Use of anthropometric indicators in screening for undiagnosed vertebral fractures: A cross-sectional analysis of the Fukui Osteoporosis Cohort (FOC) study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Vertebral fractures are the most common type of osteoporotic fracture. Although often asymptomatic, each vertebral fracture increases the risk of additional fractures. Development of a safe and simple screening method is necessary to identify individuals with asymptomatic vertebral fractures.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Lateral imaging of the spine by single energy X-ray absorptiometry and vertebral morphometry were conducted in 116 Japanese women (mean age: 69.9 ± 9.3 yr). Vertebral deformities were diagnosed by the McCloskey-Kanis criteria and were used as a proxy for vertebral fractures. We evaluated whether anthropometric parameters including arm span-height difference (AHD), wall-occiput distance (WOD), and rib-pelvis distance (RPD) were related to vertebral deformities. Positive findings were defined for AHD as ≥ 4.0 cm, for WOD as ≥ 5 mm, and for RPD as ≤ two fingerbreadths. Receiver operating characteristics curves analysis was performed, and cut-off values were determined to give maximum difference between sensitivity and false-positive rate. Expected probabilities for vertebral deformities were calculated using logistic regression analysis.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The mean AHD for those participants with and without vertebral deformities were 7.0 ± 4.1 cm and 4.2 ± 4.2 cm (p < 0.01), respectively. Sensitivity and specificity for use of AHD-positive, WOD-positive and RPD-positive values in predicting vertebral deformities were 0.85 (95% CI: 0.69, 1.01) and 0.52 (95% CI: 0.42, 0.62); 0.70 (95% CI: 0.50, 0.90) and 0.67 (95% CI: 0.57, 0.76); and 0.67 (95% CI: 0.47, 0.87) and 0.59 (95% CI: 0.50, 0.69), respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratio for a positive result (LR) for use of combined AHD-positive and WOD-positive values were 0.65 (95% CI: 0.44, 0.86), 0.81 (95% CI: 0.73, 0.89), and 3.47 (95% CI: 3.01, 3.99), respectively. The expected probability of vertebral deformities (P) was obtained by the equation; P = 1-(exp [-1.327-0.040 × body weight +1.332 × WOD-positive + 1.623 × AHD-positive])^-1. The sensitivity, specificity and LR for use of a 0.306 cut-off value for probability of vertebral fractures were 0.65 (95% CI: 0.44, 0.86), 0.87 (95% CI: 0.80, 0.93), and 4.82 (95% CI: 4.00, 5.77), respectively.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Both WOD and AHD effectively predicted vertebral deformities. This screening method could be used in a strategy to prevent additional vertebral fractures, even when X-ray technology is not available.</p

Prevalent vertebral fractures among children initiating glucocorticoid therapy for the treatment of rheumatic disorders

Objective. Vertebral fractures are an under-recognized problem in children with inflammatory disorders. We studied spine health among 134 children (87 girls) with rheumatic conditions (median age 10 years) within 30 days of initiating glucocorticoid therapy. Methods. Children were categorized as follows: juvenile dermatomyositis (n = 30), juvenile idiopathic arthritis (n = 28), systemic lupus erythematosus and related conditions (n = 26), systemic arthritis (n = 22), systemic vasculitis (n = 16), and other conditions (n = 12). Thoracolumbar spine radiograph and dual x-ray absorptiometry for lumbar spine (L-spine) areal bone mineral density (BMD) were performed within 30 days of glucocorticoid initiation. Genant semiquantitative grading was used for vertebral morphometry. Second metacarpal morphometry was carried out on a hand radiograph. Clinical factors including disease and physical activity, calcium and vitamin D intake, cumulative glucocorticoid dose, underlying diagnosis, L-spine BMD Z score, and back pain were analyzed for association with vertebral fracture. Results. Thirteen vertebral fractures were noted in 9 children (7%). Of these, 6 patients had a single vertebral fracture and 3 had 2-3 fractures. Fractures were clustered in the mid-thoracic region (69%). Three vertebral fractures (23%) were moderate (grade 2); the others were mild (grade 1). For the entire cohort, mean ± SD L-spine BMD Z score was significantly different from zero (-0.55 ± 1.2, P \u3c 0.001) despite a mean height Z score that was similar to the healthy average (0.02 ± 1.0, P = 0.825). Back pain was highly associated with increased odds for fracture (odds ratio 10.6 [95% confidence interval 2.1-53.8], P = 0.004). Conclusion. In pediatric rheumatic conditions, vertebral fractures can be present prior to prolonged glucocorticoid exposure. © 2010, American College of Rheumatology

Decision to take osteoporosis medication in patients who have had a fracture and are 'high' risk for future fracture: A qualitative study

