Cosman F, Nieves J, Wilkinson C, Schnering D, Shen V, Lindsay R
Clinical Research Center, Helen Hayes Hospital, West Haverstraw, New York 10993, USA.
Calcif Tissue Int. 1996 Apr;58(4):236-43. doi: 10.1007/BF02508642.
Although biochemical markers of skeletal turnover cannot replace bone density scanning for the diagnosis of osteoporosis, it is thought that they may help add to prediction of fracture risk and help determine adequacy of osteoporosis therapy. Nevertheless, whether biochemical markers in the serum or urine can predict individual rates of bone loss in the spine or hip region is unknown. We studied a heterogeneous group of women (n = 81) who were premenopausal, untreated postmenopausal, and estrogen-treated postmenopausal with baseline determination of body mass index (BMI), calcium intake, biochemical measurements, and serial bone densitometry over 3 years. Serum assays included bone Gla protein (BGP), total and bone-specific alkaline phosphatase (AP, BSAP), carboxyterminal propeptide of type I procollagen (PICP), carboxyterminal telopeptide of type I collagen (ICTP) and tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase (TRAP). Urine assays included hydroxyproline (OHP), calcium, total pyridinoline, and total deoxypyridinoline. Individual biochemical markers and calcium intake were modestly correlated with bone density changes but were inconsistent regarding the spine versus the hip. All of the formation variables were significantly correlated to spine density change (r = -0.24 to -0.49) whereas the only resorption variable that correlated was urine OHp/Cr (r = -0.31). The only formation variable that correlated with hip density change was serum PICP whereas all of the resorption variables except serum TRAP were correlated (r = -0.23 to -0.35). "High turnover" individuals were defined at those with levels of biochemical variables at least 1 SD above the mean young normal for each variable. Higher bone loss rates were seen in this group for several of the turnover markers compared with bone loss rates in all other individuals. However, the sensitivity of this "high turnover" status for identifying high bone losers did not exceed 60% for any of the variables. In untreated postmenopausal women, a model using urine OHp, serum ICTP, serum BSAP, and calcium intake was able to predict 42% of the variance of change in BMD of the lumbar spine. A model using BMI, serum ICTP, and serum BGP could predict 32% of the variance of change in BMD of the femoral neck. No combination of markers could predict variance in bone density change at either site in estrogenized women (premenopausal and estrogen-treated postmenopausal). We conclude that measuring individual serum and urine markers of bone turnover cannot accurately predict bone loss rates in the spine and hip; however, combinations of demographic and biochemical variables could predict some of the variance in untreated postmenopausal women. Biochemical markers cannot replace serial bone densitometry for accurate determination of change in bone mass at the most clinically relevant sites.
尽管骨骼转换的生化标志物不能替代骨密度扫描用于骨质疏松症的诊断,但人们认为它们可能有助于增加骨折风险的预测,并有助于确定骨质疏松症治疗的充分性。然而,血清或尿液中的生化标志物是否能预测脊柱或髋部区域的个体骨丢失率尚不清楚。我们研究了一组异质性女性(n = 81),她们处于绝经前、未接受治疗的绝经后以及接受雌激素治疗的绝经后状态,在基线时测定了体重指数(BMI)、钙摄入量、生化指标,并在3年期间进行了连续骨密度测量。血清检测项目包括骨钙素(BGP)、总碱性磷酸酶和骨特异性碱性磷酸酶(AP、BSAP)、I型前胶原羧基末端前肽(PICP)、I型胶原羧基末端端肽(ICTP)和抗酒石酸酸性磷酸酶(TRAP)。尿液检测项目包括羟脯氨酸(OHP)、钙、总吡啶啉和总脱氧吡啶啉。个体生化标志物和钙摄入量与骨密度变化有适度相关性,但在脊柱和髋部方面并不一致。所有的形成变量均与脊柱密度变化显著相关(r = -0.24至-0.49),而唯一相关的吸收变量是尿OHp/Cr(r = -0.31)。与髋部密度变化相关的唯一形成变量是血清PICP,而除血清TRAP外的所有吸收变量均相关(r = -0.23至-0.35)。“高转换”个体定义为那些生化变量水平至少高于各变量年轻正常均值1个标准差的个体。与所有其他个体的骨丢失率相比,该组中几种转换标志物的骨丢失率更高。然而,这种“高转换”状态识别高骨量丢失者的敏感性对于任何变量都不超过60%。在未接受治疗的绝经后女性中,一个使用尿OHp、血清ICTP、血清BSAP和钙摄入量的模型能够预测腰椎骨密度变化方差的42%。一个使用BMI、血清ICTP和血清BGP的模型能够预测股骨颈骨密度变化方差的32%。没有标志物组合能够预测雌激素化女性(绝经前和接受雌激素治疗的绝经后)任一部位的骨密度变化方差(p值)。我们得出结论,测量个体血清和尿液中的骨转换标志物不能准确预测脊柱和髋部的骨丢失率;然而,人口统计学和生化变量的组合可以预测未接受治疗的绝经后女性的部分方差。生化标志物不能替代连续骨密度测量来准确确定临床上最相关部位的骨量变化。