Lu Haojie, Lary Christine W, Hodonsky Chani J, Peyser Patricia A, Bos Daniel, van der Laan Sander W, Miller Clint L, Rivadeneira Fernando, Kiel Douglas P, Kavousi Maryam, Medina-Gomez Carolina
Department of Epidemiology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, CA 3000, The Netherlands.
Department of Internal Medicine, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, CA 3000, The Netherlands.
J Bone Miner Res. 2024 May 2;39(4):443-452. doi: 10.1093/jbmr/zjae022.
Observational studies have reported inconsistent associations between bone mineral density (BMD) and coronary artery calcification (CAC). We examined the observational association of BMD with CAC in 2 large population-based studies and evaluated the evidence for a potential causal relation between BMD and CAC using polygenic risk scores (PRS), 1- and 2-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) approaches. Our study populations comprised 1414 individuals (mean age 69.9 yr, 52.0% women) from the Rotterdam Study and 2233 individuals (mean age 56.5 yr, 50.9% women) from the Framingham Heart Study with complete information on CAC and BMD measurements at the total body (TB-), lumbar spine (LS-), and femoral neck (FN-). We used linear regression models to evaluate the observational association between BMD and CAC. Subsequently, we compared the mean CAC across PRSBMD quintile groups at different skeletal sites. In addition, we used the 2-stage least squares regression and the inverse variance weighted (IVW) model as primary methods for 1- and 2-sample MR to test evidence for a potentially causal association. We did not observe robust associations between measured BMD levels and CAC. These results were consistent with a uniform random distribution of mean CAC across PRSBMD quintile groups (P-value > .05). Moreover, neither 1- nor 2-sample MR supported the possible causal association between BMD and CAC. Our results do not support the contention that lower BMD is (causally) associated with an increased CAC risk. These findings suggest that previously reported epidemiological associations of BMD with CAC are likely explained by unmeasured confounders or shared etiology, rather than by causal pathways underlying both osteoporosis and vascular calcification processes.
观察性研究报告了骨矿物质密度(BMD)与冠状动脉钙化(CAC)之间的关联并不一致。我们在两项大型基于人群的研究中检验了BMD与CAC的观察性关联,并使用多基因风险评分(PRS)、单样本和两样本孟德尔随机化(MR)方法评估了BMD与CAC之间潜在因果关系的证据。我们的研究人群包括来自鹿特丹研究的1414名个体(平均年龄69.9岁,52.0%为女性)和来自弗雷明汉心脏研究的2233名个体(平均年龄56.5岁,50.9%为女性),他们在全身(TB-)、腰椎(LS-)和股骨颈(FN-)的CAC和BMD测量方面有完整信息。我们使用线性回归模型来评估BMD与CAC之间的观察性关联。随后,我们比较了不同骨骼部位PRS BMD五分位数组的平均CAC。此外,我们使用两阶段最小二乘回归和逆方差加权(IVW)模型作为单样本和两样本MR的主要方法,以检验潜在因果关联的证据。我们没有观察到测量的BMD水平与CAC之间有显著关联。这些结果与平均CAC在PRS BMD五分位数组中的均匀随机分布一致(P值>.05)。此外,单样本和两样本MR均不支持BMD与CAC之间可能的因果关联。我们的结果不支持较低的BMD(因果性地)与CAC风险增加相关的观点。这些发现表明,先前报道的BMD与CAC的流行病学关联可能是由未测量的混杂因素或共同病因解释的,而不是由骨质疏松症和血管钙化过程的因果途径解释的。