4.6 Review

Diabetes mellitus, a state of low bone turnover - a systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENDOCRINOLOGY
卷 176, 期 3, 页码 R137-R157

出版社

BIOSCIENTIFICA LTD
DOI: 10.1530/EJE-16-0652

关键词

-

资金

  1. Danish Diabetes Academy
  2. Novo Nordisk Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To investigate the differences in bone turnover between diabetic patients and controls. Design: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: A literature search was conducted using the databases Medline at PubMed and EMBASE. The free text search terms 'diabetes mellitus' and 'bone turnover', 'sclerostin', 'RANKL', 'osteoprotegerin', 'tartrate-resistant acid' and 'TRAP' were used. Studies were eligible if they investigated bone turnover markers in patients with diabetes compared with controls. Data were extracted by two reviewers. Results: A total of 2881 papers were identified of which 66 studies were included. Serum levels of the bone resorption marker C-terminal cross-linked telopeptide (-0.10 ng/mL (-0.12, -0.08)) and the bone formation markers osteocalcin (-2.51 ng/mL (-3.01, -2.01)) and procollagen type 1 amino terminal propeptide (-10.80 ng/mL (-12.83, -8.77))were all lower in patients with diabetes compared with controls. Furthermore, s-tartrate- resistant acid phosphatase was decreased in patients with type 2 diabetes (-0.31 U/L (-0.56, -0.05)) compared with controls. S-sclerostin was significantly higher in patients with type 2 diabetes ( 14.92 pmol/L ( 3.12, 26.72)) and patients with type 1 diabetes (3.24 pmol/L (1.52, 4.96)) compared with controls. Also, s-osteoprotegerin was increased among patients with diabetes compared with controls (2.67 pmol/L (0.21, 5.14)). Conclusions: Markers of both bone formation and bone resorption are decreased in patients with diabetes. This suggests that diabetes mellitus is a state of low bone turnover, which in turn may lead to more fragile bone. Altered levels of sclerostin and osteoprotegerin may be responsible for this.

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