<i>Objectives.</i> Both diabetes mellitus (DM) and osteoporosis are very common in older adults who reside in long-term care (LTC) facilities. Nevertheless, few studies have examined the relationship between diabetes and bone quality in this population. The purpose of this study is to determine if bone mineral density (BMD) or trabecular bone score (TBS) is a better measure of bone quality and skeletal health, in LTC residents with and without a history of DM. <i>Methodology</i>. In this longitudinal cohort study, we examined baseline BMD (lumbar spine, total hip, and femoral neck), TBS, DM, and functional status in 511 LTC residents who were enrolled in two ongoing randomized placebo-controlled osteoporosis clinical trials. <i>Results</i>. On average, participants were older than 80 years and majority were prefrail or frail. Women with DM had greater lumbar spine BMD (1.106 vs 1.017, adjusted difference ± standard error = 0.084 ± 0.023 g/cm<sup>2</sup>, <span class="inline_break"><svg xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="18.973pt" style="vertical-align:-3.42938pt" id="M1" height="11.7782pt" version="1.1" viewBox="-0.0498162 -8.34882 18.973 11.7782"><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,0,0)"><path id="g113-113" d="M570 304C570 398 525 448 414 448C385 448 343 445 312 434L329 511L321 518C297 504 262 482 244 460L233 411C195 397 159 381 128 358L135 332C160 347 189 360 224 373L111 -147C97 -210 84 -218 17 -231L13 -257L254 -247L259 -218L233 -216C183 -212 177 -202 189 -142L218 -1C238 -10 266 -12 283 -12C351 3 429 48 483 105C543 168 570 242 570 304ZM482 289C482 161 380 33 304 33C278 33 248 51 233 69L303 396C326 400 352 403 369 403C428 403 482 380 482 289Z"/></g><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,11.342,0)"><path id="g117-34" d="M535 323V373H52V323H535ZM535 138V188H52V138H535Z"/></g></svg><span class="irelop"/><span class="nowrap"><svg xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="34.448pt" style="vertical-align:-3.42938pt" height="11.7782pt" version="1.1" viewBox="22.555183800000002 -8.34882 34.448 11.7782"><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,22.605,0)"><path id="g113-49" d="M241 635C89 635 35 457 35 312C35 153 89 -12 240 -12C390 -12 443 166 443 312C443 466 390 635 241 635ZM238 602C329 602 354 454 354 312C354 172 330 22 240 22C152 22 124 173 124 313S148 602 238 602Z"/></g><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,28.845,0)"><path id="g113-47" d="M113 -12C146 -12 170 11 170 46C170 78 146 103 114 103S58 78 58 46C58 11 82 -12 113 -12Z"/></g><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,31.809,0)"><use xlink:href="#g113-49"/></g><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,38.049,0)"><use xlink:href="#g113-49"/></g><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,44.289,0)"><use xlink:href="#g113-49"/></g><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,50.529,0)"><path id="g113-52" d="M285 378C315 398 338 416 353 432C373 451 384 474 384 503C384 579 325 635 236 635H235C182 635 136 610 108 579L65 516L85 496C110 533 150 575 205 575C258 575 300 543 300 481C300 407 232 369 141 339L147 310C163 315 188 321 211 321C268 321 338 284 338 192C338 94 288 40 217 40C160 40 119 68 93 91C85 98 77 97 69 91C60 84 47 71 46 58C44 46 48 35 62 22C75 10 116 -12 162 -12C234 -12 424 62 424 224C424 297 373 359 285 376V378Z"/></g></svg>)</span></span> and femoral neck BMD (0.695 vs 0.651, 0.027 ± 0.013 g/cm<sup>2</sup>, <span class="inline_break"><svg xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="18.973pt" style="vertical-align:-3.42938pt" id="M2" height="11.7782pt" version="1.1" viewBox="-0.0498162 -8.34882 18.973 11.7782"><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,0,0)"><use xlink:href="#g113-113"/></g><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,11.342,0)"><use xlink:href="#g117-34"/></g></svg><span class="irelop"/><span class="nowrap"><svg xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="34.448pt" style="vertical-align:-3.42938pt" height="11.7782pt" version="1.1" viewBox="22.555183800000002 -8.34882 34.448 11.7782"><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,22.605,0)"><use xlink:href="#g113-49"/></g><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,28.845,0)"><use xlink:href="#g113-47"/></g><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,31.809,0)"><use xlink:href="#g113-49"/></g><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,38.049,0)"><path id="g113-53" d="M456 178V225H360V632H320C217 496 115 347 20 206V178H280V106C280 40 276 34 189 