Impact microindentation in men with impaired fasting glucose and type 2 diabetes

• Published in: Bone (New York, N.Y.) N.Y.), 2021-01, Vol.142, p.115685-115685, Article 115685
• Main Authors: Holloway-Kew, Kara L., Betson, Amelia, Rufus-Membere, Pamela G., Gaston, James, Diez-Perez, Adolfo, Kotowicz, Mark A., Pasco, Julie A.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Bone material strength index; Bone mineral density; Diabetes; Impact microindentation; Impaired fasting glucose; Men; Trabecular bone score
• ISSN: 8756-3282; 1873-2763
• DOI: 10.1016/j.bone.2020.115685

Individuals with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) are at increased fracture risk, with bone mineral density (BMD) measurements underestimating risk. Impact microindentation (IMI), a technique that measures bone microindentation distances, expressed as bone material strength index (BMSi), may improve fracture risk estimation in individuals with T2DM. This study describes the relationship between BMSi and glycaemia status in men and makes a comparison with bone measures from dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). Participants were 340 men aged 33–96 yr from the Geelong Osteoporosis Study. Impaired fasting glucose (IFG) was defined using fasting plasma glucose (FPG) between 5.5 and 6.9 mmol/L. Diabetes was defined as FPG ≥ 7.0 mmol/L, use of antihyperglycemic medication and/or self-report. Two participants with type 1 diabetes were excluded. BMSi was measured using an OsteoProbe. Femoral neck (FNBMD) and lumbar spine (LSBMD) were measured using DXA (Lunar Prodigy) and trabecular bone score (TBS) was calculated (TBS iNsight Version 2.2). Using linear regression techniques, the relationship between glycaemia status and BMSi was evaluated, adjusting for other potential confounders (including lifestyle factors, clinical measurements and FNBMD). Glycaemia status was also considered as a binary variable (T2DM vs normoglycaemia and IFG). There were 234 (68.8%) men with normoglycaemia, 59 (17.4%) with IFG and 47 (13.8%) with diabetes. When considering glycaemia status as a binary variable, men with T2DM had lower mean BMSi compared to those without T2DM (normoglycaemia and IFG combined) (79.8; 95%CI 77.0–82.6 vs 83.0; 82.2–83.8 p = 0.043) and this difference in BMSi was independent of FNBMD. No differences were observed for either FNBMD or LSBMD; however, TBS was lower (1.177; 1.121–1.233 vs 1.256; 1.240–1.272, p = 0.015, independent of FNBMD). For glycaemia status considered in three groups, there were no differences in mean BMSi values between men with normoglycaemia, IFG and T2DM (82.9 (95%CI 82.0–83.8), 83.5 (81.8–85.2) and 79.8 (77.0–82.6), respectively; ANCOVA, p = 0.104). Measures reflecting bone material properties and microarchitecture (BMSi and TBS) might be better than measures of bone mass (BMD) in identifying individuals with T2DM at risk of fracture. •Individuals with type 2 diabetes have a higher fracture risk.•Paradoxically, these individuals also have normal/high bone mineral density.•Men with type 2 diabetes had lower bone material strength index (BMSi).•Men