Prerpints.org logo
Preprint
Review

Effect of Drugs Used in Pharmacotherapy of Type 2 Diabetes on Bone Density and Risk of Bone Fractures

Altmetrics

Downloads

104

Views

51

Comments

0

A peer-reviewed article of this preprint also exists.

Submitted:

13 January 2024

Posted:

15 January 2024

You are already at the latest version

Alerts
Abstract
This review summarises the complex relationship between medications used to treat type 2 diabetes, and bone health. T2DM patients face an increased fracture risk despite higher bone mineral density, thus we analysed the impact of key drug classes, including Metformin, Sulphonylureas, SGLT-2 inhibitors, DPP-4 inhibitors, GLP-1 agonists, and Thiazolidinediones. Metformin, despite promising preclinical results, lacks a clear consensus on its role in reducing fracture risk. Sulphonylureas present conflicting data, with potential neutral effects on bone. SGLT-2 inhibitors seem to have a transient impact on serum calcium and phosphorus, but evidence on their fracture association is inconclusive. DPP-4 inhibitors emerge as promising contributors to bone health, as well as GLP-1 agonists exhibit positive effects on bone metabolism, reducing fracture risk. Thiazolidinediones, however, demonstrate adverse impacts on bone, inducing loss through mesenchymal stem cell effects. Insulin presents a complex relationship with bone health. While it has an anabolic effect on bone mineral density, its role in fracture risk remains inconsistent. In conclusion, a comprehensive understanding of diabetes medications' impact on bone health is crucial. Further research is needed to formulate clear guidelines for managing bone health in diabetic patients, considering individual profiles, glycemic control and potential medication-related effects on bone.
Keywords: 
Subject: Medicine and Pharmacology  -   Endocrinology and Metabolism

1. Introduction

The prevalence of diabetes is increasing, with as many as 422 million adults suffering from the disease, according to the World Health Organization (compared to 108 million in 1980 [1]. The risk of developing type 2 diabetes (T2DM) as well as osteoporosis both increases with age [2]. It became widely accepted that diabetes (both T1DM and T2DM) have a direct impact on bone metabolism, with fragility fractures representing an often underestimated consequence [3,4]. It is important to bear in mind that extending life expectancy of these patients will increase the global burden of both diseases with fragility fractures that have a huge impact on morbidity and mortality. Interestingly, in T2DM individuals, bone fractures occur at higher bone mineral density (BMD) values, and the T-score is often above the osteoporotic range. A disturbed bone microarchitecture is observed, which results in a decrease in bone strength to loads and stresses [5]. There is an increased risk of hip fractures, with BMD higher by 0.4 and 0.6 SD in men and women, respectively. Trabecular Bone Score (TBS) is considered a better predictor of bone fractures than BMD [6].
Patients with diabetes have a 32% increased risk of any fracture compared to the general population (relative risk [RR] 1-32, 95% CI 1-17-1-48). T2DM increased this risk by (1-22, 1-13-1-31), respectively. The risk of fractures varies by location, for hip fracture the risk was (1-27, 1-16-1-39). When analysing the risk of fractures by gender, men had a correspondingly higher fracture risk (RR 1-90, 95% CI 1-30-2-58) compared to women (1-44, 1-19-1-70). Moreover, patients with obesity are at particular risk of fractures [7]. The pathophysiological changes in T2DM affecting bone metabolism are complex and dependent on many factors, including muscle-derived hormones, inflammatory cytokines, hydrogen sulfide, and incretin levels. In addition, the secretion of cortisol, its activation and the sensitivity of target cells play an important role. All of the above-mentioned factors affect bone formation and resorption, and both collagen production and bone marrow adiposity. Together, they reduce reduced bone strength by altering its microarchitecture. Another important factor that increases the risk for fractures is propensity for falling which is more higher in individuals suffering from frailty syndrome, micro and macroangiopathic complications and drug-induced hypoglycemia. Furthermore antidiabetic medications affect bone metabolism in specific ways [6].
Patients with T2DM should follow general non-pharmacological recommendations for the prevention of osteoporosis such as lifestyle modification including regular and adequate physical activity, smoking cessation, alcohol restriction, and a diet with proper calcium and vitamin D intake. These guidelines do not differ from recommendations for non-diabetics [8]. In addition, rapid weight loss is not recommended, as it has a negative effect on bone fractures [9].
Global recommendation for the management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes suggest holistic approach and individualization of therapy depending on patient’s profile. This includes managing blood glucose, weight, cardiovascular risk factors, comorbidities, and complications. The main goals of reducing risk fracture are to maintain optimal glycaemic control to avoid hypoglycaemia and to manage comorbidities appropriately. There is a lot of emphasis on possible renal, cardiovascular and other benefits of various antidiabetic agents. There is also a link between diabetes, antidiabetic treatment and their influence on bone loss and structure. The aim of this article was to analyse the possible effects of antidiabetic drugs on bone metabolism and the risk of bone fractures.

