4.5 Article

Changes in bone density in patients with ankylosing spondylitis: A two-year follow-up study

期刊

OSTEOPOROSIS INTERNATIONAL
卷 12, 期 7, 页码 605-609

出版社

SPRINGER-VERLAG LONDON LTD
DOI: 10.1007/s001980170084

关键词

ankylosing spondylitis; bone mineral density; C-reactive protein; erythrocyte sedimentation rate; osteoporosis; systemic inflammation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The objectives of the study were to determine the 2 year rate of bone changes in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and, whether bone loss is related to physical impairment, systemic inflammation, and therapy. Consecutive outpatients fulfulling the modified New York criteria for AS were included. Baseline assessment included age, disease duration, treatment, clinical, radiologic and laboratory data. Erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and C-reactive protein (CRP) were determined every 6 months. Persistent systemic inflammation was defined as mean ESR greater than or equal to 28 mm/h or mean CRP greater than or equal to 15 mg/l. Bone mineral density (BMD) at the lumbar spine and femoral neck was measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, at baseline and year 2. Statistical analysis compared the baseline and 24 month follow-up BMD data, and determined whether baseline data, and persistent systemic inflammation during the 2 years, were related to the 24 month percentage changes in BMD. Fifty-four patients (35 men, 19 women; mean age 37.3 +/- 11.3 years, mean disease duration 12.4 +/- 8.6 years) were included. After 2 years, BMD did not change at the lumbar spine (+0.75% +/- 3.5, p = 0.23), and decreased at the femoral neck (-1.6% +/- 4, p = 0.006). The 24 month percentage change in femoral neck BMD was related to persistent systemic inflammation, defined using ESR (mean percentage change -4.1% +/- 5.7 and - 1.2% +/- 3.9 in patients with and without persistent inflammation; respectively; p = 0.007). These results suggest that persistent inflammation might be an etiologic factor of bone loss in AS.

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