SUMMARY: Focus on individual risk factors for osteoporosis could allocate disproportionate attention to trivial relationships. We tested many recognized risk factors of osteoporosis for their association with bone mineral density (BMD) in multivariate models among men. Lean mass accounted for the most variance, with substantially less accounted for by demographic, strength, and health factors. INTRODUCTION: Osteoporosis in men has gained recognition as a public health problem, generating an interest in the search for risk factors. Isolation of individual risk factors could allocate disproportionate attention to relationships that may be of limited consequence. METHODS: The Boston Area Community Health/Bone (BACH/Bone) Survey is a population-based study of randomly selected community-dwelling men (age, 30-79 years). BMD and lean mass were measured by dual X-ray absorptiometry. Socioeconomic status, health history, and lifestyle factors were obtained via interview. Hormone levels and markers of bone turnover were obtained from non-fasting blood samples. Multivariate analyses measured relative contributions of covariates to femoral neck (hip), one-third distal radius (wrist), and lumbar spine BMD. RESULTS: Factors positively associated with BMD in multivariate models at the three sites were black race and appendicular lean mass. Asthma was consistently negatively associated. Various other risk factors also contributed significantly to each of the individual sites. R (2) values for the hip, wrist, and spine were 41%, 30%, and 24%, respectively. Lean mass accounted for the most explained variance at all three sites. CONCLUSIONS: These data emphasize the limitation of focusing on individual risk factors and highlight the importance of potentially modifiable lean mass in predicting BMD.
SUMMARY: Focus on individual risk factors for osteoporosis could allocate disproportionate attention to trivial relationships. We tested many recognized risk factors of osteoporosis for their association with bone mineral density (BMD) in multivariate models among men. Lean mass accounted for the most variance, with substantially less accounted for by demographic, strength, and health factors. INTRODUCTION:Osteoporosis in men has gained recognition as a public health problem, generating an interest in the search for risk factors. Isolation of individual risk factors could allocate disproportionate attention to relationships that may be of limited consequence. METHODS: The Boston Area Community Health/Bone (BACH/Bone) Survey is a population-based study of randomly selected community-dwelling men (age, 30-79 years). BMD and lean mass were measured by dual X-ray absorptiometry. Socioeconomic status, health history, and lifestyle factors were obtained via interview. Hormone levels and markers of bone turnover were obtained from non-fasting blood samples. Multivariate analyses measured relative contributions of covariates to femoral neck (hip), one-third distal radius (wrist), and lumbar spine BMD. RESULTS: Factors positively associated with BMD in multivariate models at the three sites were black race and appendicular lean mass. Asthma was consistently negatively associated. Various other risk factors also contributed significantly to each of the individual sites. R (2) values for the hip, wrist, and spine were 41%, 30%, and 24%, respectively. Lean mass accounted for the most explained variance at all three sites. CONCLUSIONS: These data emphasize the limitation of focusing on individual risk factors and highlight the importance of potentially modifiable lean mass in predicting BMD.
Authors: Hau Liu; Neil M Paige; Caroline L Goldzweig; Elaine Wong; Annie Zhou; Marika J Suttorp; Brett Munjas; Eric Orwoll; Paul Shekelle Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2008-05-06 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Susan A Hall; Gretchen R Esche; Andre B Araujo; Thomas G Travison; Richard V Clark; Rachel E Williams; John B McKinlay Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2008-07-29 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: S R Cummings; D M Black; M C Nevitt; W Browner; J Cauley; K Ensrud; H K Genant; L Palermo; J Scott; T M Vogt Journal: Lancet Date: 1993-01-09 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Elizabeth M Haney; Benjamin K S Chan; Susan J Diem; Kristine E Ensrud; Jane A Cauley; Elizabeth Barrett-Connor; Eric Orwoll; M Michael Bliziotes Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2007-06-25
Authors: Tuan V Nguyen; Christian Meier; Jacqueline R Center; John A Eisman; Markus J Seibel Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2007-02-22 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: I Nabipour; R Cumming; D J Handelsman; M Litchfield; V Naganathan; L Waite; H Creasey; M Janu; D Le Couteur; P N Sambrook; M J Seibel Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2010-06-23 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: K Bleicher; R G Cumming; V Naganathan; M J Seibel; P N Sambrook; F M Blyth; D G Le Couteur; D J Handelsman; H M Creasey; L M Waite Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2010-11-26 Impact factor: 4.507