4.6 Review

Osteoporosis in men

期刊

ENDOCRINE REVIEWS
卷 29, 期 4, 页码 441-464

出版社

ENDOCRINE SOC
DOI: 10.1210/er.2008-0002

关键词

-

资金

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [RR024140, UL1 RR024140] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NHLBI NIH HHS [R01 HL070838, HL070838] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NIAMS NIH HHS [U01 AR045647, AR049439, AR027065, AR45647, R01 AR027065, R01 AR049439] Funding Source: Medline
  4. NIA NIH HHS [AG004875, AG027810, U01 AG027810, P01 AG004875] Funding Source: Medline
  5. NIDCR NIH HHS [R01 DE014386, DE014386] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

With the aging of the population, there is a growing recognition that osteoporosis and fractures in men are a significant public health problem, and both hip and vertebral fractures are associated with increased morbidity and mortality in men. Osteoporosis in men is a heterogeneous clinical entity: whereas most men experience bone loss with aging, some men develop osteoporosis at a relatively young age, often for unexplained reasons (idiopathic osteoporosis). Declining sex steroid levels and other hormonal changes likely contribute to age-related bone loss, as do impairments in osteoblast number and/or activity. Secondary causes of osteoporosis also play a significant role in pathogenesis. Although there is ongoing controversy regarding whether osteoporosis in men should be diagnosed based on female- or male-specific reference ranges (because some evidence indicates that the risk of fracture is similar in women and men for a given level of bone mineral density), a diagnosis of osteoporosis in men is generally made based on male-specific reference ranges. Treatment consists both of nonpharmacological (lifestyle factors, calcium and vitamin D supplementation) and pharmacological (most commonly bisphosphonates or PTH) approaches, with efficacy similar to that seen in women. Increasing awareness of osteoporosis in men among physicians and the lay public is critical for the prevention of fractures in our aging male population.

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