scholarly journals The epidemiology of osteoporosis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael A Clynes ◽  
Nicholas C Harvey ◽  
Elizabeth M Curtis ◽  
Nicholas R Fuggle ◽  
Elaine M Dennison ◽  
...  

Abstract Introduction With a worldwide ageing population, the importance of the prevention and management of osteoporotic fragility fractures is increasing over time. In this review, we discuss in detail the epidemiology of fragility fractures, how this is shaped by pharmacological interventions and how novel screening programmes can reduce the clinical and economic burden of osteoporotic fractures. Sources of data PubMed and Google Scholar were searched using various combinations of the keywords ‘osteoporosis’, ‘epidemiology’, ‘fracture’, ‘screening’, `FRAX’ and ‘SCOOP’. Areas of agreement The economic burden of osteoporosis-related fracture is significant, costing approximately $17.9 and £4 billion per annum in the USA and UK. Areas of controversy Risk calculators such as the web-based FRAX® algorithm have enabled assessment of an individual’s fracture risk using clinical risk factors, with only partial consideration of bone mineral density (BMD). Growing points As with all new interventions, we await the results of long-term use of osteoporosis screening algorithms and how these can be refined and incorporated into clinical practice. Areas timely for developing research Despite advances in osteoporosis screening, a minority of men and women at high fracture risk worldwide receive treatment. The economic and societal burden caused by osteoporosis is a clear motivation for improving the screening and management of osteoporosis worldwide.

2016 ◽  
Vol 67 (1) ◽  
pp. 28-40 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas M. Link

The radiologist has a number of roles not only in diagnosing but also in treating osteoporosis. Radiologists diagnose fragility fractures with all imaging modalities, which includes magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) demonstrating radiologically occult insufficiency fractures, but also lateral chest radiographs showing asymptomatic vertebral fractures. In particular MRI fragility fractures may have a nonspecific appearance and the radiologists needs to be familiar with the typical locations and findings, to differentiate these fractures from neoplastic lesions. It should be noted that radiologists do not simply need to diagnose fractures related to osteoporosis but also to diagnose those fractures which are complications of osteoporosis related pharmacotherapy. In addition to using standard radiological techniques radiologists also use dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and quantitative computed tomography (QCT) to quantitatively assess bone mineral density for diagnosing osteoporosis or osteopenia as well as to monitor therapy. DXA measurements of the femoral neck are also used to calculate osteoporotic fracture risk based on the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) score, which is universally available. Some of the new technologies such as high-resolution peripheral computed tomography (HR-pQCT) and MR spectroscopy allow assessment of bone architecture and bone marrow composition to characterize fracture risk. Finally radiologists are also involved in the therapy of osteoporotic fractures by using vertebroplasty, kyphoplasty, and sacroplasty. This review article will focus on standard techniques and new concepts in diagnosing and managing osteoporosis.


2011 ◽  
Vol 152 (33) ◽  
pp. 1304-1311 ◽  
Author(s):  
Miklós Szathmári

Osteoporotic fractures are associated with excess mortality. Effective treatment options are available, which reduce the risk of vertebral and non-vertebral fractures, but the identification of patients with high fracture risk is problematic. Low bone mineral density (BMD) – the basis for the diagnosis of osteoporosis – is an important, but not the only determinant of fracture risk. Several clinical risk factors are know that operate partially or completely independently of BMD, and affect the fracture risk. These include age, a prior fragility fracture, a parental history of hip fracture, use of corticosteroids, excess alcohol intake, rheumatoid arthritis, and different types of diseases which can cause secondary bone loss. The FRAX® tool integrates the weight of above mentioned clinical risk factors for fracture risk assessment with or without BMD value, and calculates the 10-year absolute risk of hip and major osteoporotic (hip, vertebral, humerus and forearm together) fracture probabilities. Although the use of data is not yet uniform, the FRAX® is a promising opportunity to identify individuals with high fracture risk. The accumulation of experience with FRAX® is going on and it can modify current diagnostic and therapeutic recommendations in Hungary as well. Orv. Hetil., 2011, 152, 1304–1311.


