-
A total of 139,470 participants were included in this study, with 81,368 males (58.34%) and 58,102 females (41.66%). Participants’ mean age was 45.66 ± 10.72 years. Among them, 80,170 were included in the follow-up cohort, with 2,660 meeting the criteria for the self-matched analysis. The flowchart of participant selection is presented in Figure 1.
-
In total, 21,494 participants (15.41%) were included in the suspected osteoporosis group, with a mean BMD of 0.364 ± 0.071 g/cm2. The control group comprised 117,976 participants (84.59%) with a mean BMD of 0.499 ± 0.079 g/cm2. Table 1 compares health examination-related results between the two groups. Compared with the control group, the suspected osteoporosis group had a higher proportion of males (χ2 = 27.28, P < 0.001), older patients (t = 68.38, P < 0.001), and higher rates of smokers (χ2 = 215.36, P < 0.001) and heavy drinkers (χ2 = 215.36, P < 0.001). In addition, the suspected osteoporosis group exhibited significantly higher levels of metabolic-related indicators such as body mass index (BMI), waist circumference, FBG, HbA1c, blood pressure, LDL-C, and Hcy compared with the control group (P < 0.01). The inflammatory marker hs-CRP was also significantly elevated in the suspected osteoporosis group compared with the control group (P < 0.01), whereas no statistically significant difference was observed in body weight and HDL-C level between the two groups.
Table 1. Comparison of data between groups according to bone mineral density screening results (n =139,470)
Control group (n = 117,976) Suspected osteoporosis (n = 21,494) Statistics BMD (g/cm2) 0.499 ± 0.079 0.364±0.071 t = 236.89, P < 0.001 Body mass (kg) 69.75 ± 13.32 69.72 ± 14.06 t = 0.38, P = 0.702 BMI (kg/m2) 24.59 ± 3.59 24.83 ± 3.79 t = 8.54, P < 0.001 Waist (cm) 85.54 ± 10.95 87.69 ± 11.18 t = 26.42, P < 0.001 FBG (mmol/L) 5.67 ± 1.29 5.89 ± 1.53 t = 23.34, P < 0.001 HbA1c (%) 5.79 ± 0.78 5.98 ± 0.92 t = 31.18, P < 0.001 Systolic blood pressure (mmHg) 119.97 ± 15.84 124.19 ± 16.97 t = 35.53, P < 0.001 Diastolic blood pressure (mmHg) 80.10 ± 11.74 81.95 ± 11.81 t = 21.27, P < 0.001 TC (mmol/L) 4.69 ± 0.89 4.83 ± 0.94 t = 20.69, P < 0.001 TG (mmol/L) 1.62 ± 1.31 1.71 ± 1.30 t = 9.56, P < 0.001 LDL-c (mmol/L) 2.98 ± 0.79 3.09 ± 0.83 t = 19.13, P < 0.001 Sex χ2 = 27.28, P < 0.001 Female 49495 (41.95) 8607 (40.04) Male 68481 (58.05) 12887 (59.96) Age(year) 44.48 ± 10.21 50.19 ± 12.26 t = 68.38, P < 0.001 Smoking status χ2 = 215.36, P < 0.001 No smoking 86,892 (73.65) 14,875 (69.21) Smoking 31084 (26.35) 6619 (30.79) Drinking status χ2 = 66.36, P < 0.001 Limited drinking 83,487 (70.77) 14,994 (69.76) Excessive drinking 34489 (29.23) 6500 (30.24) Hcy (μmol/L) 12.63 ± 7.13 13.32 ± 7.15 t = 12.82, P < 0.001 hs-CRP (mg/dl) 0.163 ± 0.479 0.203 ± 0.558 t = 10.63, P < 0.001 Scr (μmol/L) 69.66 ± 15.02 68.70 ± 16.08 t = 8.55, P < 0.001 BUN (mmol/L) 4.89 ± 1.23 5.02 ± 1.29 t = 14.84, P < 0.001 Ca2+ (mmol/L) 2.336 ± 0.085 2.342 ± 0.086 t = 8.66, P < 0.001 P (mmol/L) 1.167 ± 0.149 1.181 ± 0.151 t = 12.06, P < 0.001 iPTH (ng/L) 45.95 ± 16.35 48.13 ± 29.39 t = 4.55, P < 0.001 Ua (μmol/L) 329.85 ± 90.97 328.02 ± 87.96 t = 2.73, P = 0.006 VD3 (ng/ml) 17.27 ± 7.35 17.73 ± 7.57 t = 2.53, P = 0.012 HDL-C (mmol/L) 1.32 ± 0.34 1.32 ± 0.35 t = 1.36, P = 0.174 Note. MS: metabolic syndrome; BMI:body mass index; BMD: bone mineral density; TC: Total cholesterol; TG: Triglyceride; HDL-C: high density lipoprotein cholesterol; LDL-C: low density lipoprotein cholesterol; FBG: fasting blood glucose; UA: blood uric acid; HbA1c: hemoglobin A1c; hs-CRP: high sensitivity C-reactive protein; Scr: serum creatinine; BUN: urea nitrogen; Hcy: blood homocysteine; iPTH: intact Parathyroid Hormone -
In total, 44,916 participants were included in the 0 MS criteria group, 31,147 in the 1 MS criterion group, 27,983 in the 2 MS criteria group, and 35,424 in the ≥ 3 MS criteria group. Table 2 presents a comparison of the baseline data for the four MS groups. All indicators, except for iPTH, exhibited statistically significant differences among the groups (P < 0.001). As the number of MS diagnostic criteria increased from the 0 MS criteria group to the MS group, there was a gradual increase in the proportion of males, smoking rate, heavy drinking rate, age, body weight, and BMD (P < 0.001). The inflammatory marker hs-CRP level showed a gradual increase, whereas the HDL-C level demonstrated a gradual decrease with increasing MS criteria (P < 0.001). Additionally, with an increase in the number of MS criteria, the proportion of suspected osteoporosis cases significantly increased (P < 0.001).
