Baqiyyah N Conway1, Dustin M Long2, M Kathleen Figaro3, Michael E May4. 1. Department of Epidemiology, West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia P.O. Box 9127, Morgantown, WV 26505, United States. Electronic address: bnconway@hsc.wvu.edu. 2. Department of Biostatistics, West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia P.O. Box 9127, Morgantown, WV 26505, United States. Electronic address: dmlong@hsc.wvu.edu. 3. Genesis Health Group Endocrinology, Bettendorf, Iowa 2535 Maplecrest Rd, Suite 10, Bettendorf, IA 52722, United States. Electronic address: kathleen.figaro@gmail.com. 4. Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee 1215 21st Ave S #8210, Nashville, TN 37212, United States. Electronic address: Michael.E.May@Vanderbilt.Edu.
Abstract
AIMS: Elderly patients with diabetes are at increased fracture risk. Although long exposure to hyperglycemia may increase fracture risk via adverse effects on bone metabolism, tight glycemic control may increase risk via trauma subsequent to hypoglycemia. We tested the prospective relationship between glycemic control and fracture risk in 10,572 elderly patients (age ≥65) with diabetes. METHODS: Geriatric patients with diabetes were drawn from Vanderbilt University Medical Center's Electronic Health Record. Baseline was defined as age at first HbA1c after the latter of age 65 or ICD 9 code for diabetes. Cox analysis was used to test the relationship of updated mean HbA1c (average HbA1c over follow-up) with time to first fracture since baseline. HbA1c was categorized as follows: <6.5% [<48mmol/mol]; 6.5-6.9% [48-52mmol/mol]; 7-7.9% [53-63mmol/mol]; 8-8.9% [64-74 mmol-mol]; ≥9% [≥75mmol/mol]. The number of BMI measurements was used as a surrogate for relative frequency of outpatient visits, i.e. patient-provider contacts. RESULTS: During follow-up, there were 949 fracture events. HbA1c demonstrated a cubic relationship with fracture risk (p<0.05). In analyses accounting for age, sex, race, and number of BMI measures (a surrogate for patient-provider interaction), compared to an HbA1c of 7-7.9%, HRs (95% CIs) were: HbA1c<6.5% HR=0.97 (0.82-1.14), 6.5-6.9% HR=0.80 (0.66-0.97), 8-8.9% HR=1.13 (0.92-1.40), ≥9% HR=1.19 (0.93-1.54). CONCLUSIONS: An HbA1c of 6.5-6.9% is associated with the lowest risk of fracture in elderly patients with diabetes. Risk associated with an HbA1c ≥9% may be a marker of infrequent patient-provider interaction.
AIMS: Elderly patients with diabetes are at increased fracture risk. Although long exposure to hyperglycemia may increase fracture risk via adverse effects on bone metabolism, tight glycemic control may increase risk via trauma subsequent to hypoglycemia. We tested the prospective relationship between glycemic control and fracture risk in 10,572 elderly patients (age ≥65) with diabetes. METHODS: Geriatric patients with diabetes were drawn from Vanderbilt University Medical Center's Electronic Health Record. Baseline was defined as age at first HbA1c after the latter of age 65 or ICD 9 code for diabetes. Cox analysis was used to test the relationship of updated mean HbA1c (average HbA1c over follow-up) with time to first fracture since baseline. HbA1c was categorized as follows: <6.5% [<48mmol/mol]; 6.5-6.9% [48-52mmol/mol]; 7-7.9% [53-63mmol/mol]; 8-8.9% [64-74 mmol-mol]; ≥9% [≥75mmol/mol]. The number of BMI measurements was used as a surrogate for relative frequency of outpatient visits, i.e. patient-provider contacts. RESULTS: During follow-up, there were 949 fracture events. HbA1c demonstrated a cubic relationship with fracture risk (p<0.05). In analyses accounting for age, sex, race, and number of BMI measures (a surrogate for patient-provider interaction), compared to an HbA1c of 7-7.9%, HRs (95% CIs) were: HbA1c<6.5% HR=0.97 (0.82-1.14), 6.5-6.9% HR=0.80 (0.66-0.97), 8-8.9% HR=1.13 (0.92-1.40), ≥9% HR=1.19 (0.93-1.54). CONCLUSIONS: An HbA1c of 6.5-6.9% is associated with the lowest risk of fracture in elderly patients with diabetes. Risk associated with an HbA1c ≥9% may be a marker of infrequent patient-provider interaction.
Authors: Russel Burge; Bess Dawson-Hughes; Daniel H Solomon; John B Wong; Alison King; Anna Tosteson Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: P McNair; S Madsbad; C Christiansen; M S Christensen; O K Faber; C Binder; I Transbøl Journal: Diabetologia Date: 1979-11 Impact factor: 10.122
Authors: Ann V Schwartz; Teresa A Hillier; Deborah E Sellmeyer; Helaine E Resnick; Edward Gregg; Kristine E Ensrud; Pamela J Schreiner; Karen L Margolis; Jane A Cauley; Michael C Nevitt; Dennis M Black; Steven R Cummings Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2002-10 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Ann V Schwartz; Eric Vittinghoff; Deborah E Sellmeyer; Kenneth R Feingold; Nathalie de Rekeneire; Elsa S Strotmeyer; Ronald I Shorr; Aaron I Vinik; Michelle C Odden; Seok Won Park; Kimberly A Faulkner; Tamara B Harris Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2007-12-04 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Alexander J Eckert; Julia K Mader; Marcus Altmeier; Steffen Mühldorfer; Anton Gillessen; Dhayana Dallmeier; Viral N Shah; Christoph Heyer; Bettina Hartmann; Reinhard W Holl Journal: J Diabetes Complications Date: 2020-06-27 Impact factor: 2.852
Authors: Richard H Lee; Richard Sloane; Carl Pieper; Kenneth W Lyles; Robert A Adler; Courtney Van Houtven; Joanne LaFleur; Cathleen Colón-Emeric Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2019-10-09 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: Elliot Ballato; F N U Deepika; Vittoria Russo; Alcibiades Fleires-Gutiérrez; Georgia Colleluori; Virginia Fuenmayor; Rui Chen; Dennis T Villareal; Clifford Qualls; Reina Armamento-Villareal Journal: Calcif Tissue Int Date: 2022-06-04 Impact factor: 4.000