2. Discussion

2.1. Metformin: Metformin showed its regulatory effects on AMPK to reduce osteoclastogenesis.

Metformin, is a first line oral antidiabetic drug that improves cellular insulin sensitivity in insulin resistant individuals, especially those with type 2 diabetes. There is substantial evidence to suggest that metformin has a beneficial effects on maintenance of bone metabolism [10,11]. It has been shown that metformin has a positive effect on BMD in preclinical studies [5]. Metformin affects glucose metabolism through activation of AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK). AMPK is expressed in bone cells and has subunits differentiated for expression and activation. AMPK α1 is expressed in primary osteoblasts, primary bone marrow macrophages, osteoclasts and other bone cell lines [12]. Metformin affects the differentiation and mineralization of osteoblastic MC3T3-E1 cells through AMPK and nitric oxide synthesis and production of bone morphogenetic protein-2 [13]. In another study, Cortizo et al. showed an effect of metformin on the differentiation of osteoblastic cell lineages (MC3T3-E1 and UMR106), in addition to increased levels of bone formation markers such as alkaline phosphatase [14]. What is more, metformin has the ability to prevent AGE-induced changes, i.e. induction of apoptosis, caspase-3 activity, reduction of RAGE activity, changes also involved in the reduction of intracellular oxidative stress. Although the direct mechanisms of metformin signalling are not fully understood, data indicate AGE-RAGE interaction in modulating osteoblastic cell growth and differentiation [15]. In addition, metformin has an osteogenic effect, which is due to an increase in the osteoblast-specific transcription factor Runx2/Cbfa [16]. Thus, evidence suggests that metformin has a direct effect on inhibiting bone loss. A population-based cohort study conducted in South Korea found no association between bone fracture risk and metformin use in patients with T2DM. Oh T. et al. also showed no clinical benefit in terms of bone fracture risk in patients with T2DM [17]. In contrast, Vestgard et al. showed a reduced risk of bone fractures [18]. In addition, subsequent studies, including two meta-analyses, have shown that metformin use was associated with a reduced risk of total bone fractures among patients with diabetes. The discrepancy between those observations may be due to differences in considered populations, experimental methods, concentrations and duration of treatment with metformin. Thus, current evidence that metformin therapy reduces fracture risk is lacking [19]. Therefore, further studies are needed to investigate possible beneficial effects of metformin on bone metabolism to obtain a clinical consensus.

2.2. Sulphonyloureas:

Sulphonylureas (SUs) are widely used in patients with T2DM, but the data on their effects on bone metabolism are limited. Ma et al. demonstrated the effect of glimepiride (a third-generation sulphonylurea) on enhancing the proliferation and differentiation of rat osteoblasts through activation of the phosphorylation pathway 3-kinase (PI3K)/Atk. In addition, there is the possibility of reducing the adverse effect of hyperglycaemia on the osteoblast [20]. However, further human studies provided no data supporting a beneficial effect of SUs on bone remodeling or on measures of bone mineral density (BMD) [21,22].
On the other hand, SUs can lead to hypoglycaemia-induced falls with subsequent bone fractures. However, the results of studies are not consistent whether there is a direct correlation between SUs use and general risk of falls and fall -associated fractures [23,24].
It has been suggested that they have a neutral effect on bone [25]. In their study, Vestergaard et al. showed a reduced risk of bone fractures (adjusted OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.80-0.96) during sulfonylurea use. Reduced risk of hip fractures was also observed (adjusted OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.63-0.95) [18]. On the other hand, Monami et al. showed no statistically significant association between sulfonylurea treatment and fracture risk. However, this risk was reduced in patients using sulfonylurea (adjusted OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.44-1.37) [13]. Similar results were observed by Zhang YS et al. [26]. The ADOPT study was conducted in both men and women using sulfonylurea, and showed a reduction in CTX serum level (a marker of osteoclast activity) [21]. On the other hand, a study by Rico H. et al. showed reduced osteocalcin serum levels among sulfonylurea-treated patients [27]. To sum up, there are currently few preclinical and clinical studies available on the effects of sulfonylurea on bone metabolism. Acknowledgements from most- recent meta-analysis suggest that sulfonylurea use is associated with 14% increase in fracture risk in patients with diabetes. The risk was considered similar to thazolidendione but lower than that of insulin [20,28].

