Bone Microarchitecture in Type 1 Diabetes: It Is Complicated
- 362 Downloads
Patients with type 1 diabetes (T1DM) experience a disproportionate number of fractures for their bone mineral density (BMD). Differences in bone microarchitecture from those without the disease are thought to be responsible. However, the literature is inconclusive. New studies of the microarchitecture using three-dimensional imaging have the advantage of providing in vivo estimates of “bone quality,” rather than examining areal BMD alone. There are drawbacks in that most studies have been done on those with less than a 30-year duration of T1DM, and the techniques used to measure vary as do the sites assessed. In addition to the rise in these imaging techniques, very recent literature presents evidence of an intimate relationship between skeletal health and vascular complications in T1DM. The following review provides an overview of the available studies of the bone microarchitecture in T1DM with a discussion of the burgeoning field of complications and skeletal health.
KeywordsBone quality Microarchitecture Type 1 diabetes Diabetes Complications Bone fragility
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
Hillary A. Keenan and Ernesto Maddaloni declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent
This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.
No animal or human studies were done for this manuscript. The authors were not authors on any of the papers referenced in this review.
Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance
- 2.•Vestergaard P. Discrepancies in bone mineral density and fracture risk in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes—a meta-analysis. Osteoporos Int. 2007;18:427–44. In this meta-analysis the most important studies evaluating risk of bone fractures in diabetes were evaluated, showing an higher and disproportionate risk of bone fractures in those with T1DM vs T2DM.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 8.•Riggs BL, Melton Iii LJ, Robb RA, Camp JJ, Atkinson EJ, Peterson JM, et al. Population-based study of age and sex differences in bone volumetric density, size, geometry, and structure at different skeletal sites. J Bone Miner Res. 2004;19:1945–54. A population-based study highlighted in this review because showing different bone composition in different sites.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 10.•Lettgen B, Hauffa B, Möhlmann C, Jeken C, Reiners C. Bone mineral density in children and adolescents with juvenile diabetes: selective measurement of bone mineral density of trabecular and cortical bone using peripheral quantitative computed tomography. Horm Res. 1995;43:173–5. One of the first papers evaluating bone in T1DM by pQCT. This study suggested the importance of using pQCT in diabetes and showed differences in Tb and Ct bone in adolescents affected by T1DM vs healthy controls.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 17.••Shanbhogue VV, Hansen S, Frost M, Jørgensen NR, Hermann AP, Henriksen JE, et al. Bone geometry, volumetric density, microarchitecture, and estimated bone strength assessed by HR-pQCT in adult patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus. J Bone Miner Res. 2015;30:2188–99. This paper compares bone microarchitecture, strength, and remodeling in those with type 1 diabetes, with and without small vessel complications to matched control groups using HR-pQCT. While no differences were found in bone metrics between individuals with type 1 diabetes without microvascular complications and controls, significant differences were found in both the trabecular and cortical aspects of those with complications and their matched controls. The authors suggest the presence of complications is associated with increased frailty in those with type 1 diabetes.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 18.••Starup-Linde J, Lykkeboe S, Gregersen S, Hauge E-M, Langdahl BL, Handberg A, et al. Bone structure and predictors of fracture in type 1 and type 2 diabetes. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2016;101:928–936. In a population from an outpatient clinic, differences in the bone density of those with type 1 and type 2 diabetes were found at the hip and in stiffness of the tibia in adjusted models. These factors were both increased in those with type 2 diabetes. Of interest, was that those with the highest levels of sclerostin, in the third tertile, were found to have the lowest risk of fracture, putting this protein forward as potential marker of frailty.Google Scholar
- 19.••Neumann T, Lodes S, Kästner B, Lehmann T, Hans D, Lamy O, et al. Trabecular bone score in type 1 diabetes—a cross-sectional study. Osteoporos Int. 2016;27:127–33. Trabecular bone score as an estimate of bone microarchitecture significantly differentiated those with fracture amongst those with type 1 diabetes, whereas BMD of the lumbar spine did not. These data, as the TBS is based on the trabecular assessment, suggest that trabecular deficit is responsible for fracture risk in those with type 1 diabetes. The authors suggest TBS may provide an added benefit to BMD in determining who among those with type 1 diabetes is at increased risk for frailty fracture.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 21.••Abdalrahaman N, McComb C, Foster JE, McLean J, Lindsay RS, McClure J, et al. Deficits in trabecular bone microarchitecture in young women with type 1 diabetes mellitus. J Bone Miner Res. 2015;30:1386–93. This study provides an examination of tibial microarchitecture and vertebral marrow adiposity in female young adults with type 1 diabetes. The findings indicate lower levels of IGF-1 and ALS may be associated with deficits in tibial trabecular microarchitecture. Importantly, this paper also shows evidence of an association of proliferative diabetic retinopathy with skeletal health.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 24.Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT)/Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications (EDIC) Research Group, Lachin JM, White NH, Hainsworth DP, Sun W, Cleary PA, et al. Effect of intensive diabetes therapy on the progression of diabetic retinopathy in patients with type 1 diabetes: 18 years of follow-up in the DCCT/EDIC. Diabetes. 2015;64:631–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 34.••Hu K, Olsen BR. Osteoblast-derived VEGF regulates osteoblast differentiation and bone formation during bone repair. J Clin Invest. 2016;126:509–26. Little research has been done on the regulation of endothelial cells (CD45+) and VEGF excretion by osteoblasts. This paper demonstrates that this may play a role in the bone-vascular axis, using evidence through flox models of the VEGFR.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 44.Lim Y, Chun S, Lee JH, Baek KH, Lee WK, Yim H-W, et al. Association of bone mineral density and diabetic retinopathy in diabetic subjects: the 2008–2011 Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Osteoporos Int. 2016.Google Scholar
- 58.Larsen JR, Tsunoda T, Tuzcu EM, Schoenhagen P, Brekke M, Arnesen H, et al. Intracoronary ultrasound examinations reveal significantly more advanced coronary atherosclerosis in people with type 1 diabetes than in age- and sex-matched non-diabetic controls. Diab Vasc Dis Res. 2007;4:62–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 70.Sprini D, Rini GB, Di Stefano L, Cianferotti L, Napoli N. Correlation between osteoporosis and cardiovascular disease. Clin Cases Miner Bone Metab. 2014;1:117–9.Google Scholar