Table 2. Comparison of basic data among groups according to diagnostic criteria of MS (n=139,470)
Met none diagnostic criterion of MS
(n = 44,916)Met one diagnostic criterion of MS (n = 31,147) Met two diagnostic criteria of MS
(n = 27,983)Met ≥3 diagnostic criteria of MS
(n = 35,424)Statistics Sex χ2 = 24000, P < 0.001 Female 30,746 (68.45) 13,426 (43.11) 7,947 (28.40) 5,983 (16.89) Male 14,170 (31.55) 17,721 (56.89) 20,036 (71.60) 29,441 (83.11) Smoking status χ2 = 11000, P < 0.001 No smoking 38,613 (85.97) 23,506 (75.47) 18,937 (67.67) 20,711 (58.47) Smoking 6,303 (14.03) 7,641 (24.53) 9,046 (32.33) 14,713 (41.53) Drinking status χ2 = 16000, P < 0.001 Limited drinking 39,522 (87.99) 23,082 (74.11) 17,482 (62.47) 18,395 (51.93) Excessive drinking 5,394 (12.01) 8,065 (25.89) 10,501 (37.53) 17,029 (48.07) BMD screening Relatively normal BMD 39,747 (88.49) 26,528 (85.17) 22,977 (82.11) 28,724 (81.09) χ2 = 998.15, P < 0.001 Suspected osteoporosis 5,169 (11.51) 4,619 (114.83) 5,006 (17.89) 6,700 (18.91) Age(year) 40.66 ± 10.57 46.79 ± 10.46* 48.61 ± 9.94*# 48.68 ± 9.35*# F = 5627.83, P < 0.001 BMI (kg/m2) 21.70 ± 2.44 24.22 ± 2.79 26.09 ± 2.94*# 27.56 ± 3.03*#@ F = 32582.08,
P < 0.001Body mass (kg) 59.37 ± 8.78 68.07 ± 10.79* 74.72 ± 11.38*# 80.46 ± 11.63*#@ F = 29015.81,
P < 0.001Waist (cm) 75.81 ± 7.03 84.70 ± 8.08* 90.91 ± 8.04*# 95.67 ± 7.82*#@ F = 49176.86,
P < 0.001Systolic blood pressure (mmHg) 108.06 ± 9.64 120.29 ± 13.61* 126.76 ± 14.73*# 132.01 ± 14.43*#@ F = 25315.30,
P < 0.001Diastolic blood pressure (mmHg) 70.99 ± 7.06 80.00 ± 9.86* 84.74 ± 10.52*# 89.21 ± 10.19*#@ F = 28008.72,
P < 0.001BMD (g/cm2) 0.462 ± 0.086 0.478 ± 0.095* 0.486 ± 0.095*# 0.495 ± 0.090*#@ F = 977.61, P < 0.001 TC (mmol/L) 4.48 ± 0.80 4.73 ± 0.88* 4.82 ± 0.92*# 4.89 ± 0.98*#@ F = 1672.26, P < 0.001 TG (mmol/L) 0.91 ± 0.32 1.29 ± 0.61* 1.73 ± 1.02*# 2.77 ± 1.83*#@ F = 20815.34,
P < 0.001LDL-c (mmol/L) 2.77 ± 0.73 3.08 ± 0.77* 3.08 ± 0.86*# 3.17 ± 0.80*#@ F = 1899.98, P < 0.001 HDL-C (mmol/L) 1.54 ± 0.32 1.37 ± 0.31* 1.24 ± 0.28*# 1.06 ± 0.25*#@ F = 18679.94,
P < 0.001FBG (mmol/L) 5.13 ± 0.36 5.44 ± 0.80* 5.76 ± 1.22*# 6.62 ± 1.95*#@ F = 10756.11,
P < 0.001HbA1c (%) 5.51 ± 0.31 5.69 ± 0.55* 5.86 ± 0.78*# 6.31 ± 1.14*#@ F = 8157.45, P < 0.001 Hcy (μmol/L) 11.17 ± 6.30 12.69 ± 7.09* 13.55 ± 7.44*# 13.9 ± 87.49*#@ F = 1162.34, P < 0.001 hs-CRP (mg/dl) 0.108 ± 0.348 0.164 ± 0.553* 0.193 ± 0.527*# 0.228 ± 0.545*#@ F = 399.77, P < 0.001 Cr (μmol/L) 64.53 ± 13.39 69.62 ± 15.33* 72.27 ± 14.95*# 73.57 ± 15.62*#@ F = 2937.67, P < 0.001 Bun (mmol/L) 4.57 ± 1.16 4.91 ± 1.24* 5.08 ± 1.22*# 5.19 ± 1.26*#@ F = 1973.15, P < 0.001 Ua (μmol/L) 281.25 ± 73.17 321.57 ± 81.81* 352.61 ± 84.60*# 379.68 ± 89.37*#@ F = 10508.23,
P < 0.001Ca2+ (mmol/L) 2.326 ± 0.084 2.336 ± 0.085* 2.342 ± 0.086*# 2.349 ± 0.085*#@ F = 561.73, P < 0.001 K+ (mmol/L) 4.227 ± 0.293 4.252 ± 0.302* 4.252 ± 0.304* 4.236 ± 0.306*#@ F = 60.39, P < 0.001 P (mmol/L) 1.186 ± 0.145 1.162 ± 0.149* 1.159 ± 0.151* 1.162 ± 0.152* F = 287.46, P < 0.001 iPTH(ng/L) 46.53 ± 25.06(n = 2,832) 45.96 ± 17.32
(n = 2,425)46.19 ± 16.70
(n = 2,533)46.56 ± 16.84
(n = 3,410)F = 0.60, P = 0.6133 VD3 (ng/ml) 16.61 ± 7.29(n = 2,832) 17.53 ± 7.85*
(n = 2,425)17.65 ± 7.35*
(n = 2,533)17.62 ± 7.11*
(n = 3,410)F = 13.02, P < 0.001 Note. MS: metabolic syndrome; BMI: body mass index; BMD: bone mineral density; TC: Total cholesterol; TG: Triglyceride; HDL-C: high density lipoprotein cholesterol; LDL-C: low density lipoprotein cholesterol; FBG: fasting blood glucose; UA: blood uric acid; HbA1c: hemoglobin A1c; hs-CRP: high sensitivity C-reactive protein; Cr: serum creatinine; Bun: urea nitrogen; Hcy: blood homocysteine; iPTH: intact Parathyroid Hormone
*: compared with met 0 diagnostic criteria of M, P<0.05;
#:compared with Met one diagnostic criteria of MS, P<0.05
@: compared with Met two diagnostic criteria of MS, P<0.05In the follow-up cohort, there were 28,751 participants at baseline, 18,902 at 1-year follow-up, 12,844 at the 2-year follow-up, 8,820 at the 3-year follow-up, 6,158 at the 4-year follow-up, and 4,875 at the ≥ 5-year follow-up. The trend test revealed that the proportion of suspected osteoporosis cases increased gradually among the MS groups at baseline and each follow-up period (P < 0.05). Moreover, the MS group consistently exhibited the highest incidence of suspected osteoporosis. However, when considering the longitudinal aspect of the follow-up time, there was no significant increase in the proportion of suspected osteoporosis cases among the different MS groups (P > 0.05), as shown in Table 3.