2.3. SGLT-2 inhibitors:

SGLT-2 inhibitors, a relatively new group of drugs, primarily used in patients with type 2 diabetes, may have a transient impact on calcium and phosphorus homeostasis. SGLT-2 inhibition promotes phosphate reabsorption in the proximal tubule (sodium-phosphate cotransport), to compensate for renal loss of sodium along with glucose. Initial increase in serum phosphate has been described [29], and it resolves after 3 months of therapy. After a temporal increase in phosphate absorption there is an increase in PTH and FGF-23 secretion, and then inhibition of 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D synthesis, consequently, reduced intestinal phosphate absorption, and increased renal phosphate excretion by the kidney. This might be the reason for the normalization of phosphate serum levels after 3 months [30,31]. Lower levels of 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D suggest domination of the FGF-23-mediated mechanism over the PTH-mediated phosphaturia. Similarly, this observation was confirmed in a study by de Jong M.A et al., who found that PTH and FGF-23 levels increased by 15% and 20%, respectively [32].
Last but not the least, theoretically SGLT-2 inhibitors may predispose to dehydration [34], as they cause osmotic diuresis and intravascular volume contraction, orthostatic hypotension [34], increased risk for falls, so the overall risk of fractures. However, the FAERS [35] (The real-world safety profile of sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors among older adults (≥ 75 years): a retrospective, pharmacovigilance study) study showed that SGLT-2-i therapy was not associated with an increased cases of hypotension, falls, and syncope. In the FAERS study a borderline significance in the increased numbers of fractures, with no significant differences between age groups or specific flozins, and the researchers concluded that they did not identify a robust safety signal of fractures [35].
Therefore, caution must be taken when prescribing these drugs to elderly, patients with renal impairment or low systolic blood pressure, and those on diuretics [33].
All of the metabolic disturbances can possibly affect the bone metabolism and risk of fractures, but the available literature does not indicate the evident relationship between the use of flozins and fractures. In the meta-analysis of 27 randomized controlled trials that compared the efficacy and safety of SGLT-2-i to a placebo in 20 895 diabetes mellitus type 2 patients, with an average study duration time of 64.22 weeks, relative risk of fracture was 1.02 (95% CI [0.81, 1.28]) with low heterogeneity. Different SGLT-2-i dosages were used, and treatment was not correlated with a higher risk of fracture. Also, three trials with 1303 patients reported a change in the bone mineral density (BMD) from baseline, but when compared with the results of the placebo groups, the BMDs in the SGLT-2 inhibitor groups did not decrease the BMD measured at lumbar spine, femoral neck, total hip, and distal forearm [36].
In a study conducted by List et al. treatment with dapagliflozin resulted in no significant alteration from baseline in serum calcium, 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D, and 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels. Also changes in the 24-hour urinary calcium-to-creatinine ratio were similar to the placebo [37]. Dapagliflozin treatment was found to have no impact on the bone mineral density and bone formation and resorption markers after 50 weeks of treatment in both male and post-menopausal female patients [38].
On the other hand, in a meta-analysis of 78 randomized controlled trials, for all flozins, treatment with canagliflozin alone was associated with a higher incidence of fracture [39]. The CANVAS (CANagliflozin cardioVascular Assessment Study Program) study revealed a higher risk of low-trauma fracture and all fracture in the canagliflozin group than in the placebo group, but the CANVAS-R study did not confirm this observation. So far, there is no obvious explanation for the differences between the two trials, which included comparable patient groups and assessed the same intervention [40,41]. The reason for increased risk of fractures with canagliflozin remains unknown [42].
A long-term follow-up study of fracture rates during treatment with flozins, especially with canagliflozin, is needed, as the results of studies are unclear and require further investigation [39,42].

2.4. DPP-4 inhibitors

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) is a widely expressed serine protease that selectively cleaves alanine and proline from polypeptide substrates, inactivating these substrates, including glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) and gastric inhibitory polypeptide (GIP). DPP-4 inhibitors by blocking inactivation of GIP and GLP-1 modulate glucose-induced insulin secretion [43].
The impact of dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (DPP-4-i) on bone metabolism is complex and multidirectional and has been widely described by Yinqiu Yang et al. First of all, through its substrates (increase of GIP, GLP-1, GLP-2, IGF-1, SDF-1α, and a decrease of NPY), vitamin-D linked pathway inducing bone growth and bone remodelling (through absorption and activation of vitamin-D; decrease of adipose tissue inflammation through a reduction in the levels of inflammatory cytokine expression, and consequent inflammation-induced bone resorption; decrease of AGE-receptors gene expression) [43,44]. AGE accumulation or AGE/RAGE (advanced glycation end products/advanced glycation end products receptors) imbalance directly decreases the number and function of osteoblasts [28]. Also through DPP-4-related energy metabolism via increase of insulin, adiponectin, amylin, preptin and decrease of ghrelin and p38 mitogen-activated protein kinase, which results in lower osteoclasts formation [43,44].
This class of drugs is associated with lower risk of fractures. For example, sitagliptin, a strong and highly selective DPP-4 inhibitor, improves bone mineral density, bone quality, and was positively correlated with bone formation markers, such as alkaline phosphatase and osteocalcin [43]. These observations have been confirmed in numerous clinical studies, including RCTs. Monami et al. in a meta-analysis of 28 RCTs reported that DPP-4-i treatment reduced the fracture risk when compared to placebo or other anti-diabetic medications (Mantel-Haenszel-odds ratio [MO-OR] 0.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.37–0.99, P = 0.045), and The MH-OR for DPP-4 inhibitors treatment was 0.54 (0.28–1.03, P = 0.063) and 0.70 (0.32–1.52, P = 0.37) in trials with a duration <52 weeks or ≥52 weeks, respectively, and seven ≥52 weeks trials were available. Therefore, the positive effect of DPP-4-I on bone health appears to be dependent on treatment duration, as it was more strongly expressed when the duration time was ≥52 weeks [45].
Similar results were found in a different study by Dombrowski et al., where patients treated with DPP-4-i along with metformin had lower fracture risk than those treated only with metformin [46]. In a retrospective nationwide South Korean cohort, subjects treated with combined therapy of metformin and DPP4-I showed a lower non-vertebral fracture risk (HR = 0.82, P = 0.086) after adjusting for all confounding variables [48]. In a 2021 South Korean nationwide population-based retrospective cohort study, risk of bone fracture was not different between groups treated with DPP-4-i and SGLT-2-i [48].
Abbreviations:
GIP-gastric inhibitory polypeptide
GLP-1-including glucagon-like peptide 1
GLP-2-including glucagon-like peptide 2
IGF-1-insulin-like growth factor 1
SDF-1α- stromal cell-derived factor-1
NPY-neuropeptide Y
AGE - advanced glycation end products

