4.6 Review

Metabolic syndrome, fractures and gender

期刊

MATURITAS
卷 68, 期 3, 页码 217-223

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.maturitas.2010.12.010

关键词

Metabolic syndrome; Fractures; Bone mineral density; Bone turnover markers; Gender

资金

  1. Instituto de Salud Carlos III - Fondo de Investigaciones Sanitarias, Spain [PI 08/0183]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The metabolic syndrome (MetS) is a cluster of cardiovascular risk factors which has been suggested to have a possible effect on bone mass. Somewhat paradoxically, it is not clear whether this effect is protective or detrimental. Some of its components (e.g., obesity) seem to have the first type of effect and others (e.g., glucose metabolism changes) the second one. The epidemiological studies are not conclusive. Five out of six cross-sectional studies show no differences in the rate of fractures between subjects with or without MetS. In the sixth, fewer fractures were observed in patients with the syndrome. Two of three prospective studies also found fewer fractures, but the third more. Regarding the relationship of each individual component of MetS with fractures, the results - apart from obesity - are scarce or inconsistent. The relationship between MetS and bone mineral density (BMD) or bone turnover markers (BTMs) has also been addressed. Without adjusting for BMI, six out of nine studies have shown higher BMD values in MetS patients and the rest no differences. This positive effect on BMD is mainly driven by BMI, and therefore disappears after adjusting for it. The fasting plasma glucose level has been shown in general to be positively associated with BMD. Hypertension and hypertriglyceridemia showed variable results, while BTMs are decreased in MetS. Finally, there is no definite evidence about the existence of gender differences in the effect of MetS on bone. In conclusion, MetS tends to be positively associated with BMD and negatively with BTMs. No clear-cut data about fractures are available. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据