Article Text
Abstract
Background The risk of osteoporosis in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) remains unclear. The aim of this study was to compare bone mineral density (BMD) measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) in patients with PsA and controls.
Patients and methods Patients with PsA and controls were recruited from the Nord-Trøndelag Health Study (HUNT) 3.
Results Patients with PsA (n=69) and controls (n=11 703) were comparable in terms of age (56.8 vs 55.3 years, p=0.32), gender distribution (females 65.2% vs 64.3%, p=0.87) and postmenopausal status (75.6% vs 62.8%, p=0.08). Body mass index (BMI) was higher in patients with PsA compared with controls (28.5 vs 27.2 kg/m2, p=0.01). After adjusting for potential confounding factors (including BMI), BMD was higher in patients with PsA compared with controls at lumbar spine 1–4 (1.213 vs 1.147 g/cm2, p=0.003) and femoral neck (0.960 vs 0.926 g/cm2, p=0.02), but not at total hip (1.013 vs 0.982 g/cm2, p=0.11). Controls had significantly higher odds of having osteopenia or osteoporosis based on measurements of BMD in both the femoral neck (p=0.001), total hip (p=0.033) and lumbar spine (p=0.033).
Conclusion Our population-based data showed comparable BMD in patients with PsA and controls. This supports that the PsA population is not at increased risk of osteoporosis.
- Psoriatic arthritis
- bone mineral density
- osteoporosis
This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Contributors AMG: study design, statistical analyses, interpretation of the data and writing. MH: study design, collection of data, statistical analyses, interpretation of the data and writing. ØS: statistical analyses and interpretation of the data. AD: study design, interpretation of the data and writing. AGS: interpretation of the data and writing. AK: interpretation of the data and writing. GH: study design, interpretation of the data and writing. All authors contributed with critical review of the paper, read and approved the final manuscript.
Funding The Liaison Committee between the Central Norway Regional Health Authority (RHA) and the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU). The funder had no involvement in study design, data collection, data analysis, manuscript preparation and/or publication decisions.
Competing interests None declared.
Ethics approval Regional Committee for Medical Research Ethics, South-Eastern Norway (REK number 2010/2661.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.