4.7 Article

Pentosidine and carboxymethyl-lysine associate differently with prevalent osteoporotic vertebral fracture and various bone markers

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 10, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-78993-w

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Research Institute and Practice for Involutional Diseases, Japan

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Pentosidine (PEN) and carboxymethyl-lysine (CML) are well-recognized advanced glycation end products (AGEs). However, how these AGEs affect the pathophysiology of osteoporosis and osteoporotic fractures remains controversial. This cross-sectional study aimed to investigate the associations of PEN and CML with bone markers, bone mineral density (BMD), and osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women from the Nagano Cohort Study. A total of 444 Japanese postmenopausal outpatients (mean +/- standard deviation age: 69.8 +/- 10.2 years) were enrolled after the exclusion of patients with acute or severe illness or secondary osteoporosis. The relationships among urinary PEN and serum CML levels, various bone markers, lumbar and hip BMD, and prevalent vertebral and long-bone fractures were evaluated. PEN associated significantly with prevalent vertebral fracture after adjustment for other confounders (odds ratio [OR] 1.59, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.22-2.07; P<0.001), but not with lumbar BMD. In contrast, a significant negative correlation was found between CML and lumbar BMD (r=-0.180; P<0.001), and this relationship was significant after adjustment for confounders (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.76-0.93; P<0.01). Although patients with prevalent vertebral fracture had significantly higher CML levels, the association between CML and prevalent vertebral fracture did not reach significance in the multivariate regression model. Both PEN and CML may play important roles in bone health for postmenopausal women, possibly via different mechanisms.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available