2.5. GLP-1 agonists

GLP-1 is an intestinal peptide produced by intestinal epithelial L cells, secretion of which is induced by increase in serum glucose concentration and the consumption of meal. GLP-1 agonists increase insulin synthesis and secretion and inhibit appetite [49]. These novel antidiabetic drugs are considered to have a positive impact on bone health [49,50] as they reduce accumulation of advanced glycation end products (AGEs) [51], stimulate GLP-1 receptors of osteoblasts [52,53], regulate β-catenin signal transduction [54], and increase the expression of osteoprotegerin (OPG) genes, which affects the OPG/nuclear factor-κB ligand-receptor activator (RANKL)/nuclear factor-κB receptor activator (RANK) pathway, inducing activation, proliferation, and differentiation of osteoblasts, inhibition of osteoclasts, and bone mass formation [55]. These assumptions were clinically confirmed by assessment of BMD in patients receiving GLP-1 agonists compared to patients receiving placebo [50]. Exenatide and dulaglutide had a positive impact on BMD [49]. In another study, when compared with placebo and other anti-diabetic drugs, GLP-1 agonists treatment (liraglutide and lixisenatide) was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of bone fractures, (ORs, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.38-0.81 and 0.55; 95% CI, 0.31-0.97, respectively), and the positive effects dependent on the duration of treatment [50].
Emerging data suggest that GLP-1RAs and their analogs have a positive impact on skeletal metabolism by promoting bone formation and inhibiting its absorption. Some studies have shown that GLP-1RAs have anabolic effects on bone metabolism, but the specific molecular mechanisms are still unclear.

2.6. Thiazolidinediones:

The thiazolidinediones (TZD) are oral hypoglycemic drugs, which act as insulin sensitizers [56]. The molecular mechanism underlying the pharmacological effects is based on activation of intranuclear peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor (PPAR)-γ regulating the expression of multiple genes involved in adipocyte differentiation, inflammation, lipid metabolism and glucose control [57]. PPAR-γ presence was found in pluripotent mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs), which among others can differentiate into osteoblasts and marrow adipocytes [58]. Activation of PPAR-γ determines the direction of MSCs differentiation by shifting balance between bone formation and adipogenesis. Therefore, through these receptors TZDs induce adipogenic differentiation of stromal cells at the expense of osteoblastogenesis and decrease the expression of osteogenic genes and markers. This imbalance can ultimately result in bone loss [59]. This effect can be enhanced by PPAR-y stimulated osteoclastogenesis via direct regulation of c-fos protein [60]. On the other hand, some studies suggest otherwise - TZDs down-regulate NFATc1 expression therefore inhibit TNF-alpha - mediated osteoclasts differentiation and further resorption [60,61].
In humans, an analysis of 200 patients with T2DM revealed significant decrease in BMD at spine and hip among patients using glitazones [59]. The result of meta-analysis of 22 randomized controlled trials indicate that pioglitazone treatment is associated with significant increase of incidence of fractures in females [62]. A study conducted on a group of healthy postmenopausal women showed that a 14-weeks treatment with rosiglitazone resulted in significant reduction in BMD, reduction of bone formation markers – P1NP, osteocalcin and serum alkaline phosphatase, inhibition of bone formation, and acceleration of bone loss [63]. Schwartz et al. presented that duration of TZDs therapy among diabetic patients was associated with greater bone loss [64]. On the other hand, these outcomes were not supported among the population of men [64]. Moreover, bone mass loss caused by TZDs may be irreversible [66]. Despite the positive metabolic results of TZD therapy in diabetic patients, the possible adverse effects on bone metabolism should be considered, especially in patients with initial high risk of fractures.

2.7. Insulin:

Insulin presents an anabolic effect on BMD - it promotes differentiation and proliferation of osteoblasts [66]. Injection of insulin in adult mice resulted in increased bone mineralization and inhibition of bone resorption [68]. Furthermore, in type 1 diabetes the lack of insulin was associated with a higher risk of osteopenia and osteoporosis at a young age [68]. There is a complex interplay between insulin signalling, osteoblasts, and osteocalcin in glucose homeostasis. Activation of insulin receptors in osteoblast modulates the synthesis of collagen [69]. Mice lacking insulin receptors in osteoblasts presented low levels of osteocalcin and reduced bone mineralization due to decreased bone formation and osteoblast development [70]. Insulin signalling stimulates osteoclast activity therefore induces osteocalcin activation in osteoblast [71]. Insulin affects osteogenesis also in an indirect mechanism by synergistic effects with other anabolic agents in bone i.e. IGF-1 [72]. Higher levels of insulin growth factor-1 were associated with greater BMD and a decreased risk of fracture [73].
Serum hyperinsulinemia was associated with increased bone density [74] while, the occurrence of insulin resistance in postmenopausal women without diabetes was associated with smaller bone size and greater volumetric BMD of radius and tibia [75], as well as lower cortical bone volume and bone strength in femoral neck [76].
The results of studies regarding the effect of insulin treatment on BMD are inconsistent. Dutta et al. presented that 1 year of insulin therapy was associated with mild decrease in BMD at hip [77]. Initiation of insulin in women with T2DM was related with greater decline in BMD at the femoral neck [78]. Additionally, some studies show that patients with diabetes treated with insulin have an increased risk of fracture [79,80]. The increasing risk of nonvertebral fracture has even been found to be greater in men with T2DM who use insulin [81]. On the other hand, a case-control study of over 124 thousand patients with fracture shows a non-significant trend towards a reduced risk of fractures in insulin-treated T2DM patients [18]. Another study shows that the risk was lower in patients using long-acting insulins, which may be associated with probability of insulin-induced hypoglycemia [82]. However, insulin treatment is often introduced in advanced stages of T2DM with an increase in the incidence of both microvascular and macrovascular complications i.e. visual impairment which may also contribute to falls and increase the risk of fractures [83], suggesting a broader combined effect of insulin treatment on bone metabolism.

