Literature DB >> 15040821

Prevention of postmenopausal bone loss by a low-magnitude, high-frequency mechanical stimuli: a clinical trial assessing compliance, efficacy, and safety.

Clinton Rubin1, Robert Recker, Diane Cullen, John Ryaby, Joan McCabe, Kenneth McLeod.   

Abstract

UNLABELLED: A 1-year prospective, randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled trial of 70 postmenopausal women demonstrated that brief periods (<20 minutes) of a low-level (0.2g, 30 Hz) vibration applied during quiet standing can effectively inhibit bone loss in the spine and femur, with efficacy increasing significantly with greater compliance, particularly in those subjects with lower body mass.
INTRODUCTION: Indicative of the anabolic potential of mechanical stimuli, animal models have demonstrated that short periods (<30 minutes) of low-magnitude vibration (<0.3g), applied at a relatively high frequency (20-90 Hz), will increase the number and width of trabeculae, as well as enhance stiffness and strength of cancellous bone. Here, a 1-year prospective, randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled clinical trial in 70 women, 3-8 years past the menopause, examined the ability of such high-frequency, low-magnitude mechanical signals to inhibit bone loss in the human.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Each day, one-half of the subjects were exposed to short-duration (two 10-minute treatments/day), low-magnitude (2.0 m/s2 peak to peak), 30-Hz vertical accelerations (vibration), whereas the other half stood for the same duration on placebo devices. DXA was used to measure BMD at the spine, hip, and distal radius at baseline, and 3, 6, and 12 months. Fifty-six women completed the 1-year treatment. RESULTS AND
CONCLUSIONS: The detection threshold of the study design failed to show any changes in bone density using an intention-to-treat analysis for either the placebo or treatment group. Regression analysis on the a priori study group demonstrated a significant effect of compliance on efficacy of the intervention, particularly at the lumbar spine (p = 0.004). Posthoc testing was used to assist in identifying various subgroups that may have benefited from this treatment modality. Evaluating those in the highest quartile of compliance (86% compliant), placebo subjects lost 2.13% in the femoral neck over 1 year, whereas treatment was associated with a gain of 0.04%, reflecting a 2.17% relative benefit of treatment (p = 0.06). In the spine, the 1.6% decrease observed over 1 year in the placebo group was reduced to a 0.10% loss in the active group, indicating a 1.5% relative benefit of treatment (p = 0.09). Considering the interdependence of weight, the spine of lighter women (<65 kg), who were in the highest quartile of compliance, exhibited a relative benefit of active treatment of 3.35% greater BMD over 1 year (p = 0.009); for the mean compliance group, a 2.73% relative benefit in BMD was found (p = 0.02). These preliminary results indicate the potential for a noninvasive, mechanically mediated intervention for osteoporosis. This non-pharmacologic approach represents a physiologically based means of inhibiting the decline in BMD that follows menopause, perhaps most effectively in the spine of lighter women who are in the greatest need of intervention.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 15040821     DOI: 10.1359/JBMR.0301251

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Bone Miner Res        ISSN: 0884-0431            Impact factor:   6.741


  159 in total

1.  Weight bearing through lower limbs in a standing frame with and without arm support and low-magnitude whole-body vibration in men and women with complete motor paraplegia.

Authors:  Kathie A Bernhardt; Lisa A Beck; Jeffry L Lamb; Kenton R Kaufman; Shreyasee Amin; Lisa-Ann Wuermser
Journal:  Am J Phys Med Rehabil       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 2.159

2.  In vivo assessment of the effect of controlled high- and low-frequency mechanical loading on peri-implant bone healing.

Authors:  Xiaolei Zhang; Katleen Vandamme; Antonia Torcasio; Toru Ogawa; G Harry van Lenthe; Ignace Naert; Joke Duyck
Journal:  J R Soc Interface       Date:  2012-01-25       Impact factor: 4.118

3.  Evidence for an additional effect of whole-body vibration above resistive exercise alone in preventing bone loss during prolonged bed rest.

Authors:  D L Belavý; G Beller; G Armbrecht; F H Perschel; R Fitzner; O Bock; H Börst; C Degner; U Gast; D Felsenberg
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2010-09-03       Impact factor: 4.507

4.  Mechanical vibration inhibits osteoclast formation by reducing DC-STAMP receptor expression in osteoclast precursor cells.

Authors:  Rishikesh N Kulkarni; Philip A Voglewede; Dawei Liu
Journal:  Bone       Date:  2013-08-28       Impact factor: 4.398

Review 5.  Exercise for people with osteoporosis: translating the science into clinical practice.

Authors:  Kathy M Shipp
Journal:  Curr Osteoporos Rep       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 5.096

Review 6.  Molecular pathways mediating mechanical signaling in bone.

Authors:  Janet Rubin; Clinton Rubin; Christopher Rae Jacobs
Journal:  Gene       Date:  2005-12-19       Impact factor: 3.688

Review 7.  Whole body vibration exercise: are vibrations good for you?

Authors:  M Cardinale; J Wakeling
Journal:  Br J Sports Med       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 13.800

8.  Whole Body Vibration Reduces Inflammatory Bone Loss in a Lipopolysaccharide Murine Model.

Authors:  I S Kim; B Lee; S J Yoo; S J Hwang
Journal:  J Dent Res       Date:  2014-05-08       Impact factor: 6.116

9.  The effects of photobiomodulation and low-amplitude high-frequency vibration on bone healing process: a comparative study.

Authors:  M Rajaei Jafarabadi; G Rouhi; G Kaka; S H Sadraie; J Arum
Journal:  Lasers Med Sci       Date:  2016-08-30       Impact factor: 3.161

10.  Whole-body vibration slows the acquisition of fat in mature female rats.

Authors:  G F Maddalozzo; U T Iwaniec; R T Turner; C J Rosen; J J Widrick
Journal:  Int J Obes (Lond)       Date:  2008-07-29       Impact factor: 5.095

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.