Skip to main content
  • More from ADA
    • Diabetes
    • Clinical Diabetes
    • Diabetes Spectrum
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
    • ADA Scientific Sessions Abstracts
    • BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care
  • Subscribe
  • Log in
  • My Cart
  • Follow ada on Twitter
  • RSS
  • Visit ada on Facebook
Diabetes Care

Advanced Search

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current
    • Current Issue
    • Online Ahead of Print
    • Special Article Collections
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
  • Browse
    • By Topic
    • Issue Archive
    • Saved Searches
    • Special Article Collections
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
  • Info
    • About the Journal
    • About the Editors
    • ADA Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Guidance for Reviewers
  • Reprints/Reuse
  • Advertising
  • Subscriptions
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions and Site Licenses
    • Access Institutional Usage Reports
    • Purchase Single Issues
  • Alerts
    • E­mail Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
  • Podcasts
    • Diabetes Core Update
    • Special Podcast Series: Therapeutic Inertia
    • Special Podcast Series: Influenza Podcasts
    • Special Podcast Series: SGLT2 Inhibitors
    • Special Podcast Series: COVID-19
  • Submit
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
    • ADA Peer Review
  • More from ADA
    • Diabetes
    • Clinical Diabetes
    • Diabetes Spectrum
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
    • ADA Scientific Sessions Abstracts
    • BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Diabetes Care
  • Home
  • Current
    • Current Issue
    • Online Ahead of Print
    • Special Article Collections
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
  • Browse
    • By Topic
    • Issue Archive
    • Saved Searches
    • Special Article Collections
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
  • Info
    • About the Journal
    • About the Editors
    • ADA Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Guidance for Reviewers
  • Reprints/Reuse
  • Advertising
  • Subscriptions
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions and Site Licenses
    • Access Institutional Usage Reports
    • Purchase Single Issues
  • Alerts
    • E­mail Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
  • Podcasts
    • Diabetes Core Update
    • Special Podcast Series: Therapeutic Inertia
    • Special Podcast Series: Influenza Podcasts
    • Special Podcast Series: SGLT2 Inhibitors
    • Special Podcast Series: COVID-19
  • Submit
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
    • ADA Peer Review
Epidemiology/Health Services Research

Trends in Bone Mineral Density, Osteoporosis, and Osteopenia Among U.S. Adults With Prediabetes, 2005–2014

  1. Chi Chen1,
  2. Qi Chen2,
  3. Bin’en Nie3,
  4. Haojie Zhang1,
  5. Hualing Zhai1,
  6. Li Zhao1,4,
  7. Pu Xia2⇑,
  8. Yingli Lu1 and
  9. Ningjian Wang1⇑
  1. 1Institute and Department of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Shanghai Ninth People’s Hospital, Shanghai JiaoTong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
  2. 2Department of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Shanghai Zhongshan Hospital and Fudan Institute for Metabolic Diseases, Fudan University, Shanghai, China
  3. 3Department of Bone and Joint Surgery, Renji Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
  4. 4Department of Endocrinology, Affiliated Hospital of Jiangsu University, Zhenjiang, China
  1. Corresponding author: Ningjian Wang, wnj486{at}126.com, or Pu Xia, xia.pu{at}zs-hospital.sh.cn
  1. C.C., Q.C., and B.N. contributed equally to this work.

Diabetes Care 2020 May; 43(5): 1008-1015. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc19-1807
PreviousNext
  • Article
  • Figures & Tables
  • Suppl Material
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

OBJECTIVE We aimed to evaluate trends in bone mineral density (BMD) and the prevalence of osteoporosis/osteopenia in U.S. adults with prediabetes and normal glucose regulation (NGR) and further investigate the association among prediabetes, osteopenia/osteoporosis, and fracture.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS We collected and analyzed data from the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys during the period from 2005 to 2014. Femoral neck and lumbar spine BMD data were available for 5,310 adults with prediabetes and 5,162 adults with NGR >40 years old.

RESULTS A shift was observed toward a lower BMD and a higher prevalence of osteopenia/osteoporosis at the femoral neck and lumbar spine in U.S. adults >40 years old with prediabetes since 2005, especially in men <60 and women ≥60 years old. A shift toward a higher prevalence of osteopenia/osteoporosis at the femoral neck was also observed in adults >40 years old with NGR. Moreover, prediabetes was associated with a higher prevalence of hip fracture, although participants with prediabetes had higher BMD and a lower prevalence of osteopenia/osteoporosis at the femoral neck.

CONCLUSIONS There was a declining trend in BMD from 2005 to 2014 in U.S. adults >40 years old with prediabetes and NGR, and this trend was more significant in men <60 years old. Populations with prediabetes may be exposed to relatively higher BMD but a higher prevalence of fracture.

