Hip bone geometry in HIV/HCV-co-infected men and healthy controls.

UNLABELLED: People with both HIV and hepatitis C are more likely than those with HIV alone to have wrist, hip, and spine fractures. We compared hip strength between HIV/HCV-co-infected men and healthy men and found that HIV/HCV-co-infected men had decreased hip strength due to lower lean body mass. INTRODUCTION: Hepatitis C co-infection is a risk factor for fragility fracture among HIV-infected populations. Whether bone strength is compromised in HIV/HCV-co-infected patients is unknown. METHODS: We compared dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA)-derived hip geometry, a measure of bone strength, in 88 HIV/HCV-co-infected men from the Johns Hopkins HIV Clinic to 289 men of similar age and race and without HIV or HCV from the Boston Area Community Health Survey/Bone Survey. Hip geometry was assessed at the narrow neck, intertrochanter, and shaft using hip structural analysis. Lean body mass (LBM), total fat mass (FM), and fat mass ratio (FMR) were measured by whole-body DXA. Linear regression was used to identify body composition parameters that accounted for differences in bone strength between cohorts. RESULTS: HIV/HCV-co-infected men had lower BMI, LBM, and FM and higher FMR compared to controls (all p < 0.05). At the narrow neck, significant differences were observed between HIV/HCV-co-infected men and controls in bone mineral density, cross-sectional area, section modulus, buckling ratio, and centroid position. After adjustment for race, age, smoking status, height, and weight, only buckling ratio and centroid position remained significantly different between cohorts (all p < 0.05). Substituting LBM, FM, and FMR for weight in the multivariate model revealed that differences in LBM, but not FM or FMR, accounted for differences in all narrow neck parameters between cohorts, except buckling ratio and centroid position. CONCLUSION: HIV/HCV-co-infected men have compromised hip strength at the narrow neck compared to uninfected controls, which is attributable in large part to lower lean body mass.

Accounting for racial/ethnic variation in bone mineral content and density: the competing influences of socioeconomic factors, body composition, health and lifestyle, and circulating androgens and estrogens.

UNLABELLED: The relative importance of various contributors to racial/ethnic variation in BMC/BMD is not established. Using population-based data, we determined that body composition differences (specifically skeletal muscle and fat mass) are among the strongest contributors to these variations. INTRODUCTION: Racial/ethnic variation in fracture risk is well documented, but the mechanisms by which such heterogeneity arises are poorly understood. We analyzed data from black, Hispanic, and white men enrolled in the Boston Area Community Health/Bone (BACH/Bone) Survey to determine the contributions of risk factors to racial/ethnic differences in bone mineral content (BMC) and density (BMD). METHODS: In a population-based study, BMC, BMD, and body composition were ascertained by DXA. Socioeconomic status, health history, and dietary intake were obtained via interview. Hormones and markers of bone turnover were obtained from non-fasting blood samples. Multivariate analyses measured percentage reductions in estimated racial/ethnic differences in BMC/BMD, accompanying the successive removal of covariates from linear regression models. RESULTS: Black men demonstrated greater BMC than their Hispanic and white counterparts. At the femoral neck, adjustment for covariables was sufficient to reduce these differences by 46% and 35%, respectively. While absolute differences in BMC were smaller at the distal radius than femoral neck, the proportionate reductions in racial/ethnic differences after covariable adjustment were comparable or greater. Multivariate models provided evidence that lean and fat mass, serum 25(OH)D, osteocalcin, estradiol, and aspects of socioeconomic status influence the magnitude of racial/ethnic differences in BMC, with lean and fat mass providing the strongest effects. Results for BMD were similar, but typically of lesser magnitude and statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: These cross-sectional analyses demonstrate that much of the racial/ethnic heterogeneity in measures of bone mass and density can be accounted for through variation in body composition, diet, and socio-demographic factors.

Relative contributions of multiple determinants to bone mineral density in men.

SUMMARY: Focus on individual risk factors for osteoporosis could allocate disproportionate attention to trivial relationships. We tested many recognized risk factors of osteoporosis for their association with bone mineral density (BMD) in multivariate models among men. Lean mass accounted for the most variance, with substantially less accounted for by demographic, strength, and health factors. INTRODUCTION: Osteoporosis in men has gained recognition as a public health problem, generating an interest in the search for risk factors. Isolation of individual risk factors could allocate disproportionate attention to relationships that may be of limited consequence. METHODS: The Boston Area Community Health/Bone (BACH/Bone) Survey is a population-based study of randomly selected community-dwelling men (age, 30-79 years). BMD and lean mass were measured by dual X-ray absorptiometry. Socioeconomic status, health history, and lifestyle factors were obtained via interview. Hormone levels and markers of bone turnover were obtained from non-fasting blood samples. Multivariate analyses measured relative contributions of covariates to femoral neck (hip), one-third distal radius (wrist), and lumbar spine BMD. RESULTS: Factors positively associated with BMD in multivariate models at the three sites were black race and appendicular lean mass. Asthma was consistently negatively associated. Various other risk factors also contributed significantly to each of the individual sites. R (2) values for the hip, wrist, and spine were 41%, 30%, and 24%, respectively. Lean mass accounted for the most explained variance at all three sites. CONCLUSIONS: These data emphasize the limitation of focusing on individual risk factors and highlight the importance of potentially modifiable lean mass in predicting BMD.