A W Visser1, R de Mutsert2, M Loef3, S le Cessie2, M den Heijer4, J L Bloem5, M Reijnierse5, F R Rosendaal2, M Kloppenburg6. 1. Department of Rheumatology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands. Electronic address: a.w.visser@lumc.nl. 2. Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Rheumatology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands; Department of Endocrinology, Vrije Universiteit Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands. 6. Department of Rheumatology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands; Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate if the amount of fat mass (FM) or skeletal muscle mass (SMM) is more strongly associated with knee osteoarthritis (OA), in both men and women. METHODS: The Netherlands Epidemiology of Obesity (NEO) study is a population-based cohort aged 45-65 years, including 5313 participants (53% female, median body mass index (BMI) 29.9 kg/m(2)). FM (kg), fat percentage, SMM (kg) and skeletal muscle (SM) percentage were estimated using bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA). Clinical OA was defined following the ACR criteria. Structural OA was defined based on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in 1142 participants. Logistic regression analyses were used to examine the associations of all body composition measures with clinical and structural knee OA per standard deviation (SD), stratified by sex and adjusted for age and height. RESULTS: Clinical or structural OA was present in 25% and 14% of women and 12% and 13% of men, respectively. FM and fat percentage were positively associated with clinical knee OA in men and women. SMM was positively associated, while the SM percentage was negatively associated with clinical OA in both men and women. The FM/SMM ratio was positively associated with clinical OA. All determinants showed even stronger ORs for structural knee OA. In men, SMM was more strongly associated with knee OA as compared to FM whereas in women, FM was most strongly associated. CONCLUSION: Especially a high FM/SMM ratio seems to be unfavorable in knee OA. In men, SMM is most strongly associated with knee OA whereas in women FM seems to be of most importance.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate if the amount of fat mass (FM) or skeletal muscle mass (SMM) is more strongly associated with knee osteoarthritis (OA), in both men and women. METHODS: The Netherlands Epidemiology of Obesity (NEO) study is a population-based cohort aged 45-65 years, including 5313 participants (53% female, median body mass index (BMI) 29.9 kg/m(2)). FM (kg), fat percentage, SMM (kg) and skeletal muscle (SM) percentage were estimated using bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA). Clinical OA was defined following the ACR criteria. Structural OA was defined based on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in 1142 participants. Logistic regression analyses were used to examine the associations of all body composition measures with clinical and structural knee OA per standard deviation (SD), stratified by sex and adjusted for age and height. RESULTS: Clinical or structural OA was present in 25% and 14% of women and 12% and 13% of men, respectively. FM and fat percentage were positively associated with clinical knee OA in men and women. SMM was positively associated, while the SM percentage was negatively associated with clinical OA in both men and women. The FM/SMM ratio was positively associated with clinical OA. All determinants showed even stronger ORs for structural knee OA. In men, SMM was more strongly associated with knee OA as compared to FM whereas in women, FM was most strongly associated. CONCLUSION: Especially a high FM/SMM ratio seems to be unfavorable in knee OA. In men, SMM is most strongly associated with knee OA whereas in women FM seems to be of most importance.
Authors: Keiko Amano; Janet L Huebner; Thomas V Stabler; Matthew Tanaka; Charles E McCulloch; Iryna Lobach; Nancy E Lane; Virginia B Kraus; C Benjamin Ma; Xiaojuan Li Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2018-01-24 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: R F Loeser; W Pathmasiri; S J Sumner; S McRitchie; D Beavers; P Saxena; B J Nicklas; J Jordan; A Guermazi; D J Hunter; S P Messier Journal: Osteoarthritis Cartilage Date: 2016-03-21 Impact factor: 6.576
Authors: Stephen P Messier; Daniel P Beavers; Richard F Loeser; J Jeffery Carr; Shubham Khajanchi; Claudine Legault; Barbara J Nicklas; David J Hunter; Paul Devita Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: L H Goldman; K Tang; L Facchetti; U Heilmeier; G B Joseph; M C Nevitt; C E McCulloch; R B Souza; T M Link Journal: Osteoarthritis Cartilage Date: 2016-07-25 Impact factor: 6.576
Authors: Matthew R Titchenal; Jessica L Asay; Julien Favre; Thomas P Andriacchi; Constance R Chu Journal: J Orthop Res Date: 2014-12-22 Impact factor: 3.494
Authors: Kyoung Min Lee; Chin Youb Chung; Soon-Sun Kwon; Tae Gyun Kim; In Hyeok Lee; Ki Jin Jung; Jin Woo Park; Sang Young Moon; Moon Seok Park Journal: Clin Rheumatol Date: 2014-10-07 Impact factor: 2.980