Introduction

Osteoporosis is a common skeletal disease characterized by low bone mass and microarchitectural deterioration of the skeleton, with a consequently increasing rate of bone fragility and predisposition to fracture (1). According to the literature, ∼54 million people in the U.S. alone suffer from osteoporosis or low bone mass at the femoral neck and lumbar spine (2). The high prevalence of osteoporosis and the associated fractures poses a major medical burden, emerging as an important public health issue (3).

The prevalence of osteoporosis among older U.S. adults appeared to decline between 1988–1994 and 2005–2006 (4). However, a recent study found that there was a significant decline in femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD) in the population aged ≥50 years between 2005–2006 and 2013–2014 (5).

The epidemic of glucose metabolism disorders poses another large economic burden, which was estimated to cost nearly $404 billion in the U.S. in 2017 (6). Chronically elevated glucose levels including but not limited to diabetes have deleterious effects on bone, which have been suggested as a complication of inadequately regulated glucose metabolism (7,8). Prediabetes is an intermediate metabolic state between normoglycemia and diabetes, including impaired fasting plasma glucose (FPG), impaired glucose tolerance, and mildly raised hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c). Recent evidence has shown that individuals with prediabetes may have a higher prevalence of diabetes-associated complications than those with normal glucose levels (9).

Based on recent intensive studies, the pathophysiology and clinical management of skeletal fragility in diabetes have been well documented (10,11); however, whether and how prediabetes influences the skeleton remain largely unknown. There have been a few studies on the association between prediabetes and skeletal health showing conflicting results with higher, lower, or similar BMD values compared with those of healthy control subjects (12–14). In particular, little is known about the prevalence and temporal trends of osteopenia and osteoporosis in individuals with prediabetes.

In the current study, we analyzed nationally representative data from the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) from 2005 to 2014 to examine the trends of BMD, osteopenia, and osteoporosis in adults with prediabetes and normal glucose regulation (NGR) over a decade and to investigate the association among prediabetes, osteopenia/osteoporosis, and fracture.

Research Design and Methods

Study Design and Study Population

NHANES, conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics, comprise cross-sectional multistage, stratified, clustered probability samples of the U.S. noninstitutionalized population. The study was approved by the National Center for Health Statistics institutional review board, and written informed consent was received from all participants. From 2005 to 2006, the survey started including measurements of the proximal femur and lumbar spine BMD, but BMD was not measured in NHANES in 2011–2012. Hence, only four cycles (2005–2006, 2007–2008, 2009–2010, and 2013–2014) of data were included in the analysis for this study. In the 2013–2014 cycle, DXA scans were only administered to participants aged ≥40 years, and we only included those >40 years old in the main analysis. In total, there were 5,162 subjects with NGR and 5,310 subjects with prediabetes >40 years old who had valid data on BMD or fracture. We also analyzed data on participants aged 20–39 years in NHANES 2005–2010. There were 4,040 subjects with NGR and 1,092 subjects with prediabetes who had valid data on BMD or fracture.

Measurements

The data were collected via household interviews and physical examinations in a mobile examination center. A standardized questionnaire was used to collect information on age, sex, race, education level, milk intake, and history of fracture. Race/ethnicity was self-reported and categorized into Mexican American, other-Hispanic white, other-Hispanic black, and other races. Education was categorized as less than a high school education, high school graduate, and education beyond high school. Milk intake was categorized into five groups: never, rarely (less than once a week), sometimes (once a week or more, but less than once a day), often (once a day or more), and varied. BMI was calculated as weight in kilograms divided by the square of height in meters. Since the 2007–2008 cycle, information on physical activity in the NHANES has been self-reported by participants using the Global Physical Activity Questionnaire. The MET was calculated to estimate average weekly energy expenditure (15).

BMD testing was evaluated by DXA, the examination protocol for which has been described in detail on the NHANES website. The proximal femur and lumbar spine scans in 2005–2006 through 2009–2010 were conducted with a Hologic QDR-4500A fan beam densitometer and with a Hologic Discovery model A densitometer (Hologic, Inc., Bedford, MA) in 2013–2014. The femur scans in 2005–2010 were analyzed with Hologic Discovery v12.4, and the spine scans were analyzed with APEX v3.0. In the 2013–2014 segment, both femur and spine scans were analyzed with APEX v4.0. The Hologic Service Team carried out a cross-calibration procedure to standardize the newer system to the legacy system (16). A previous study assessed five femur regions and confirmed that there was no difference between mean BMD analyzed by Discovery 12.4 and that analyzed by APEX v4.0 at the femoral neck (5).

HbA1c levels were measured in whole blood samples using high-performance liquid chromatography. Although different equipment was used over time, calibration of HbA1c is not necessary according to NHANES recommendations (17). An oral glucose tolerance test was administered using 75 g glucose, followed by venipuncture to measure 2-h plasma glucose (2-h PG). Plasma glucose was measured at the University of Minnesota using a Roche Hitachi 911 instrument in 2005–2006 and a Roche Modular P chemistry analyzer in 2007–2010. In 2013–2014, plasma glucose was measured with a Roche Hitachi cobas C chemistry analyzer at the University of Missouri (Columbia, MO).

