Association of Serum Uric Acid Level With Bone Mineral Density and the Risk of Osteoporosis: A Dose-Response Meta-Analysis
- PMID: 39744825
- DOI: 10.1111/1756-185X.70013
Association of Serum Uric Acid Level With Bone Mineral Density and the Risk of Osteoporosis: A Dose-Response Meta-Analysis
Abstract
Objective: Serum uric acid (SUA) may play positive roles in diseases associated with oxidative stress, such as osteoporosis (OP). Nevertheless, the specific impact of SUA levels on both bone mineral density (BMD) and the risk of OP remains uncertain. Considering such information crucial for clinicians when making decisions about urate-lowering therapy (ULT), we sought to fill this gap by conducting dose-response meta-analyses.
Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched for studies that met the inclusion criteria. Pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) for BMDs and the odds ratio (OR) for OP between the highest and lowest SUA categories as well as the nonlinear dose-response relationships were estimated.
Results: Pooled SMDs indicate that participants in the highest category of SUA have greater BMDs at the lumbar spine (SMD = 0.37; 95% CI: 0.27, 0.46), femoral neck (SMD = 0.25; 95% CI: 0.21, 0.29), total hip (SMD = 0.34; 95% CI: 0.26, 0.42), and lower risk of OP (OR = 0.59, 95% CI: 0.52, 0.67) compared with the lowest. The nonlinear dose-response relationships were also observed. However, when the SUA level exceeded 6 mg/dL, the dose-response curve between SUA levels and the risk of OP tended to be flattened.
Conclusion: Nonlinear dose-response relationships were found that higher SUA levels are associated with greater BMDs and lower risk of OP. For patients receiving ULT, maintaining SUA level at around 6 mg/dL may be appropriate from the perspective of bone metabolism.
Keywords: bone mineral density; dose–response; osteoporosis; serum uric acid.
© 2025 Asia Pacific League of Associations for Rheumatology and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.
References
-
- Consensus Development Conference, “Diagnosis, Prophylaxis, and Treatment of Osteoporosis,” American Journal of Medicine 94, no. 6 (1993): 646–650.
-
- N. Salari, H. Ghasemi, L. Mohammadi, et al., “The Global Prevalence of Osteoporosis in the World: A Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis,” Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research 16, no. 1 (2021): 609.
-
- C. B. Johnston and M. Dagar, “Osteoporosis in Older Adults,” Medical Clinics of North America 104, no. 5 (2020): 873–884.
-
- J. E. Compston, M. R. McClung, and W. D. Leslie, “Osteoporosis,” Lancet 393, no. 10169 (2019): 364–376.
-
- M. A. Varacallo and E. J. Fox, “Osteoporosis and Its Complications,” Medical Clinics of North America 98, no. 4 (2014): 817–831.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
Grants and funding
- Central South University Innovation-Driven Research Programme
- Fundamental Research Funds for Central Universities of the Central South University
- Science and Technology Program of Hunan Province
- Key Research and Development Program of Hunan Province of China
- National Key Research and Development Program of China
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Miscellaneous
