4.2 Article

Good Long-Term Glycemic Compensation Is Associated With Better Trabecular Bone Score in Postmenopausal Women With Type 2 Diabetes

期刊

PHYSIOLOGICAL RESEARCH
卷 68, 期 -, 页码 S149-S156

出版社

ACAD SCIENCES CZECH REPUBLIC, INST PHYSIOLOGY
DOI: 10.33549/physiolres.934304

关键词

Osteoporosis; Diabetes mellitus; Fractures; Bone quality; Glycemic compensation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Osteoporosis is an increasingly widespread disease, as well as diabetes mellitus. It is now accepted that osteoporotic fractures are a serious co-morbidity and complication of diabetes. Despite of good bone mineral density in Type 2 Diabetes (T2DM) patients is the fracture risk elevated. It is due to reduced bone quality. To determine the effect of glycemic compensation on bone density and trabecular bone score (TBS) in T2DM. We analyzed a cohort of 105 postmenopausal women with T2DM. For all patients, central bone density (spinal and lumbar spine) was tested by DXA methodology, glycemic control parameters were assessed, and anthropometric parameters were measured. Bone quality was analyzed using TBS software. The results were statistically processed. Good glycemic compensation with glycated hemoglobin (A1c) value <7.0 % DCCT did not lead to BMD changes in patients with T2DM. However, patients with HbA1c <7 % DCCT had significantly better TBS (1.254 +/- 0.148 vs. 1.166 +/- 0.094, p=0.01). There was a negative correlation between TBS and glycated hemoglobin (r= -0,112, p<0.05) with glycemic fasting (r= -0.117, p<0.05). The optimal effect on TBS is achieved when all three markers of glycemic compensation (glycated hemoglobin, fasting plasma glucose and postprandial glycemia) are in optimal range. By using ROC curves glycated hemoglobin has the most significant effect on TBS. Optimal glycemic compensation, evaluated by glycated hemoglobin, does not lead to changes in BMD but has a beneficial effect on TBS in T2DM. Good glycemic control is required also for reduction of the risk of osteoporosis and osteoporotic fractures.

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

4.2
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