Journals / Medical Network Klinik Bilimler ve Doktor / 2001 / Cilt: 7 - Sayı: 4

Type 2 diabetes mellitus and postmenopausal osteoporosis

Tip 2 diabetes mellitus ve postmenopozal osteoporoz

Pages
434–436
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

CONCLUSION: Presence of type 2 diabetes mellitus does not effect the severity of osteoporosis or the efficacy of antiresorptive treatment in postmenopausal osteoporotic patients.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:AIM: Although the relation between type 1 diabetes melitus and osteoporosis is well established, the effect of type 2 diabetes mellitus on bone mineral density (BMD) is still controversial.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This study is performed in order to evaluate the effects of type 2 diabetes mellitus on osteoporosis.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:CONCLUSION: Presence of type 2 diabetes mellitus does not effect the severity of osteoporosis or the efficacy of antiresorptive treatment in postmenopausal osteoporotic patients.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Postmenopoz · Osteoporoz · postmenopozal

Abstract

AIM: Although the relation between type 1 diabetes melitus and osteoporosis is well established, the effect of type 2 diabetes mellitus on bone mineral density (BMD) is still controversial. This study is performed in order to evaluate the effects of type 2 diabetes mellitus on osteoporosis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: From postmenoposal osteoporotic patients curently on follow-up in the osteoporosis outpatient clinic twenty patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and 131 age-matched nondiabetic control patients are involved in the study. Both of the groups had received biphosphonate and calcium. Pre- and one year post-treatment bone mineral densities of the lumbar spine are compared within and between the groups. RESULTS: Two groups were similar with regard to age, body mass index, age at menopause and duration of menopause. The difference in bone mineal density values between the diabetic and nondiabetic group was not significant (0.762±0.104 vs 0.768±0.110, respectively; p>0.05). One year antiresorptive treatment resulted in significant increases in spinal BMD in both diabetic (% 5.4, p = 0.007) and nondiabetic (% 6.4, p < 0.001) groups. The change in BMD (&#916;BMD) with treatment was not different between the two groups (p = 0.75). CONCLUSION: Presence of type 2 diabetes mellitus does not effect the severity of osteoporosis or the efficacy of antiresorptive treatment in postmenopausal osteoporotic patients.

Özet

AMAÇ: Tip 1 diabetes mellitusun osteoporozla ilişkisi iyi bilinmesine karşın tip 2 diabetes mellitusun kemik mineral yoğunluğuna (KMY) etkileri halen tartışmalıdır. Bu retrospektif çalışmada tip 2 diabetes mellitusun osteoporoz üzerine etkisi olup olmadığını araştırmak amacıyla yapıldı. GEREÇ VE YÖNTEM: Çalışmaya osteoporoz polikliniğinde takip altında olan 20 tip 2 diabetes mellituslu hasta ve bu hastalarla yaşları uyumlu 131 nondiabetik postmenopozal osteoporozlu hasta alındı. Her iki gruptaki hastalara bifosfonat ve kalsiyum tedavisi verilmişti. Grupların tedavi başlangıcı ve tedavinin birinci yılı sonunda kemik mineral yoğunluğu değerleri grup içinde ve gruplar arasında karşılaştırıldı. BULGULAR: Her iki grup yaş, beden kitle indeksi, menopoz yaşı ve menopoz süresi yönünden benzer idi. Tedavi öncesi diabetik grubun spinal KMY değeri ile nondiabetik kontrol grubun KMY değerleri arasındaki fark anlamlı değildi (sırasıyla 0.762±0.104 ve 0.768±0.110, p>0.05). Bir yıllık antirezorptif tedavi sonunda KMY diabetik (% 5.4, p = 0.007) ve nondiabetik (% 6.4, p < 0.001) gruplarda anlamlı artış gösterdi. İki grup arasında tedavi ile oluşan KMY artışları arasındaki fark (ΔKMY) anlamlı bulunmadı (p = 0.75). SONUÇ: Tip 2 diabetes mellitus varlığı postmenopozal osteoporozlu hastalarda osteoporoz ağırlığını ve antirezorptif tedavinin etkinliğini etkilememektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

GÜLER, S., ODABAŞI, E., ÇAKIR, B., TURAN, M., KUTLU, M., ÖZDEMİR, Ç. (2001). Type 2 diabetes mellitus and postmenopausal osteoporosis. Medical Network Klinik Bilimler ve Doktor, Cilt: 7 - Sayı: 4, 434–436. https://ajindex.com/articles/278828

References (8)

  1. Raisz LG, Kream BE, Lorenzo JA. Metabolic bone disease. In Wilson JD, Foster DW, Kronenberg HM, Larsen PR, editors. Williams Textbook of Endocrinology 9th edition. Philadelphia: WB Saunders, 1998: 1211-1239
  2. Munoz-Torres M, Jodar E, Escobar-Jimenez F, et al. Bone mineral density measured by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry in Spanish women with insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. Calcif Tissue Int 1996; 58:316-319
  3. Miazgowski T, Czekalski S. A 2-year follow-up study on bone mineral density and markers of turnover in patients with long standing insulin- dependent diabetes mellitus. Osteoporosis Int 1998; 8:399-403
  4. Kwon DJ, Kim JH, Chung KW, et al. Bone mineral density of the spine using dual energy X-ray absorptiometry in patients with non-insulin- dependent diabetes mellitus. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 1996; 22:157-162
  5. Strewler GJ. Mineral Metabolism & Metabolic Bone Disease. In: Greenspan FS, Strewler GJ, editors. Basic & Clinical Endocrinology. Appleton & Lange. Stanford, USA 1997: 263-316
  6. Isaia GC, Ardisssone P, Stefano M, et al, Molinatti GM. Bone metabolism in Type 2 diabetes mellitus. Acta Diabetol 1999; 36:35-38
  7. Piepkorn B, Kann P, Forst T, et al. Bone mineral density and metabolism in diabetes mellitus. Horm Metab Res 1997; 29:584-591. 8. van Daele PL, Stolk RP, Burger H, et al. Bone density in non-insulin- dependent diabetes mellitus. The Rotterdam Study. Ann Intern Med 1995; 122:409-414
  8. Koçkar C, Demirbaş B, Karaahmetoğlu S, Müftüoğlu O. Diabetik hastalarda kemik dansitesinin araştırılması. Türk Dianbet Yıllığı 1994-1995; 10:64-69. 10.Güven M, Çolak R, Tutuş A, et al. The evaluation of bone mineral density in male and postmenopausal female patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus. Turkish Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism 1999; 4:169-172.