Table 3. Comparison of follow-up data among groups according to diagnostic criteria of MS
Met none diagnostic
criterion of MSMet one diagnostic
criterion of MSMet two diagnostic criteria of MS Met ≥3 diagnostic criteria
of MS(MS group)Statistics Control group Suspected osteoporosis Control group Suspected osteoporosis Control group Suspected
osteoporosisControl
groupSuspected osteoporosis χ2 and
P valueBaseline
(n = 28,571)9,725 (88.76) 1,232 (11.24) 5,602 (86.00) 912 (14.00) 4,427
(84.26)827 (15.74) 4,858
(83.10)988 (16.90)* 123.76,
P < 0.0011-year
(n = 18,902)6,347 (89.34) 757 (10.66) 3,873 (86.07) 627 (13.93) 2,939
(84.65)533 (15.35) 3,210
(83.90)616 (16.10)* 82.63,
P < 0.0012-year
(n = 12,844)3,893 (89.17) 473 (10.83) 2,656 (86.04) 431 (13.96) 2,122
(84.74)382 (15.26) 2,405
(83.30)482 (16.70)* 57.27,
P < 0.0013-Year
(n = 8,820)2,695 (90.65) 278 (9.35) 1,845 (86.26) 294 (13.74) 1,433
(84.99)253 (15.01) 1,710
(84.57)312 (15.43)* 52.89,
P < 0.0014-Year
(n = 6,158)1,725 (88.87) 216 (11.13) 1,280 (86.49) 200 (13.51) 1,057
(85.04)186 (14.96) 1,244
(83.27)250 (16.73)* 23.91,
P < 0.001≥ 5-Year
(n = 4,875)1,281 (87.74) 179 (12.26) 1,046 (87.46) 150 (12.54) 914
(84.08)173 (15.92) 948
(83.75)184 (16.25)* 13.79,
P = 0.003χ2 = 0.24, P = 0.6263 χ2 = 1.35, P = 0.2454 χ2 = 0.21, P = 0.6487 χ2 = 0.57, P = 0.4519 List of Abbreviations: MS: metabolic syndrome;
*: the highest incidence among the four groups. -
Logistic regression analysis was performed with suspected osteoporosis as the dependent variable and the results of MS grouping as the independent variable. All odds ratios (ORs) for the 1, 2, and ≥ 3 MS criteria groups were > 1, indicating that for each additional MS diagnostic criterion, the likelihood of developing suspected osteoporosis increased by an average of 1.21 times (Z = 30.86, P < 0.001, 95% confidence interval: 1.200–1.230). After adjusting for age, sex, smoking, alcohol consumption, and other factors, the ORs for the 2 and ≥ 3 MS criteria groups remained > 1, indicating that MS grouping is an independent risk factor for the development of suspected osteoporosis (Table 4).
Table 4. Results of logistics regression analysis
OR Z P 95% CI MS group (Unadjusted) Met none diagnostic criterion of MS 1.000 Met one diagnostic criterion of MS 1.338 13.42 0.000 1.283-1.397 Met two diagnostic criteria of MS 1.294 24.01 0.000 1.267-1.322 Met ≥3 diagnostic criteria of MS (MS group) 1.215 29.11 0.000 1.199-1.231 MS group (Adjusted) Met none diagnostic criterion of MS 1.000 Met one diagnostic criterion of MS 1.025 1.07 0.284 0.979-1.073 Met two diagnostic criteria of MS 1.099 7.65 0.000 1.073-1.127 Met ≥3 diagnostic criteria of MS (MS group) 1.090 10.39 0.000 1.073-1.108 Note. MS: metabolic syndrome;
Adjusted factors: Age (years), Sex (female=0, male=1), Smoking status (no smoking = 0, smoking = 1), Drinking status (limited drinking = 0, excessive drinking = 1) -
In the follow-up cohort, we compared baseline and follow-up examination results of participants who completed health examinations at least 5 years later (median 1,925 days, minimum 1,825 days, maximum 3,195 days). Only individuals whose MS grouping remained unchanged during the 5-year follow-up were included in the self-matched analysis. A total of 2,660 participants were included, with 1,191 females (44.77%) and 1,469 males (55.23%). Table 5 presents relevant data and comparison results. After an average increase in age of 5.47 years, indicators related to MS, such as BMI, body weight, waist circumference, blood pressure, FBG and HbA1c, increased significantly compared to baseline (P < 0.01). Furthermore, Scr, BUN, and Ua also showed significant increases (P < 0.01), whereas BMD exhibited a significant decrease (P < 0.01). However, there were no significant changes in TC, TG, LDL-C, HDL-C, FBG, and hs-CRP levels.
Table 5. Comparison of clinical data before and after at least 5 years follow-up after (n = 2,660)
Baseline (n = 2,660) ≥ 5 year follow-up (n = 2,660) Mean change Statistics BMD screening χ2 = 0.23, P = 0.634 Relatively normal BMD 2,297 (86.35) 2,285 (85.90) −12 Suspected osteoporosis 363 (13.65) 375 (14.10) + 12 Age (year) 42.63 ± 9.77 48.09 ± 9.86* + 5.47 t = 20.31, P < 0.001 BMI (kg/m2) 23.58 ± 3.68 24.18 ± 3.71 + 0.59 t = 5.89, P < 0.001 Body mass (kg) 67.23 ± 13.83 68.04 ± 13.78 + 0.804 t = 2.21, P = 0.034 Waist (cm) 82.78 ± 11.87 84.33 ± 11.48* + 1.55 t = 4.84, P < 0.001 BMD (g/cm2) 0.482 ± 0.087 0.473 ± 0.087 −0.008 t = 3.49, P < 0.001 Systolic blood pressure (mmHg) 115.12 ± 15.62 118.09 ± 15.43 + 2.97 t = 6.99, P < 0.001 Diastolic blood pressure (mmHg) 76.73 ± 11.92 79.28 ± 11.57 + 2.55 t = 7.91, P < 0.001 TC (mmol/L) 4.64 ± 0.87 4.61 ± 0.84 −0.03 t = 1.38, P =0.167 TG (mmol/L) 1.46 ± 1.19 1.48 ± 1.19 + 0.019 t = 0.58, P = 0.559 LDL-c (mmol/L) 2.90 ± 0.78 2.90 ± 0.77 −0.004 t = 0.21, P = 0.828 HDL-C (mmol/L) 1.39 ± 0.38 1.39 ± 0.39 + 0.002 t = 0.17, P = 0.869 FBG (mmol/L) 5.53 ± 1.18 5.63 ± 1.27 + 0.103 t = 3.06, P = 0.002 HbA1c (%) 5.70 ± 0.68 5.84 ± 0.75 + 0.14 t = 6.99, P < 0.001 Hcy (μmol/L) 12.14 ± 7.00 11.84 ± 5.90 −0.30 t = 1.59, P = 0.110 hs-CRP (mg/dl) 0.149 ± 0.478 0.135 ± 0.441 −0.013 t = 0.99, P = 0.319 Cr (μmol/L) 69.11 ± 14.32 70.46 ± 16.31 + 1.36 t = 3.22, P < 0.001 Bun (mmol/L) 4.59 ± 1.13 4.89 ± 1.24 + 0.30 t = 8.26, P < 0.001 Ua (μmol/L) 313.73 ± 88.12 322.52 ± 88.65 + 8.78 t = 3.62, P < 0.001 Ca2+ (mmol/L) 2.328 ± 0.083 2.330 ± 0.083 + 0.002 t = 0.84, P = 0.403 K+ (mmol/L) 4.204 ± 0.290 4.297 ± 0.300 + 0.092 t = 10.97, P < 0.001 P (mmol/L) 1.166 ± 0.139 1.160 ± 0.147 −0.005 t = 1.21, P = 0.225 iPTH (ng/L) 46.27 ± 15.73 45.09 ± 15.56 −1.19 t = 0.65, P = 0.515 VD3 (ng/ml) 15.46 ± 6.56 18.32 ± 8.06 + 2.86 t = 3.20, P = 0.002 Note. BMI: body mass index; BMD: bone mineral density; TC: total cholesterol; TG: Triglyceride; HDL-C: high density lipoprotein cholesterol; LDL-C: low density lipoprotein cholesterol; FBG: fasting blood glucose; UA: blood uric acid; HbA1c: hemoglobin A1c; hs-CRP: high sensitivity C-reactive protein; Cr: serum creatinine; Bun: urea nitrogen; Hcy: blood homocysteine; iPTH: intact parathyroid hormone In the self-matched analysis, the proportion of suspected osteoporosis cases gradually increased with the number of MS diagnostic criteria at baseline and at least 5 years later (P < 0.05). In the 0 MS criteria group (n = 1,234), one case (0.08%) progressed to suspected osteoporosis. In the 1 MS criterion group (n = 481), one case (0.21%) progressed to suspected osteoporosis. In the 2 MS criteria group (n = 342), three cases (0.87%) progressed to suspected osteoporosis. In the MS group (n = 603), seven cases (1.15%) progressed to suspected osteoporosis. These findings indicate that the proportion of individuals developing suspected osteoporosis in the MS group was significantly higher than that in the 0 MS criteria group (1.15% versus 0.08%, χ2 = 10.76, P = 0.001).