3. Conclusion:

The relationship between BMD and T2DM is complex and involves a complex interaction of various factors. In T2DM risk of fractures can be higher even with normal or increased BMD due to reduced bone turnover, changes in bone quality and impaired structure that alters biomechanical properties and therefore leads to bone fragility, often called the “diabetic bone paradox” [84].
The paper discusses the effects of various drugs used in the treatment of T2DM and on bone metabolism. Studies have tended to provide conflicting findings, however, as TZDs, as the only category of drugs used to treat T2DM, appear to be associated with an increased risk of fractures and decreased bone mineral density, and should therefore be avoided in patients at risk of osteoporosis. However, many factors determine the final outcome, including the severity and duration of the T2DM, treatment, comorbidities, or glycaemic control. In addition, fracture risk may also depend on hypoglycaemia-induced falls especially those related to insulin or sulfonylurea, as well as complications of T2DM. Due to difficulties in differentiating the independent factors, we believe that pharmacotherapy for T2DM in patients should be assessed individually in terms of bone condition and glycemic control. Assessment of advanced glycation-end products (AGE), increased levels of reactive oxygen species (ROS), or cortisol release may increase the potential for future risk assessment or open new treatment pathways for patients with T2DM [6]. There are no specific recommendations for the treatment of osteoporosis in patients with diabetes, and current data on the impact of diabetes on bone metabolism are lacking and often controversial. Further investigations are needed to formulate clear guidelines to address this clinical problem.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: A.W., M.G., K.K., A.J-G., M.M., M.H.; methodology: A.W., M.G., K.K., A.J-G.; validation: A.J-G., M.H.; formal analysis: A.J-G., M.H.; writing—original draft preparation: A.W., M.G., K.K.; writing—review and final editing: A.J-G., M.S., M.H.; supervision: A.J-G., M.H.; funding acquisition: A.W., M.G.,K.K., A.J-G., M.S., M.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

