UNLABELLED: This study examined whether markers of bone turnover differ between individuals with and without diabetes. Bone markers showed heterogeneity between studies and were discrepant for markers of bone creation and markers of bone degradation. Bone markers may be of lesser value in diabetes due to heterogeneity. INTRODUCTION: The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare existing literature regarding changes in bone markers among diabetics compared to healthy controls. To exclude that blood glucose levels among diabetes patients could influence the assays used for determining bone turnover markers, a methodological study was performed. METHODS: Medline at Pubmed Embase, Cinahl, Svemed+, Cochrane library, and Bibliotek.dk was searched in August 2012. The studies should examine biochemical bone turnover among diabetes patients in comparison to controls in an observational design. In the methodological study, fasting blood samples were drawn from two individuals. Glucose was added to the blood samples in different concentrations and OC, CTX, and procollagen type 1 amino terminal propeptide were measured after 0, 1, 2, and 3 h. RESULTS: Twenty-two papers fulfilled the criteria for the meta-analysis. From the pooled data in the meta-analysis, the bone markers osteocalcin (OC) (-1.15 ng/ml [-1.78,-0.52]) and C-terminal cross-linked telopeptide (CTX) (-0.14 ng/ml [-0.22, -0.05]) were significantly lower among diabetes patients than non-diabetes patients, however other markers did not differ. All markers displayed very high heterogeneity by I2 statistics. In the methodological study, the addition of glucose did not significantly change the bone markers neither by level of glucose nor with increasing incubation time. CONCLUSION: The dissociative pattern of biochemical bone markers of bone formation and bone resorption present in diabetes patients is thus not caused by glucose per se but may be modulated by unknown factors associated with diabetes mellitus.
UNLABELLED: This study examined whether markers of bone turnover differ between individuals with and without diabetes. Bone markers showed heterogeneity between studies and were discrepant for markers of bone creation and markers of bone degradation. Bone markers may be of lesser value in diabetes due to heterogeneity. INTRODUCTION: The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare existing literature regarding changes in bone markers among diabetics compared to healthy controls. To exclude that blood glucose levels among diabetespatients could influence the assays used for determining bone turnover markers, a methodological study was performed. METHODS: Medline at Pubmed Embase, Cinahl, Svemed+, Cochrane library, and Bibliotek.dk was searched in August 2012. The studies should examine biochemical bone turnover among diabetespatients in comparison to controls in an observational design. In the methodological study, fasting blood samples were drawn from two individuals. Glucose was added to the blood samples in different concentrations and OC, CTX, and procollagen type 1 amino terminal propeptide were measured after 0, 1, 2, and 3 h. RESULTS: Twenty-two papers fulfilled the criteria for the meta-analysis. From the pooled data in the meta-analysis, the bone markers osteocalcin (OC) (-1.15 ng/ml [-1.78,-0.52]) and C-terminal cross-linked telopeptide (CTX) (-0.14 ng/ml [-0.22, -0.05]) were significantly lower among diabetespatients than non-diabetespatients, however other markers did not differ. All markers displayed very high heterogeneity by I2 statistics. In the methodological study, the addition of glucose did not significantly change the bone markers neither by level of glucose nor with increasing incubation time. CONCLUSION: The dissociative pattern of biochemical bone markers of bone formation and bone resorption present in diabetespatients is thus not caused by glucose per se but may be modulated by unknown factors associated with diabetes mellitus.
Authors: Soha M Abd El Dayem; Amal M El-Shehaby; Asmat Abd El Gafar; Ashraf Fawzy; Hassan Salama Journal: Scand J Clin Lab Invest Date: 2011-04-08 Impact factor: 1.713
Authors: S Okuno; E Ishimura; N Tsuboniwa; K Norimine; K Yamakawa; T Yamakawa; S Shoji; K Mori; Y Nishizawa; M Inaba Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2012-05-12 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Samuel Vasikaran; Cyrus Cooper; Richard Eastell; Andrea Griesmacher; Howard A Morris; Tommaso Trenti; John A Kanis Journal: Clin Chem Lab Med Date: 2011-05-24 Impact factor: 3.694
Authors: Lucy D Mastrandrea; Jean Wactawski-Wende; Richard P Donahue; Kathleen M Hovey; Angela Clark; Teresa Quattrin Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2008-06-30 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: K Y Jung; K M Kim; E J Ku; Y J Kim; D-H Lee; S H Choi; H C Jang; C S Shin; K S Park; S Lim Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2015-09-15 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Georgia Colleluori; Lina Aguirre; Richard Dorin; David Robbins; Dean Blevins; Yoann Barnouin; Rui Chen; Clifford Qualls; Dennis T Villareal; Reina Armamento-Villareal Journal: Bone Date: 2017-03-16 Impact factor: 4.398