Yeap S S, Beaumont M, Bennett A, Keating N A, White D A, Hosking D J
Department of Medicine, City Hospital, Nottingham, UK.
Postgrad Med J. 1998 Jun;74(872):349-54. doi: 10.1136/pgmj.74.872.349.
This study assessed whether relatives with low bone mineral density (BMD) could be identified in five large families using historical, biochemical, and genetic markers for osteoporosis. Fifty of 65 relatives had their bone density and bone turnover markers measured, together with an assessment of their risk factors for osteoporosis. Only 33% (5/15) of siblings, 50% (6/12) of children and 43% (10/23) of nephews and nieces had entirely normal BMD. There was no difference in life-style risk factors for osteoporosis, history of previous fractures or body mass index between normal subjects and those with osteopenia or osteoporosis. Osteopenic individuals had a significantly higher than normal osteocalcin value. Within families, there was no clear association between BMD and any of the genetic markers (vitamin D receptor gene polymorphisms, COL 1A1 and COL 1A2 polymorphisms of the collagen gene), either alone or in combination. The addition of genetic markers to the other risk factors for low BMD did not improve the prediction of BMD. In conclusion, we suggest that the presence of osteoporosis in a first degree relative should be one of the clinical indications for bone density measurement as the individuals at risk would not be picked up by other methods.
本研究评估了能否利用骨质疏松症的历史、生化和基因标志物,在五个大家庭中识别出骨矿物质密度(BMD)较低的亲属。65名亲属中的50人测量了骨密度和骨转换标志物,并评估了他们患骨质疏松症的风险因素。只有33%(5/15)的兄弟姐妹、50%(6/12)的子女以及43%(10/23)的侄子侄女骨密度完全正常。正常受试者与骨量减少或骨质疏松患者在骨质疏松症的生活方式风险因素、既往骨折史或体重指数方面没有差异。骨量减少的个体骨钙素值显著高于正常水平。在家庭内部,骨密度与任何一种基因标志物(维生素D受体基因多态性、胶原蛋白基因的COL 1A1和COL 1A2多态性)之间,无论单独还是联合使用,均无明显关联。将基因标志物添加到其他低骨密度风险因素中,并不能改善对骨密度的预测。总之,我们建议,一级亲属中存在骨质疏松症应作为骨密度测量的临床指征之一,因为其他方法无法识别出有风险的个体。