References

  1. World Health Organization. Global Report on Diabetes. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2016.
  2. Dede AD, Tournis S, Dontas I, Trovas G. Type 2 diabetes mellitus and fracture risk. Metabolism. 2014;63(12):1480-1490. [CrossRef]
  3. Poiana C, Capatina C. Fracture Risk Assessment in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus. J Clin Densitom. 2017;20(3):432-443. [CrossRef]
  4. Napoli N, Chandran M, Pierroz DD, et al. Mechanisms of diabetes mellitus-induced bone fragility. Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2017;13(4):208-219. [CrossRef]
  5. Sheu A, Greenfield JR, White CP, Center JR. Assessment and treatment of osteoporosis and fractures in type 2 diabetes. Trends Endocrinol Metab. 2022;33(5):333-344. [CrossRef]
  6. Eller-Vainicher C, Cairoli E, Grassi G, et al. Pathophysiology and Management of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Bone Fragility. J Diabetes Res. 2020;2020:7608964. Published 2020. 22 May. [CrossRef]
  7. Hofbauer LC, Busse B, Eastell R, et al. Bone fragility in diabetes: novel concepts and clinical implications. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2022;10(3):207-220. [CrossRef]
  8. Cosman F, de Beur SJ, LeBoff MS, et al. Clinician's Guide to Prevention and Treatment of Osteoporosis [published correction appears in Osteoporos Int. 2015 Jul;26(7):2045-7]. Osteoporos Int. 2014;25(10):2359-2381. [CrossRef]
  9. Johnson KC, Bray GA, Cheskin LJ, et al. The Effect of Intentional Weight Loss on Fracture Risk in Persons With Diabetes: Results From the Look AHEAD Randomized Clinical Trial. J Bone Miner Res. 2017;32(11):2278-2287. [CrossRef]
  10. Mu W, Wang Z, Ma C, et al. Metformin promotes the proliferation and differentiation of murine preosteoblast by regulating the expression of sirt6 and oct4. Pharmacol Res. 2018;129:462-474. [CrossRef]
  11. Gu Q, Gu Y, Yang H, Shi Q. Metformin Enhances Osteogenesis and Suppresses Adipogenesis of Human Chorionic Villous Mesenchymal Stem Cells. Tohoku J Exp Med. 2017;241(1):13-19. [CrossRef]
  12. Gilbert MP, Pratley RE. The impact of diabetes and diabetes medications on bone health. Endocr Rev. 2015;36(2):194-213. [CrossRef]
  13. Kanazawa I, Yamaguchi T, Yano S, Yamauchi M, Sugimoto T. Metformin enhances the differentiation and mineralization of osteoblastic MC3T3-E1 cells via AMP kinase activation as well as eNOS and BMP-2 expression. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2008;375(3):414-419. [CrossRef]
  14. Cortizo AM, Sedlinsky C, McCarthy AD, Blanco A, Schurman L. Osteogenic actions of the anti-diabetic drug metformin on osteoblasts in culture. Eur J Pharmacol. 2006;536(1-2):38-46. [CrossRef]
  15. Schurman L, McCarthy AD, Sedlinsky C, et al. Metformin reverts deleterious effects of advanced glycation end-products (AGEs) on osteoblastic cells. Exp Clin Endocrinol Diabetes. 2008;116(6):333-340. [CrossRef]
  16. Molinuevo MS, Schurman L, McCarthy AD, et al. Effect of metformin on bone marrow progenitor cell differentiation: in vivo and in vitro studies. J Bone Miner Res. 2010;25(2):211-221. [CrossRef]
  17. Oh TK, Song IA. Metformin therapy and hip fracture risk among patients with type II diabetes mellitus: A population-based cohort study. Bone. 2020;135:115325. [CrossRef]
  18. Vestergaard P, Rejnmark L, Mosekilde L. Relative fracture risk in patients with diabetes mellitus, and the impact of insulin and oral antidiabetic medication on relative fracture risk. Diabetologia. 2005;48(7):1292-1299. [CrossRef]
  19. Wang Y, Yu L, Ye Z, et al. Association of metformin use with fracture risk in type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2023;13:1038603. Published 2023 Jan 11. [CrossRef]
  20. Palermo A, D'Onofrio L, Eastell R, Schwartz AV, Pozzilli P, Napoli N. Oral anti-diabetic drugs and fracture risk, cut to the bone: safe or dangerous? A narrative review. Osteoporos Int. 2015;26(8):2073-2089. [CrossRef]
  21. Zinman B, Haffner SM, Herman WH, et al. Effect of rosiglitazone, metformin, and glyburide on bone biomarkers in patients with type 2 diabetes. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2010;95(1):134-142. [CrossRef]
  22. Vianna AGD, de Lacerda CS, Pechmann LM, et al. Vildagliptin has the same safety profile as a sulfonylurea on bone metabolism and bone mineral density in post-menopausal women with type 2 diabetes: a randomized controlled trial. Diabetol Metab Syndr. 2017;9:35. Published 2017 May 15. 15 May. [CrossRef]
  23. Hidayat K, Du X, Wu MJ, Shi BM. The use of metformin, insulin, sulphonylureas, and thiazolidinediones and the risk of fracture: Systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Obes Rev. 2019;20(10):1494-1503. [CrossRef]
  24. Lapane KL, Yang S, Brown MJ, Jawahar R, Pagliasotti C, Rajpathak S. Sulfonylureas and risk of falls and fractures: a systematic review. Drugs Aging. 2013;30(7):527-547. [CrossRef]
  25. Lecka-Czernik B. Diabetes, bone and glucose-lowering agents: basic biology. Diabetologia. 2017;60(7):1163-1169. [CrossRef]
  26. Zhang YS, Zheng YD, Yuan Y, Chen SC, Xie BC. Effects of Anti-Diabetic Drugs on Fracture Risk: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2021;12:735824. Published 2021 Oct 14. [CrossRef]
  27. Zinma Rico H, Hernandez ER, Cabranes JA, Gomez-Castresana F. Suggestion of a deficient osteoblastic function in diabetes mellitus: the possible cause of osteopenia in diabetics. Calcif Tissue Int. 1989;45(2):71-73. [CrossRef]
  28. Zhang Z, Cao Y, Tao Y, et al. Sulfonylurea and fracture risk in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A meta-analysis. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2020;159:107990. [CrossRef]
  29. Fonseca-Correa JI, Correa-Rotter R. Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter 2 Inhibitors Mechanisms of Action: A Review. Front Med (Lausanne). 2021;8:777861. Published 2021 Dec 20. [CrossRef]
  30. Heerspink HJ, Perkins BA, Fitchett DH, Husain M, Cherney DZ. Sodium Glucose Cotransporter 2 Inhibitors in the Treatment of Diabetes Mellitus: Cardiovascular and Kidney Effects, Potential Mechanisms, and Clinical Applications. Circulation. 2016;134(10):752-772. [CrossRef]
