Osteoporosis is a condition where bones become brittle and fragile usually from hormonal changes, or deficiency of calcium or vitamin D. This study suggests psoriasis may be among the triggering or facilitating factors for osteoporosis particularly in psoriatic women.

Quote:

---

Background/Purpose:
Low levels of vitamin D may play a role in the pathogenesis of psoriasis and is related to increased risk of osteoporosis. There are a few studies showing increased rate of osteoporosis in patients with psoriasis; however, none of them investigated impact of vitamin D levels and gender status together. We aimed to evaluate relationship between vitamin D and osteoporosis in psoriasis patients with an emphasis on gender difference.

Methods:
Forty-three psoriasis patients without arthritis and 41 healthy controls were enrolled. All patients were <50 years, and women were premenopausal. Participants were questioned about demographic features, sun exposure, regular physical exercise, and smoking status. The serum levels of 25-OH vitamin D, calcium, phosphorus, C-reactive protein, parathyroid hormone, total alkaline phosphatase, and sedimentation rate were measured. Body mass index was calculated. We determined the bone mineral density of the lumbar spine and femur using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry.

Results:
Femur neck Z score and lumbar spine total Z score were lower in psoriasis group than those of the control group. Additionally, total femoral Z score, lumbar spine total T, and Z scores were lower in female patients with psoriasis than female controls, whereas for male subjects there was not a remarkable difference between the groups. There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding vitamin D levels. The latter was significantly lower in psoriasis group than in controls for females; however, there was no significant difference between the two groups of males. Patients with psoriasis had higher CRP level and sedimentation rate, than control subjects. Female patients had also higher CRP level and sedimentation rate, than female controls, but there were no significant differences between male patients and controls.

Conclusion:
As osteoporosis has multifactorial etiology, psoriasis may be among the triggering or facilitating factors for osteoporosis particularly in psoriatic women via several mechanisms such as low blood level of vitamin D and increased inflammation.

Source: onlinelibrary.wiley.com

*Early view funding uknown.

An interesting article and hopefully women with psoriatic arthritis will read this and try to find a method of mitigating the problem.... Will this research delve into that side I wonder, or is it possible to take supplements to prevent the onset of osteoporosis
Perhaps exercise and calcium and vitamin D supplements will help

Quote:

---

There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding vitamin D levels. The latter was significantly lower in psoriasis group than in controls for females; however, there was no significant difference between the two groups of males.

I don't get it as usual.
First they say there is no significant difference.
The latter, I guess the female P group, is significantly lower.
Between the male groups there is no difference.

Ok, well that doesn't add up.

Imagine the whole group has a level of 10, there is no difference so both are 10. This means that men and females all together gives no difference.
Let's calculate.
Women count for half of the group, so level 5, there is a significant difference, so the P group has level 2,5
Men no difference, so they are 5 and 5

* gets calculator *

Women healthy 5; women P 2,5
Men healthy 5; men 5
Totals
Healthy = 10 P = 7,5
While the conclusion says that there's no difference in the whole group.
Must be a new type of calculation.

Let's just blame it on the methotrexate. We all know it increases the chances of OA.

(Sun-13-03-2016, 09:14 AM)Caroline Wrote:

Quote:

---

There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding vitamin D levels. The latter was significantly lower in psoriasis group than in controls for females; however, there was no significant difference between the two groups of males.

I don't get it as usual.
First they say there is no significant difference.
The latter, I guess the female P group, is significantly lower.
Between the male groups there is no difference.

Ok, well that doesn't add up.

Imagine the whole group has a level of 10, there is no difference so both are 10. This means that men and females all together gives no difference.
Let's calculate.
Women count for half of the group, so level 5, there is a significant difference, so the P group has level 2,5
Men no difference, so they are 5 and 5

* gets calculator *

Women healthy 5; women P 2,5
Men healthy 5; men 5
Totals
Healthy = 10 P = 7,5
While the conclusion says that there's no difference in the whole group.    
Must be a new type of calculation.

You've lost me I'm sure you are right...... are you over simplifying it

(Sun-13-03-2016, 12:09 PM)jiml Wrote:

(Sun-13-03-2016, 09:14 AM)Caroline Wrote:

Quote:

---

There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding vitamin D levels. The latter was significantly lower in psoriasis group than in controls for females; however, there was no significant difference between the two groups of males.

I don't get it as usual.
First they say there is no significant difference.
The latter, I guess the female P group, is significantly lower.
Between the male groups there is no difference.

Ok, well that doesn't add up.

Imagine the whole group has a level of 10, there is no difference so both are 10. This means that men and females all together gives no difference.
Let's calculate.
Women count for half of the group, so level 5, there is a significant difference, so the P group has level 2,5
Men no difference, so they are 5 and 5

* gets calculator *

Women healthy 5; women P 2,5
Men healthy 5; men 5
Totals
Healthy = 10 P = 7,5
While the conclusion says that there's no difference in the whole group.    
Must be a new type of calculation.

You've lost me   I'm sure you are right...... are you over simplifying it  

Even simpler said.
If they first say that there is no difference in the whole group, then say that there is a difference in the female group, than that first statement cannot be correct.

It sounds to me that there was PsA involved. Not sure how that did skew the results.