scholarly journals Bone mineral density in high-level endurance runners: part A—site-specific characteristics

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. J. Herbert ◽  
A. G. Williams ◽  
S. J. Lockey ◽  
R. M. Erskine ◽  
C. Sale ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bone Mineral Density ◽  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Mechanical Loading ◽  
Bone Mineral ◽  
Small Sample ◽  
Energy Availability ◽  
Mineral Density ◽  
Site Specific ◽  
Endurance Runners ◽  
High Level

Abstract Purpose Physical activity, particularly mechanical loading that results in high-peak force and is multi-directional in nature, increases bone mineral density (BMD). In athletes such as endurance runners, this association is more complex due to other factors such as low energy availability and menstrual dysfunction. Moreover, many studies of athletes have used small sample sizes and/or athletes of varying abilities, making it difficult to compare BMD phenotypes between studies. Method The primary aim of this study was to compare dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) derived bone phenotypes of high-level endurance runners (58 women and 45 men) to non-athletes (60 women and 52 men). Our secondary aim was to examine the influence of menstrual irregularities and sporting activity completed during childhood on these bone phenotypes. Results Female runners had higher leg (4%) but not total body or lumbar spine BMD than female non-athletes. Male runners had lower lumbar spine (9%) but similar total and leg BMD compared to male non-athletes, suggesting that high levels of site-specific mechanical loading was advantageous for BMD in females only and a potential presence of reduced energy availability in males. Menstrual status in females and the number of sports completed in childhood in males and females had no influence on bone phenotypes within the runners. Conclusion Given the large variability in BMD in runners and non-athletes, other factors such as variation in genetic make-up alongside mechanical loading probably influence BMD across the adult lifespan.

scholarly journals Correction to: Bone mineral density in high-level endurance runners: part A—site-specific characteristics

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. J. Herbert ◽  
A. G. Williams ◽  
S. J. Lockey ◽  
R. M. Erskine ◽  
C. Sale ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bone Mineral Density ◽  
Bone Mineral ◽  
Mineral Density ◽  
Site Specific ◽  
Endurance Runners ◽  
High Level ◽  
A Site

scholarly journals Bone mineral density in high-level endurance runners: Part B—genotype-dependent characteristics

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. J. Herbert ◽  
A. G. Williams ◽  
S. J. Lockey ◽  
R. M. Erskine ◽  
C. Sale ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bone Mineral Density ◽  
Mechanical Loading ◽  
Bone Mineral ◽  
Genetic Interaction ◽  
Association Studies ◽  
Individual Variability ◽  
Mineral Density ◽  
Lower Lumbar Spine ◽  
Endurance Runners ◽  
High Level

Abstract Purpose Inter-individual variability in bone mineral density (BMD) exists within and between endurance runners and non-athletes, probably in part due to differing genetic profiles. Certainty is lacking, however, regarding which genetic variants may contribute to BMD in endurance runners and if specific genotypes are sensitive to environmental factors, such as mechanical loading via training. Method Ten single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) were identified from previous genome-wide and/or candidate gene association studies that have a functional effect on bone physiology. The aims of this study were to investigate (1) associations between genotype at those 10 SNPs and bone phenotypes in high-level endurance runners, and (2) interactions between genotype and athlete status on bone phenotypes. Results Female runners with P2RX7 rs3751143 AA genotype had 4% higher total-body BMD and 5% higher leg BMD than AC + CC genotypes. Male runners with WNT16 rs3801387 AA genotype had 14% lower lumbar spine BMD than AA genotype non-athletes, whilst AG + GG genotype runners also had 5% higher leg BMD than AG + GG genotype non-athletes. Conclusion We report novel associations between P2RX7 rs3751143 genotype and BMD in female runners, whilst differences in BMD between male runners and non-athletes with the same WNT16 rs3801387 genotype existed, highlighting a potential genetic interaction with factors common in endurance runners, such as high levels of mechanical loading. These findings contribute to our knowledge of the genetic associations with BMD and improve our understanding of why some runners have lower BMD than others.

