SUMMARY: Participants in the observational study of the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) were studied to determine if ethnic differences in femur geometry can help to explain differences in hip fracture rates. Structural differences in femurs of African and Mexican-American women appear to be consistent with lower rates of hip fractures vs. whites. INTRODUCTION: Ethnic origin has a major influence on hip fractures, but the underlying etiology is unknown. We evaluated ethnic differences in hip fracture rates among 159,579 postmenopausal participants in the WHI then compared femur bone mineral density (BMD) and geometry among a subset with dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans of the hip and total body. METHODS: The subset included 8,206 non-Hispanic whites, 1,476 African-American (AA), 704 Mexican-American (MA), and 130 Native Americans (NA). Femur geometry derived from hip DXA using hip-structure analysis (HSA) in whites was compared to minority groups after adjustment for age, height, weight, percent lean mass, neck-shaft angle and neck length, hormone use, chronic disease (e.g., diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, cancer), bone active medications (e.g., corticosteroids, osteoporosis therapies), and clinical center. RESULTS: Both AA and MA women suffered hip fractures at half the rate of whites while NA appeared to be similar to whites. The structural advantage among AA appears to be due to a slightly narrower femur that requires more bone tissue to achieve similar or lower section moduli (SM) vs. whites. This also underlies their higher BMD (reduces region area) and lower buckling ratios (buckling susceptibility). Both MA and NA women had similar advantages vs. whites at the intertrochanter region where cross-sectional area and SM were higher but with no differences at the neck. NA and MA had smaller bending moments vs. whites acting in a fall on the hip (not significant in small NA sample). Buckling ratios of MA did not differ from whites at any region although NA had 4% lower values at the IT region. CONCLUSION: Differences in the geometry at the proximal femur are consistent with the lower hip fracture rates among AA and MA women compared to whites.
SUMMARY:Participants in the observational study of the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) were studied to determine if ethnic differences in femur geometry can help to explain differences in hip fracture rates. Structural differences in femurs of African and Mexican-American women appear to be consistent with lower rates of hip fractures vs. whites. INTRODUCTION: Ethnic origin has a major influence on hip fractures, but the underlying etiology is unknown. We evaluated ethnic differences in hip fracture rates among 159,579 postmenopausal participants in the WHI then compared femur bone mineral density (BMD) and geometry among a subset with dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans of the hip and total body. METHODS: The subset included 8,206 non-Hispanic whites, 1,476 African-American (AA), 704 Mexican-American (MA), and 130 Native Americans (NA). Femur geometry derived from hip DXA using hip-structure analysis (HSA) in whites was compared to minority groups after adjustment for age, height, weight, percent lean mass, neck-shaft angle and neck length, hormone use, chronic disease (e.g., diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, cancer), bone active medications (e.g., corticosteroids, osteoporosis therapies), and clinical center. RESULTS: Both AA and MA women suffered hip fractures at half the rate of whites while NA appeared to be similar to whites. The structural advantage among AA appears to be due to a slightly narrower femur that requires more bone tissue to achieve similar or lower section moduli (SM) vs. whites. This also underlies their higher BMD (reduces region area) and lower buckling ratios (buckling susceptibility). Both MA and NA women had similar advantages vs. whites at the intertrochanter region where cross-sectional area and SM were higher but with no differences at the neck. NA and MA had smaller bending moments vs. whites acting in a fall on the hip (not significant in small NA sample). Buckling ratios of MA did not differ from whites at any region although NA had 4% lower values at the IT region. CONCLUSION: Differences in the geometry at the proximal femur are consistent with the lower hip fracture rates among AA and MA women compared to whites.
Authors: J David Curb; Anne McTiernan; Susan R Heckbert; Charles Kooperberg; Janet Stanford; Michael Nevitt; Karen C Johnson; Lori Proulx-Burns; Lisa Pastore; Michael Criqui; Sandra Daugherty Journal: Ann Epidemiol Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 3.797
Authors: Paul M Mayhew; C David Thomas; John G Clement; Nigel Loveridge; Thomas J Beck; William Bonfield; Chris J Burgoyne; Jonathan Reeve Journal: Lancet Date: 2005 Jul 9-15 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: C De Laet; J A Kanis; A Odén; H Johanson; O Johnell; P Delmas; J A Eisman; H Kroger; S Fujiwara; P Garnero; E V McCloskey; D Mellstrom; L J Melton; P J Meunier; H A P Pols; J Reeve; A Silman; A Tenenhouse Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2005-06-01 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Jane A Cauley; Li-Yung Lui; Katie L Stone; Teresa A Hillier; Joseph M Zmuda; Marc Hochberg; Thomas J Beck; Kristinee E Ensrud Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Thomas J Beck; Moira A Petit; Guanglin Wu; Meryl S LeBoff; Jane A Cauley; Zhao Chen Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2009-08 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: Anne McTiernan; Charles Kooperberg; Emily White; Sara Wilcox; Ralph Coates; Lucile L Adams-Campbell; Nancy Woods; Judith Ockene Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-09-10 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Fernando Rivadeneira; M Carola Zillikens; Chris Edh De Laet; Albert Hofman; André G Uitterlinden; Thomas J Beck; Huibert Ap Pols Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2007-11 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: Peter M de Bakker; Sarah L Manske; Vincent Ebacher; Thomas R Oxland; Peter A Cripton; Pierre Guy Journal: J Biomech Date: 2009-06-13 Impact factor: 2.712
Authors: Christoph Kolja Boese; Jens Dargel; Johannes Oppermann; Peer Eysel; Max Joseph Scheyerer; Jan Bredow; Philipp Lechler Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2015-08-25 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: Yahtyng Sheu; Jane A Cauley; Alan L Patrick; Victor W Wheeler; Clareann H Bunker; Joseph M Zmuda Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2014-01 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: Lisa Reider; Thomas Beck; Dawn Alley; Ram Miller; Michelle Shardell; John Schumacher; Jay Magaziner; Peggy M Cawthon; Kamil E Barbour; Jane A Cauley; Tamara Harris Journal: Bone Date: 2016-06-21 Impact factor: 4.398
Authors: Sherita Hill Golden; Arleen Brown; Jane A Cauley; Marshall H Chin; Tiffany L Gary-Webb; Catherine Kim; Julie Ann Sosa; Anne E Sumner; Blair Anton Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2012-06-22 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Carolyn J Crandall; Michael J LaMonte; Beverly M Snively; Meryl S LeBoff; Jane A Cauley; Cora E Lewis; Robert Wallace; Wenjun Li; Zhao Chen; John A Robbins; Jean Wactawski-Wende Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2016-03 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Michelle E Danielson; Thomas J Beck; Yinjuan Lian; Arun S Karlamangla; Gail A Greendale; Kristine Ruppert; Joan Lo; Susan Greenspan; Marike Vuga; Jane A Cauley Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2013-04 Impact factor: 6.741