4.5 Article

Prediction of bone loss using biochemical markers of bone turnover

Journal

OSTEOPOROSIS INTERNATIONAL
Volume 18, Issue 9, Pages 1297-1305

Publisher

SPRINGER LONDON LTD
DOI: 10.1007/s00198-007-0379-z

Keywords

bone density; bone loss; bone turnover markers; elderly

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The association between baseline levels of eleven bone turnover markers and 5-year rate of bone density change was prospectively studied in a population-based sample of 601 75-year-old women. Several bone formation and resorption markers as well as urinary osteocalcin were modestly correlated to rate of bone density change. Introduction Prediction of bone loss by bone turnover markers (BTMs) has been investigated with conflicting results. There is limited information in the elderly. Methods Eleven bone turnover markers were analyzed in 75year old women in the OPRA study (n= 601) and compared to the 5-year change of areal bone mineral density (aBMD) in seven skeletal regions. Results Annual aBMD change varied between +0.4% ( spine) and -2.0% ( femoral neck). Significant associations (p < 0.01) were found for four different serum osteocalcins (S-OCs) ( standardized regression coefficient -0.20 to -0.22), urinary deoxypyridinoline (-0.19), serum TRACP5b (-0.19), serum CTX- I (-0.21), two of the three urinary osteocalcins (U-OCs) (-0.16) and aBMD change of the leg region ( derived from the total body measurement). After adjustment for baseline aBMD, associations were found for all S-OCs (-0.11 to -0.16), two of the three U-OCs (-0.14 to -0.16) and aBMD change at the total hip, and for three of the four S-OCs (-0.14 to -0.15), S-TRACP5b (-0.11), two of the three U-OCs (-0.14 to -0.15) and aBMD change at the femoral neck. There were no significant results concerning aBMD change at the spine. Conclusion This study indicates that BTMs are correlated with aBMD loss in some skeletal regions in elderly women.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available