INTRODUCTION: Canadian Aboriginal women are at increased risk of fracture compared with the general population. HYPOTHESIS: There is disproportionately reduced bone density in Aboriginal women as compared to white females of similar age. METHODS: A random age-stratified (25-39, 40-59 and 60-75) sample of Aboriginal women (n=258) and white women (n=181) was recruited. All subjects had calcaneus and distal forearm bone density measurements, and urban participants (n=397 [90.4%]) also had measurements of the lumbar spine, hip and total body. RESULTS: Unadjusted measurements were similar in the two groups apart from the distal forearm which showed a significantly lower mean Z-score in the Aboriginal women (p=0.03). Aboriginal women were heavier than white women (81.0+/-18.0 kg vs. 76.0+/-18.0 kg, p=0.02). Weight was directly associated with BMD at all measurement sites (p<0.00001) and potentially confounded the assessment of ethnicity on bone mass measurements. Weight-adjusted ANCOVA models demonstrated significantly lower bone density in Aboriginal than white women for the calcaneus, distal forearm, and total body (all p<0.05), but not at the other sites. ANCOVA models (adjusted for age, height and weight) were used to explore differences in bone area and bone mineral content (BMC). There was a significant effect of ethnicity on bone area with Aboriginal women having larger adjusted mean values than white women (lumbar spine p=0.038, total hip p=0.0004, total body p=0.020). In contrast, there was no detectable effect of ethnicity on BMC (all p>0.2). CONCLUSIONS: We identified significant site-specific differences in age-and weight-adjusted bone density for Aboriginal and white women. Larger bone area, rather than a reduction in BMC, appeared to be primarily responsible. Further work is needed to define how these differences in bone density and geometry affect indices of bone strength.
INTRODUCTION: Canadian Aboriginal women are at increased risk of fracture compared with the general population. HYPOTHESIS: There is disproportionately reduced bone density in Aboriginal women as compared to white females of similar age. METHODS: A random age-stratified (25-39, 40-59 and 60-75) sample of Aboriginal women (n=258) and white women (n=181) was recruited. All subjects had calcaneus and distal forearm bone density measurements, and urban participants (n=397 [90.4%]) also had measurements of the lumbar spine, hip and total body. RESULTS: Unadjusted measurements were similar in the two groups apart from the distal forearm which showed a significantly lower mean Z-score in the Aboriginal women (p=0.03). Aboriginal women were heavier than white women (81.0+/-18.0 kg vs. 76.0+/-18.0 kg, p=0.02). Weight was directly associated with BMD at all measurement sites (p<0.00001) and potentially confounded the assessment of ethnicity on bone mass measurements. Weight-adjusted ANCOVA models demonstrated significantly lower bone density in Aboriginal than white women for the calcaneus, distal forearm, and total body (all p<0.05), but not at the other sites. ANCOVA models (adjusted for age, height and weight) were used to explore differences in bone area and bone mineral content (BMC). There was a significant effect of ethnicity on bone area with Aboriginal women having larger adjusted mean values than white women (lumbar spine p=0.038, total hip p=0.0004, total body p=0.020). In contrast, there was no detectable effect of ethnicity on BMC (all p>0.2). CONCLUSIONS: We identified significant site-specific differences in age-and weight-adjusted bone density for Aboriginal and white women. Larger bone area, rather than a reduction in BMC, appeared to be primarily responsible. Further work is needed to define how these differences in bone density and geometry affect indices of bone strength.
Authors: Shahzeer Karmali; Kevin Laupland; A Robert Harrop; Christi Findlay; Andrew W Kirkpatrick; Brent Winston; John Kortbeek; Lindsay Crowshoe; Morad Hameed Journal: CMAJ Date: 2005-04-12 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: P D Ross; H Norimatsu; J W Davis; K Yano; R D Wasnich; S Fujiwara; Y Hosoda; L J Melton Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 1991-04-15 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: John A Kanis; Olof Johnell; Chris De Laet; Bengt Jonsson; Anders Oden; Alan K Ogelsby Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2002-07 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: Sarah D Berry; Yoojin Lee; Andrew R Zullo; Doug P Kiel; David Dosa; Vincent Mor Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2016-03-14 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Amy Robbins; Christina A T M B Tom; Miranda N Cosman; Cleo Moursi; Lillian Shipp; Taylor M Spencer; Timothy Brash; Maureen J Devlin Journal: Am J Phys Anthropol Date: 2018-09-06 Impact factor: 2.868
Authors: Hr Aghaei Meybodi; M Hemmat-Abadi; R Heshmat; M Rezaei Homami; S Madani; M Ebrahimi; H Adibi; B Larijani Journal: Iran J Public Health Date: 2011-06-30 Impact factor: 1.429
Authors: Alexandra-Cristina Paunescu; Eric Dewailly; Sylvie Dodin; Evert Nieboer; Pierre Ayotte Journal: Environ Health Date: 2013-07-02 Impact factor: 5.984