Dominik Strozyk1, Thomas M Gress2, Lutz P Breitling3,4. 1. Department of Internal Medicine, GRN Hospital Sinsheim, Sinsheim, Germany. 2. Department of Gastroenterology, Endocrinology, Metabolism and Infectiology, Philipps University of Marburg, Marburg, Germany. 3. Department of Gastroenterology, Endocrinology, Metabolism and Infectiology, Philipps University of Marburg, Marburg, Germany. l.breitling@posteo.de. 4. Division of Clinical Epidemiology and Aging Research, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany. l.breitling@posteo.de.
Abstract
Some questions remain on the relationship between smoking and bone health. Detailed analyses of the relationship between smoking and BMD are presented, essentially ruling out non-linear associations as an explanation for inconsistent results in the literature. INTRODUCTION: To provide comprehensive multiple regression and dose-response analyses of the association between smoking behavior variables and bone health as assessed by radiologically determined bone mineral density in NHANES III. METHODS: Analyzes of a representative cross-sectional survey of the noninstitutionalized population of the USA. Self-reported smoking behavior and bone mineral density of 14,510 participants were analyzed using survey design-based multiple linear regression modeling. Dose-response patterns were analyzed using restricted cubic spline regression. RESULTS: Femoral neck bone mineral density in current smokers was numerically lower than in never smokers, but this was not statistically significant after controlling for confounders. In former smokers, bone mineral density T scores were 0.064 units higher for every 10 years of abstinence, with little impact of confounder adjustment. Spline regression revealed no relevant non-linearity in the associations studied. CONCLUSIONS: Non-linearity is an unlikely explanation for inconsistent results in the literature on smoking and bone mineral density. Further and especially longitudinal studies of the complex relationship smoking with bone health would be particularly important given the still substantial prevalence of smoking in an aging global population.
Some questions remain on the relationship between smoking and bone health. Detailed analyses of the relationship between smoking and BMD are presented, essentially ruling out non-linear associations as an explanation for inconsistent results in the literature. INTRODUCTION: To provide comprehensive multiple regression and dose-response analyses of the association between smoking behavior variables and bone health as assessed by radiologically determined bone mineral density in NHANES III. METHODS: Analyzes of a representative cross-sectional survey of the noninstitutionalized population of the USA. Self-reported smoking behavior and bone mineral density of 14,510 participants were analyzed using survey design-based multiple linear regression modeling. Dose-response patterns were analyzed using restricted cubic spline regression. RESULTS: Femoral neck bone mineral density in current smokers was numerically lower than in never smokers, but this was not statistically significant after controlling for confounders. In former smokers, bone mineral density T scores were 0.064 units higher for every 10 years of abstinence, with little impact of confounder adjustment. Spline regression revealed no relevant non-linearity in the associations studied. CONCLUSIONS: Non-linearity is an unlikely explanation for inconsistent results in the literature on smoking and bone mineral density. Further and especially longitudinal studies of the complex relationship smoking with bone health would be particularly important given the still substantial prevalence of smoking in an aging global population.
Authors: Xinwei Hua; Emily W Lopes; Kristin E Burke; Ashwin N Ananthakrishnan; James M Richter; Chun-Han Lo; Paul Lochhead; Andrew T Chan; Hamed Khalili Journal: J Crohns Colitis Date: 2022-08-04 Impact factor: 10.020
Authors: Sheng Zhu; Victor Häussling; Romina H Aspera-Werz; Tao Chen; Bianca Braun; Weidong Weng; Tina Histing; Andreas K Nussler Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2020-12-23 Impact factor: 5.923
Authors: Yi Lu; Yuanpu Peter Di; Ming Chang; Xin Huang; Qiuyan Chen; Ni Hong; Beth A Kahkonen; Marissa E Di; Chunyan Yu; Evan T Keller; Jian Zhang Journal: J Transl Med Date: 2021-04-21 Impact factor: 5.531
Authors: Lukas Andereggen; Janine Frey; Robert H Andres; Markus M Luedi; Hans Rudolf Widmer; Jürgen Beck; Luigi Mariani; Emanuel Christ Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-03-04 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Tim Kobes; Arthur Sweet; Sophie Verstegen; Marijn Houwert; Wouter Veldhuis; Luke Leenen; Pim de Jong; Mark van Baal Journal: J Pers Med Date: 2022-03-16
Authors: Jo Adams; Nicky Wilson; Emalie Hurkmans; Margot Bakkers; Petra Balážová; Mark Baxter; Anne-Birgitte Blavnsfeldt; Karine Briot; Catharina Chiari; Cyrus Cooper; Razvan Gabriel Dragoi; Gabriele Gäbler; Willem Lems; Erika Mosor; Sandra Pais; Cornelia Simon; Paul Studenic; Simon Tilley; Jenny de la Torre-Aboki; Tanja A Stamm Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 2020-04-24 Impact factor: 27.973