In the 2005–2006 survey cycle, a radioimmunoassay (DiaSorin) method was used to measure total 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] (sum of 25-hydroxyvitamin D2 and 25-hydroxyvitamin D3). The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) changed its vitamin D laboratory method in cycles 2007–2010 to a more analytically accurate assay involving an ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometric (LC-MS/MS) method. To facilitate comparisons of 25(OH)D across cycles, the CDC standardized concentrations of 25(OH)D measured from radioimmunoassay in previous cycles (including 2005–2006) to predicted LC-MS/MS equivalents using regression equations previously described in detail (18). There were no changes to the laboratory method, laboratory equipment, or laboratory site for this component in the NHANES 2013–2014 cycle. Blood cadmium levels were determined using inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry in the four survey cycles.

Definition of Variables

Current smoking was defined as having smoked at least 100 cigarettes in one’s lifetime and currently smoking cigarettes. Prediabetes was defined as those without a previous diabetes diagnosis and the satisfaction of at least one of three conditions: 1) FPG level 5.6–6.9 mmol/L, 2) HbA1c 5.7–6.4%, or 3) 2-h PG 7.8–11.0 mmol/L and NGR as FPG <5.6 mmol/L, HbA1c <5.7%, and 2-h PG <7.8 mmol/L. T-scores were calculated as (BMDrespondent − mean BMDreference group)/SDreference group. Osteopenia was defined as a T-score between −1.0 and −2.5, while osteoporosis was defined as a T-score ≤−2.5. As recommended by the World Health Organization (19), the reference group for calculation of T-scores at the femoral neck consisted of 20–29 non-Hispanic white females from the NHANES III report (20), while the reference group for the lumbar spine was obtained from the Vital and Health Statistics from the CDC (21).

Statistical Analysis

The NHANES uses a complex sampling design that requires the use of sample weights to adjust for the unequal probability of selection into the survey and to adjust for the possible bias resulting from nonresponse, which thus provides estimates representative of the civilian, noninstitutionalized U.S. population. As applied in previous studies (22,23), for the prediabetes and NGR definition, a combination of mobile examination center, FPG, and oral glucose tolerance test weights was used based on the principle of using the smallest subpopulation weight. Eight-year weights were created for 2005–2010 and 2013–2014 estimates by multiplying the 2-year weights by one-fourth. All data analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics, version 24 (IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY). A two-tailed P value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

We used NHANES 2005–2014 to calculate the prevalence of osteopenia, osteoporosis, and fracture in the population stratified by sex and age. The following age categories are recommended by the CDC for reducing the variability in the sample weights and therefore reducing the variance of the estimates: 20–39 years, 40–59 years, and ≥60 years. Tests for trends were calculated by including the midpoint of each survey period as a continuous variable in linear regression models. The relative SE for each estimate was calculated with any relative SE >30% indicating low precision of the estimate (22).

Logistic regression analysis was applied to obtain odds ratios (ORs) of osteopenia/osteoporosis over time with NHANES 2005–2006 as the reference. Model 1 was adjusted for age, sex, race, education level, current smoking status, and BMI. Model 2 was adjusted for model 1 adjustments plus milk intake and 25(OH)D. Model 3 was adjusted for model 2 adjustments plus blood cadmium level; adjustments were made for cadmium because low-level cadmium exposure is known to be associated with decreased BMD and an increased risk of fracture in the general population (24,25). Model 4 was additionally adjusted for physical activity.

Finally, we compared the BMD and prevalence of osteopenia + osteoporosis and fracture between NGR and prediabetes. The association between prediabetes and the odds of osteopenia + osteoporosis and fracture was analyzed by logistic regression. For further evaluation of the bone quality difference between NGR and prediabetes, the prevalence and odds of fracture in subjects with osteopenia/osteoporosis were calculated in the adjusted models as described above.

Results

Characteristics of the Participants Across the Four Survey Cycles

Participants >40 years old with prediabetes in each cycle had comparable age, sex, ethnicity proportions, education level, BMI, and FPG, but those in 2013–2014 had lower levels of 2-h PG and higher HbA1c. Notably, physical activity and blood cadmium levels decreased and 25(OH)D concentrations increased from 2005 to 2014. Generally, participants >40 years old with NGR presented a change trend similar to those in participants with prediabetes, except that they had comparable 2-h PG (Table 1).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1

Characteristics of U.S. adults >40 years old with prediabetes and with NGR, 2005–2014

Interestingly, BMD of the femoral neck showed a significant decreasing trend in participants >40 years old with prediabetes and NGR through the decade, but BMD of the lumbar spine only showed a decreasing trend in participants >40 years old with prediabetes—not in those with NGR.

Regarding participants aged 20–39 years (Supplementary Table 1), we also observed higher HbA1c levels and lower MET from 2005 to 2010 in both glycemic groups. However, both groups had stable BMD in two bone sites from 2005 to 2010.

