A longitudinal HR-pQCT study of alendronate treatment in postmenopausal women with low bone density: Relations among density, cortical and trabecular microarchitecture, biomechanics, and bone turnover

Abstract

The goal of this study was to characterize longitudinal changes in bone microarchitecture and function in women treated with an established antifracture therapeutic. In this double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot study, 53 early postmenopausal women with low bone density (age = 56 ± 4 years; femoral neck T-score = −1.5 ± 0.6) were monitored by high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography (HR-pQCT) for 24 months following randomization to alendronate (ALN) or placebo (PBO) treatment groups. Subjects underwent annual HR-pQCT imaging of the distal radius and tibia, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), and determination of biochemical markers of bone turnover (BSAP and uNTx). In addition to bone density and microarchitecture assessment, regional analysis, cortical porosity quantification, and micro-finite-element analysis were performed. After 24 months of treatment, at the distal tibia but not the radius, HR-pQCT measures showed significant improvements over baseline in the ALN group, particularly densitometric measures in the cortical and trabecular compartments and endocortical geometry (cortical thickness and area, medullary area) (p < .05). Cortical volumetric bone mineral density (vBMD) in the tibia alone showed a significant difference between treatment groups after 24 months (p < .05); however, regionally, significant differences in Tb.vBMD, Tb.N, and Ct.Th were found for the lateral quadrant of the radius (p < .05). Spearman correlation analysis revealed that the biomechanical response to ALN in the radius and tibia was specifically associated with changes in trabecular microarchitecture (|ρ| = 0.51 to 0.80, p < .05), whereas PBO progression of bone loss was associated with a broad range of changes in density, geometry, and microarchitecture (|ρ| = 0.56 to 0.89, p < .05). Baseline cortical geometry and porosity measures best predicted ALN-induced change in biomechanics at both sites (ρ > 0.48, p < .05). These findings suggest a more pronounced response to ALN in the tibia than in the radius, driven by trabecular and endocortical changes. © 2010 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Shown for reading. Its publisher allows quoting it, not republishing it.

References 49

1. 1.

   This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

   Not in our library

2. 2.

   This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

   Not in our library

3. 3.

   This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

   Not in our library

4. 4.

   This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

   Not in our library

5. 5.
   Age- and gender-related differences in the geometric properties and biomechanical significance of intracortical porosity in the distal radius and tibia · 2010

   No notice
6. 6.

   This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

   Not in our library

7. 7.

   This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

   Not in our library

8. 8.

   This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

   Not in our library

9. 9.

   This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

   Not in our library

10. 10.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

11. 11.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

12. 12.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

13. 13.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

14. 14.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

15. 15.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

16. 16.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

17. 17.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

18. 18.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

19. 19.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

20. 20.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

21. 21.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

22. 22.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

23. 23.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

24. 24.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

25. 25.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

26. 26.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

27. 27.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

28. 28.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

29. 29.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

30. 30.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

31. 31.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

32. 32.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

33. 33.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

34. 34.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

35. 35.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

36. 36.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

37. 37.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

38. 38.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

39. 39.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

40. 40.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

41. 41.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

42. 42.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

43. 43.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

44. 44.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

45. 45.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

46. 46.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

47. 47.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

48. 48.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

49. 49.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

Cited by papers we hold 1

• The challenges of diagnosing osteoporosis and the limitations of currently available tools · 2018
  No notice

Reads

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.