4.1 Article

Diabetes and fractures: an overshadowed association

期刊

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MED.0b013e328331c7eb

关键词

advanced glycation end products; bone mineral density; fractures; type 1 diabetes; type 2 diabetes

资金

  1. Emory University
  2. American Diabetes Association [7-03-CR-35]
  3. National Institutes of Health [U01 DK074556-01]
  4. General Clinical Research Center (CTSA) [M01 RR-00039]
  5. NIH/NIAMS [AR056090]
  6. NIH/NCI [CA136059]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose of review To review recent literature on fracture risk in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Recent findings Observational and population studies have reported a higher risk of fractures in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes, especially at the hip. Type 2 diabetic patients have a higher bone mineral density compared with the general population, and yet, remain unprotected from fractures. Type 1 diabetic patients have a greater risk of fractures and a lower bone mineral density compared with the general population. Their lower bone mineral density, however, does not fully account for the raised fracture risk. Therefore, impaired bone quality rather than lower bone density appears to mediate the increased fracture risk in patients with type 1 and 2 diabetes. Recently, studies have shown an association between advanced glycation end products with increased fracture risk in diabetic patients. These studies support the hypothesis of poor glycemic control and chronic hyperglycemia having a direct detrimental effect on bone quality. In addition, increased fracture risk has been reported in patients with peripheral and autonomic neuropathy, recurrent hypoglycemic events, vitamin D deficiency, and those receiving thiazolidinedione therapy. Summary Diabetes is associated with an increased risk of fractures in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Appropriate measures aimed at fracture prevention should be considered in the complex care of the diabetic patient.

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

4.1
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