Bone mass and bone turnover are under genetic control. Restriction fragment length polymorphisms (RFLPs) at the vitamin D receptor (VDR) gene locus have been recently correlated to bone mineral density (BMD) and rate of bone loss. However, agreement on this relationship is not universal. The existence of ethnical and environmental differences between populations, a health-based selection bias in several previous studies, and the involvement of other genes could explain these discordant findings. In this study, we examined the relationship of VDR and estrogen receptor (ER) gene RFLPs with lumbar spine and upper femur BMD in 426 Italian postmenopausal women, 57.7 +/- 0.4 yr old (144 normal, 106 osteopenic, and 176 osteoporotic). VDR gene RFLPs for ApaI, Bsm I, and TaqI restriction endonucleases and ER RFLPs for PvuII and XbaI restriction endonucleases were assessed by Southern blotting analysis and were indicated, respectively, as A-a, B-b, T-t, P-p, and X-x (uppercase letters signifying the absence and lowercase letters the presence of the restriction site). After correcting for potential confounding factors (age, height, weight, age since menopause, osteophytosis, and facet joint osteoarthritis), a statistically significant VDR genotype effect on lumbar BMD (P = 0.01, analysis of covariance), but not on femoral BMD, was detected, with subjects in AABBtt genotype showing a 13% lower BMD than those with aabbTT genotype (P < 0.05, Tukey's test). Moreover, a statistically significant prevalence of AABBtt genotype in osteoporotics, and of AabbTT and aabbTT genotypes in nonosteoporotics, were detected. Conversely, there was no significant relationship of ER genotype to either lumbar or femoral BMD, even though a trend for higher BMD values in women with the ER PP genotype (with respect to those with ER pp genotype) was detected. When mean lumbar BMD was calculated for women grouped by ER and VDR genotype, we observed a significant difference between those within the 2 opposite associations AABBtt-PPXX and aabbTT-ppxx (0.71 +/- 0.05 vs. 0.97 +/- 0.03 g/cm2, P < 0.05 Tukey's test). These results are consistent with a segregation of the VDR AABBtt genotype with a higher risk of developing osteoporosis, in the Italian female population. The introduction of another variable, the ER genotype, in the analysis of VDR genetic determination of BMD, may represent a useful model in the identification of patients at risk of developing a multigenic disorder like osteoporosis.

Diabetes mellitus (DM) and osteoporotic fractures are two of the most important causes of mortality and morbidity in older subjects. Recent data report a close association between fragility fracture risk and DM of both type 1 (DM1) and type 2 (DM2). However, DM1 is associated with reduced bone mineral density (BMD), whereas patients with DM2 generally have normal or increased BMD. This apparent paradox may be explained by the fact that, at a given level of BMD, diabetic patients present lower bone quality with respect to non-diabetics, as shown by several studies reporting that diabetes may affect bone tissue by means of various mechanisms, including hyperinsulinemia, deposition of advanced glycosylation endproducts (AGEs) in collagen, reduced serum levels of IGF-1, hypercalciuria, renal failure, microangiopathy and inflammation. In addition, the propensity to fall and several comorbidities may further explain the higher fracture incidence in DM patients with respect to the general population. It is reasonable to expect that close metabolic control of diabetes may improve bone status, although its effect on reduction of fracture risk has not yet been demonstrated. However, metformin has a direct effect on bone tissue by reducing AGE accumulation, whereas insulin acts directly on osteoclast activity, and thiazolidinediones (TZD) may have a negative effect by switching mesenchymal progenitor cells to adipose rather than bone tissue. New prospects include the incretins, a class of antidiabetic drugs which may play a role linking nutrition and bone metabolism. Better knowledge on how diabetes and its treatments influence bone tissue may lie at the basis of effective prevention of bone fracture in diabetic patients. Thus, close glycemic control, adequate intake of calcium and vitamin D, screening for low BMD, and prevention and treatment of diabetic complications are key elements in the management of osteoporosis in both DM1 and DM2. Attention should be paid to treating diabetes with TZD in women with DM2, particularly if elderly. Lastly, patients with osteoporosis and diabetes should be offered the same pharmacological treatments as non-diabetics, although specific trials on the effects of anti-osteoporotic drugs in the diabetic population are lacking.

No abstract

Patients with diabetes are at greater risk of fractures mostly due to not only to extraskeletal factors, such as propensity to fall, but also to bone quality alteration, which reduces bone strength. In people with diabetes, insulin deficiency and hyperglycaemia seem to play a role in determining bone formation alteration by advanced glycation end product (AGE) accumulation or AGE/RAGE (receptors for AGE) axis imbalance, which directly influence osteoblast activity. Moreover, hyperglycaemia and oxidative stress are able to negatively influence osteocalcin production and the Wnt signalling pathways with an imbalance of osteoblast/osteoclast activity leading to bone quality reduction as global effect. In addition, other factors such as insulin growth factors and peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-γ pathways seem to have an important role in the pathophysiology of osteoporosis in diabetes. Although there are conflicting data in literature, adequate glycaemic control with hypoglycaemic treatment may be an important element in preventing bone tissue alterations in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Attention should be paid to the use of thiazolidinediones, especially in older women, because the direct negative effect on bone could exceed the positive effect of glycaemic control. Finally, preliminary data on animals and in humans suggest the hypothesis that incretins and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors could have a positive effect on bone metabolism by a direct effect on bone cells; however, such issue needs further investigations.

Recent studies have shown that administering the aromatase inhibitor exemestane after 2 -3 years of tamoxifen therapy significantly improves disease-free survival in postmenopausal women with primary breast cancer in comparison with standard 5-year tamoxifen treatment. Although many of the adverse effects associated with exemestane and tamoxifen have been analysed, there are no comparative data concerning body weight and body composition. The aim of this randomised study was to evaluate the longitudinal changes in body composition and lipid profiles in postmenopausal women switched from tamoxifen to exemestane. In total, 60 overweight or obese postmenopausal patients were enrolled. Their anthropometric data, body composition, including fat mass (FM) and fat-free mass (FFM), and lipid profiles, caloric intake and physical activity were assessed 1 week before randomisation, and 6 and 12 months later. In all, 55 patients (27 on tamoxifen and 28 on exemestane) completed the 1-year study period. Fat mass had significantly decreased by month 12 in the exemestane, but not in the tamoxifen group; the between-group difference was statistically significant (Po0.01). The FFM/FM ratio had significantly increased in the exemestane group, but not the tamoxifen group; the between-group difference was statistically significant (Po0.05). Triglycerides and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol significantly decreased (Po0.01; Po0.05), and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol significantly increased (Po0.01) in the exemestane group at the end of the 1-year study period. Our findings suggest that switching patients to adjuvant exemestane treatment after at least 2 years of tamoxifen therapy may be associated with an advantage over continuing adjuvant tamoxifen treatment in terms of body composition.