2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 1193.2-1194
Author(s):  
N. Kirilov ◽  
S. Todorov ◽  
N. Nikolov ◽  
M. Nikolov

Background:Osteoporosis is known to be a risk factor for fragility fractures [4, 5]. On one hand, vertebral body fragility fractures often lead to additional spine deformity [2]. On the other hand, it was found that with the progression of the spinal curvature in osteoporotic patients, the fragility fractures develop more frequently. The increased incidence of these fractures could be explained with a predominance of the mechanical forces on the one side of the already weakened osteoporotic vertebrae [3].Objectives:The aim of this study is to compare the fracture risk (FRAX) for major osteoporotic fractures (MOF) and for hip fractures (HF) in women with and without scoliosis through dual-energy X-ray absorptiomentry (DXA)Methods:In the current study, 59 women underwent DXA scans. Scoliosis was defined as Cobb’s angle ≥ 5◦ according to the Chaklin’s classification [6, 7]. Cobb’s angle was measured from DXA images with DICOM software. We evaluated the following risk factors: previous fractures, parental hip fractures, secondary osteoporosis, rheumatoid arthritis, use of corticosteroids, current smoking and alcohol consumption more than 3 units daily. We estimated FRAX MOF and FRAX HF on the basis of these risk factors and on the basis of the femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD). The calculations were done through FRAX tool published on the website of the University of Sheffield [1].Results:The mean age of the women was 63 years (yrs.) ± 10 yrs. (range 43 yrs. – 89 yrs.). Subjects with scoliosis were significantly older (67 yrs.) than those without scoliosis (59 yrs.), (p = 0.004). Mean weight and height didn’t differ between the groups with- and without scoliosis. Mean lumbar spine BMD and T-score differed significantly between the groups, (p = 0.02). Women with scoliosis had lower mean BMD (0.786 g/cm2) and lower mean T-score (-2.1 standard deviations (SDs)) compared to those without scoliosis (mean BMD: 0.912 g/cm2 and mean T-score: 0.9 SDs). The mean FRAX MOF (19.3%) and FRAX HF (5.9%) of the subjects with scoliosis were significantly higher than those of the women without scoliosis (FRAX MOF: 14.9% and FRAX HF: 3.1%), (p = 0.004 for FRAX MOF and p = 0.010 for FRAX HF).Conclusion:Women with scoliosis showed significantly higher fracture risk for major osteoporotic fractures and for hip fractures compared to those without scoliosis.References:[1]https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/FRAX/index.aspx[2]Mao YF, Zhang Y, Li K, et al. Discrimination of vertebral fragility fracture with lumbar spine bone mineral density measured by quantitative computed tomography. J Orthop Translat. 2018;16:33–39. Published 2018 Oct 10. doi:10.1016/j.jot.2018.08.007.[3]Sabo A, Hatgis J, Granville M, Jacobson RE. Multilevel Contiguous Osteoporotic Lumbar Compression Fractures: The Relationship of Scoliosis to the Development of Cascading Fractures. Cureus. 2017;9(12):e1962. Published 2017 Dec 19. doi:10.7759/cureus.1962.[4]Kirilova E, Cherkezov D, Gonchev B, Zheleva Z. OSIRIS Index for the assessment of the risk for osteoporosis in menopausal women, National conference with international participation, 6-7 october 2019, Kardzhali “Science and society 2019”, RKR print OOD ISSN 1314-3425[5]Madzharova R, Kirilova E, Petranova T, Nikolova M. Assessment of the activity for self care in women with osteoporosis, Science and TechnologieVolume VIII, 2018, Number 1: MEDICAL BIOLOGY STUDIES, CLINICAL STUDIES, SOCIAL MEDICINE AND HEALTH CARE,1-6.[6]Chaklin VD, Orthopedy - Moscow: Medgiz – 1965 – C. 209[7]Chaklin VD. Pathology, clinical manifestation and treatment of the scoliosis, 1stcongress of the union of the orthopedists and traumatologists, Moscow: Medgiz, 1957 – T.2. – p 798Disclosure of Interests:None declared


2017 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 238-243 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah C. Goode ◽  
Jacqueline L. Beshears ◽  
Russell D. Goode ◽  
Theresa F. Wright ◽  
Anita King ◽  
...  