27V0H445V27C364 34 360 39 360 106V178H456ZM280 225H82C149 335 214 431 278 520H280V225Z"/></g><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,44.289,0)"><path id="g113-55" d="M137 343C167 482 260 545 321 574C357 591 397 603 429 609L423 641C382 634 335 622 295 608C189 570 37 457 37 238C37 84 125 -12 242 -12C362 -12 447 89 447 209C447 311 374 393 267 393C247 393 226 386 204 376L137 343ZM227 337C318 337 361 256 361 173C361 105 336 22 258 22C176 22 126 120 126 240C126 266 127 291 132 310C155 323 189 337 227 337Z"/></g><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,50.529,0)"><use xlink:href="#g113-52"/></g></svg>),</span></span> but lesser lumbar spine TBS (1.211 vs 1.266, −0.036 ± 0.016, <span class="inline_break"><svg xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="18.973pt" style="vertical-align:-3.42938pt" id="M3" height="11.7782pt" version="1.1" viewBox="-0.0498162 -8.34882 18.973 11.7782"><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,0,0)"><use xlink:href="#g113-113"/></g><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,11.342,0)"><use xlink:href="#g117-34"/></g></svg><span class="irelop"/><span class="nowrap"><svg xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="34.448pt" style="vertical-align:-3.42938pt" height="11.7782pt" version="1.1" viewBox="22.555183800000002 -8.34882 34.448 11.7782"><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,22.605,0)"><use xlink:href="#g113-49"/></g><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,28.845,0)"><use xlink:href="#g113-47"/></g><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,31.809,0)"><use xlink:href="#g113-49"/></g><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,38.049,0)"><path id="g113-51" d="M412 140C382 77 369 73 315 73H129L270 222C362 320 402 379 402 466C402 571 322 635 234 635C177 635 130 609 99 576L42 495L64 475C90 514 133 568 201 568C274 568 318 519 318 435C318 349 255 267 193 193C144 135 87 78 32 23V0H405C417 45 427 89 440 131L412 140Z"/></g><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,44.289,0)"><path id="g113-58" d="M244 635C114 635 38 519 38 422C38 317 111 240 217 240C236 240 255 244 277 256L345 292C311 140 203 39 59 15L64 -15C89 -15 150 -5 204 17C339 72 440 202 440 386C440 521 368 635 244 635ZM228 602C326 602 352 479 352 390C352 370 351 347 348 324C327 308 293 296 258 296C174 296 124 369 124 458C124 517 152 602 228 602Z"/></g><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,50.53,0)"><use xlink:href="#g113-58"/></g></svg>)</span></span> compared to women without DM. Total hip BMD was also higher based on descriptive statistics (0.780 vs 0.734, <span class="inline_break"><svg xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="18.973pt" style="vertical-align:-3.42938pt" id="M4" height="11.7782pt" version="1.1" viewBox="-0.0498162 -8.34882 18.973 11.7782"><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,0,0)"><use xlink:href="#g113-113"/></g><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,11.342,0)"><use xlink:href="#g117-34"/></g></svg><span class="irelop"/><span class="nowrap"><svg xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="34.448pt" style="vertical-align:-3.42938pt" height="11.7782pt" version="1.1" viewBox="22.555183800000002 -8.34882 34.448 11.7782"><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,22.605,0)"><use xlink:href="#g113-49"/></g><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,28.845,0)"><use xlink:href="#g113-47"/></g><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,31.809,0)"><use xlink:href="#g113-55"/></g><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,38.049,0)"><use xlink:href="#g113-51"/></g><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,44.289,0)"><path id="g113-54" d="M153 550H386L412 615L406 623H120L82 318C104 327 142 338 184 338C294 338 347 275 347 187C347 112 305 39 221 39C160 39 119 71 97 89C88 97 80 96 71 90C59 80 50 67 49 57C48 45 52 36 66 23C80 9 123 -12 169 -12C221 -11 288 15 342 59C403 109 431 165 431 225C431 308 366 395 238 395C212 395 165 379 127 364L153 550Z"/></g><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,50.529,0)"><use xlink:href="#g113-54"/></g></svg>)</span></span> in diabetic women, although the difference was not statistically significant. Men had similar but attenuated findings. <i>Conclusions</i>. Among LTC residents, those with DM have greater BMD but lower bone quality measured by TBS. TBS should be considered in assessing older patients with DM. However, further studies are required to confirm the findings with respect to fractures.

Nami Safai Haeri

Mary P. Kotlarczyk

Subashan Perera

Susan L. Greenspan

Diabetes Mellitus is Associated with Poor Bone Microarchitecture in Older Adults Residing in Long-Term Care Facilities

Journal of Osteoporosis

Expression of Concern on &#x201c;A Radiographic Study on the Associations of Age and Prevalence of Vertebral Fractures with Abdominal Aortic Calcification in Japanese Postmenopausal Women and Men&#x201d;

<i>Background</i>. The prevalence of osteoporosis is increasing in Lebanon. <i>Aim</i>. We evaluated the knowledge, attitudes, and practices related to osteoporosis and correlates of its perceived high risk among people living in Beirut and Mount Lebanon districts of Lebanon. <i>Methods</i>. This study is a cross-sectional study which consisted of 376 participants that were selected from the two districts within two or three households after two geographical areas were randomly selected from each stratum classified by education and altitude. They were then asked to fill a KAP survey on osteoporosis and provide information on factors likely related to its perceived high risk. <i>Results</i>. The majority of participants had a low (20.2&#x0025;) and moderate (65.4&#x0025;) knowledge of osteoporosis, with a higher knowledge in females than in males. A higher percentage of young people perceived it as a serious health risk than that of older people. In contrast, 85.9&#x0025; participants reported drinking caffeinated beverages and 51.6&#x0025; participants reported that they do not exercise. Glucose intolerance due to epigenetic and genetic factors, female sex, and older age were risk factors of a perceived high risk of osteoporosis, while any physical exercise, abstention from caffeine for 48 to 72 hours, and higher education were protective factors. <i>Conclusion</i>. A nationwide KAP study should be conducted; likewise, awareness campaigns should be adopted.

Joanna Nohra

Yonna Sacre

Afif Abdel-Nour

Haider Mannan

Evaluation of Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices Related to Osteoporosis and Correlates of Perceived High Risk among People Living in Two Main Districts of Lebanon

Developing countries are predicted to bear the burden of osteoporosis in the coming decades. The prevalence of osteoporosis in South African men is unknown, but is thought to be rare. Opportunistic screening for osteoporosis can be performed using quantitative computed tomography (CT) obtained for various clinical indications. We assessed the frequency of osteoporosis in male patients using quantitative computed tomography (CT) obtained for various clinical indications. Data were collected from abdominal and spinal CT scans performed at the radiology department of a provincial tertiary hospital between January 2019 and January 2021. The CT examinations were derived from 507 male patients (mean age, 45&#xb1;15 years; 83&#x0025; Black, 0.8&#x0025; Coloured, 4.1&#x0025; Indian and 11.2&#x0025; White). In the CT scans, the region of interest was placed manually at the axial cross-sections of L1 and L3 vertebrae. Using densitometry, we calculated average bone mass density and T and Z scores. We diagnosed osteoporosis in 18.5&#x0025; (<i>n</i>&#x2009;&#x3d;&#x2009;94) of our patients. Only 7.9&#x0025; of patients younger than 50 had osteoporosis, while 35.9&#x0025; of patients older than 50 years showed signs of osteoporosis. Osteoporosis was more common amongst White male patients (45.6&#x0025;) and least common in Black male patients (14.4&#x0025;). Indian patients had the highest prevalence of osteopenia (42.9&#x0025;). We successfully used CT scans, obtained for various conditions, to identify large numbers of patients with low bone mineral density (BMD). The prevalence of osteoporosis in this sample is similar to rates reported elsewhere in Africa. Asymptomatic patients at risk of developing insufficiency fractures can be diagnosed and managed early using CT scans, thus preventing unnecessary admissions and reducing osteoporosis-related morbidity and mortality.

