Socioeconomic status, race, and bone turnover in the Midlife in the US Study
- 281 Downloads
Among a group of 940 US adults, economic adversity and minority race status were associated with higher serum levels of markers of bone turnover. These results suggest that higher levels of social stress may increase bone turnover.
To determine socioeconomic status (SES) and race differences in levels of bone turnover.
Using data from the Biomarker Substudy of the Midlife in the US (MIDUS) study (491 men, 449 women), we examined cross-sectional associations of SES and race with serum levels of bone turnover markers (bone-specific alkaline phosphatase [BSAP], procollagen type I N-terminal propeptide [PINP], and N-telopeptide [Ntx]) separately in men and women. Linear multivariable regression was used to control for body weight, menopausal transition stage, and age.
Among men, low family poverty-to-income ratio (FPIR) was associated with higher turnover, but neither education nor race was associated with turnover. Men with FPIR <3 had 1.808 nM BCE higher Ntx (P = 0.05), 3.366 U/L higher BSAP (P = 0.02), and 7.066 higher PINP (P = 0.02). Among women, neither education nor FPIR was associated with bone turnover, but Black women had 3.688 nM BCE higher Ntx (P = 0.001), 5.267 U/L higher BSAP (P = 0.005), and 11.906 μg/L higher PINP (P = 0.008) compared with non-Black women.
Economic adversity was associated with higher bone turnover in men, and minority race status was associated with higher bone turnover in women, consistent with the hypothesis that higher levels of social stresses cause increased bone turnover. The magnitude of these associations was comparable to the effects of some osteoporosis medications on levels of turnover.
KeywordsBone resorption Bone turnover Bone-specific alkaline phosphatase BSAP Income N-telopeptide Ntx PINP Poverty Procollagen type I N-terminal propeptide SES Socioeconomic status
This research was supported by National Institutes of Health grant numbers 1R01AG033067, R01-AG-032271, and P01-AG-020166. The UCLA GCRC helped support this study (UCLA GCRC Grant #M01-RR000865).
Conflicts of interest
- 2.Szulc P, Delmas PD (2008) Biochemical markers of bone turnover in osteoporosis. In: Rosen CJ (ed) Primer on the Metabolic Bone Diseases and Disorders of Mineral Metabolism, 7th edn. The American Society for Bone and Mineral Research, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
- 14.Brim OG, Ryff CD, Kessler RC (2004) How healthy are we?: a national study of well-being at midlife. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
- 21.Dobnig H, Piswanger-Solkner JC, Roth M, Obermayer-Pietsch B, Tiran A, Strele A, Maier E, Maritschnegg P, Sieberer C, Fahrleitner-Pammer A (2006) Type 2 diabetes mellitus in nursing home patients: effects on bone turnover, bone mass, and fracture risk. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 91:3355–3363PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 28.MacIntyre S, Hunt K (1997) Socio-economic position, gender and health: how do they interact? J Health Psych Special Issue Health Socio-econo Position 2:315–334Google Scholar
- 57.Travison TG, Chiu GR, McKinlay JB, Araujo AB (2011) Accounting for racial/ethnic variation in bone mineral content and density: the competing influences of socioeconomic factors, body composition, health and lifestyle, and circulating androgens and estrogens. Osteoporos IntGoogle Scholar
- 61.Cizza G, Marques AH, Eskandari F, Christie IC, Torvik S, Silverman MN, Phillips TM, Sternberg EM (2008) Elevated neuroimmune biomarkers in sweat patches and plasma of premenopausal women with major depressive disorder in remission: the POWER study. Biol Psychiatry 64:907–911PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 81.Prior L (1999) Socioeconomic status and health chartbook. Health, United States, 1998. Sociology Health Illn 21:851–852Google Scholar