Submit a comment
Longitudinal associations of insulin resistance with change in bone mineral density in midlife women
Abstract
BACKGROUND The effects of insulin resistance on bone mineral density (BMD) are unclear.METHODS In Study of Women’s Health Across the Nation (SWAN) participants, we used multivariable regression to test average insulin resistance (homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance, HOMA-IR) and rate of change in insulin resistance as predictors of rate of change in lumbar spine (LS) and femoral neck (FN) BMD in 3 stages: premenopause (n = 861), menopause transition (MT) (n = 571), and postmenopause (n = 693). Models controlled for age, average BW, change in BW, cigarette use, race and ethnicity, and study site.RESULTS The relation between HOMA-IR and BMD decline was biphasic. When average log2HOMA-IR was less than 1.5, greater HOMA-IR was associated with slower BMD decline; i.e., each doubling of average HOMA-IR in premenopause was associated with a 0.0032 (P = 0.01, LS) and 0.0041 (P = 0.004, FN) g/cm2 per year slower BMD loss. When greater than or equal to 1.5, average log2HOMA-IR was not associated with BMD change. In women in whom HOMA-IR decreased in premenopause, the association between the HOMA-IR change rate and BMD change rate was positive; i.e, slower HOMA-IR decline was associated with slower BMD loss. In women in whom insulin resistance increased in premenopause, the association was negative; i.e, faster HOMA-IR rise was associated with faster BMD decline. Associations of average HOMA-IR and HOMA-IR change rate with BMD change rate were similar in postmenopause, but weaker during the MT.CONCLUSION When it decreases, insulin resistance is associated with BMD preservation; when it increases, insulin resistance is associated with BMD loss.FUNDING The SWAN has grant support from the NIH of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) through the NIH National Institute on Aging (NIA), National Institute of Nursing Research (NINR), and Office of Research on Women’s Health (ORWH) (grants U01NR004061, U01AG012505, U01AG012535, U01AG012531, U01AG012539, U01AG012546, U01AG012553, U01AG012554, U01AG012495, and U19AG063720).
Authors
Albert Shieh, Gail A. Greendale, Jane A. Cauley, Preethi Srikanthan, Arun S. Karlamangla
Guidelines
The Editorial Board will only consider comments that are deemed relevant and of interest to readers. The Journal will not post data that have not been subjected to peer review; or a comment that is essentially a reiteration of another comment.
- Comments appear on the Journal’s website and are linked from the original article’s web page.
- Authors are notified by email if their comments are posted.
- The Journal reserves the right to edit comments for length and clarity.
- No appeals will be considered.
- Comments are not indexed in PubMed.
Specific requirements
- Maximum length, 400 words
- Entered as plain text or HTML
- Author’s name and email address, to be posted with the comment
- Declaration of all potential conflicts of interest (even if these are not ultimately posted); see the Journal’s conflict-of-interest policy
- Comments may not include figures
