Search

ContextThe conventional view that obesity is beneficial for bone strength has recently been challenged by studies that link obesity, particularly visceral obesity, to low bone mass and fractures. It is controversial whether effects of obesity on bone are mediated by increased bone resorption or decreased bone formation.ObjectiveThe objective of the study was to evaluate bone microarchitecture and remodeling in healthy premenopausal women of varying weights.DesignWe measured bone density and trunk fat by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry in 40 women and by computed tomography in a subset. Bone microarchitecture, stiffness, remodeling, and marrow fat were assessed in labeled transiliac bone biopsies.ResultsBody mass index (BMI) ranged from 20.1 to 39.2 kg/m(2). Dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry-trunk fat was directly associated with BMI (r = 0.78, P < .001) and visceral fat by computed tomography (r = 0.79, P < .001). Compared with women in the lowest tertile of trunk fat, those in the highest tertile had inferior bone quality: lower trabecular bone volume (20.4 ± 5.8 vs 29.1 ± 6.1%; P = .001) and stiffness (433 ± 264 vs 782 ± 349 MPa; P = .01) and higher cortical porosity (8.8 ± 3.5 vs 6.3 ± 2.4%; P = .049). Bone formation rate (0.004 ± 0.002 vs 0.011 ± 0.008 mm(2)/mm · year; P = .006) was 64% lower in the highest tertile. Trunk fat was inversely associated with trabecular bone volume (r = -0.50; P < .01) and bone formation rate (r = -0.50; P < .001). The relationship between trunk fat and bone volume remained significant after controlling for age and BMI.ConclusionsAt the tissue level, premenopausal women with more central adiposity had inferior bone quality and stiffness and markedly lower bone formation. Given the rising levels of obesity, these observations require further investigation.

ContextIdiopathic osteoporosis (IOP) affects otherwise healthy young individuals with intact gonadal function and no secondary cause of bone fragility. In premenopausal women with IOP, a low trauma fracture is evidence of impaired bone quality and strength. The extent to which low bone mineral density (BMD) by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) reflects low volumetric BMD, bone microstructure, and strength is uncertain in the absence of low trauma fracture.ObjectiveThe objective of the study was to compare three-dimensional volumetric BMD and bone stiffness in premenopausal women with IOP based on fracture history, those with idiopathic low BMD (Z score ≤ -2.0) and no low trauma fracture, and normal age-matched controls.DesignWe measured volumetric BMD and bone geometry by central quantitative computed tomography (cQCT) scans of the spine and hip and estimated bone stiffness by finite element analysis of cQCT data sets in 32 premenopausal women with IOP, 12 with idiopathic low BMD, and 34 controls.ResultsSubjects had comparable decreases in total and trabecular volumetric BMD, cortical thickness, and whole-bone stiffness compared with controls, regardless of fracture history. These differences remained significant after controlling for age, body mass index, and bone size. The positive predictive values of a DXA Z score of -2.0 or less for a cQCT volumetric BMD Z score of -2.0 or less were 95% at the lumbar spine, 90% at the total hip, and 86% at the femoral neck.ConclusionWomen with idiopathic low BMD alone and those with low trauma fractures had comparable deficits in bone mass, structure, and stiffness. Low areal BMD by DXA is fairly accurate for predicting low volumetric BMD by cQCT. These results are consistent with three-dimensional bone imaging at the iliac crest, radius, and tibia in premenopausal IOP and suggest that the term osteoporosis may be appropriate in women with Z scores below -2.0, whether or not there is a history of fracture.

Premenopausal women with idiopathic osteoporosis (PreMenIOP) have marked deficits in skeletal microstructure. We have reported that sequential treatment with teriparatide and denosumab improves central skeletal bone mineral density (BMD) by dual‐energy X‐ray absorptiometry and central QCT in PreMenIOP. We conducted preplanned analyses of high‐resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography (HR‐pQCT) scans from teriparatide and denosumab extension studies to measure effects on volumetric BMD (vBMD), microarchitecture, and estimated strength at the distal radius and tibia. Of 41 women enrolled in the parent teriparatide study (20 mcg daily), 34 enrolled in the HR‐pQCT study. HR‐pQCT participants initially received teriparatide (N = 24) or placebo (N = 10) for 6 months; all then received teriparatide for 24 months. After teriparatide, 26 enrolled in the phase 2B denosumab extension (60 mg q6M) for 24 months. Primary outcomes were percentage change in vBMD, microstructure, and stiffness after teriparatide and after denosumab. Changes after sequential teriparatide and denosumab were secondary outcomes. After teriparatide, significant improvements were seen in tibial trabecular number (3.3%, p = 0.01), cortical area and thickness (both 2.7%, p < 0.001), and radial trabecular microarchitecture (number: 6.8%, thickness: 2.2%, separation: −5.1%, all p < 0.02). Despite increases in cortical porosity and decreases in cortical density, whole‐bone stiffness and failure load increased at both sites. After denosumab, increases in total (3.5%, p < 0.001 and 3.3%, p = 0.02) and cortical vBMD (1.7% and 3.2%; both p < 0.01), and failure load (1.1% and 3.6%; both p < 0.05) were seen at tibia and radius, respectively. Trabecular density (3.5%, p < 0.001) and number (2.4%, p = 0.03) increased at the tibia, while thickness (3.0%, p = 0.02) increased at the radius. After 48 months of sequential treatment, significant increases in total vBMD (tibia: p < 0.001; radius: p = 0.01), trabecular microstructure (p < 0.05), cortical thickness (tibia: p < 0.001; radius: p = 0.02), and whole bone strength (p < 0.02) were seen at both sites. Significant increases in total vBMD and bone strength parameters after sequential treatment with teriparatide followed by denosumab support the use of this regimen in PreMenIOP. © 2022 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]