Oprea TE, Barbu CG, Martin SC, Sarbu AE, Duta SG, Nistor IM, Fica S. Degraded Bone Microarchitecture in Women with PHPT-Significant Predictor of Fracture Probability.
Clin Med Insights Endocrinol Diabetes 2023;
16:11795514221145840. [PMID:
36698384 PMCID:
PMC9869236 DOI:
10.1177/11795514221145840]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/08/2022] [Accepted: 11/29/2022] [Indexed: 01/22/2023] Open
Abstract
Introduction
Patients with primary hyperparathyroidism (PHPT) experience bone mineral density (BMD) loss and trabecular bone score (TBS) alteration, which current guidelines recommend assessing. Considering TBS alongside BMD for a 10-year fracture risk assessment (FRAX) may improve PHPT management.
Design
Retrospective, cross-sectional study composed of 49 Caucasian females (62 ± 10.6 years, 27.7 ± 0.87 kg/m2) with PHPT and 132 matched control subjects (61.3 ± 10.5 years, 27.5 ± 0.49 kg/m2) evaluated in 3 years. We assessed lumbar spine (LS) and femoral neck (FN) BMD, T and Z scores (GE Healthcare Lunar Osteodensitometer) and TBS (iNsight 1.8), major osteoporotic fracture (MOF), and hip FRAX.
Results
Patients with PHPT had statistically lower mean values for lumbar spine bone mineral density (LS BMD) (0.95 ± 0.25 vs 1.01 ± 0.14 g/cm2, P = .01), LS T-scores (-2 ± 0.2 vs -1.4 ± 0.1 SD, P = .009), LS Z scores (-0.9 ± 0.19 vs -0.1 ± 0.11 SD, P = .009), femoral neck bone mineral density (FN BMD) (0.79 ± 0.02 vs 0.83 ± 0.01 g/cm2, P = .02), FN T-scores (-1.8 ± 0.13 vs -1.5 ± 0.07 SD, P = .017), FN Z scores (-0.51 ± 0.87 vs -0.1 ± 0.82 SD, P = .006), and TBS (0.95 ± 0.25 vs 1.01 ± 0.14 g/cm2, P = .01) compared with control subjects. 22.4% of patients with PHPT had degraded microarchitecture (TBS < 1.2) vs. 7.6% in control group (χ2 = 0.008). PHPT proved to be a covariate with unique contribution (P = .031) alongside LS BMD (P = .040) in a linear regression model [R 2 = 0.532, F(4,16) = 4.543] for TBS < 1.2. TBS adjustment elevated MOF FRAX both for PHPT (4.35 ± 0.6% vs 5.25% ± 0.73%, P < .001) and control groups (4.5 ± 0.24% vs 4.7% ± 0.26%, P < .001) compared with BMD-bases FRAX, but also increased differently between the 2 study groups (1.1-folds for PHPT patients and 1.04 for control subjects, P = .034).
Conclusion
Compared with control, TBS-adjusted FRAX provides significantly higher MOF risk than BMD-based FRAX in PHPT women.
Collapse