Low lumbar spine bone mineral density in both male and female endurance runners

Bone ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 39 (4) ◽  
pp. 880-885 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. Hind ◽  
J.G. Truscott ◽  
J.A. Evans
Keyword(s):  
Bone Mineral Density ◽  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Bone Mineral ◽  
Spine Bone Mineral Density ◽  
Mineral Density ◽  
Male And Female ◽  
Endurance Runners

Disordered Eating, Development of Menstrual Irregularity, and Reduced Bone Mass Change After a 3-Year Follow-Up In Female Adolescent Endurance Runners

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Michelle T. Barrack ◽  
Marta D. Van Loan ◽  
Mitchell Rauh ◽  
Jeanne F. Nichols
Keyword(s):  
Bone Mineral Density ◽  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Bone Mass ◽  
Disordered Eating ◽  
Bone Mineral ◽  
Female Adolescent ◽  
Mineral Density ◽  
Menstrual Cycles ◽  
Endurance Runners

This prospective study evaluated the 3-year change in menstrual function and bone mass among 40 female adolescent endurance runners (age 15.9 ± 1.0 years) according to baseline disordered eating status. Three years after initial data collection, runners underwent follow-up measures including the Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire and a survey evaluating menstrual function, running training, injury history, and prior sports participation. Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry was used to measure bone mineral density and body composition. Runners with a weight concern, shape concern, or global score ≥4.0 or reporting >1 pathologic behavior in the past 28 days were classified with disordered eating. Compared with runners with normal Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire scores at baseline, runners with disordered eating at baseline reported fewer menstrual cycles/year (6.4 ± 4.5 vs. 10.5 ± 2.8, p = .005), more years of amenorrhea (1.6 ± 1.4 vs. 0.3 ± 0.5, p = .03), and a higher proportion of menstrual irregularity (75.0% vs. 31.3%, p = .02) and failed to increase lumbar spine or total hip bone mineral density at the 3-year follow-up. In a multivariate model including body mass index and menstrual cycles in the past year at baseline, baseline shape concern score (B = −0.57, p value = .001) was inversely related to the annual number of menstrual cycles between assessments. Weight concern score (B = −0.40, p value = .005) was inversely associated with lumbar spine bone mineral density Z-score change between assessments according to a multivariate model adjusting for age and body mass index. These finding support associations between disordered eating at baseline and future menstrual irregularities or reduced accrual of lumbar spine bone mass in female adolescent endurance runners.

scholarly journals The Impact of Glucose Tolerance States on Bone Mineral Density and Fracture Rate

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. A279-A280
Author(s):  
Maria Chang Villacreses ◽  
Panadeekarn Panjawatanan ◽  
Rudruidee Karnchanasorn ◽  
Horng-Yih Ou ◽  
Wei Feng ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bone Mineral Density ◽  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Femoral Neck ◽  
Glucose Tolerance ◽  
Fracture Risk ◽  
Bone Mineral ◽  
Small Sample ◽  
Fracture Rate ◽  
Mineral Density ◽  
The Impact

Abstract It is generally acknowledged that fracture rate is higher in diabetic subjects than non-diabetic subjects. However, the impact of diabetes on bone is less clear due to contradictory results of bone mineral density (BMD) and fracture rate. To date, most of reports were based on the studies from relatively small sample sizes. To clarify the issues, we examined the fracture rates and BMD across a spectrum of glucose tolerance in a representative US population. The participants of the National Health and Nutrition Survey 2005–2010 were used in this study. Among adult subjects (age≥20 years old) with reported BMI, we were able to define the states of glucose tolerance in 31,073 subjects cording to the diagnostic criteria based on HbA1c, fasting glucose, and/or 2-h post-changed glucose with established diabetes and using diabetes medications, into normal glucose tolerance (NGT), abnormal glucose tolerance (AGT), and diabetes mellitus (DM). Those who received osteoporosis medications were excluded from BMD analysis. Fracture information was available in 15,547 subjects; validated hip BMD was available in 12,317 subjects; and validated lumbar spine BMD was available in 10,329 subjects. Fracture rates were compared among 3 groups of glucose tolerance states and odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated in reference to the NGT group with sample weighting. BMD was compared among 3 groups of glucose tolerance with consideration of covariates. The reported osteoporosis diagnosed rate differed among 3 groups of glucose tolerances (3.99%, 5.77%, and 8.41%, P<0.001, for NGT, AGT, and DM respectively). Worsening states of glucose tolerance were associated increased fracture OR at Hip [AGT, 2.1770 (95% CI: 2.1732–2.1807) and DM, 2.7369 (95% CI: 2.7315–2.7423)], spine [AGT, 0.9924 (95% CI: 0.9912–0.9936); DM, 1.2405 (95% CI: 1.2387–1.2423)]. In contrast, a different trend was observed on the wrist fracture rate [AGT, 0.9556 (95% CI: 0.9551–0.9562); DM, 0.9053 (95% CI: 0.9045–0.9060)]. After adjustment for covariates, higher BMD was noted in AGT and DM when compared to NGT at total femur (NGT, 0.9760±0.0015 gm/cm2; AGT, 0.9853±0.0021 gm/cm2; DM 0.9847±0.0034 gm/cm2, mean±SE, P=0.001) and femoral neck (NGT, 0.8388±0.0015 gm/cm2; AGT, 0.8474±0.0020 gm/cm2; DM, 0.8496±0.0032 gm/cm2, P=0.0007) while no difference was found in lumbar spine BMD (NGT, 0.1.0441±0.0018 gm/cm2; AGT, 1.0406±0.0025 gm/cm2; DM, 1.0464±0.0041 gm/cm2, P=0.35). Our observed significant increased fracture risk at hip (OR: 2.7369) and lumbar spine (OR: 1.2405) in DM subjects when compared to NGT subjects. DM subjects had higher BMD at total femur and femoral neck than NGT subjects while no difference was noted at lumbar spine BMD when compared to NGT subjects. Further studies are required to explore the discrepancy between the increased fracture risk with higher BMDs in diabetes.

scholarly journals POS0045 LEAST SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN BONE DENSITOMETRY IN PATIENTS WITH OBESITY

2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 227.2-228
Author(s):  
D. Claire ◽  
M. Geoffroy ◽  
L. Kanagaratnam ◽  
C. Isabelle ◽  
A. Hittinger ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bone Mineral Density ◽  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
General Population ◽  
Bone Mineral ◽  
Bone Densitometry ◽  
Dual Energy ◽  
Mineral Density ◽  
Least Significant Change ◽  
X Ray ◽  
Significant Change

Background:Dual energy X-ray absoprtiometry is the reference method to mesure bone mineral density (1). Loss of bone mineral density is significant if it exceeds the least significant change. The threshold value used in general population is 0,03 g/cm2 (2). Patients with obesity are known for having a higher bone mineral density due to metabolism and physiopathology characteristics (3,4).Objectives:The aim of our study was to determine the least significant change in bone densitometry in patients with obesity.Methods:We conducted an interventionnal study in 120 patients with obesity who performed a bone densitometry. We measured twice the bone mineral density at the lumbar spine, the femoral neck and the total hip in the same time (5,6). We determined the least significant change in bone densitometry from each pair of measurements, using the Bland and Altman method. We also determined the least significant change in bone densitometry according to each stage of obesity.Results:The least significant change in bone densitometry in patients with obesity is 0,046g/cm2 at the lumbar spine, 0.069 g/cm2 at the femoral neck and 0.06 g/cm2 at the total hip.Conclusion:The least significant change in bone densitometry in patients with obesity is higher than in general population. These results may improve DXA interpretation in this specific population, and may personnalize their medical care.References:[1]Lees B, Stevenson JC. An evaluation of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry and comparison with dual-photon absorptiometry. Osteoporos Int. mai 1992;2(3):146-52.[2]Briot K, Roux C, Thomas T, Blain H, Buchon D, Chapurlat R, et al. Actualisation 2018 des recommandations françaises du traitement de l’ostéoporose post-ménopausique. Rev Rhum. oct 2018;85(5):428-40.[3]Shapses SA, Pop LC, Wang Y. Obesity is a concern for bone health with aging. Nutr Res N Y N. mars 2017;39:1-13.[4]Savvidis C, Tournis S, Dede AD. Obesity and bone metabolism. Hormones. juin 2018;17(2):205-17.[5]Roux C, Garnero P, Thomas T, Sabatier J-P, Orcel P, Audran M, et al. Recommendations for monitoring antiresorptive therapies in postmenopausal osteoporosis. Jt Bone Spine Rev Rhum. janv 2005;72(1):26-31.[6]Ravaud P, Reny JL, Giraudeau B, Porcher R, Dougados M, Roux C. Individual smallest detectable difference in bone mineral density measurements. J Bone Miner Res. août 1999;14(8):1449-56.Disclosure of Interests:None declared.

scholarly journals SAT0477 A TWO-YEAR LONGITUDINAL STUDY COMPLETION, LONGITUNEAL STUDY, THE DIFFERENCE IN BONE LOSS IN PATIENTS WITH EROSIVE AND NON-EROSIVE HAND OSTEOARTHRITIS

2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 1195.2-1195
Author(s):  
K. Pavelka ◽  
L. Šenolt ◽  
O. Sleglova ◽  
J. Baloun ◽  
O. Růžičková
Keyword(s):  
Bone Mineral Density ◽  
Longitudinal Study ◽  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Bone Loss ◽  
Bone Mineral ◽  
Hand Osteoarthritis ◽  
Mineral Density ◽  
Erosive Disease ◽  
Femur Neck ◽  
American College Of Rheumatology

Background:Hand osteoarthritis (OA) and its more severe subset erosive hand OA are common causes of pain and morbidity. Some metabolic factors were suggested to be implicated in erosive disease. Few studies investigated differences in systemic bone loss between erosive and non-erosive hand OA.Objectives:To compare the change of bone mineral density (BMD) between patients with erosive and non-erosive hand OA in a two-year longitudinal study.Methods:Consecutive patients with symptomatic HOA fulfilling the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria were included in this study. Erosive hand OA was defined by at least one erosive interphalangeal joint. All patients underwent clinical assessments of joint swelling and radiographs of both hands. DEXA examination of lumbar spine, total femur and femur neck was performed at the baseline and after two years.Results:Altogether, 141patients (15 male) with symptomatic nodal HOA were included in this study and followed between April 2012 and January 2019. Out of these patients, 80 had erosive disease after two years. The disease duration (p<0.01) was significantly higher in patients with erosive compared with non-erosive disease at baseline.Osteoporosis (T-score <-2.5 SD) was diagnosed in 12.5% (9/72) of patients with erosive hand OA and in 8.06% (5/57) of patients with non-erosive hand OA at baseline. BMD was significantly lowered in patients with erosive compared with non-erosive disease at baseline (lumbar spine: 1.05g/cm2 vs. 1.13 g/cm2, p<0.05, total femur: 0.90 g/cm2 vs. 0.97 g/cm2, p<0.01 and femur neck: 0.86 g/cm2 vs. 0.91, p<0.05). T-scores of lumbar spine (-0.96 vs. -0.41 SD, p<0.05), total femur (-0.69 vs. -0.33 SD, p<0.05) and femur neck (-1.14 vs. -0.88 SD, p<0.05) were also significantly lowered in patients with erosive compared with non-erosive disease.Two years, the BMD remained also significantly lowered in patients with erosive compared with non-erosive disease (lumbar spine: 1.05g/cm2 vs. 1.14 g/cm2, p<0.05, total femur: 0.92 g/cm2 vs. 0.97 g/cm2, p<0.05 and femur neck: 0.86 g/cm2 vs. 0.91, p<0.05), which was in agreement with the finding for T-scores of lumbar spine (-1.05 vs. -0.39 SD, p<0.05), total femur (-0.74 vs. -0.34 SD, p<0.01) and femur neck (-1.07 vs. -0.72 SD, p<0.01).Conclusion:These results suggest that patients with erosive hand OA are at higher risk for the development of general bone loss. Over two years patients with erosive disease had significant lower bone mineral density at all measured sites.References:[1]This work was supported by the project AZV no. 18-00542 and MHCR No. 023728.Acknowledgments:Project AZV no. 18-00542 and MHCR No. 023728Disclosure of Interests:Karel Pavelka Consultant of: Abbvie, MSD, BMS, Egis, Roche, UCB, Medac, Pfizer, Biogen, Speakers bureau: Abbvie, MSD, BMS, Egis, Roche, UCB, Medac, Pfizer, Biogen, Ladislav Šenolt: None declared, Olga Sleglova: None declared, Jiří Baloun: None declared, Olga Růžičková: None declared

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document