ICEECE2012 Poster Presentations Bone & Osteoporosis (67 abstracts)
1University of Milan, Endocrinology and Diabetology Unit, Fondazione IRRCS Cà Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy; 2Belarusian State Medical University, Minsk, Belarus; 3Republic Medical Rehabilitation and Balneotreatment Centre, Minsk, Belarus; 4Out-patient clinic 18, Minsk, Belarus; 5Hospital 10, Minsk, Belarus.
Background and objectives: There are a lot of studies demonstrating low bone mineral density (BMD) and elevated fracture risk in patients with type 1 diabetes. But there are scarce data about the prevalence of morphometric vertebral fractures (MorfoFx) and spinal deformity index (SDI) that is considered as a surrogate marker of bone quality. Therefore, the objective of this study was to evaluate BMD, the prevalence of MorfoFx and bone quality by SDI in type 1 diabetics.
Methods: There were evaluated 82 patients type 1 diabetes (26 males, 56 females, age 31.1±8.3 years, BMI 23.2±3.3 kg/m2, disease duration 12.9±7.8 years) and age-, sex-, BMI-matched 48 controls (12 males, 36 females, age 33.8±7.3 years, BMI 23.0±4.7 kg/m2). BMD and MorfoFx were measured with DXA. After then SDI was calculated in all patients.
Results: Type 1 diabetic patients, comparing with controls, had lower BMD either at spine (−0.5±1.2 vs 0.03±1.0, P=0.012 respectively) and at femoral neck (−0.7±1.1 vs 0.02±0.8, P<0.001 respectively), higher prevalence of MorfoFx (26.8%, n=22 vs 10.4%, n=5, P=0.027 respectively) and higher SDI (0.5±1.1 vs 0.15±0.5, P=0.031 respectively). Age, diabetes duration, age of diabetes manifestation, BMD and the prevalence of chronic complications were not different between type 1 diabetics with and without MorfoFx. In the multiply regression analysis MorfoFx/SDI were not associated with BMD, diabetes duration, age of diabetes manifestation, the presence of complications.
In conclusion, this study demonstrates that type 1 diabetic patients have low BMD, elevated prevalence of MorfoFx and poor bone quality evaluated by SDI.
Declaration of interest: The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research project.
Funding: This research did not receive any specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sector.