Julie M Paik1,2,3,4, Harold N Rosen4,5, Jeffrey N Katz2,4,6,7, Bernard A Rosner1,4,8, Eric B Rimm1,2,4,9, Catherine M Gordon4,10, Gary C Curhan1,2,4. 1. Channing Division of Network Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 2. Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 3. New England Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Center, VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 4. Harvard Medical School, Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 5. Endocrinology Division, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 6. Rheumatology Division, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 7. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 8. Department of Biostatistics, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 9. Department of Nutrition, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 10. Division of Adolescent/Young Adult Medicine, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to investigate the association between BMI, waist circumference, and vertebral fracture (VF) risk in women. METHODS: This prospective study was conducted in 54,934 Nurses' Health Study participants. BMI was assessed biennially, and waist circumference was assessed in the year 2000. Self-reports of VF were confirmed by record review. BMI reflects lean body mass, and waist circumference reflects abdominal adiposity when included in the same regression model. RESULTS: This study included 536 VF cases (2002 to 2014). Compared with women with BMI of 21.0 to 24.9 kg/m2 , the multivariable-adjusted relative risk (RR) of VF for women with BMI ≥ 32.0 was 0.84 (95% CI: 0.61-1.14; Ptrend = 0.08). After further adjustment for waist circumference, the multivariable-adjusted RR of VF for women with BMI ≥ 32.0 was 0.70 (95% CI: 0.49-0.98; Ptrend = 0.003). Compared with women with waist circumference < 71.0 cm, the multivariable-adjusted RR of VF for women with waist circumference ≥ 108.0 cm was 1.76 (95% CI: 1.06-2.92; Ptrend = 0.01), and after further adjustment for BMI, the multivariable-adjusted RR of VF was 2.49 (95% CI: 1.44-4.33; Ptrend < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Greater lean body mass was independently associated with lower VF risk. Larger waist circumference was independently associated with higher VF risk. These findings suggest that fat distribution is an important predictor of VF and that avoiding central adiposity, as well as maintaining muscle mass, may potentially confer reduced risk of VF in older women.
OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to investigate the association between BMI, waist circumference, and vertebral fracture (VF) risk in women. METHODS: This prospective study was conducted in 54,934 Nurses' Health Study participants. BMI was assessed biennially, and waist circumference was assessed in the year 2000. Self-reports of VF were confirmed by record review. BMI reflects lean body mass, and waist circumference reflects abdominal adiposity when included in the same regression model. RESULTS: This study included 536 VF cases (2002 to 2014). Compared with women with BMI of 21.0 to 24.9 kg/m2 , the multivariable-adjusted relative risk (RR) of VF for women with BMI ≥ 32.0 was 0.84 (95% CI: 0.61-1.14; Ptrend = 0.08). After further adjustment for waist circumference, the multivariable-adjusted RR of VF for women with BMI ≥ 32.0 was 0.70 (95% CI: 0.49-0.98; Ptrend = 0.003). Compared with women with waist circumference < 71.0 cm, the multivariable-adjusted RR of VF for women with waist circumference ≥ 108.0 cm was 1.76 (95% CI: 1.06-2.92; Ptrend = 0.01), and after further adjustment for BMI, the multivariable-adjusted RR of VF was 2.49 (95% CI: 1.44-4.33; Ptrend < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Greater lean body mass was independently associated with lower VF risk. Larger waist circumference was independently associated with higher VF risk. These findings suggest that fat distribution is an important predictor of VF and that avoiding central adiposity, as well as maintaining muscle mass, may potentially confer reduced risk of VF in older women.
Authors: Changzheng Yuan; Donna Spiegelman; Eric B Rimm; Bernard A Rosner; Meir J Stampfer; Junaidah B Barnett; Jorge E Chavarro; Amy F Subar; Laura K Sampson; Walter C Willett Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2017-04-01 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Miriam A Bredella; Eleanor Lin; Anu V Gerweck; Melissa G Landa; Bijoy J Thomas; Martin Torriani; Mary L Bouxsein; Karen K Miller Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2012-08-29 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Alexandra Papaioannou; Lawrence Joseph; George Ioannidis; Claudie Berger; Tassos Anastassiades; Jacques P Brown; David A Hanley; Wilma Hopman; Robert G Josse; Susan Kirkland; Timothy M Murray; Wojciech P Olszynski; Laura Pickard; Jerilynn C Prior; Kerry Siminoski; Jonathan D Adachi Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2004-10-27 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Helena Johansson; John A Kanis; Anders Odén; Eugene McCloskey; Roland D Chapurlat; Claus Christiansen; Steve R Cummings; Adolfo Diez-Perez; John A Eisman; Saeko Fujiwara; Claus-C Glüer; David Goltzman; Didier Hans; Kay-Tee Khaw; Marc-Antoine Krieg; Heikki Kröger; Andrea Z LaCroix; Edith Lau; William D Leslie; Dan Mellström; L Joseph Melton; Terence W O'Neill; Julie A Pasco; Jerilynn C Prior; David M Reid; Fernando Rivadeneira; Tjerd van Staa; Noriko Yoshimura; M Carola Zillikens Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2014-01 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: W Kyle Mitchell; John Williams; Philip Atherton; Mike Larvin; John Lund; Marco Narici Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2012-07-11 Impact factor: 4.566
Authors: Egon Burian; Lioba Grundl; Tobias Greve; Daniela Junker; Nico Sollmann; Maximilian Löffler; Marcus R Makowski; Claus Zimmer; Jan S Kirschke; Thomas Baum Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2021-02-04