The self-matched comparison of BMD values in the 0 MS criteria group showed no significant difference (t = 1.62, P = 0.106), suggesting that a 5-year increase in age in individuals without any MS criteria has little effect on BMD. Nevertheless, in the other three groups (1, 2, and ≥ 3 MS criteria), there was a significant decrease in BMD values (P < 0.05), indicating a more pronounced decrease in BMD in individuals with MS features as they age (Table 6).
Table 6. The self-control study of BMD according to the standard of metabolic syndrome
Baseline (n = 2,660) ≥ 5 year follow-up (n = 2,660) Before and after comparison of BMD Relatively normal BMD Suspected osteoporosis Total BMD Relatively normal BMD Suspected osteoporosis Total BMD Met none diagnostic criterion of MS 1,088 (88.17) 146 (11.83) 1,234 0.459 ± 0.084 1,087 (88.09) 147 (11.91) 1,234 0.453 ± 0.083 t = 1.62, P = 0.106 Met one diagnostic criterion of MS 417 (86.69) 64 (13.31) 481 0.496 ± 0.092* 416 (86.49) 65 (13.51) 481 0.484 ± 0.095* t = 1.98, P = 0.048 Met two diagnostic criteria of MS 283 (82.75) 59 (17.25) 342 0.498 ± 0.080* 280 (81.87) 62 (18.13) 342 0.485 ± 0.086* t = 2.05, P = 0.041 Met ≥3 diagnostic criteria of MS (MS group) 509 (84.41) 94 (15.59) 603 0.509 ± 0.078*# 502 (83.25) 101 (16.75) 603 0.497 ± 0.083*# t = 2.48, P = 0.013 Statistics χ2 = 9.20, P = 0.027 F = 61.38,
P < 0.001χ2 = 13.09, P = 0.004 F = 45.45,
P < 0.001Note. MS: metabolic syndrome; BMD: bone mineral density
*: compared with met 0 diagnostic criterion of M, P < 0.05;
#:compared with Met one diagnostic criterion of MS, P < 0.05
doi: 10.3967/bes2024.097
An Investigation of the Association between Metabolic Syndrome and Osteoporosis Based on Chinese Health Examination Data
-
Abstract:
Objective Because of the limited number of studies and small sample sizes, whether metabolic syndrome (MS) leads to the occurrence and progression of osteoporosis and the possible underlying mechanisms require further investigation. This study aimed to investigate the association between MS and osteoporosis, along with its influencing factors. Methods This observational cross-sectional study included 139,470 individuals aged ≥ 18 years who underwent health examinations from September 2014 to March 2022. Based on bone mineral density (BMD) screening results, the participants were categorized into a suspected osteoporosis or non-osteoporosis group (control). Participants were further divided into those who met 0 MS criteria, 1 MS criterion, 2 MS criteria, and ≥ 3 MS criteria (MS group). Participants who had undergone health examinations at least twice formed the follow-up cohort; a self-matched analysis was performed on those with follow-up periods ≥ 5 years and unchanged MS grouping. Results Several examination indicators in the suspected osteoporosis group showed statistically significant differences compared with the control group. The proportion of suspected osteoporosis in the MS group was significantly increased compared with that in the 0 MS criteria group (odds ratio [OR]: 1.215, Z = 29.11, P < 0.001, 95% confidence interval: 1.199–1.231). After adjusting for age, sex, smoking, and alcohol consumption, the 2 MS criteria group and MS group still had OR values > 1 (P < 0.001). In the follow-up cohort, the proportion of suspected osteoporosis increased gradually with an increase in the number of MS criteria met at baseline and during each follow-up visit (P < 0.05), with the highest proportion observed in the MS group. However, the proportion of suspected osteoporosis did not increase significantly over time in the different MS groups (P > 0.05). In the follow-up cohort, the proportion of individuals transitioning from normal BMD to suspected osteoporosis was higher in the MS group after ≥ 5 years of follow-up compared with the group meeting 0 MS criteria (0.08% versus 1.15%, χ2 = 10.76, P = 0.001). There was no significant difference in BMD values for the 0 MS criteria group after 5 years (P > 0.05), whereas the other three groups experienced a significant decrease in BMD values after 5 years (P < 0.05). Conclusion MS is an independent risk factor for osteoporosis, and the effect of risk factors related to MS on osteoporosis may exceed that of aging alone. The specific mechanisms warrant further investigation. -
Key words:
- Health examination /
- Bone mineral density /
- Osteoporosis /
- Metabolic syndrome
-
Table 1. Comparison of data between groups according to bone mineral density screening results (n =139,470)
