4.6 Review

Update on the pathogenesis and treatment of skeletal fragility in type 2 diabetes mellitus

期刊

NATURE REVIEWS ENDOCRINOLOGY
卷 17, 期 11, 页码 685-697

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41574-021-00555-5

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIH [AG062413, AG004875, AR027065, AR070241, AG065868, AG063707, AR068275]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Increased fracture risk in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus may be due to impairments in bone material properties and increases in cortical porosity, highlighting potential areas for therapeutic intervention.
Fracture risk is increased in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). In addition, these patients sustain fractures despite having higher levels of areal bone mineral density, as measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, than individuals without T2DM. Thus, additional factors such as alterations in bone quality could have important roles in mediating skeletal fragility in patients with T2DM. Although the pathogenesis of increased fracture risk in T2DM is multifactorial, impairments in bone material properties and increases in cortical porosity have emerged as two key skeletal abnormalities that contribute to skeletal fragility in patients with T2DM. In addition, indices of bone formation are uniformly reduced in patients with T2DM, with evidence from mouse studies published over the past few years linking this abnormality to accelerated skeletal ageing, specifically cellular senescence. In this Review, we highlight the latest advances in our understanding of the mechanisms of skeletal fragility in patients with T2DM and suggest potential novel therapeutic approaches to address this problem. This Review outlines the pathogenesis of skeletal fragility in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, and discusses potential therapeutic approaches to the management of increased fracture risk in these patients. The evidence that skeletal fragility should now be included in the list of well-recognized diabetic complications is also summarized.

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

4.6
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