Lebohang Siwela

Nausheen Khan

Adziambei Mudau

A Radiological Assessment of the Prevalence of Osteoporosis in Male Patients Seen in a South African Hospital: A Retrospective Analysis

<i>Purpose</i>. Osteoporotic VF is frequently asymptomatic and affects not only women but also men. Identifying patients at risk is essential for early management and prevention. BMD and the TBS are measurements of bone strength and trabecular microarchitecture, respectively. Their role in VF prediction in men is less well-studied. We determined the BMD and TBS predictive ability for osteoporotic VF in men. <i>Methods</i>. A total of 115 male participants of the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (EGAT) cohorts without a history of VF who completed the baseline BMD and TBS measurements in 2012 and a thoracolumbar spine radiograph in 2017 were recruited. The VF was assessed using the Genant semiquantitative method. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with the fracture. The area under the receiving operator curve (AUC) was analyzed to define VF predictive ability. <i>Results</i>. Forty subjects (34.78&#x0025;) had VFs. The unadjusted relative risks (95&#x0025; confidence interval) for VF for one standard deviation decrease in the TBS and low TBS were 1.319 (1.157&#x2013;1.506) and 2.347 (1.496&#x2013;3.682), respectively, and remained significant after BMD and age adjustment. For VF prediction, combined models had a greater AUC than models predicted from a single variable. The use of low TBS, femoral neck BMD, and age provided the best AUC (0.693). <i>Conclusion</i>. BMD and the TBS could predict osteoporotic VF in male EGAT employees. The use of both BMD and the TBS in the VF prediction process improved predictive ability.

Chaninart Sakulpisuti

Chanika Sritara

Arpakorn Kositwattanarerk

Praman Fuangfa

Chaiyawat Suppasilp

Prin Vathesatogkit

Dujrudee Matchariyakul

Boonsong Ongphiphadhanakul

Piyamitr Sritara

Bone Mineral Density and Trabecular Bone Score in Predicting Vertebral Fractures in Male Employees of the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand

<i>Objective</i>. Osteoporosis (OP) is a worldwide ailment; we aim to establish new biomarkers in diagnosis by determining the levels of serum osteocalcin and osteopontin along with bone mineral density (BMD) and lumbar T-score, in postmenopausal women with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) with or without OP. <i>Methods</i>. This observational study included 160 postmenopausal women who were an attendee at outpatient clinics in Al-Hussein Hospital, Thi-Qar province; subdivided into 3 groups based on their T-score testing: Group I (<i>n</i> = 40) comprised postmenopausal women without T2DM as controls, Group II (<i>n</i> = 60) comprised postmenopausal women with T2DM but without OP, and Group III (<i>n</i> = 60) comprised postmenopausal women with T2DM with OP. The dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry was used to measure the BMD (total body, lumbar spine, and femoral) and T-score for lumbar spine and femoral. Glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c), fasting blood glucose (FBG), osteocalcin, and osteopontin levels were assessed in all three groups. <i>Results</i>. Compared with controls, Group III demonstrated significantly lower BMD (total body, lumbar spine, and femoral), T-score for lumbar spine and femoral, serum osteocalcin, and osteopontin levels than Group II and Group I (<span class="inline_break"><svg xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="19.289pt" style="vertical-align:-0.6370001pt" id="M1" height="9.2729pt" version="1.1" viewBox="-0.0498162 -8.6359 19.289 9.2729"><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,0,0)"><path id="g113-81" d="M600 480C600 590 528 650 384 650H143L137 622C222 614 225 607 210 531L130 127C113 41 106 36 23 28L17 0H294L300 28C204 36 195 42 212 127L243 284L314 263C327 263 339 263 352 264C465 271 600 337 600 480ZM508 481C508 351 402 304 329 304C289 304 265 311 250 317L295 559C302 594 310 606 323 611C335 616 350 619 367 619C455 619 508 573 508 481Z"/></g><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,11.658,0)"><path id="g117-91" d="M512 -3V55L134 254V256L512 456V514L75 281V230L512 -3Z"/></g></svg><span class="irelop"/><span class="nowrap"><svg xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="28.182pt" style="vertical-align:-0.6370001pt" height="9.2729pt" version="1.1" viewBox="22.8711838 -8.6359 28.182 9.2729"><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,22.921,0)"><path id="g113-49" d="M241 635C89 635 35 457 35 312C35 153 89 -12 240 -12C390 -12 443 166 443 312C443 466 390 635 241 635ZM238 602C329 602 354 454 354 312C354 172 330 22 240 22C152 22 124 173 124 313S148 602 238 602Z"/></g><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,29.161,0)"><path id="g113-47" d="M113 -12C146 -12 170 11 170 46C170 78 146 103 114 103S58 78 58 46C58 11 82 -12 113 -12Z"/></g><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,32.125,0)"><use xlink:href="#g113-49"/></g><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,38.365,0)"><use xlink:href="#g113-49"/></g><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,44.605,0)"><path id="g113-50" d="M384 0V27C293 34 287 42 287 114V635C232 613 172 594 109 583V559L157 557C201 555 205 550 205 499V114C205 42 199 34 109 27V0H384Z"/></g></svg>).</span></span> FBG and HbA1c levels were significantly higher in Group III than in Groups I and II (<span class="inline_break"><svg xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="19.289pt" style="vertical-align:-0.6370001pt" id="M2" height="9.2729pt" version="1.1" viewBox="-0.0498162 -8.6359 19.289 9.2729"><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,0,0)"><use xlink:href="#g113-81"/></g><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,11.658,0)"><use xlink:href="#g117-91"/></g></svg><span class="irelop"/><span class="nowrap"><svg xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="28.182pt" style="vertical-align:-0.6370001pt" height="9.2729pt" version="1.1" viewBox="22.8711838 -8.6359 28.182 9.2729"><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,22.921,0)"><use xlink:href="#g113-49"/></g><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,29.161,0)"><use xlink:href="#g113-47"/></g><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,32.125,0)"><use xlink:href="#g113-49"/></g><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,38.365,0)"><use xlink:href="#g113-49"/></g><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,44.605,0)"><use xlink:href="#g113-50"/></g></svg>).</span></span> A negative correlation was proved between HbA1c levels with BMD, osteocalcin levels, and osteopontin levels in the three groups. <i>Conclusions</i>. Iraqi postmenopausal women with T2DM had a significantly lower bone mineral density, serum osteocalcin, and osteopontin levels. These results may serve as adjuvants in screening for OP, particularly among diabetic patients.

Ali B. Roomi

Abdul-Hassan Mahdi Salih

Sarmad D. Noori

Wassan Nori

Saba Tariq

Evaluation of Bone Mineral Density, Serum Osteocalcin, and Osteopontin Levels in Postmenopausal Women with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, with/without Osteoporosis

About this journal

<p><em>Journal of Osteoporosis</em> provides a platform for scientists and clinicians working on the diagnosis, prevention, treatment and management of osteoporosis and other metabolic bone diseases.</p>


Journal profile

Meet the editorial board

<p><em>Journal of Osteoporosis</em> maintains an Editorial Board of practicing researchers from around the world, to ensure manuscripts are handled by editors who are experts in the field of study.</p>


Editor spotlight

Find out more

Author guidelines

Editorial board

Databases and indexing

Journal of Osteoporosis - Table of contents 2022

title

Journal of Osteoporosis provides a platform for scientists and clinicians working on the diagnosis, prevention, treatment and management of osteoporosis and other metabolic bone diseases.

Journal of Osteoporosis