Control group (n = 117,976) Suspected osteoporosis (n = 21,494) Statistics BMD (g/cm2) 0.499 ± 0.079 0.364±0.071 t = 236.89, P < 0.001 Body mass (kg) 69.75 ± 13.32 69.72 ± 14.06 t = 0.38, P = 0.702 BMI (kg/m2) 24.59 ± 3.59 24.83 ± 3.79 t = 8.54, P < 0.001 Waist (cm) 85.54 ± 10.95 87.69 ± 11.18 t = 26.42, P < 0.001 FBG (mmol/L) 5.67 ± 1.29 5.89 ± 1.53 t = 23.34, P < 0.001 HbA1c (%) 5.79 ± 0.78 5.98 ± 0.92 t = 31.18, P < 0.001 Systolic blood pressure (mmHg) 119.97 ± 15.84 124.19 ± 16.97 t = 35.53, P < 0.001 Diastolic blood pressure (mmHg) 80.10 ± 11.74 81.95 ± 11.81 t = 21.27, P < 0.001 TC (mmol/L) 4.69 ± 0.89 4.83 ± 0.94 t = 20.69, P < 0.001 TG (mmol/L) 1.62 ± 1.31 1.71 ± 1.30 t = 9.56, P < 0.001 LDL-c (mmol/L) 2.98 ± 0.79 3.09 ± 0.83 t = 19.13, P < 0.001 Sex χ2 = 27.28, P < 0.001 Female 49495 (41.95) 8607 (40.04) Male 68481 (58.05) 12887 (59.96) Age(year) 44.48 ± 10.21 50.19 ± 12.26 t = 68.38, P < 0.001 Smoking status χ2 = 215.36, P < 0.001 No smoking 86,892 (73.65) 14,875 (69.21) Smoking 31084 (26.35) 6619 (30.79) Drinking status χ2 = 66.36, P < 0.001 Limited drinking 83,487 (70.77) 14,994 (69.76) Excessive drinking 34489 (29.23) 6500 (30.24) Hcy (μmol/L) 12.63 ± 7.13 13.32 ± 7.15 t = 12.82, P < 0.001 hs-CRP (mg/dl) 0.163 ± 0.479 0.203 ± 0.558 t = 10.63, P < 0.001 Scr (μmol/L) 69.66 ± 15.02 68.70 ± 16.08 t = 8.55, P < 0.001 BUN (mmol/L) 4.89 ± 1.23 5.02 ± 1.29 t = 14.84, P < 0.001 Ca2+ (mmol/L) 2.336 ± 0.085 2.342 ± 0.086 t = 8.66, P < 0.001 P (mmol/L) 1.167 ± 0.149 1.181 ± 0.151 t = 12.06, P < 0.001 iPTH (ng/L) 45.95 ± 16.35 48.13 ± 29.39 t = 4.55, P < 0.001 Ua (μmol/L) 329.85 ± 90.97 328.02 ± 87.96 t = 2.73, P = 0.006 VD3 (ng/ml) 17.27 ± 7.35 17.73 ± 7.57 t = 2.53, P = 0.012 HDL-C (mmol/L) 1.32 ± 0.34 1.32 ± 0.35 t = 1.36, P = 0.174 Note. MS: metabolic syndrome; BMI:body mass index; BMD: bone mineral density; TC: Total cholesterol; TG: Triglyceride; HDL-C: high density lipoprotein cholesterol; LDL-C: low density lipoprotein cholesterol; FBG: fasting blood glucose; UA: blood uric acid; HbA1c: hemoglobin A1c; hs-CRP: high sensitivity C-reactive protein; Scr: serum creatinine; BUN: urea nitrogen; Hcy: blood homocysteine; iPTH: intact Parathyroid Hormone Table 2. Comparison of basic data among groups according to diagnostic criteria of MS (n=139,470)
Met none diagnostic criterion of MS
(n = 44,916)Met one diagnostic criterion of MS (n = 31,147) Met two diagnostic criteria of MS
(n = 27,983)Met ≥3 diagnostic criteria of MS
(n = 35,424)Statistics Sex χ2 = 24000, P < 0.001 Female 30,746 (68.45) 13,426 (43.11) 7,947 (28.40) 5,983 (16.89) Male 14,170 (31.55) 17,721 (56.89) 20,036 (71.60) 29,441 (83.11) Smoking status χ2 = 11000, P < 0.001 No smoking 38,613 (85.97) 23,506 (75.47) 18,937 (67.67) 20,711 (58.47) Smoking 6,303 (14.03) 7,641 (24.53) 9,046 (32.33) 14,713 (41.53) Drinking status χ2 = 16000, P < 0.001 Limited drinking 39,522 (87.99) 23,082 (74.11) 17,482 (62.47) 18,395 (51.93) Excessive drinking 5,394 (12.01) 8,065 (25.89) 10,501 (37.53) 17,029 (48.07) BMD screening Relatively normal BMD 39,747 (88.49) 26,528 (85.17) 22,977 (82.11) 28,724 (81.09) χ2 = 998.15, P < 0.001 Suspected osteoporosis 5,169 (11.51) 4,619 (114.83) 5,006 (17.89) 6,700 (18.91) Age(year) 40.66 ± 10.57 46.79 ± 10.46* 48.61 ± 9.94*# 48.68 ± 9.35*# F = 5627.83, P < 0.001 BMI (kg/m2) 21.70 ± 2.44 24.22 ± 2.79 26.09 ± 2.94*# 27.56 ± 3.03*#@ F = 32582.08,
P < 0.001Body mass (kg) 59.37 ± 8.78 68.07 ± 10.79* 74.72 ± 11.38*# 80.46 ± 11.63*#@ F = 29015.81,
P < 0.001Waist (cm) 75.81 ± 7.03 84.70 ± 8.08* 90.91 ± 8.04*# 95.67 ± 7.82*#@ F = 49176.86,
P < 0.001Systolic blood pressure (mmHg) 108.06 ± 9.64 120.29 ± 13.61* 126.76 ± 14.73*# 132.01 ± 14.43*#@ F = 25315.30,
P < 0.001Diastolic blood pressure (mmHg) 70.99 ± 7.06 80.00 ± 9.86* 84.74 ± 10.52*# 89.21 ± 10.19*#@ F = 28008.72,
P < 0.001BMD (g/cm2) 0.462 ± 0.086 0.478 ± 0.095* 0.486 ± 0.095*# 0.495 ± 0.090*#@ F = 977.61, P < 0.001 TC (mmol/L) 4.48 ± 0.80 4.73 ± 0.88* 4.82 ± 0.92*# 4.89 ± 0.98*#@ F = 1672.26, P < 0.001 TG (mmol/L) 0.91 ± 0.32 1.29 ± 0.61* 1.73 ± 1.02*# 2.77 ± 1.83*#@ F = 20815.34,
P < 0.001LDL-c (mmol/L) 2.77 ± 0.73 3.08 ± 0.77* 3.08 ± 0.86*# 3.17 ± 0.80*#@ F = 1899.98, P < 0.001 HDL-C (mmol/L) 1.54 ± 0.32 1.37 ± 0.31* 1.24 ± 0.28*# 1.06 ± 0.25*#@ F = 18679.94,
P < 0.001FBG (mmol/L) 5.13 ± 0.36 5.44 ± 0.80* 5.76 ± 1.22*# 6.62 ± 1.95*#@ F = 10756.11,
P < 0.001HbA1c (%) 5.51 ± 0.31 5.69 ± 0.55* 5.86 ± 0.78*# 6.31 ± 1.14*#@ F = 8157.45, P < 0.001 Hcy (μmol/L) 11.17 ± 6.30 12.69 ± 7.09* 13.55 ± 7.44*# 13.9 ± 87.49*#@ F = 1162.34, P < 0.001 hs-CRP (mg/dl) 0.108 ± 0.348 0.164 ± 0.553* 0.193 ± 0.527*# 0.228 ± 0.545*#@ F = 399.77, P < 0.001 Cr (μmol/L) 64.53 ± 13.39 69.62 ± 15.33* 72.27 ± 14.95*# 73.57 ± 15.62*#@ F = 2937.67, P < 0.001 Bun (mmol/L) 4.57 ± 1.16 4.91 ± 1.24* 5.08 ± 1.22*# 5.19 ± 1.26*#@ F = 1973.15, P < 0.001 Ua (μmol/L) 281.25 ± 73.17 321.57 ± 81.81* 352.61 ± 84.60*# 379.68 ± 89.37*#@ F = 10508.23,
P < 0.001Ca2+ (mmol/L) 2.326 ± 0.084 2.336 ± 0.085* 2.342 ± 0.086*# 2.349 ± 0.085*#@ F = 561.73, P < 0.001 K+ (mmol/L) 4.227 ± 0.293 4.252 ± 0.302* 4.252 ± 0.304* 4.236 ± 0.306*#@ F = 60.39, P < 0.001 P (mmol/L) 1.186 ± 0.145 1.162 ± 0.149* 1.159 ± 0.151* 1.162 ± 0.152* F = 287.46, P < 0.001 iPTH(ng/L) 46.53 ± 25.06(n = 2,832) 45.96 ± 17.32
(n = 2,425)46.19 ± 16.70
(n = 2,533)46.56 ± 16.84
(n = 3,410)F = 0.60, P = 0.6133 VD3 (ng/ml) 16.61 ± 7.29(n = 2,832) 17.53 ± 7.85*
(n = 2,425)17.65 ± 7.35*
(n = 2,533)17.62 ± 7.11*
(n = 3,410)F = 13.02, P < 0.001 Note. MS: metabolic syndrome; BMI: body mass index; BMD: bone mineral density; TC: Total cholesterol; TG: Triglyceride; HDL-C: high density lipoprotein cholesterol; LDL-C: low density lipoprotein cholesterol; FBG: fasting blood glucose; UA: blood uric acid; HbA1c: hemoglobin A1c; hs-CRP: high sensitivity C-reactive protein; Cr: serum creatinine; Bun: urea nitrogen; Hcy: blood homocysteine; iPTH: intact Parathyroid Hormone
