4.5 Article

Urinary levels of pentosidine and the risk of fracture in postmenopausal women: the OFELY study

期刊

OSTEOPOROSIS INTERNATIONAL
卷 21, 期 2, 页码 243-250

出版社

SPRINGER LONDON LTD
DOI: 10.1007/s00198-009-0939-5

关键词

Advanced glycation end-product; Bone marker; Collagen crosslink; Fracture; Osteoporosis; Postmenopausal women

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of the study was to investigate prospectively whether the levels of urinary pentosidine could predict fractures in postmenopausal women from the OFELY cohort. The results of the study suggest that urine pentosidine concentration is not an independent risk factor for fractures in postmenopausal women from a French cohort. Pentosidine has been described as an independent risk factor for hip and vertebral fracture in postmenopausal Japanese women. We investigated the prediction of urinary pentosidine on all fragility fracture risk in healthy untreated postmenopausal women from the OFELY cohort. Urinary pentosidine was assessed at baseline in 396 healthy untreated postmenopausal women aged 63.3 +/- 8.4 years from the OFELY cohort using high-performance liquid chromatography method. Incident clinical fractures were recorded during annual follow-up and confirmed by radiographs, and vertebral fractures were assessed on radiographs performed every 4 years. Multivariate Cox's regression analysis was used to calculate the risk of urinary pentosidine levels after adjustment for age, prevalent fractures, and total hip bone mineral density (BMD). During a mean follow-up of 10 years, 88 of the 396 postmenopausal women have undergone incident vertebral (n = 28) and peripheral (n = 60) fractures. Fracture risk was higher in postmenopausal women with pentosidine in the highest quartile (p = 0.02), but it did not remain significant after adjustment for age, BMD, and prevalent fracture. Urine pentosidine concentration is not an independent risk factor of osteoporotic fracture in healthy postmenopausal women from the OFELY cohort.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据