Literature DB >> 19469399

Low bone mass due to sickle cell anemia: is it becoming a real issue?

M Sadat-Ali1, A H Al-Elq, O Sultan, H Al-Turki, R Bukhari, E Al-Mulhim.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of sickle cell anemia in Saudi population was reported to be between 0-5.27%.
OBJECTIVE: This cross-sectional study was conducted to assess the prevalence of osteoporosis and osteopenia in patients with sickle cell anemia and to correlate its severity with the hematological parameters.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study which included consecutive adult patients with sickle cell anemia attending the outpatient clinics or were admitted with uncomplicated vaso-occlusive crisis to King Fahd University Hospital, Al Khobar, Saudi Arabia, between August 2006 and March 2007 was undertaken. After informed verbal consent to participate, patient's age and sex were documented and body mass index (BMI) calculated. Blood was drawn for heamatological and biochemical parameters. Bone mineral density (BMD) measurement was done using dual energy X-ray absorbtiometry (DEXA) at upper femur and lumbar spine. Osteopenia and osteoporosis were diagnosed as per the WHO criteria.
RESULTS: A total of 87 patients were studied. There were 41 male and 46 female patients. The mean age of males was 29.59+/-6.1 years, and females was 32.1+/-7.6 years. Over 65% of the males and 65.2% of the females were either osteopenic or osteoporotic. The prevalence of osteoporosis in both groups was highest at lumbar spine. Other variables like BMI, percentage of sickle hemoglobin and degree of anemia did not affect the bone mass.
CONCLUSIONS: This study supports the view that prevalence of osteopenia and osteoporosis among sickle cell anemia patients is high. Sickle cell anemia is becoming the most common cause of secondary osteoporosis and physician's awareness about this issue is essential for early diagnosis and appropriate management.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 19469399

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  West Afr J Med        ISSN: 0189-160X


  7 in total

1.  Evaluation of panoramic radiomorphometric indices related to low bone density in sickle cell disease.

Authors:  F S Neves; L S A F Oliveira; M G G Torres; M B P Toralles; M C B O da Silva; M I G Campos; P S F Campos; I Crusoé-Rebello
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2011-10-18       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 2.  Beyond the definitions of the phenotypic complications of sickle cell disease: an update on management.

Authors:  Samir K Ballas; Muge R Kesen; Morton F Goldberg; Gerard A Lutty; Carlton Dampier; Ifeyinwa Osunkwo; Winfred C Wang; Carolyn Hoppe; Ward Hagar; Deepika S Darbari; Punam Malik
Journal:  ScientificWorldJournal       Date:  2012-08-01

3.  Low bone mass density is associated with hemolysis in Brazilian patients with sickle cell disease.

Authors:  Gabriel Baldanzi; Fabiola Traina; João Francisco Marques Neto; Allan Oliveira Santos; Celso Dario Ramos; Sara T Olalla Saad
Journal:  Clinics (Sao Paulo)       Date:  2011       Impact factor: 2.365

4.  Predictors of abnormal bone mass density in adult patients with homozygous sickle-cell disease.

Authors:  Taysir S Garadah; Adla B Hassan; Ahmed A Jaradat; Diab E Diab; Hiba O Kalafalla; Adel K Kalifa; Reginald P Sequeira; Abdul Hameed A Alawadi
Journal:  Clin Med Insights Endocrinol Diabetes       Date:  2015-05-07

Review 5.  Clinical Impact and Cellular Mechanisms of Iron Overload-Associated Bone Loss.

Authors:  Viktória Jeney
Journal:  Front Pharmacol       Date:  2017-02-21       Impact factor: 5.810

Review 6.  An epidemiological analysis of the incidence of osteoporosis and osteoporosis-related fractures among the Saudi Arabian population.

Authors:  Mir Sadat-Ali; Ibrahim M Al-Habdan; Haifa A Al-Turki; Mohammed Quamar Azam
Journal:  Ann Saudi Med       Date:  2012 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 1.526

Review 7.  Influence of Iron on Bone Homeostasis.

Authors:  Enikő Balogh; György Paragh; Viktória Jeney
Journal:  Pharmaceuticals (Basel)       Date:  2018-10-18
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.