*: compared with met 0 diagnostic criteria of M, P<0.05;
#:compared with Met one diagnostic criteria of MS, P<0.05
@: compared with Met two diagnostic criteria of MS, P<0.05Table 3. Comparison of follow-up data among groups according to diagnostic criteria of MS
Met none diagnostic
criterion of MSMet one diagnostic
criterion of MSMet two diagnostic criteria of MS Met ≥3 diagnostic criteria
of MS(MS group)Statistics Control group Suspected osteoporosis Control group Suspected osteoporosis Control group Suspected
osteoporosisControl
groupSuspected osteoporosis χ2 and
P valueBaseline
(n = 28,571)9,725 (88.76) 1,232 (11.24) 5,602 (86.00) 912 (14.00) 4,427
(84.26)827 (15.74) 4,858
(83.10)988 (16.90)* 123.76,
P < 0.0011-year
(n = 18,902)6,347 (89.34) 757 (10.66) 3,873 (86.07) 627 (13.93) 2,939
(84.65)533 (15.35) 3,210
(83.90)616 (16.10)* 82.63,
P < 0.0012-year
(n = 12,844)3,893 (89.17) 473 (10.83) 2,656 (86.04) 431 (13.96) 2,122
(84.74)382 (15.26) 2,405
(83.30)482 (16.70)* 57.27,
P < 0.0013-Year
(n = 8,820)2,695 (90.65) 278 (9.35) 1,845 (86.26) 294 (13.74) 1,433
(84.99)253 (15.01) 1,710
(84.57)312 (15.43)* 52.89,
P < 0.0014-Year
(n = 6,158)1,725 (88.87) 216 (11.13) 1,280 (86.49) 200 (13.51) 1,057
(85.04)186 (14.96) 1,244
(83.27)250 (16.73)* 23.91,
P < 0.001≥ 5-Year
(n = 4,875)1,281 (87.74) 179 (12.26) 1,046 (87.46) 150 (12.54) 914
(84.08)173 (15.92) 948
(83.75)184 (16.25)* 13.79,
P = 0.003χ2 = 0.24, P = 0.6263 χ2 = 1.35, P = 0.2454 χ2 = 0.21, P = 0.6487 χ2 = 0.57, P = 0.4519 List of Abbreviations: MS: metabolic syndrome;
*: the highest incidence among the four groups.Table 4. Results of logistics regression analysis
OR Z P 95% CI MS group (Unadjusted) Met none diagnostic criterion of MS 1.000 Met one diagnostic criterion of MS 1.338 13.42 0.000 1.283-1.397 Met two diagnostic criteria of MS 1.294 24.01 0.000 1.267-1.322 Met ≥3 diagnostic criteria of MS (MS group) 1.215 29.11 0.000 1.199-1.231 MS group (Adjusted) Met none diagnostic criterion of MS 1.000 Met one diagnostic criterion of MS 1.025 1.07 0.284 0.979-1.073 Met two diagnostic criteria of MS 1.099 7.65 0.000 1.073-1.127 Met ≥3 diagnostic criteria of MS (MS group) 1.090 10.39 0.000 1.073-1.108 Note. MS: metabolic syndrome;
Adjusted factors: Age (years), Sex (female=0, male=1), Smoking status (no smoking = 0, smoking = 1), Drinking status (limited drinking = 0, excessive drinking = 1)Table 5. Comparison of clinical data before and after at least 5 years follow-up after (n = 2,660)
Baseline (n = 2,660) ≥ 5 year follow-up (n = 2,660) Mean change Statistics BMD screening χ2 = 0.23, P = 0.634 Relatively normal BMD 2,297 (86.35) 2,285 (85.90) −12 Suspected osteoporosis 363 (13.65) 375 (14.10) + 12 Age (year) 42.63 ± 9.77 48.09 ± 9.86* + 5.47 t = 20.31, P < 0.001 BMI (kg/m2) 23.58 ± 3.68 24.18 ± 3.71 + 0.59 t = 5.89, P < 0.001 Body mass (kg) 67.23 ± 13.83 68.04 ± 13.78 + 0.804 t = 2.21, P = 0.034 Waist (cm) 82.78 ± 11.87 84.33 ± 11.48* + 1.55 t = 4.84, P < 0.001 BMD (g/cm2) 0.482 ± 0.087 0.473 ± 0.087 −0.008 t = 3.49, P < 0.001 Systolic blood pressure (mmHg) 115.12 ± 15.62 118.09 ± 15.43 + 2.97 t = 6.99, P < 0.001 Diastolic blood pressure (mmHg) 76.73 ± 11.92 79.28 ± 11.57 + 2.55 t = 7.91, P < 0.001 TC (mmol/L) 4.64 ± 0.87 4.61 ± 0.84 −0.03 t = 1.38, P =0.167 TG (mmol/L) 1.46 ± 1.19 1.48 ± 1.19 + 0.019 t = 0.58, P = 0.559 LDL-c (mmol/L) 2.90 ± 0.78 2.90 ± 0.77 −0.004 t = 0.21, P = 0.828 HDL-C (mmol/L) 1.39 ± 0.38 1.39 ± 0.39 + 0.002 t = 0.17, P = 0.869 FBG (mmol/L) 5.53 ± 1.18 5.63 ± 1.27 + 0.103 t = 3.06, P = 0.002 HbA1c (%) 5.70 ± 0.68 5.84 ± 0.75 + 0.14 t = 6.99, P < 0.001 Hcy (μmol/L) 12.14 ± 7.00 11.84 ± 5.90 −0.30 t = 1.59, P = 0.110 hs-CRP (mg/dl) 0.149 ± 0.478 0.135 ± 0.441 −0.013 t = 0.99, P = 0.319 Cr (μmol/L) 69.11 ± 14.32 70.46 ± 16.31 + 1.36 t = 3.22, P < 0.001 Bun (mmol/L) 4.59 ± 1.13 4.89 ± 1.24 + 0.30 t = 8.26, P < 0.001 Ua (μmol/L) 313.73 ± 88.12 322.52 ± 88.65 + 8.78 t = 3.62, P < 0.001 Ca2+ (mmol/L) 2.328 ± 0.083 2.330 ± 0.083 + 0.002 t = 0.84, P = 0.403 K+ (mmol/L) 4.204 ± 0.290 4.297 ± 0.300 + 0.092 t = 10.97, P < 0.001 P (mmol/L) 1.166 ± 0.139 1.160 ± 0.147 −0.005 t = 1.21, P = 0.225 iPTH (ng/L) 46.27 ± 15.73 45.09 ± 15.56 −1.19 t = 0.65, P = 0.515 VD3 (ng/ml) 15.46 ± 6.56 18.32 ± 8.06 + 2.86 t = 3.20, P = 0.002 Note. BMI: body mass index; BMD: bone mineral density; TC: total cholesterol; TG: Triglyceride; HDL-C: high density lipoprotein cholesterol; LDL-C: low density lipoprotein cholesterol; FBG: fasting blood glucose; UA: blood uric acid; HbA1c: hemoglobin A1c; hs-CRP: high sensitivity C-reactive protein; Cr: serum creatinine; Bun: urea nitrogen; Hcy: blood homocysteine; iPTH: intact parathyroid hormone Table 6. The self-control study of BMD according to the standard of metabolic syndrome