  31. Rau M, Thiele K, Hartmann NK, et al. Effects of empagliflozin on markers of calcium and phosphate homeostasis in patients with type 2 diabetes - Data from a randomized, placebo-controlled study. Bone Rep. 2022;16:101175. Published 2022 Feb 14. [CrossRef]
  32. de Jong MA, Petrykiv SI, Laverman GD, et al. Effects of Dapagliflozin on Circulating Markers of Phosphate Homeostasis. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2019;14(1):66-73. [CrossRef]
  33. Nashar K, Khalil P. Clinical Evaluation of Dapagliflozin in the Management of CKD: Focus on Patient Selection and Clinical Perspectives. Int J Nephrol Renovasc Dis. 2022;15:289-308. Published 2022 Nov 1. [CrossRef]
  34. Scheen AJ. Pharmacodynamics, efficacy and safety of sodium-glucose co-transporter type 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Drugs. 2015;75(1):33-59. [CrossRef]
  35. Goldman A, Fishman B, Twig G, et al. The real-world safety profile of sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors among older adults (≥ 75 years): a retrospective, pharmacovigilance study. Cardiovasc Diabetol. 2023;22(1):16. Published 2023 Jan 24. [CrossRef]
  36. Wang X, Zhang F, Zhang Y, et al. Effect of SGLT2 inhibitors on fractures, BMD, and bone metabolism markers in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Osteoporos Int. 2023;34(12):2013-2025. [CrossRef]
  37. List JF, Woo V, Morales E, Tang W, Fiedorek FT. Sodium-glucose cotransport inhibition with dapagliflozin in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2009;32(4):650-657. [CrossRef]
  38. Ljunggren Ö, Bolinder J, Johansson L, et al. Dapagliflozin has no effect on markers of bone formation and resorption or bone mineral density in patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus on metformin. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2012;14(11):990-999. [CrossRef]
  39. Lou Y, Yu Y, Duan J, et al. Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors and fracture risk in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Ther Adv Chronic Dis. 2020;11:2040622320961599. Published 2020 Sep 26. [CrossRef]
  40. Zhou Z, Jardine M, Perkovic V, et al. Canagliflozin and fracture risk in individuals with type 2 diabetes: results from the CANVAS Program. Diabetologia. 2019;62(10):1854-1867. [CrossRef]
  41. Neal B, Perkovic V, Mahaffey KW, et al. Canagliflozin and Cardiovascular and Renal Events in Type 2 Diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(7):644-657. [CrossRef]
  42. Lupsa BC, Inzucchi SE. Use of SGLT2 inhibitors in type 2 diabetes: weighing the risks and benefits. Diabetologia. 2018;61(10):2118-2125. [CrossRef]
  43. Yang Y, Zhao C, Liang J, Yu M, Qu X. Effect of Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibitors on Bone Metabolism and the Possible Underlying Mechanisms. Front Pharmacol. 2017;8:487. Published 2017 Jul 25. [CrossRef]
  44. Kitaura H, Ogawa S, Ohori F, et al. Effects of Incretin-Related Diabetes Drugs on Bone Formation and Bone Resorption. Int J Mol Sci. 2021;22(12):6578. Published 2021 Jun 19. [CrossRef]
  45. Monami M, Dicembrini I, Antenore A, Mannucci E. Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and bone fractures: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials [published correction appears in Diabetes Care. 2014 Jan;37(1):312]. Diabetes Care. 2011;34(11):2474-2476. [CrossRef]
  46. Dombrowski S, Kostev K, Jacob L. Use of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and risk of bone fracture in patients with type 2 diabetes in Germany-A retrospective analysis of real-world data. Osteoporos Int. 2017;28(8):2421-2428. [CrossRef]
  47. Choi HJ, Park C, Lee YK, Ha YC, Jang S, Shin CS. Risk of fractures and diabetes medications: a nationwide cohort study. Osteoporos Int. 2016;27(9):2709-2715. [CrossRef]
  48. Han SJ, Ha KH, Lee N, Kim DJ. Effectiveness and safety of sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors compared with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors in older adults with type 2 diabetes: A nationwide population-based study. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2021;23(3):682-691. [CrossRef]
  49. Cai TT, Li HQ, Jiang LL, et al. Effects of GLP-1 Receptor Agonists on Bone Mineral Density in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A 52-Week Clinical Study. Biomed Res Int. 2021;2021:3361309. Published 2021 Sep 17. [CrossRef]
  50. Cheng, L., Hu, Y., Li, Y., Cao, X., Bai, N., Lu, T., Li, G., Li, N., Wang, A., & Mao, X. Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and risk of bone fracture in patients with type 2 diabetes: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Diabetes Metab Res Rev 2019; 35: 7. [CrossRef]
  51. Zhang L, Li P, Tang Z, Dou Q, Feng B. Effects of GLP-1 receptor analogue liraglutide and DPP-4 inhibitor vildagliptin on the bone metabolism in ApoE-/- mice. Ann Transl Med. 2019; 7(16): 369. [CrossRef]
  52. Nuche-Berenguer B, Portal-Nunez S, Moreno P, et al. Presence of a functional receptor for GLP-1 in osteoblastic cells, independent of the cAMP-linked GLP-1 receptor. J Cell Physiol 2010; 225: 585-592. [CrossRef]
  53. Ceccarelli E, Guarino EG, Merlotti D, et al. Beyond glycemic control in diabetes mellitus: effects of incretin-based therapies on bone metabolism. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) 2013; 4: 73. [CrossRef]
  54. Meng J., Ma X., Wang N., et al. Activation of GLP-1 receptor promotes bone marrow stromal cell osteogenic differentiation through β-catenin. Stem Cell Reports. 2016;6(4):579–591. [CrossRef]
  55. Luo G, Liu H, Lu H. Glucagon-like peptide-1(GLP-1) receptor agonists: potential to reduce fracture risk in diabetic patients? Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2016 Jan;81(1):78-88. [CrossRef]
  56. Lehmann JM, Moore LB, Smith-Oliver TA, Wilkison WO, Willson TM, Kliewer SA. An antidiabetic thiazolidinedione is a high affinity ligand for peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma (PPAR gamma). J Biol Chem. 1995;270(22):12953-12956. [CrossRef]
  57. Brown JD, Plutzky J. Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors as transcriptional nodal points and therapeutic targets. Circulation. 2007;115(4):518-533. [CrossRef]
