Do patients with type 2 diabetes have impaired hip bone microstructure? A study using 3D modeling of hip dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry
Metadatos
Mostrar el registro completo del ítemAutor
Ubago Guisado, Esther; Moratalla Aranda, Enrique; González Salvatierra, Sheila; Gil Cosano, José Juan; García Fontana, Beatriz; García Fontana, Cristina; Gracia Marco, Luis Andrés; Muñoz Torres, Manuel EduardoEditorial
Frontiers
Materia
Type 2 diabetes mellitus 3D-DXA Bone modelling Bone remodeling Bone QCT/microCT
Fecha
2023-01-09Referencia bibliográfica
Ubago-Guisado E... [et al.] (2023) Do patients with type 2 diabetes have impaired hip bone microstructure? A study using 3D modeling of hip dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Front. Endocrinol. 13:1069224. doi: [10.3389/fendo.2022.1069224]
Patrocinador
Instituto de Salud Carlos III grants (PI18–00803, PI21–01069, and PI18–01235); European Regional Development Fund (FEDER) Junta de Andalucı́a grant (PI-0268–2019); Programa Operativo Fondo Social Europeo (FSE) de Andalucı́a (2014–2020) DOC_01618; Instituto de Salud Carlos III (CD20/00022)Resumen
Aim: Patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) have more risk of bone fractures.
However, areal bone mineral density (aBMD) by conventional dual-energy xray
absorptiometry (DXA) is not useful for identifying this risk. This study aims to
evaluate 3D-DXA parameters determining the cortical and trabecular
compartments in patients with T2DM compared to non-diabetic subjects
and to identify their determinants.
Materials and methods: Case-control study in 111 T2DM patients (65.4 ± 7.6
years old) and 134 non-diabetic controls (64.7 ± 8.6-year-old). DXA, 3D-DXA
modelling via 3D-Shaper software and trabecular bone score (TBS) were used
to obtain aBMD, cortical and trabecular parameters, and lumbar spine
microarchitecture, respectively. In addition, biochemical markers as 25-
hydroxyvitamin d, type I procollagen N-terminal propeptide (P1NP), Cterminal
telopeptide of type I collagen (CTX), and glycated haemoglobin
(HbA1c) were analysed.
Results: Mean-adjusted values showed higher aBMD (5.4%-7.7%, ES: 0.33-
0.53) and 3D-DXA parameters (4.1%-10.3%, ES: 0.42-0.68) in the T2DM group
compared with the control group. However, TBS was lower in the T2DM group
compared to the control group (-14.7%, ES: 1.18). In addition, sex (b = 0.272 to 0.316) and body mass index (BMI) (b = 0.236 to 0.455) were the most consistent
and positive predictors of aBMD (p ≤ 0.01). BMI and P1NP were negative
predictors of TBS (b = -0.530 and -0.254, respectively, p ≤ 0.01), while CTX was
a positive one (b = 0.226, p=0.02). Finally, BMI was consistently the strongest
positive predictor of 3D-DXA parameters (b = 0.240 to 0.442, p<0.05).
Conclusion: Patients with T2DM present higher bone mass measured both by
conventional DXA and 3D-DXA, suggesting that 3D-DXA technology is not
capable of identifying alterations in bone structure in this population.
Moreover, BMI was the most consistent determinant in all bone outcomes.