Bone Status in Sex-and-Age Stratification Analysis

In men aged 40–59 years with prediabetes, there was a significant decreasing trend for BMD in both sites and, accordingly, an increasing trend for the prevalence of osteopenia + osteoporosis (all Ptrend <0.05). However, women aged 40–59 years with prediabetes had comparable BMD and prevalence of osteopenia + osteoporosis through the survey cycles. The results in participants >60 years old are quite different. Women >60 years of age with prediabetes had a significantly lower BMD in the femoral neck and a higher prevalence of osteopenia + osteoporosis than the other three survey groups, whereas in corresponding men, these indices were stable throughout the survey cycles (Fig. 1 and Supplementary Table 2).

Figure 1
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1

BMD and prevalence of osteopenia + osteoporosis in the femoral neck and lumbar spine for participants with prediabetes and NGR by age and sex from 2005–2006 to 2013–2014. Data on BMD are expressed as mean and 95% CI.

Among participants >40 years old with NGR, an interesting phenomenon is that men >60 years old had a significant trend of BMD and prevalence of osteopenia + osteoporosis in the lumbar spine (Fig. 1 and Supplementary Table 3).

Finally, in participants aged 20–39 years from 2005 to 2010 (Supplementary Table 4), men with NGR had an elevated trend of osteopenia/osteoporosis prevalence in the femoral neck (Ptrend = 0.002) and lumbar spine (Ptrend = 0.04).

Furthermore, we calculated the prevalence of fracture in both sites. Except for the abrupt decline in the lumbar spine in women >60 years old with NGR in 2013–2014, there was no significant trend of fracture prevalence in most of the groups (Supplementary Tables 2–4).

Cycle Trend of Osteopenia and Osteoporosis from 2005 to 2014: Association Analyses

In participants >40 years old, after adjustment for sociodemographics and BMI (model 1), a more recent survey cycle was positively associated with osteopenia + osteoporosis in the lumbar spine for prediabetes (2013–2014 vs. 2005–2006 OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.06–2.02) but not for NGR, and further adjustment for blood cadmium level attenuated its significance. Furthermore, in both prediabetes and NGR, a more recent survey cycle was positively associated with osteopenia/osteoporosis in the femoral neck in the fully adjusted model (model 3, 2013–2014 vs. 2005–2006 OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.01–2.03, and OR 1.40, 95% CI 1.12–1.76, respectively) (Table 2).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2

Trends in osteopenia + osteoporosis in participants >40 years old with prediabetes and NGR

In participants 20–39 years old, for prediabetes and NGR, there was a positive association between survey cycle and osteopenia/osteoporosis in femoral neck (model 3, 2009–2010 vs. 2005–2006 OR 4.52, 95% CI 1.27–16.04, and OR 2.15, 95% CI 1.36–3.40, respectively) (Supplementary Table 5).

Comparison of Bone Status Between Prediabetes and NGR

Participants with prediabetes had significantly greater BMD than those with NGR in both bone sites (Supplementary Table 6). Accordingly, prediabetes seems to be negatively associated with osteopenia/osteoporosis, and this association was significant in the femoral neck in participants >40 years old. However, an interesting finding is that although there was higher BMD in participants with prediabetes, prediabetes was positively associated with hip fracture (Table 3). The association was significant in participants aged 20–39 years (OR 3.77, 95% CI 1.01–14.10) and marginally significant in participants >40 years old (OR 1.57, 95% CI 0.91–2.71) (Table 3).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3

Association between prediabetes and odds of osteopenia + osteoporosis and fracture

Conclusions

In the current study, after adjustment for multiple confounders, including sociodemographic, nutritional, and lifestyle-related risk factors, we found evidence of a shift toward a lower BMD and a higher prevalence of osteopenia/osteoporosis at the femoral neck and lumbar spine in U.S. adults with prediabetes since 2005, especially in men aged <60 and women ≥60 years old. In addition, we also observed a shift toward a higher prevalence of osteopenia/osteoporosis at the femoral neck in U.S. adults with NGR. Interestingly, we found that prediabetes was associated with a higher risk of hip fracture, although these individuals may have higher BMD and a lower prevalence of osteopenia/osteoporosis at the femoral neck. To the best of our knowledge, our study is the first attempt to provide nationally representative estimates of BMD, osteoporosis, and osteopenia in U.S. adults with prediabetes and NGR.

Although the prevalence of osteoporosis in older people declined between 1998–1994 and 2005–2006 (4), concerns have been raised regarding recent downward trends in BMD in the U.S. (5,26). In addition, a recent analysis of the U.S. Medicare database showed that the decreasing trend in hip fracture incidence appeared to have ended in 2013–2015 (27). Our study further confirms this trend of osteoporosis/osteopenia in participants with prediabetes and NGR. This is a concern given the substantial growth of this population over the past 25 years, which was up to 36.2% of U.S. adults (28). In contrast, we did not observe an increasing trend in hip or spine fracture in the present analysis. It is worth mentioning that the prevalence of fracture was small in each subgroup, which may bias the study results.

To identify possible reasons behind the observed osteopenia/osteoporosis trends, we examined changes in sociodemographic variables (age, sex, race, and education level) and nutritional [25(OH)D, milk intake], environmental (cadmium), and lifestyle-related risk factors (BMI, smoking, and physical activity) between survey periods. Adjustment for sociodemographic, BMI, and nutritional variables did not markedly alter conclusions regarding trends, indicating that these factors may not play a major role in the observed changes in skeletal status. Although blood cadmium levels have been decreasing in the U.S. population, adjustment for cadmium slightly alters conclusions regarding femoral neck BMD trends in participants with prediabetes and NGR and renders the trends of lumbar spine BMD in participants with prediabetes nonsignificant. It is well established that low-level cadmium exposure is associated with an increased risk of low bone mass (24,25), and there may be no safe threshold for blood cadmium. Future efforts may still be needed to further reduce cadmium pollution. Additional studies are also needed to explain the association between blood cadmium and the recent BMD decline in the U.S. population with prediabetes and NGR.

Notably, we found the BMD loss in men younger than 60 years old is particularly severe in the femoral neck, which has fallen to almost the same level as that of women in 2013–2014. Since BMD at the femoral neck has the highest predictive value for hip fracture and since the hip is the site of highest clinical relevance (29), this finding has clinical importance. At present, most people and even some clinicians still believe that osteoporosis is a disorder only of concern for the elderly adults, especially postmenopausal women. There are far fewer and less powered studies on osteoporosis in men than in women. Osteoporosis in men remains largely underdiagnosed and undertreated (30). Our findings should raise awareness that BMD in younger males is declining. Educational programs are warranted for these vulnerable younger men with prediabetes to help prevent falls in later life.

Recently, there has been growing appreciation of the link between diabetes and skeletal health. It is well acknowledged that both type 1 and type 2 diabetes predispose subjects to a higher risk of fractures, although type 1 diabetes is characterized by lower BMD, whereas type 2 diabetes is associated with an average or even high BMD (31). Nevertheless, few studies have explored the association between prediabetes and skeletal health, and studies show conflicting results with higher, lower, or similar BMD values compared with those found in healthy control subjects (12–14). In the present analysis, we found that compared with subjects with NGR, those with prediabetes have a lower prevalence of osteopenia/osteoporosis but a higher prevalence of fractures. Thus, similar to in type 2 diabetes and BMD, the bone in prediabetes appears to also have reduced strength for a given BMD, and as a result, the standard tools (BMD) appear to underestimate fracture risk in individuals with prediabetes, posing a challenge for clinicians.

With the high prevalence of prediabetes taken into account, successive intervention in this large population can have important implications for public health. It is already known that for people with prediabetes, a physically active and healthy lifestyle could reduce both the risk of further progression to diabetes (32) and the incidence of mortality due to cardiovascular and all other causes (33). Interestingly, Skoradal et al. (34) recently reported that recreational football training provided a powerful osteogenic stimulus and improved bone health in 55- to 70-year-old sedentary men and women with prediabetes. This study is important and sheds light on the equally beneficial effect of lifestyle interventions on skeletal health in patients suffering from prediabetes. In addition, optimum calcium and vitamin D repletion represent the mainstay of prevention for osteoporosis in patients with prediabetes. Larsen et al. (35) found that vitamin D supplementation had a positive effect on BMD in males with prediabetes. However, there is currently no evidence that bisphosphonates are useful in preventing osteoporosis in individuals with prediabetes, and possible side effects such as osteonecrosis of the jaw and esophageal cancer should be considered when initiating bisphosphonates (36). Further studies are warranted to determine which phenotype of prediabetes can benefit from active pharmacological treatment.

A key strength of this analysis is the source of the data. NHANES is a series of meticulously conducted surveys with continuous quality control, ensuring that the data are timely and of high quality. NHANES also uses population-based cluster random selection to identify a nationally representative sample that can be applied to the whole U.S. population. However, it has some limitations: First, the major limitation is that NHANES is performed as an independent “snapshot.” Data could only explore secular trends but failed to provide longitudinal follow-up data. Second, all of the participants recruited in NHANES were noninstitutionalized. Since institutionalized individuals tend to have lower bone mass (37), we may have underestimated the actual prevalence in the total population. However, this limitation is unlikely to have altered the observed trends given that the institutionalized population only constitutes a small proportion of the entire U.S. population. Third, although we have examined changes in sociodemographic, nutritional, environmental, and lifestyle-related risk factors among survey periods, other potential residual confounders, such as mental stress and other environmental endocrine-disrupting chemicals, may still exist. Further studies are warranted to explain the observed BMD decline.

In conclusion, our findings serve as an alert of the declining trend of BMD and the increasing trend in the prevalence of osteopenia and osteoporosis among U.S. adults with prediabetes and NGR. Guidelines for the treatment of diabetes are increasingly comprehensive, and therefore, the incidence of complications has significantly declined in the past two decades (38). However, the lack of research and accepted guidelines for prediabetes has made the prevalence of diabetes-related complications virtually the same for people with prediabetes compared with people with diabetes (39). More importantly, data for the optimum management of osteoporosis in prediabetes are scarce. More research is needed to fully investigate the progression of bone changes from normoglycemia to prediabetes and consider possible therapeutic interventions to mitigate skeletal fragility in this ever-growing population.

Article Information

Acknowledgments. The authors express gratitude to Jihui Zhang, the Chinese University of Hong Kong, for helping with the weighting methodology in the revised manuscript.

Funding. This study was supported by the Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality (19140902400), National Natural Science Foundation of China (81870559, 81561128014), and the Municipal Human Resources Development Program for Outstanding Young Talents in Medical and Health Sciences in Shanghai (2017YQ053).

The funders played no role in the design or conduct of the study; in the collection, management, analysis, or interpretation of the data; or in the preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript.

Duality of Interest. No potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported.

Author Contributions. N.W. wrote the manuscript, researched data, and reviewed and edited the manuscript. P.X. reviewed and edited the manuscript. C.C. and Q.C. wrote the manuscript, researched data, and contributed to the discussion. B.N. reviewed and edited the manuscript and contributed to the discussion. H. Zhang, H. Zhai, and L.Z. researched data. Y.L. contributed to the discussion. N.W. is the guarantor of this work and, as such, had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Footnotes

  • This article contains Supplementary Data online at https://care.diabetesjournals.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.2337/dc19-1807/-/DC1.

  • Received September 9, 2019.
  • Accepted February 6, 2020.
  • © 2020 by the American Diabetes Association
https://www.diabetesjournals.org/content/license

Readers may use this article as long as the work is properly cited, the use is educational and not for profit, and the work is not altered. More information is available at https://www.diabetesjournals.org/content/license.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Compston JE,
    2. McClung MR,
    3. Leslie WD
    . Osteoporosis. Lancet 2019;393:364–376
    OpenUrl
  2. ↵
    1. Wright NC,
    2. Looker AC,
    3. Saag KG, et al
    . The recent prevalence of osteoporosis and low bone mass in the United States based on bone mineral density at the femoral neck or lumbar spine. J Bone Miner Res 2014;29:2520–2526
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Burge R,
    2. Dawson-Hughes B,
    3. Solomon DH,
    4. Wong JB,
    5. King A,
    6. Tosteson A
    . Incidence and economic burden of osteoporosis-related fractures in the United States, 2005-2025. J Bone Miner Res 2007;22:465–475
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  4. ↵
    1. Looker AC,
    2. Melton LJ III,
    3. Harris TB,
    4. Borrud LG,
    5. Shepherd JA
    . Prevalence and trends in low femur bone density among older US adults: NHANES 2005-2006 compared with NHANES III. J Bone Miner Res 2010;25:64–71
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Looker AC,
    2. Sarafrazi Isfahani N,
    3. Fan B,
    4. Shepherd JA
    . Trends in osteoporosis and low bone mass in older US adults, 2005-2006 through 2013-2014. Osteoporos Int 2017;28:1979–1988
    OpenUrl
  6. ↵
    1. Dall TM,
    2. Yang W,
    3. Gillespie K, et al
    . The economic burden of elevated blood glucose levels in 2017: diagnosed and undiagnosed diabetes, gestational diabetes mellitus, and prediabetes. Diabetes Care 2019;42:1661–1668
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. ↵
    1. Hamann C,
    2. Kirschner S,
    3. Günther K-P,
    4. Hofbauer LC
    . Bone, sweet bone—osteoporotic fractures in diabetes mellitus. Nat Rev Endocrinol 2012;8:297–305
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Shanbhogue VV,
    2. Mitchell DM,
    3. Rosen CJ,
    4. Bouxsein ML
    . Type 2 diabetes and the skeleton: new insights into sweet bones. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2016;4:159–173
    OpenUrl
  9. ↵
    1. Zhang Y,
    2. Dall TM,
    3. Chen Y, et al
    . Medical cost associated with prediabetes. Popul Health Manag 2009;12:157–163
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  10. ↵
    1. Napoli N,
    2. Chandran M,
    3. Pierroz DD,
    4. Abrahamsen B,
    5. Schwartz AV,
    6. Ferrari SL; IOF Bone and Diabetes Working Group
    . Mechanisms of diabetes mellitus-induced bone fragility. Nat Rev Endocrinol 2017;13:208–219
    OpenUrlPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Gilbert MP,
    2. Pratley RE
    . The impact of diabetes and diabetes medications on bone health. Endocr Rev 2015;36:194–213
    OpenUrl
  12. ↵
    1. Rabijewski M,
    2. Papierska L,
    3. Piątkiewicz P
    . An association between bone mineral density and anabolic hormones in middle-aged and elderly men with prediabetes. Aging Male 2017;20:205–213
    OpenUrl
    1. Kim C-H
    . Bone mineral density in prediabetic men (Korean Diabetes J 2010;34:294–302). Korean Diabetes J 2010;34:384–385
    OpenUrlPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. de Liefde II,
    2. van der Klift M,
    3. de Laet CE,
    4. van Daele PL,
    5. Hofman A,
    6. Pols HA
    . Bone mineral density and fracture risk in type-2 diabetes mellitus: the Rotterdam Study. Osteoporos Int 2005;16:1713–1720
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  14. ↵
    1. Du Y,
    2. Liu B,
    3. Sun Y,
    4. Snetselaar LG,
    5. Wallace RB,
    6. Bao W
    . Trends in adherence to the physical activity guidelines for Americans for aerobic activity and time spent on sedentary behavior among US adults, 2007 to 2016. JAMA Netw Open 2019;2:e197597
    OpenUrl
  15. ↵
    1. Kanis JA,
    2. McCloskey EV,
    3. Johansson H,
    4. Oden A,
    5. Melton LJ III,
    6. Khaltaev N
    . A reference standard for the description of osteoporosis. Bone 2008;42:467–475
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  16. ↵
    1. Zipf G,
    2. Chiappa M,
    3. Porter KS,
    4. Ostchega Y,
    5. Lewis BG,
    6. Dostal J
    . National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey: plan and operations, 1999-2010. Vital Health Stat 1 2013;(56):1–37
  17. ↵
    1. Johns LE,
    2. Ferguson KK,
    3. Meeker JD
    . Relationships between urinary phthalate metabolite and bisphenol A concentrations and vitamin D levels in U.S. adults: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), 2005-2010. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2016;101:4062–4069
    OpenUrl
  18. ↵
    1. Kanis JA
    . Assessment of fracture risk and its application to screening for postmenopausal osteoporosis: synopsis of a WHO report. WHO Study Group. Osteoporos Int 1994;4:368–381
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  19. ↵
    1. Looker AC,
    2. Orwoll ES,
    3. Johnston CC Jr., et al
    . Prevalence of low femoral bone density in older U.S. adults from NHANES III. J Bone Miner Res 1997;12:1761–1768
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  20. ↵
    1. Looker AC,
    2. Borrud LG,
    3. Hughes JP,
    4. Fan B,
    5. Shepherd JA,
    6. Melton LJ III
    . Lumbar spine and proximal femur bone mineral density, bone mineral content, and bone area: United States, 2005-2008. Vital Health Stat 11 2012;251:1–132
    OpenUrl
  21. ↵
    1. Menke A,
    2. Casagrande S,
    3. Geiss L,
    4. Cowie CC
    . Prevalence of and trends in diabetes among adults in the United States, 1988-2012. JAMA 2015;314:1021–1029
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. Cowie CC,
    2. Rust KF,
    3. Ford ES, et al
    . Full accounting of diabetes and pre-diabetes in the U.S. population in 1988-1994 and 2005-2006. Diabetes Care 2009;32:287–294
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. ↵
    1. Wallin M,
    2. Barregard L,
    3. Sallsten G, et al
    . Low-level cadmium exposure is associated with decreased bone mineral density and increased risk of incident fractures in elderly men: the MrOS Sweden Study. J Bone Miner Res 2016;31:732–741
    OpenUrl
  24. ↵
    1. Engström A,
    2. Michaëlsson K,
    3. Suwazono Y,
    4. Wolk A,
    5. Vahter M,
    6. Akesson A
    . Long-term cadmium exposure and the association with bone mineral density and fractures in a population-based study among women. J Bone Miner Res 2011;26:486–495
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. ↵
    1. Xu Y,
    2. Wu Q
    . Decreasing trend of bone mineral density in US multiethnic population: analysis of continuous NHANES 2005-2014. Osteoporos Int 2018;29:2437–2446
    OpenUrl
  26. ↵
    1. Lewiecki EM,
    2. Wright NC,
    3. Curtis JR, et al
    . Hip fracture trends in the United States, 2002 to 2015 [published correction appears in Osteoporos Int 2018;29:2583]. Osteoporos Int 2018;29:717–722
  27. ↵
    1. Bullard KM,
    2. Saydah SH,
    3. Imperatore G, et al
    . Secular changes in U.S. prediabetes prevalence defined by hemoglobin A1c and fasting plasma glucose: National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys, 1999-2010. Diabetes Care 2013;36:2286–2293
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  28. ↵
    1. Marshall D,
    2. Johnell O,
    3. Wedel H
    . Meta-analysis of how well measures of bone mineral density predict occurrence of osteoporotic fractures. BMJ 1996;312:1254–1259
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  29. ↵
    1. Adler RA
    . Update on osteoporosis in men. Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab 2018;32:759–772
    OpenUrl
  30. ↵
    1. Schwartz AV
    . Diabetes, bone and glucose-lowering agents: clinical outcomes. Diabetologia 2017;60:1170–1179
    OpenUrl
  31. ↵
    1. Yoon U,
    2. Kwok LL,
    3. Magkidis A
    . Efficacy of lifestyle interventions in reducing diabetes incidence in patients with impaired glucose tolerance: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Metabolism 2013;62:303–314
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. ↵
    1. Li G,
    2. Zhang P,
    3. Wang J, et al
    . Cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, and diabetes incidence after lifestyle intervention for people with impaired glucose tolerance in the Da Qing Diabetes Prevention Study: a 23-year follow-up study. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2014;2:474–480
    OpenUrl
  33. ↵
    1. Skoradal MB,
    2. Helge EW,
    3. Jørgensen NR, et al
    . Osteogenic impact of football training in 55- to 70-year-old women and men with prediabetes. Scand J Med Sci Sports 2018;28(Suppl. 1):52–60
    OpenUrl
  34. ↵
    1. Larsen AU,
    2. Grimnes G,
    3. Jorde R
    . The effect of high-dose vitamin D3 supplementation on bone mineral density in subjects with prediabetes. Osteoporos Int 2018;29:171–180
    OpenUrl
  35. ↵
    1. Lewiecki EM
    . Bisphosphonates for the treatment of osteoporosis: insights for clinicians. Ther Adv Chronic Dis 2010;1:115–128
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  36. ↵
    1. Chandler JM,
    2. Zimmerman SI,
    3. Girman CJ, et al
    . Low bone mineral density and risk of fracture in white female nursing home residents. JAMA 2000;284:972–977
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  37. ↵
    1. Gregg EW,
    2. Li Y,
    3. Wang J, et al
    . Changes in diabetes-related complications in the United States, 1990-2010. N Engl J Med 2014;370:1514–1523
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  38. ↵
    1. Ali MK,
    2. Bullard KM,
    3. Saydah S,
    4. Imperatore G,
    5. Gregg EW
    . Cardiovascular and renal burdens of prediabetes in the USA: analysis of data from serial cross-sectional surveys, 1988-2014. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2018;6:392–403
    OpenUrlPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top
Diabetes Care: 43 (5)

In this Issue

May 2020, 43(5)
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by Author
  • Masthead (PDF)
Sign up to receive current issue alerts
View Selected Citations (0)
Print
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about Diabetes Care.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Trends in Bone Mineral Density, Osteoporosis, and Osteopenia Among U.S. Adults With Prediabetes, 2005–2014
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Diabetes Care
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the Diabetes Care web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Trends in Bone Mineral Density, Osteoporosis, and Osteopenia Among U.S. Adults With Prediabetes, 2005–2014
Chi Chen, Qi Chen, Bin’en Nie, Haojie Zhang, Hualing Zhai, Li Zhao, Pu Xia, Yingli Lu, Ningjian Wang
Diabetes Care May 2020, 43 (5) 1008-1015; DOI: 10.2337/dc19-1807

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Add to Selected Citations
Share

Trends in Bone Mineral Density, Osteoporosis, and Osteopenia Among U.S. Adults With Prediabetes, 2005–2014
Chi Chen, Qi Chen, Bin’en Nie, Haojie Zhang, Hualing Zhai, Li Zhao, Pu Xia, Yingli Lu, Ningjian Wang
Diabetes Care May 2020, 43 (5) 1008-1015; DOI: 10.2337/dc19-1807
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Research Design and Methods
    • Results
    • Conclusions
    • Article Information
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Tables
  • Suppl Material
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Social Deprivation and Incident Diabetes-Related Foot Disease in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: A Population-Based Cohort Study
  • Productivity Benefits of Preventing Type 2 Diabetes in Australia: A 10-Year Analysis
  • Temporal Trends in Incident Hospitalization for Diabetes-Related Foot Ulcer in Type 2 Diabetes: The Fremantle Diabetes Study
Show more Epidemiology/Health Services Research

Similar Articles

Subjects

  • Epidemiology-Diabetes Complications

Navigate

  • Current Issue
  • Standards of Care Guidelines
  • Online Ahead of Print
  • Archives
  • Submit
  • Subscribe
  • Email Alerts
  • RSS Feeds

More Information

  • About the Journal
  • Instructions for Authors
  • Journal Policies
  • Reprints and Permissions
  • Advertising
  • Privacy Policy: ADA Journals
  • Copyright Notice/Public Access Policy
  • Contact Us

Other ADA Resources

  • Diabetes
  • Clinical Diabetes
  • Diabetes Spectrum
  • Scientific Sessions Abstracts
  • Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes
  • BMJ Open - Diabetes Research & Care
  • Professional Books
  • Diabetes Forecast

 

  • DiabetesJournals.org
  • Diabetes Core Update
  • ADA's DiabetesPro
  • ADA Member Directory
  • Diabetes.org

© 2021 by the American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Care Print ISSN: 0149-5992, Online ISSN: 1935-5548.