Raelene E Maser1, M James Lenhard2, Michael B Sneider3, Ryan T Pohlig4. 1. Department of Medical Laboratory Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware Diabetes and Metabolic Research Center, Christiana Care Health System, Newark, Delaware. 2. Diabetes and Metabolic Research Center, Christiana Care Health System, Newark, Delaware Diabetes and Metabolic Diseases Center, Christiana Care Health System, Wilmington, Delaware. 3. Department of Radiology, Christiana Care Health System, Newark, Delaware. 4. Biostatistics Core Facility, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Coronary artery calcification (CAC) is a prominent feature of atherosclerosis and is associated with cardiovascular events. In vitro studies have suggested that osteoprotegerin (OPG) and osteocalcin (OC) exert anticalcification potential in the vessel wall. The objective of this study was to investigate the association of CAC and serum bone biomarkers in persons with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: We examined 50 individuals with type 2 diabetes. CAC imaging was performed by multidetector computed tomography. CAC scores ≥10, expressed in Agatston units, were considered abnormal. OC, undercarboxylated OC (ucOC), and OPG levels were determined by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. RESULTS: Abnormal CAC scores were found for 64% of the study cohort. OPG levels were significantly elevated (5.5 ± 2.0 pmol/L vs. 4.2 ± 1.7 pmol/L; P = .026) for those with abnormal CAC scores. No univariate differences were found for OC or ucOC. Logistic regression analyses revealed that an increase in serum OPG level was significantly associated with an increase in CAC score (odds ratio, 3.324; 95% confidence interval, 1.321 to 8.359; P = .011). Longer duration of diabetes was a significant covariate (P = .026), whereas nonsignificant covariates in the final model were age, gender, systolic blood pressure, body mass index, insulin resistance determined by the homeostasis model assessment for insulin resistance, leptin, adiponectin, and glycemic control. The Nagelkerke R2 for the model was 0.66. Neither OC nor ucOC were significantly associated with elevated CAC scores. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that OPG is a more useful serum biomarker than OC or ucOC for identifying those at increased risk of arterial calcification in type 2 diabetes.
OBJECTIVE:Coronary artery calcification (CAC) is a prominent feature of atherosclerosis and is associated with cardiovascular events. In vitro studies have suggested that osteoprotegerin (OPG) and osteocalcin (OC) exert anticalcification potential in the vessel wall. The objective of this study was to investigate the association of CAC and serum bone biomarkers in persons with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: We examined 50 individuals with type 2 diabetes. CAC imaging was performed by multidetector computed tomography. CAC scores ≥10, expressed in Agatston units, were considered abnormal. OC, undercarboxylated OC (ucOC), and OPG levels were determined by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. RESULTS: Abnormal CAC scores were found for 64% of the study cohort. OPG levels were significantly elevated (5.5 ± 2.0 pmol/L vs. 4.2 ± 1.7 pmol/L; P = .026) for those with abnormal CAC scores. No univariate differences were found for OC or ucOC. Logistic regression analyses revealed that an increase in serum OPG level was significantly associated with an increase in CAC score (odds ratio, 3.324; 95% confidence interval, 1.321 to 8.359; P = .011). Longer duration of diabetes was a significant covariate (P = .026), whereas nonsignificant covariates in the final model were age, gender, systolic blood pressure, body mass index, insulin resistance determined by the homeostasis model assessment for insulin resistance, leptin, adiponectin, and glycemic control. The Nagelkerke R2 for the model was 0.66. Neither OC nor ucOC were significantly associated with elevated CAC scores. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that OPG is a more useful serum biomarker than OC or ucOC for identifying those at increased risk of arterial calcification in type 2 diabetes.
Authors: W S Simonet; D L Lacey; C R Dunstan; M Kelley; M S Chang; R Lüthy; H Q Nguyen; S Wooden; L Bennett; T Boone; G Shimamoto; M DeRose; R Elliott; A Colombero; H L Tan; G Trail; J Sullivan; E Davy; N Bucay; L Renshaw-Gegg; T M Hughes; D Hill; W Pattison; P Campbell; S Sander; G Van; J Tarpley; P Derby; R Lee; W J Boyle Journal: Cell Date: 1997-04-18 Impact factor: 41.582
Authors: S M Kim; J Lee; O H Ryu; K W Lee; H Y Kim; J A Seo; S G Kim; N H Kim; S H Baik; D S Choi; K M Choi Journal: Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 3.478
Authors: Muredach P Reilly; Nayyar Iqbal; Mark Schutta; Megan L Wolfe; Monique Scally; A Russell Localio; Daniel J Rader; Stephen E Kimmel Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Barbara A Gower; Norman K Pollock; Krista Casazza; Thomas L Clemens; Laura Lee Goree; Wesley M Granger Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2013-04-24 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Subhashish Agarwal; Timothy Morgan; David M Herrington; Jianzhao Xu; Amanda J Cox; Barry I Freedman; J Jeffrey Carr; Donald W Bowden Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2011-03-11 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Sophie A Millar; Hinal Patel; Susan I Anderson; Timothy J England; Saoirse E O'Sullivan Journal: Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) Date: 2017-07-31 Impact factor: 5.555