Introduction: This prospective study sought to implement a screening tool to identify and risk stratify at-risk patients for osteoporosis and evaluate patient knowledge of osteoporosis and fragility fractures in an orthopedic trauma clinic affiliated with a level 1 trauma academic center. Methods: Of 297 eligible patients, 291 were screened and risk stratified. Patients completed an osteoporosis screening questionnaire and were risk stratified. Lifestyle advice was given to patients at low fracture risk. A dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry scan was ordered for patients at intermediate fracture risk. A referral was initiated for treatment to a bone health specialist in high fracture risk patients. Twenty patients completed a knowledge-based pretest/posttest. Results: A total of 291 patients were screened, which represented 97.7% of patients over the age of 50. Of those patients, 165 (56.7%) patients met criteria for further osteoporosis evaluation as they were considered either intermediate or high risk for future fractures. One hundred thirty-six (82.4%) patients were referred for bone mineral density evaluation. For the knowledge-based evaluation portion, patients had a 33% gain in knowledge ( P = .0004). The largest knowledge deficit identified pertained to osteoporosis risk factors and lifestyle management. Discussion: The use of an osteoporosis screening questionnaire in the orthopedic trauma clinic produced clinically significant improvement in identification of at-risk patients. A lack of knowledge regarding osteoporosis and fragility fractures was found to exist among these patients. Conclusion: The implementation of an osteoporosis screening tool to identify, risk stratify, and treat patients with osteoporosis and related fragility fractures can be successfully integrated into a busy clinical practice.


2021 ◽  
Vol 47 (3) ◽  
pp. 17-18
Author(s):  
Tang Ching Lau

Osteoporosis is a chronic disease that may require lifelong therapy. Therefore, evidence-based approach regarding the efficacy and safety of long‐term osteoporosis therapy and therapy discontinuation is important. The most important goals for osteoporosis and fragility fracture patients are the recovery of pre-fracture functional level and reduction of fracture risk. There has been increasing consensus that a treat-to-target (T2T) strategy is applicable to osteoporosis and that bone mineral density (BMD) is currently the most clinically appropriate target. However, there is no clear consensus with regard to the definition of a specific BMD treatment target and timeframes applicable to T2T in osteoporosis, and these would need to be individually determined. Treatment with bisphosphonates may be interrupted after 3-5 years, only in patients in whom fracture risk is low or lowered because of the treatment itself. It is recommended never to discontinue treatment in patients with one or more prevalent osteoporotic fractures or in whom the BMD values are still below -2.5 (T score). Recent reports imply that denosumab discontinuation may lead to an increased risk of multiple vertebral fractures. Patients considered at high fracture risk should either continue denosumab therapy for up to ten years or be switched to an alternative treatment. For patients at low-risk, a decision to discontinue denosumab could be made after five years, but bisphosphonate therapy should be considered to reduce or prevent the rebound increase in bone turnover.


2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (10) ◽  
pp. 5256
Author(s):  
Yen-Huai Lin ◽  
Yu-Tai Shih ◽  
Michael Mu Huo Teng

Osteosarcopenia, the coexistence of bone and muscle loss, is common in older adults, but its definition lacks international consensus. This cross-sectional study (n = 1199 post-menopausal women) aimed to determine the association between osteosarcopenia and fragility fractures and to investigate the impact of the definition of the “osteo” component. Bone mineral density and bone microarchitecture were measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry and the trabecular bone score (TBS), respectively. The “osteo” component of osteosarcopenia was classified as osteoporosis (T-score ≤ −2.5 SD), osteopenia/osteoporosis (T-score < −1 SD), and high-fracture-risk osteopenia (−2.5 SD < T-score < −1 SD)/osteoporosis (T-score ≤ −2.5 SD). The Fracture Risk Assessment Tool was used to identify high-fracture-risk osteopenia. Altogether, 30.3%, 32.2%, 14.4%, and 23.1% of participants had osteosarcopenia, osteoporosis alone, sarcopenia alone, and neither condition, respectively. The odds ratios between osteosarcopenia and fragility fractures were 3.70 (95% CI: 1.94–7.04) for osteosarcopenia, 2.48 (95% CI: 1.30–4.71) for osteoporosis alone, and 1.87 (95% CI: 0.84–4.14) for sarcopenia alone. Women with osteosarcopenia also had lower TBS, indicating worse bone microarchitecture. In conclusion, women with osteosarcopenia were more likely to have previously sustained a fracture compared to those without osteosarcopenia, with sarcopenia alone, and with osteoporosis alone. The relationship between osteosarcopenia and fracture risk may be best identified when considering high-fracture-risk osteopenia and osteoporosis.


