LinkedInXFacebook
Subscribe
Orthopedics This Week
  • My Feed
  • |Posts
  • |Events
  • |MSK Innovations
  • |Power Rankings
  • |Masterclasses
  • |Technology Awards
  • Press Releases
  • |Advertising
  • |Job Board
  • Spine
  • ◆Joints
  • ◆Upper Extremities
  • ◆Foot & Ankle
  • ◆Sports Medicine
  • ◆Pain Mgmt
  • ◆Trauma
  • ◆Biologics
  • ◆Technology
  • ◆People
  • ◆Company News
  • ◆Legal & Regulatory
Home/Large Joints and Extremities/Low Bone Mass Greater in HIV-Infected Males
Large Joints and Extremities

Low Bone Mass Greater in HIV-Infected Males

March 21, 2016 2 min read Premium comments

Advertisement

Low Bone Mass Greater in HIV-Infected Males
(L to R) Normal bone, Bone loss, HIV-1 budding in green and male. / Wikimedia Commons, CDC and Gtirouflet
Secondary

Researchers from Children’s Hospital Los Angeles set out to determine why rates of low bone mass seem to be greater in HIV-infected males than in females. The team, led by Grace Aldrovandi, M.D., chief of the Division of Infectious Diseases, studied 11 biomarkers associated with inflammation, bone loss and/or bone formation in about 450 individuals to try to determine causes of this differential bone loss.

As indicated in the March 10, 2016 news release, “Bone loss in HIV infection is due to immune dysregulation, chronic inflammation and antiretroviral therapy, as well as increased bone turnover from the HIV-infection itself. In HIV-infected adults, the combined rates of osteopenia and osteoporosis are as high as 90 percent in men and 60 percent in women, with related fractures 60 percent higher than in the general population.”

“…the researchers discovered that HIV-infected adolescent males had increased levels of sCD14—a marker of macrophage activation. Macrophages are a type of white blood cell critical to the innate immune system. In the bone, macrophages take the form of osteoclasts—the cells responsible for the resorptive processes associated with continuous bone remodeling. Soluble CD14 levels were inversely correlated with measures of bone mineral content and density, suggesting macrophage activation as a possible mechanism for such bone loss.”

“Despite higher levels of general inflammation in HIV-infected females, HIV-positive males in our study showed both lower bone mass and higher sCD14 levels. This is perhaps because estrogen is protective against some of the inflammation seen in chronic HIV, as estrogen represses macrophage function, ” said Dr. Aldrovandi, who is also a professor of pediatrics at the Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California.

Dr. Aldrovandi told OTW, “In adults, combined rates of osteopenia and osteoporosis are as high as 90% in men and 60% in women. In large clinical trials of HIV-infected children and adolescents, we noticed that low bone mineral density (BMD) is more pronounced in boys than girls and the difference increases as the adolescent goes through puberty. Additionally, puberty is the time that bone mass normally peaks, so understanding why HIV-infected boys and adolescents develop low bone mineral density is critical so that interventions or therapies can be developed.

“We found two important biomarkers that were elevated more in boys than girls. One of the biomarkers, a biomarker of macrophage activation, was inversely correlated with BMD. In other words, the more macrophage activation a patient had, the more likely they were to have low BMD. This makes sense, in the bone, cells called osteoclasts are derived from macrophages, and osteoclasts are responsible for breaking down bone. Normal growth includes breaking down and laying down bone, but the macrophage activation seen in HIV may tip the scales in favor of more breakdown. So, it appears that macrophage activation is one mechanism responsible for HIV-associated bone loss.”

“We would like to find interventions to decrease macrophage activation in HIV-infected youth and hopefully normalize their BMD.”

React:

Discussion

14
DS
Dr. Sarah MitchellOrthopedic Surgeon · Mayo Clinic

This is a fascinating development. In my practice we've seen similar outcomes with the revised protocol. The key differentiator seems to be patient selection criteria. Has anyone else noticed the correlation with BMI thresholds?

8
JT
James Thornton, MDSpine Fellow · HSS

Great point. I'd push back slightly on the conclusion, the sample size in the cited study is too small to draw population-level inferences. That said, the directional signal is compelling and worth a larger RCT.

5
RP
R. PatelSports Medicine · Stanford

We implemented a similar approach last year. Early results are promising but we're still gathering 12-month follow-up data. Happy to share our protocol if anyone is interested.

Join the conversation

Orthopedic professionals are discussing this. Sign in and upgrade to read every comment and add your voice.

Subscribe

Get Full Access

Read every OTW article and join member discussions for $24.99/month.

Get Full Access

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Orthopedics This Week

The most trusted source in orthopedic industry news since 2005. Covering spine, joints, trauma, biologics, and the business of orthopedics.

A publication of RRY Publications, LLC

LinkedInXFacebook

Categories

  • Spine
  • Joints
  • Upper Extremities
  • Foot & Ankle
  • Sports Medicine
  • Pain Mgmt
  • Trauma
  • Biologics
  • Technology
  • People
  • Company News
  • Legal & Regulatory

Resources

  • Subscribe
  • Community Posts
  • Job Board
  • Press Release Opportunities
  • Power Rankings
  • About OTW
  • Advertise
  • Contact Us

Get Full Access

Unlimited articles, community posts, and Power Rankings.

Get Full Access

Plans start at $24.99/mo · Annual saves 20%

© 2026 Orthopedics This Week · RRY Publications, LLC

Privacy PolicyTerms of ServiceCookie Policy