  58. Nuttall ME, Patton AJ, Olivera DL, Nadeau DP, Gowen M. Human trabecular bone cells are able to express both osteoblastic and adipocytic phenotype: implications for osteopenic disorders. J Bone Miner Res. 1998;13(3):371-382. [CrossRef]
  59. Ali AA, Weinstein RS, Stewart SA, Parfitt AM, Manolagas SC, Jilka RL. Rosiglitazone causes bone loss in mice by suppressing osteoblast differentiation and bone formation. Endocrinology. 2005;146(3):1226-1235. [CrossRef]
  60. Wan Y, Chong LW, Evans RM. PPAR-gamma regulates osteoclastogenesis in mice. Nat Med. 2007;13(12):1496-1503. [CrossRef]
  61. Yang CR, Lai CC. Thiazolidinediones inhibit TNF-alpha-mediated osteoclast differentiation of RAW264.7 macrophages and mouse bone marrow cells through downregulation of NFATc1. Shock. 2010;33(6):662-667. [CrossRef]
  62. Zhu ZN, Jiang YF, Ding T. Risk of fracture with thiazolidinediones: an updated meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Bone. 2014;68:115-123. [CrossRef]
  63. Grey A, Bolland M, Gamble G, et al. The peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-gamma agonist rosiglitazone decreases bone formation and bone mineral density in healthy postmenopausal women: a randomized, controlled trial. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2007;92(4):1305-1310. [CrossRef]
  64. Schwartz AV, Sellmeyer DE, Vittinghoff E, et al. Thiazolidinedione use and bone loss in older diabetic adults. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2006;91(9):3349-3354. [CrossRef]
  65. Billington EO, Grey A, Bolland MJ. The effect of thiazolidinediones on bone mineral density and bone turnover: systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetologia. 2015;58(10):2238-2246. [CrossRef]
  66. Yang J, Zhang X, Wang W, Liu J. Insulin stimulates osteoblast proliferation and differentiation through ERK and PI3K in MG-63 cells. Cell Biochem Funct. 2010;28(4):334-341. [CrossRef]
  67. Cornish J, Callon KE, Reid IR. Insulin increases histomorphometric indices of bone formation In vivo. Calcif Tissue Int. 1996;59(6):492-495. [CrossRef]
  68. Kemink SA, Hermus AR, Swinkels LM, Lutterman JA, Smals AG. Osteopenia in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus; prevalence and aspects of pathophysiology. J Endocrinol Invest. 2000;23(5):295-303. [CrossRef]
  69. Pun KK, Lau P, Ho PW. The characterization, regulation, and function of insulin receptors on osteoblast-like clonal osteosarcoma cell line. J Bone Miner Res. 1989;4(6):853-862. [CrossRef]
  70. Fulzele K, Riddle RC, DiGirolamo DJ, et al. Insulin receptor signaling in osteoblasts regulates postnatal bone acquisition and body composition [published correction appears in Cell. 2022 Feb 17;185(4):746]. Cell. 2010;142(2):309-319. [CrossRef]
  71. Clemens TL, Karsenty G. The osteoblast: an insulin target cell controlling glucose homeostasis. J Bone Miner Res. 2011;26(4):677-680. [CrossRef]
  72. Thrailkill KM, Lumpkin CK Jr, Bunn RC, Kemp SF, Fowlkes JL. Is insulin an anabolic agent in bone? Dissecting the diabetic bone for clues. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2005;289(5):E735-E745. [CrossRef]
  73. Yuan S, Wan ZH, Cheng SL, Michaëlsson K, Larsson SC. Insulin-like Growth Factor-1, Bone Mineral Density, and Fracture: A Mendelian Randomization Study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2021;106(4):e1552-e1558. [CrossRef]
  74. Dennison EM, Syddall HE, Aihie Sayer A, Craighead S, Phillips DI, Cooper C. Type 2 diabetes mellitus is associated with increased axial bone density in men and women from the Hertfordshire Cohort Study: evidence for an indirect effect of insulin resistance?. Diabetologia. 2004;47(11):1963-1968. [CrossRef]
  75. Shanbhogue VV, Finkelstein JS, Bouxsein ML, Yu EW. Association Between Insulin Resistance and Bone Structure in Nondiabetic Postmenopausal Women. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2016;101(8):3114-3122. [CrossRef]
  76. Yang J, Hong N, Shim JS, Rhee Y, Kim HC. Association of Insulin Resistance with Lower Bone Volume and Strength Index of the Proximal Femur in Nondiabetic Postmenopausal Women. J Bone Metab. 2018;25(2):123-132. [CrossRef]
  77. Dutta M, Pakhetra R, Garg M. Evaluation of bone mineral density in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients before and after treatment. Med J Armed Forces India. 2012;68(1):48-52. [CrossRef]
  78. Ruppert K, Cauley J, Lian Y, Zgibor JC, Derby C, Solomon DH. The effect of insulin on bone mineral density among women with type 2 diabetes: a SWAN Pharmacoepidemiology study. Osteoporos Int. 2018;29(2):347-354. [CrossRef]
  79. Melton LJ 3rd, Leibson CL, Achenbach SJ, Therneau TM, Khosla S. Fracture risk in type 2 diabetes: update of a population-based study. J Bone Miner Res. 2008;23(8):1334-1342. [CrossRef]
  80. Lee RH, Sloane R, Pieper C, et al. Glycemic Control and Insulin Treatment Alter Fracture Risk in Older Men With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. J Bone Miner Res. 2019;34(11):2045-2051. [CrossRef]
  81. Napoli N, Strotmeyer ES, Ensrud KE, et al. Fracture risk in diabetic elderly men: the MrOS study. Diabetologia. 2014;57(10):2057-2065. [CrossRef]
  82. Pscherer S, Kostev K, Dippel FW, Rathmann W. Fracture risk in patients with type 2 diabetes under different antidiabetic treatment regimens: a retrospective database analysis in primary care. Diabetes Metab Syndr Obes. 2016;9:17-23. Published 2016 Feb 19. [CrossRef]
  83. Ivers RQ, Cumming RG, Mitchell P, Peduto AJ; Blue Mountains Eye Study. Diabetes and risk of fracture: The Blue Mountains Eye Study. Diabetes Care. 2001;24(7):1198-1203. [CrossRef]
  84. Li G, Prior JC, Leslie WD, et al. Frailty and Risk of Fractures in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2019;42(4):507-513. [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.
Prerpints.org logo

Preprints.org is a free preprint server supported by MDPI in Basel, Switzerland.

facebook logotwitter logolinkedin logo
MDPI Initiatives
Important Links
Subscribe

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Privacy Policy

© 2024 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated