Suboptimal bone microarchitecure in adolescent girls with obesity compared to normal-weight controls and girls with anorexia nervosa.
Adolescents
Bone density
Bone geometry
Bone microarchitecture
Bone strength
Obesity
Journal
Bone
ISSN: 1873-2763
Titre abrégé: Bone
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8504048
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 2019
05 2019
Historique:
received:
30
11
2018
revised:
05
03
2019
accepted:
06
03
2019
pubmed:
12
3
2019
medline:
2
7
2020
entrez:
12
3
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Despite their higher areal bone mineral density (aBMD), adolescents with obesity (OB) have an increase in fracture risk, particularly of the extremities, compared with normal-weight controls. Whereas bone parameters that increase fracture risk are well characterized in anorexia nervosa (AN), the other end of nutritional spectrum, these data are lacking in adolescents with obesity. Our objective was to compare bone parameters in adolescent girls across the nutritional spectrum, to determine whether suboptimal bone adaptation to increased body weight may explain the increased fracture risk in OB. We assessed bone endpoints in 153 adolescent girls 14-21 years old: 50 OB, 48 controls and 55 AN. We used (i) DXA to assess aBMD at the lumbar spine, proximal femur and whole body, and body composition, (ii) high resolution peripheral quantitative CT (HRpQCT) to assess bone geometry, microarchitecture and volumetric BMD (vBMD), and (iii) finite element analysis to assess failure load (a strength estimate) at the distal radius and tibia. All aBMD, microarchitecture and FEA analyses were controlled for age and race. Groups did not differ for age or height. Areal BMD Z-scores at all sites were highest in OB, intermediate in controls and lowest in AN (p < 0.0001). At the radius, cortical area and thickness were higher in OB compared to AN and control groups (p = 0.001) while trabecular area did not differ across groups. Compared to controls, OB had higher cortical porosity (p = 0.003), higher trabecular thickness (p = 0.024), and higher total, cortical and trabecular vBMD and rod BV/TV (p < 0.04). Plate BV/TV did not differ in OB vs. controls, but was higher than in AN (p = 0.001). At the tibia, total, cortical, and trabecular area and cortical thickness were higher in OB vs. controls and AN (p < 0.005). OB also had higher cortical porosity (p < 0.007) and lower trabecular thickness (p < 0.02) than the other two groups. Trabecular number, total and trabecular vBMD, and rod BV/TV were higher in OB vs. controls and AN (p < 0.02), while cortical vBMD and plate BV/TV did not differ in OB vs. the other two groups. Finally, failure load (a strength estimate) was higher in OB at the radius and tibia compared to controls and AN (p < 0.004 for all). However, after adjusting for body weight, failure load was lower in OB vs. controls at both sites (p < 0.05), and lower than in AN at the distal tibia. Not all bone parameters demonstrate appropriate adaptation to higher body weight. Cortical porosity and plate BV/TV at the radius and tibia, and cortical vBMD and trabecular thickness at the tibia are particularly at risk. These effects may contribute to the higher risk for fracture reported in OB vs. controls.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Despite their higher areal bone mineral density (aBMD), adolescents with obesity (OB) have an increase in fracture risk, particularly of the extremities, compared with normal-weight controls. Whereas bone parameters that increase fracture risk are well characterized in anorexia nervosa (AN), the other end of nutritional spectrum, these data are lacking in adolescents with obesity.
OBJECTIVE
Our objective was to compare bone parameters in adolescent girls across the nutritional spectrum, to determine whether suboptimal bone adaptation to increased body weight may explain the increased fracture risk in OB.
METHODS
We assessed bone endpoints in 153 adolescent girls 14-21 years old: 50 OB, 48 controls and 55 AN. We used (i) DXA to assess aBMD at the lumbar spine, proximal femur and whole body, and body composition, (ii) high resolution peripheral quantitative CT (HRpQCT) to assess bone geometry, microarchitecture and volumetric BMD (vBMD), and (iii) finite element analysis to assess failure load (a strength estimate) at the distal radius and tibia. All aBMD, microarchitecture and FEA analyses were controlled for age and race.
RESULTS
Groups did not differ for age or height. Areal BMD Z-scores at all sites were highest in OB, intermediate in controls and lowest in AN (p < 0.0001). At the radius, cortical area and thickness were higher in OB compared to AN and control groups (p = 0.001) while trabecular area did not differ across groups. Compared to controls, OB had higher cortical porosity (p = 0.003), higher trabecular thickness (p = 0.024), and higher total, cortical and trabecular vBMD and rod BV/TV (p < 0.04). Plate BV/TV did not differ in OB vs. controls, but was higher than in AN (p = 0.001). At the tibia, total, cortical, and trabecular area and cortical thickness were higher in OB vs. controls and AN (p < 0.005). OB also had higher cortical porosity (p < 0.007) and lower trabecular thickness (p < 0.02) than the other two groups. Trabecular number, total and trabecular vBMD, and rod BV/TV were higher in OB vs. controls and AN (p < 0.02), while cortical vBMD and plate BV/TV did not differ in OB vs. the other two groups. Finally, failure load (a strength estimate) was higher in OB at the radius and tibia compared to controls and AN (p < 0.004 for all). However, after adjusting for body weight, failure load was lower in OB vs. controls at both sites (p < 0.05), and lower than in AN at the distal tibia.
CONCLUSION
Not all bone parameters demonstrate appropriate adaptation to higher body weight. Cortical porosity and plate BV/TV at the radius and tibia, and cortical vBMD and trabecular thickness at the tibia are particularly at risk. These effects may contribute to the higher risk for fracture reported in OB vs. controls.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30853658
pii: S8756-3282(19)30083-3
doi: 10.1016/j.bone.2019.03.007
pmc: PMC6636859
mid: NIHMS1533536
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
246-253Subventions
Organisme : NIDDK NIH HHS
ID : R01 DK103946
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIDDK NIH HHS
ID : L30 DK118710
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIDDK NIH HHS
ID : K23 DK110419
Pays : United States
Organisme : NICHD NIH HHS
ID : K24 HD071843
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIDDK NIH HHS
ID : K24 DK109940
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIDDK NIH HHS
ID : R01 DK062249
Pays : United States
Organisme : NICHD NIH HHS
ID : R01 HD060827
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIDDK NIH HHS
ID : P30 DK040561
Pays : United States
Organisme : NHLBI NIH HHS
ID : K24 HL092902
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Références
Endocrinology. 1990 Sep;127(3):1346-51
pubmed: 2387257
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2018 Jun 1;103(6):2392-2402
pubmed: 29659886
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2010 Mar;95(3):1247-55
pubmed: 20080853
Osteoporos Int. 2016 Dec;27(12):3549-3558
pubmed: 27392467
Bone. 2018 Jan;106:61-68
pubmed: 28694162
Int J Eat Disord. 2014 Jul;47(5):458-66
pubmed: 24430890
Bone. 2015 Apr;73:69-76
pubmed: 25497572
J Racial Ethn Health Disparities. 2017 Aug;4(4):587-598
pubmed: 27387309
Mayo Clin Proc. 1999 Oct;74(10):972-7
pubmed: 10918862
BMC Womens Health. 2011 May 20;11:15
pubmed: 21599947
Int J Adolesc Med Health. 2002 Oct-Dec;14(4):297-306
pubmed: 12617062
Diabetes Care. 2005 Feb;28(2):372-8
pubmed: 15677795
J Bone Miner Res. 2006 Oct;21(10):1608-17
pubmed: 16995816
Int J Surg Oncol (N Y). 2017 Aug;2(7):e17
pubmed: 29177227
Bone. 2009 Aug;45(2):158-63
pubmed: 19379849
Calcif Tissue Int. 1993 Jan;52(1):26-33
pubmed: 8453502
Obes Rev. 2017 May;18(5):526-546
pubmed: 28273691
J Bone Miner Metab. 2008;26(1):73-8
pubmed: 18095067
J Paediatr Child Health. 2003 Dec;39(9):657-64
pubmed: 14629495
Int J Eat Disord. 2002 Nov;32(3):301-8
pubmed: 12210644
J Pediatr. 2001 Oct;139(4):509-15
pubmed: 11598596
J Bone Miner Res. 2014 Jun;29(6):1356-62
pubmed: 24519558
Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1997 May;21(5):355-9
pubmed: 9152736
Orv Hetil. 2007 Jun 17;148(24):1127-33
pubmed: 17561482
Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2008 Aug;295(2):E385-92
pubmed: 18544645
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2015 Aug;47(8):1577-86
pubmed: 25397605
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2013 May;98(5):1923-9
pubmed: 23509107
Adv Data. 2000 Jun 8;(314):1-27
pubmed: 11183293
J Bone Miner Res. 2011 Sep;26(9):2184-93
pubmed: 21557311
Pediatrics. 2004 Dec;114(6):1574-83
pubmed: 15574617
Bone. 2016 Jul;88:39-46
pubmed: 27083398
J Bone Miner Res. 2009 Aug;24(8):1369-79
pubmed: 19292617
J Bone Miner Res. 2010 Jul;25(7):1496-505
pubmed: 20200967
Endocrinol Metab (Seoul). 2015 Dec;30(4):419-28
pubmed: 26394727
J Phys Act Health. 2015 Jan;12(1):116-23
pubmed: 24733349
J Bone Miner Res. 2008 Mar;23(3):392-9
pubmed: 17997712
Osteoporos Int. 2011 Feb;22(2):655-65
pubmed: 20449571
Osteoporos Int. 2015 Aug;26(8):2137-46
pubmed: 25876879
J Biomech Eng. 2001 Apr;123(2):176-83
pubmed: 11340879
J Bone Miner Res. 2012 Feb;27(2):263-72
pubmed: 22072446
Am J Clin Nutr. 2006 Jan;83(1):146-54
pubmed: 16400063
J Bone Miner Res. 2008 Feb;23(2):223-35
pubmed: 17907921
Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2001 Aug;104(2):131-7
pubmed: 11473507
Endocrinology. 2015 Jul;156(7):2541-51
pubmed: 25910049
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2009 Aug;94(8):3093-7
pubmed: 19470623
BioDrugs. 1999 Jan;11(1):55-70
pubmed: 18031115
Horm Res. 2002;58 Suppl 1:44-51
pubmed: 12373014
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2005 Dec;90(12):6508-15
pubmed: 16189253
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2003 Dec;88(12):5615-23
pubmed: 14671143
J Adolesc Health. 2006 Dec;39(6):835-41
pubmed: 17116513
Bone. 2012 Feb;50(2):457-66
pubmed: 21619952
Bone. 2003 Oct;33(4):646-51
pubmed: 14555270