2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Eduardo Medeiros Ferreira Gama ◽  
Leandro Kasuki Jomori de Pinho ◽  
Miguel Madeira ◽  
Carlos Duarte ◽  
Girlene Canhete Pessoa ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: Osteoporosis is common among elderly people, and identifying those at high risk for fracture is very important. Aim: To evaluate whether the use of quantitative calcaneal ultrasound (QUS), the Sitting–rising test (SRT) and handgrip test (HT) are additional tools for tracking fragility fracture risk when compared to FRAX and NOGG. Methods: During the national campaign against osteoporosis, held in 2018 in Rio de Janeiro, participants were randomly selected to perform QUS, SRT and HT, besides categorization of the risk of major and hip fractures by FRAX and NOGG. The following adequacy values ​​were used: QUS T-score&gt; -1.05 (adequate) or ≤ -1.05 (inadequate); Sitting – rising test (SRT) (composite score): age-reference values at quartiles 3 and 4 (adequate); quartiles 1 and 2 (inadequate); best result 3 attempts of the dominant arm handgrip test, according to age and gender: percentile ≥50 (adequate) and &lt;50 (inadequate); FRAX tool: suggests high risk for major osteoporotic fractures if &gt; 20% and for hip fractures when &gt; 3%; NOGG (complement to FRAX): patient′s risk for major and for hip fractures considered as low (green zone), medium (yellow zone) or high (red zone). Qui square test was used for associations. Results: We included 162 individuals: 118 females, mean age 66.8 years and 44 males, mean age 71.8 years. High risk of hip fractures by FRAX was observed in 51% of those patients with a QUS T-score ≤-1.05 while it was observed in 28% of those with a QUS T-score&gt; -1.05 (p=0.005). An inadequate QUS T-score was also associated with a higher risk of hip fracture by NOGG (p=0.007). An inadequate SRT and HT were not associated with a high fracture risk. Conclusions: As densitometry, a method established in clinical practice for the diagnosis of osteoporosis, has limitations in its use, other tools are necessary for tracking the risk of fragility fractures in these events. Quantitative calcaneal ultrasound was a good predictor of hip fracture risk, while SRT and HT were not capable of evaluate for fracture risk stratification in our study, reinforcing the need for QUS for screening in large populations. Having strength and functional ability did not eliminate the need for investigation.


2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 294.2-294
Author(s):  
D. Ciardo ◽  
P. Pisani ◽  
F. A. Lombardi ◽  
R. Franchini ◽  
F. Conversano ◽  
...  

Background:The main consequence of osteoporosis is the occurrence of fractures due to bone fragility, with important sequelae in terms of disability and mortality. It has been already demonstrated that the information about bone mass density (BMD) alone is not sufficient to predict the risk of fragility fractures, since several fractures occur in patients with normal BMD [1].The Fragility Score is a parameter that allows to estimate skeletal fragility thanks to a trans-abdominal ultrasound scan performed with Radiofrequency Echographic Multi Spectrometry (REMS) technology. It is calculated by comparing the results of the spectral analysis of the patient’s raw ultrasound signals with reference models representative of fragile and non-fragile bones [2]. It is a dimensionless parameter, which can vary from 0 to 100, in proportion to the degree of fragility, independently from BMD.Objectives:This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of Fragility Score, measured during a bone densitometry exam performed with REMS technology at lumbar spine, in identifying patients at risk of incident osteoporotic fractures at a follow-up period of 5 years.Methods:Caucasian women with age between 30 and 90 were scanned with spinal REMS and DXA. The incidence of osteoporotic fractures was assessed during a follow-up period of 5 years. The ability of the Fragility Score to discriminate between patients with and without incident fragility fractures was subsequently evaluated and compared with the discriminatory ability of the T-score calculated with DXA and with REMS.Results:Overall, 533 women (median age: 60 years; interquartile range [IQR]: 54-66 years) completed the follow-up (median 42 months; IQR: 35-56 months), during which 73 patients had sustained an incident fracture.Both median REMS and DXA measured T-score values were significantly lower in fractured patients than for non-fractured ones, conversely, REMS Fragility Score was significantly higher (Table 1).Table 1.Analysis of T-score values calculated with REMS and DXA and Fragility Score calculated with REMS. Median values and interquartile ranges (IQR) are reported. The p-value is derived from the Mann-Whitney test.Patients without incident fragility fracturePatients with incident fragility fracturep-valueT-score DXA[median (IQR)]-1.9 (-2.7 to -1.0)-2.6 (-3.3 to -1.7)0.0001T-score REMS[median (IQR)]-2.0 (-2.8 to -1.1)-2.7 (-3.5 to -1.9)<0.0001Fragility Score[median (IQR)]29.9 (25.7 to 36.2)53.0 (34.2 to 62.5)<0.0001By evaluating the capability to discriminate patients with/without fragility fractures, the Fragility Score obtained a value of the ROC area under the curve (AUC) of 0.80, higher than the AUC of the REMS T-score (0.66) and of the T-score DXA (0.64), and the difference was statistically significant (Figure 1).Figure 1.ROC curve comparison of Fragility Score, REMS and DXA T-score values in the classification of patients with incident fragility fractures.Furthermore, the correlation between the Fragility Score and the T-score values was low, with Pearson correlation coefficient r=-0.19 between Fragility Score and DXA T-score and -0.18 between the Fragility Score and the REMS T-score.Conclusion:The Fragility Score was found to be an effective tool for the prediction of fracture risk in a population of Caucasian women, with performances superior to those of the T-score values. Therefore, this tool presents a high potential as an effective diagnostic tool for the early identification and subsequent early treatment of bone fragility.References:[1]Diez Perez A et al. Aging Clin Exp Res 2019; 31(10):1375-1389.[2]Pisani P et al. Measurement 2017; 101:243–249.Disclosure of Interests:None declared