Baseline (n = 2,660) ≥ 5 year follow-up (n = 2,660) Before and after comparison of BMD Relatively normal BMD Suspected osteoporosis Total BMD Relatively normal BMD Suspected osteoporosis Total BMD Met none diagnostic criterion of MS 1,088 (88.17) 146 (11.83) 1,234 0.459 ± 0.084 1,087 (88.09) 147 (11.91) 1,234 0.453 ± 0.083 t = 1.62, P = 0.106 Met one diagnostic criterion of MS 417 (86.69) 64 (13.31) 481 0.496 ± 0.092* 416 (86.49) 65 (13.51) 481 0.484 ± 0.095* t = 1.98, P = 0.048 Met two diagnostic criteria of MS 283 (82.75) 59 (17.25) 342 0.498 ± 0.080* 280 (81.87) 62 (18.13) 342 0.485 ± 0.086* t = 2.05, P = 0.041 Met ≥3 diagnostic criteria of MS (MS group) 509 (84.41) 94 (15.59) 603 0.509 ± 0.078*# 502 (83.25) 101 (16.75) 603 0.497 ± 0.083*# t = 2.48, P = 0.013 Statistics χ2 = 9.20, P = 0.027 F = 61.38,
P < 0.001χ2 = 13.09, P = 0.004 F = 45.45,
P < 0.001Note. MS: metabolic syndrome; BMD: bone mineral density
*: compared with met 0 diagnostic criterion of M, P < 0.05;
#:compared with Met one diagnostic criterion of MS, P < 0.05 -
[1] De Martinis M, Sirufo MM, Polsinelli M, et al. Gender differences in osteoporosis: a single-center observational study. World J Mens Health, 2021; 39, 750−9. doi: 10.5534/wjmh.200099 [2] Li Y, Huang Z, Gong Y, et al. Retrospective analysis of the relationship between bone mineral density and body composition in a health check-up Chinese population. Front Endocrinol, 2022; 13, 965758. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2022.965758 [3] Odén A, McCloskey EV, Kanis JA, et al. Burden of high fracture probability worldwide: secular increases 2010-2040. Osteoporos Int, 2015; 26, 2243−8. doi: 10.1007/s00198-015-3154-6 [4] Elbers LPB, Raterman HG, Lems WF. Bone mineral density loss and fracture risk after discontinuation of anti-osteoporotic drug treatment: a narrative review. Drugs, 2021; 81, 1645−55. doi: 10.1007/s40265-021-01587-x [5] Zimmet P, Magliano D, Matsuzawa Y, et al. The metabolic syndrome: a global public health problem and a new definition. J Atheroscler Thromb, 2005; 12, 295−300. doi: 10.5551/jat.12.295 [6] Bovolini A, Garcia J, Andrade MA, et al. Metabolic syndrome pathophysiology and predisposing factors. Int J Sports Med, 2021; 42, 199−214. doi: 10.1055/a-1263-0898 [7] Bishehsari F, Voigt RM, Keshavarzian A. Circadian rhythms and the gut microbiota: from the metabolic syndrome to cancer. Nat Rev Endocrinol, 2020; 16, 731−39. doi: 10.1038/s41574-020-00427-4 [8] Kocak MZ, Aktas G, Erkus E, et al. Serum uric acid to HDL-cholesterol ratio is a strong predictor of metabolic syndrome in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Rev Assoc Med Bras, 2019; 65, 9−15. doi: 10.1590/1806-9282.65.1.9 [9] Kosekli MA, Kurtkulagii O, Kahveci G, et al. The association between serum uric acid to high density lipoprotein-cholesterol ratio and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: the abund study. Rev Assoc Med Bras, 2021; 67, 549−54. doi: 10.1590/1806-9282.20201005 [10] Aktas G, Kocak MZ, Bilgin S, et al. Uric acid to HDL cholesterol ratio is a strong predictor of diabetic control in men with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Aging Male, 2020; 23, 1098−102. doi: 10.1080/13685538.2019.1678126 [11] Aktas G, Alcelik A, Ozlu T, et al. Association between omentin levels and insulin resistance in pregnancy. Exp Clin Endocrinol Diabetes, 2014; 122, 163−6. doi: 10.1055/s-0034-1370917 [12] Chen YY, Kao TW, Wang CC, et al. Exploring the link between metabolic syndrome and risk of dysmobility syndrome in elderly population. PLoS One, 2018; 13, e0207608. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0207608 [13] Lin HH, Huang CY, Hwang LC. Association between metabolic syndrome and osteoporosis in Taiwanese middle-aged and elderly participants. Arch Osteoporos, 2018; 13, 48. doi: 10.1007/s11657-018-0467-z [14] Yue C, Ding N, Xu LL, et al. Prescreening for osteoporosis with forearm bone densitometry in health examination population. BMC Musculoskelet Disord, 2022; 23, 377. doi: 10.1186/s12891-022-05325-6 [15] Anam AK, Insogna K. Update on osteoporosis screening and management. Med Clin North Am, 2021; 105, 1117−34. doi: 10.1016/j.mcna.2021.05.016 [16] Zeng Q, Li N, Wang QQ, et al. The prevalence of osteoporosis in China, a nationwide, multicenter DXA survey. J Bone Miner Res, 2019; 34, 1789−97. doi: 10.1002/jbmr.3757 [17] National Health and Family Planning Commission of the People’s Republic of China. China clinical smoking cessation guide line. People’s Medical Publishing House. 2015, 88-95. (In Chinese [18] Gong Y, Zeng Q, Yan Y, et al. Association between lifestyle and gastroesophageal reflux disease questionnaire scores: a cross-sectional study of 37442 Chinese adults. Gastroenterol Res Pract, 2019; 2019, 5753813. [19] Gao J, Dong ZN, Tian YP. The clinical application research of enzymatic cycling assay for detecting serum Hcy concentration. Chin J Lab Med, 2006; 29, 199−202. (In Chinese [20] Chinese Society of Osteoporosis and Bone Mineral Research. Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of primary osteoporosis (2022). Chin J Endocrinol Metab, 2023; 39, 377−406. (In Chinese [21] Joint Committee Issued Chinese Guideline for the Management of Dyslipidemia in Adults. 