Objective: To investigate the differences in bone turnover between diabetic patients and controls. Design: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: A literature search was conducted using the databases Medline at PubMed and EMBASE. The free text search terms 'diabetes mellitus' and 'bone turnover', 'sclerostin', 'RANKL', 'osteoprotegerin', 'tartrate-resistant acid' and 'TRAP' were used. Studies were eligible if they investigated bone turnover markers in patients with diabetes compared with controls. Data were extracted by two reviewers. Results: A total of 2881 papers were identified of which 66 studies were included. Serum levels of the bone resorption marker C-terminal cross-linked telopeptide (−0.10 ng/mL (−0.12, −0.08)) and the bone formation markers osteocalcin (−2.51 ng/mL (−3.01, −2.01)) and procollagen type 1 amino terminal propeptide (−10.80 ng/mL (−12.83, −8.77)) were all lower in patients with diabetes compared with controls. Furthermore, s-tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase was decreased in patients with type 2 diabetes (−0.31 U/L (−0.56, −0.05)) compared with controls. S-sclerostin was significantly higher in patients with type 2 diabetes (14.92 pmol/L (3.12, 26.72)) and patients with type 1 diabetes (3.24 pmol/L (1.52, 4.96)) compared with controls. Also, s-osteoprotegerin was increased among patients with diabetes compared with controls (2.67 pmol/L (0.21, 5.14)). Conclusions: Markers of both bone formation and bone resorption are decreased in patients with diabetes. This suggests that diabetes mellitus is a state of low bone turnover, which in turn may lead to more fragile bone. Altered levels of sclerostin and osteoprotegerin may be responsible for this.

The dissociative pattern of biochemical bone markers of bone formation and bone resorption present in diabetes patients is thus not caused by glucose per se but may be modulated by unknown factors associated with diabetes mellitus.

No abstract

Background:An association of insulin use and risk of cancer has been reported but evidence is conflicting and methodological issues have been identified.Objective: To summarize results regarding insulin use and cancer risk by a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort and case-control studies examining risk of cancer associated with insulin use in patients with diabetes.Data Sources: Systematic literature search in 5 databases: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus and Cochrane Library.Study Eligibility Criteria (PICOS): Population: diabetes patients. Exposure: Users of any exogenous insulin. Comparison: Diabetes patients with or without use of antidiabetic drugs. Outcome: Any incident cancer. Study Design: Cohort and case-control studies.Results: 42 eligible studies examined risk of any cancer and 27 site-specific cancers. Results of individual studies were heterogeneous. Meta-analyses were significant for: Insulin vs No Insulin: Increased risk for pancreas, liver, kidney, stomach and respiratory cancer, decreased risk for prostate cancer. Insulin vs Non-Insulin Antidiabetics: Increased risk for any, pancreatic and colorectal cancer. Glargine vs Non-Glargine Insulin: Increased risk for breast cancer, decreased risk for colon cancer.Limitations: Few studies available for most cancer sites and exposure contrasts, and few assess effect of dose and duration of exposure. Methodological issues in several studies. Availability of confounders.Conclusions: Insulin use was associated with risk of cancer at several sites. Cautious interpretation of results is warranted as methodological issues and limitations in several of the included studies have been identified. Choice of study design may have a profound effect on estimated cancer risk.

Diabetes mellitus is known to have late complications including micro vascular and macro vascular disease. This review focuses on another possible area of complication regarding diabetes; bone. Diabetes may affect bone via bone structure, bone density, and biochemical markers of bone turnover. The aim of the present review is to examine in vivo from humans on biochemical markers of bone turnover in diabetics compared to non-diabetics. Furthermore, the effect of glycemic control on bone markers and the similarities and differences of type 1- and type 2-diabetics regarding bone markers will be evaluated. A systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed, Embase, Cinahl, and SveMed+ with the search terms: “Diabetes mellitus,” “Diabetes mellitus type 1,” “Insulin dependent diabetes mellitus,” “Diabetes mellitus type 2,” “Non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus,” “Bone,” “Bone and Bones,” “Bone diseases,” “Bone turnover,” “Hemoglobin A Glycosylated,” and “HbA1C.” After removing duplicates from this search 1,188 records were screened by title and abstract and 75 records were assessed by full text for inclusion in the review. In the end 43 records were chosen. Bone formation and resorption markers are investigated as well as bone regulating systems. T1D is found to have lower osteocalcin and CTX, while osteocalcin and tartrate-resistant acid are found to be lower in T2D, and sclerostin is increased and collagen turnover markers altered. Other bone turnover markers do not seem to be altered in T1D or T2D. A major problem is the lack of histomorphometric studies in humans linking changes in turnover markers to actual changes in bone turnover and further research is needed to strengthen this link.

Type 1 and type 2 diabetes patients differ in BMD of the hip and tissue stiffness at the tibia. Sclerostin may be a marker independent of BMD to predict fractures in type 1 diabetes patients and thus potentially of clinical importance. Studies with longer follow-up are needed.

No abstract

Diabetes and osteoporosis are both frequent conditions, and they may thus occur simultaneously by chance. However, a growing body of evidence suggests that hyperglycemia may impair bone matrix formation and biochemical competence. Decreased biomechanical competence may be present even in a setting of increased bone mineral density, as assessed by traditional dual energy X-ray absorptiometry or normal structural parameters by quantitative computed tomography. Also, the absence of endogenous insulin secretion in type 1 diabetes (T1D) and insulin resistance or, in some cases, frank hyperinsulinemia in T2D may play a role.