2009 ◽  
Vol 36 (9) ◽  
pp. 1947-1952 ◽  
Author(s):  
MARIA THOMAS-JOHN ◽  
MARY B. CODD ◽  
SIALAJA MANNE ◽  
NELSON B. WATTS ◽  
ANNE-BARBARA MONGEY

Objective.Osteoporotic fractures are associated with significant morbidity and mortality particularly among older men. However, there is little information regarding risk factors among this population. The aims of our study were to determine risk factors for osteoporosis and fragility fractures and the predictive value of bone mineral density (BMD) measurements for development of fragility fractures in a cohort of elderly Caucasian and African American men.Methods.We evaluated 257 men aged 70 years or older for risk factors for osteoporosis and fragility fractures using a detailed questionnaire and BMD assessment. Exclusion criteria included conditions known to cause osteoporosis such as hypogonadism and chronic steroid use, current treatment with bisphosphonates, bilateral hip arthroplasties, and inability to ambulate independently.Results.Age, weight, weight loss, androgen deprivation treatment, duration of use of dairy products, exercise, and fracture within 10 years prior to study entry were associated with osteoporosis (p ≤ 0.05). Fragility fractures were associated with duration of use of dairy products, androgen deprivation treatment, osteoporosis, and history of fracture within 10 years prior to BMD assessment (p ≤ 0.05). There were some differences in risk factors between the Caucasian and African American populations, suggesting that risk factors may vary between ethnic groups.Conclusion.Although men with osteoporosis had a higher rate of fractures, the majority of fractures occurred in men with T-scores > −2.5 standard deviations below the mean, suggesting that factors other than BMD are also important in determining risk.


2011 ◽  
Vol 152 (33) ◽  
pp. 1320-1326 ◽  
Author(s):  
Péter Lakatos

Osteoporosis affects approximately 9% of the population in Hungary resulting in about 100 000 osteoporotic fractures annually. Thirty-five percent of patients with hip fractures due to osteoporosis will die within 1 year. Direct costs of osteoporosis exceed 25 billion forints per year. Apparently, cost-effective reduction of bone loss and consequent fracture risk will add up to not only financial savings but improvement in quality of life, as well. A number of pharmacological modalities are available for this purpose. The mainstay of the treatment of osteoporosis is the bisphosphonate group that includes effective anti-resorptive compounds mitigating bone loss and fragility. The recently registered denosumab exhibits similar efficacy by neutralizing RANK ligand, however, marked differences can be observed between the two drug classes. Strontium has a unique mechanism of action by rebalancing bone turnover, and thus, providing an efficient treatment option for the not fast bone losers who are at high fracture risk. The purely anabolic teriparatide is available for the extremely severe osteoporotic patients and for those who do not respond to other types of therapy. Older treatment options such as hormone replacement therapy, raloxifene, tibolone or calcitonin may also have a restricted place in the management of osteoporosis. Orv. Hetil., 2011, 152, 1320–1326.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document