This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a related Letter to the Editor Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Copyright Permission Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Melton, L. J. Articles by Khosla, S. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Melton, L. J., III Articles by Khosla, S. Related Collections Calcium and Bone Metabolism Diabetes and Insulin

A Bone Structural Basis for Fracture Risk in Diabetes

Divisions of Epidemiology (L.J.M., C.L.L.) and Biostatistics (S.J.A., E.J.A.), Department of Health Sciences Research; Division of Endocrinology, Metabolism and Nutrition (L.J.M., B.L.R., S.K.), Department of Internal Medicine; and Biomedical Imaging Resource (J.J.C., R.A.R.), College of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota 55905; and Orthopedic Biomechanics Laboratory (M.L.B.), Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02215

Address all correspondence and requests for reprints to: Dr. L. Joseph Melton III, Division of Epidemiology, Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street Southwest, Rochester, Minnesota 55905. E-mail: melton.j{at}mayo.edu.

Context: Elevated areal bone mineral density (aBMD) in type 2 diabetes mellitus is inconsistent with increased fracture risk at some skeletal sites.

Objectives: Because aBMD is an imperfect surrogate for bone strength, we assessed bone structure and strength more directly using quantitative computed tomography.

Design: Diabetic and nondiabetic subjects were evaluated in a cross-sectional study.

Setting: Subjects were recruited from a random sample of the Rochester, MN, population.

Participants: Forty-nine subjects (28 women and 21 men) with type 2 diabetes were compared with age- and sex-matched nondiabetic controls.

Main Outcome Measurements: We measured bone geometry, strength, and volumetric BMD (vBMD) at the hip, spine, and wrist, along with hip aBMD, using central and peripheral quantitative computed tomography and estimated bone load to bone strength ratios at each site.

Results: Adjusted for differences in body mass index between cases and controls (29.8 vs. 27.6), hip aBMD was greater in diabetic subjects, but this was accounted for by greater trabecular vBMD. Cortical vBMD was similar in the two groups, as was bone cross-sectional area and cortical thickness. Bone strength measures were generally better in diabetic subjects, but bone loads were higher from their greater weight. Consequently, load to strength ratios (i.e. factor-of-risk) were similar.

Conclusions: Patients with type 2 diabetes enjoy little benefit from elevated aBMD in terms of improved bone load to strength ratios. With no deficit in bone density, the rationale for antiresorptive therapy in diabetic patients is uncertain, but potential adverse effects of diabetes on bone quality need more study.