiency, vitamin D insufficiency and vitamin D sufficiency.

Methods: Premenopausal women with chronic fatigue, myalgia and nonspecific body pain were divided according to their vitamin D levels: ≤20 ng/ml (vitamin D deficient, n=30), 21–29 ng/ml (vitamin D insufficient, n=30) and ≥30 ng/ml (vitamin D sufficient, n=20). The groups were compared regarding the scales of short form-36 (SF-36). Higher scores in SF-36 were associated with better quality of life. Women with depression, thyroid disorders, diabetes mellitus, obesity, renal and hepatic disorders and other chronic diseases were exluded.

Results: Women with vitamin D deficiency had lower physical function scores than women with vitamin D insufficiency (P=0.001). Women with vitamin D insufficiency had lower physical component (P=0.025), mental component (P=0.025) and vitality (P=0.02) scores than women with vitamin D sufficiency. When women with vitamin D deficiency and insufficiency were combined (n=60) and compared with vitamin D sufficiency group, they had lower physical component (P=0.002), mental component (P=0.01), physical function (P=0.0002), social function (P=0.04) and vitality (P=0.01) scores. Vitamin D levels were positively correlated with physical component (r=0.3), physical function (r=0.4) and role physical (r=0.3) scores.

Conclusion: Vitamin D status affects quality of life in premenopausal women without other chronic disorders even in the insufficiency level. Impairment in quality of life is seen in both physical and mental components, but physical component seems to be more affected. This study is the first study evaluating quality of life in premenopausal women according to vitamin D status and the results may have an impact on daily clinical practice, espacially when evaluating women with nonspecific symptoms.

Declaration of interest: The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research project.

Funding: This research did not receive any specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sector.