2016 Chinese guideline for the management of dyslipidemia in adults. Chin J Cardiol, 2016; 44, 833−53. (In Chinese [22] Ström O, Borgström F, Kanis JA, et al. Osteoporosis: burden, health care provision and opportunities in the EU: a report prepared incollaboration with the international osteoporosis foundation (IOF) and the European federation of pharmaceutical industry associations (EFPIA). Arch Osteoporos, 2011; 6, 59−155. doi: 10.1007/s11657-011-0060-1 [23] Curtis EM, Moon RJ, Harvey NC, et al. The impact of fragility fracture and approaches to osteoporosis risk assessment worldwide. Bone, 2017; 104, 29−38. doi: 10.1016/j.bone.2017.01.024 [24] Nwogu UB, Agwu KK, Anakwue AMC, et al. Bone mineral density in an urban and a rural children population -a comparative, population-based study in Enugu State, Nigeria. Bone, 2019; 127, 44−8 doi: 10.1016/j.bone.2019.05.028 [25] Wani K, Yakout SM, Ansari MGA, et al. Metabolic syndrome in Arab adults with low bone mineral density. Nutrients, 2019; 11, 1405. doi: 10.3390/nu11061405 [26] Al-Dawood E, Zafar M. Association between metabolic syndrome and bone mineral density among menopausal Saudi women: case-control study. Med J Islam Repub Iran, 2021; 35, 26. [27] Wong SK, Chin KY, Suhaimi FH, et al. The relationship between metabolic syndrome and osteoporosis: a review. Nutrients, 2016; 8, 347. doi: 10.3390/nu8060347 [28] Chen DZ, Xu QM, Wu XX, et al. The combined effect of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and metabolic syndrome on osteoporosis in postmenopausal females in Eastern China. Int J Endocrinol, 2018; 2018, 2314769. [29] Liu WD, Wang CS, Hao J, et al. Association between metabolic syndrome and osteoporosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Endocrinol, 2021; 2021, 6691487. [30] Nielson CM, Srikanth P, Orwoll ES. Obesity and fracture in men and women: an epidemiologic perspective. J Bone Miner Res, 2012; 27, 1−10. doi: 10.1002/jbmr.1486 [31] Guh DP, Zhang W, Bansback N, et al. The incidence of co-morbidities related to obesity and overweight: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Public Health, 2009; 9, 88. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-9-88 [32] Jiang BC, Villareal DT. Weight loss-induced reduction of bone mineral density in older adults with obesity. J Nutr Gerontol Geriatr, 2019; 38, 100−14. doi: 10.1080/21551197.2018.1564721 [33] Kammire DE, Walkup MP, Ambrosius WT, et al. Effect of weight change following intentional weight loss on bone health in older adults with obesity. Obesity, 2019; 27, 1839−45. doi: 10.1002/oby.22604 [34] Turcotte AF, O'Connor S, Morin SN, et al. Association between obesity and risk of fracture, bone mineral density and bone quality in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One, 2021; 16, e0252487. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0252487 [35] Piñar-Gutierrez A, García-Fontana C, García-Fontana B, et al. Obesity and bone health: a complex relationship. Int J Mol Sci, 2022; 23, 8303. doi: 10.3390/ijms23158303 [36] Fulzele K, Riddle RC, DiGirolamo DJ, et al. Insulin receptor signaling in osteoblasts regulates postnatal bone acquisition and body composition. Cell, 2010; 142, 309−19. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2010.06.002 [37] Ferron M, Wei JW, Yoshizawa T, et al. Insulin signaling in osteoblasts integrates bone remodeling and energy metabolism. Cell, 2010; 142, 296−308. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2010.06.003 [38] Zhou JJ, Zhang Q, Yuan XL, et al. Association between metabolic syndrome and osteoporosis: a meta-analysis. Bone, 2013; 57, 30−5. doi: 10.1016/j.bone.2013.07.013 [39] Tang YC, Wang SH, Yi Q, et al. High-density lipoprotein cholesterol is negatively correlated with bone mineral density and has potential predictive value for bone loss. Lipids Health Dis, 2021; 20, 75. doi: 10.1186/s12944-021-01497-7 [40] Li GHY, Cheung CL, Au PCM, et al. Positive effects of low LDL-C and statins on bone mineral density: an integrated epidemiological observation analysis and Mendelian randomization study. Int J Epidemiol, 2020; 49, 1221−35. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyz145 [41] Fischer V, Haffner-Luntzer M. Interaction between bone and immune cells: implications for postmenopausal osteoporosis. Semin Cell Dev Biol, 2022; 123, 14−21. doi: 10.1016/j.semcdb.2021.05.014 [42] Iantomasi T, Romagnoli C, Palmini G, et al. Oxidative stress and inflammation in osteoporosis: molecular mechanisms involved and the relationship with microRNAs. Int J Mol Sci, 2023; 24, 3772. doi: 10.3390/ijms24043772 [43] Nakagami H, Morishita R. Hypertension and osteoporosis. Clin Calcium, 2013; 23, 497-503. (In Japanese [44] Sequi-Dominguez I, Alvarez-Bueno C, Martinez-Vizcaino V, et al. Effectiveness of mobile health interventions promoting physical activity and lifestyle interventions to reduce cardiovascular risk among individuals with metabolic syndrome: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Med Internet Res, 2020; 22, e17790. doi: 10.2196/17790 [45] Papadopoulou SK, Papadimitriou K, Voulgaridou G, et al. Exercise and nutrition impact on osteoporosis and sarcopenia-the incidence of osteosarcopenia: a narrative review. Nutrients, 2021; 13, 4499. doi: 10.3390/nu13124499