Abstract Background Patients' values and preferences are fundamental tenets of evidence-based practice, yet current osteoporosis (OP) clinical guidelines pay little attention to these issues in therapeutic decision making. This may be in part due to the fact that few studies have examined the factors that influence the initial decision to take OP medication. The purpose of our study was to examine patients' experiences with the decision to take OP medication after they sustained a fracture. Methods A phenomenological qualitative study was conducted with outpatients identified in a university teaching hospital fracture clinic OP program. Individuals aged 65+ who had sustained a fragility fracture within 5 years, were 'high risk' for future fracture, and were prescribed OP medication were eligible. Analysis of interview data was guided by Giorgi's methodology. Results 21 patients (6 males, 15 females) aged 65-88 years participated. All participants had low bone mass; 9 had OP. Fourteen patients were taking a bisphosphonate while 7 patients were taking no OP medications. For 12 participants, the decision to take OP medication occurred at the time of prescription and involved minimal contemplation (10/12 were on medication). These patients made their decision because they liked/trusted their health care provider. However, 4/10 participants in this group indicated their OP medication-taking status might change. For the remaining 9 patients, the decision was more difficult (4/9 were on medication). These patients were unconvinced by their health care provider, engaged in risk-benefit analyses using other information sources, and were concerned about side effects; 7/9 patients indicated that their OP medication-taking status might change at a later date. Conclusions Almost half of our older patients who had sustained a fracture found the decision to take OP medication a difficult one. In general, the decision was not considered permanent. Health care providers should be aware of their potential role in patients' decisions and monitor patients' decisions over time

Surgical preferences of patients at risk of hip fractures: hemiarthroplasty versus total hip arthroplasty

BACKGROUND: The optimal treatment of displaced femoral neck fractures in patients over 60 years is controversial. While much research has focused on the impact of total hip arthroplasty (THA) and hemiarthroplasty (HA) on surgical outcomes, little is known about patient preferences for either alternative. The purpose of this study was to elicit surgical preferences of patients at risk of sustaining hip fracture using a novel decision board. METHODS: We developed a decision board for the surgical management of displaced femoral neck fractures presenting risks and outcomes of HA and THA. The decision board was presented to 81 elderly patients at risk for developing femoral neck fractures identified from an osteoporosis clinic. The participants were faced with the scenario of sustaining a displaced femoral neck fracture and were asked to state their treatment option preference and rationale for operative procedure. RESULTS: Eighty-five percent (85%) of participants were between the age of 60 and 80 years; 89% were female; 88% were Caucasian; and 49% had some post-secondary education. Ninety-three percent (93%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 87-99%) of participants chose THA as their preferred operative choice. Participants identified several factors important to their decision, including the perception of greater walking distance (63%), less residual pain (29%), less reoperative risk (28%) and lower mortality risk (20%) with THA. Participants who preferred HA (7%; 95% CI, 1-13%) did so for perceived less invasiveness (50%), lower dislocation risk (33%), lower infection risk (33%), and shorter operative time (17%). CONCLUSION: The overwhelming majority of patients preferred THA to HA for the treatment of a displaced femoral neck fracture when confronted with risks and outcomes of both procedures on a decision board

Development of a prototype clinical decision support tool for osteoporosis disease management: a qualitative study of focus groups

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Osteoporosis affects over 200 million people worldwide, and represents a significant cost burden. Although guidelines are available for best practice in osteoporosis, evidence indicates that patients are not receiving appropriate diagnostic testing or treatment according to guidelines. The use of clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) may be one solution because they can facilitate knowledge translation by providing high-quality evidence at the point of care. Findings from a systematic review of osteoporosis interventions and consultation with clinical and human factors engineering experts were used to develop a conceptual model of an osteoporosis tool. We conducted a qualitative study of focus groups to better understand physicians' perceptions of CDSSs and to transform the conceptual osteoporosis tool into a functional prototype that can support clinical decision making in osteoporosis disease management at the point of care.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The conceptual design of the osteoporosis tool was tested in 4 progressive focus groups with family physicians and general internists. An iterative strategy was used to qualitatively explore the experiences of physicians with CDSSs; and to find out what features, functions, and evidence should be included in a working prototype. Focus groups were conducted using a semi-structured interview guide using an iterative process where results of the first focus group informed changes to the questions for subsequent focus groups and to the conceptual tool design. Transcripts were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using grounded theory methodology.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Of the 3 broad categories of themes that were identified, major barriers related to the accuracy and feasibility of extracting bone mineral density test results and medications from the risk assessment questionnaire; using an electronic input device such as a Tablet PC in the waiting room; and the importance of including well-balanced information in the patient education component of the osteoporosis tool. Suggestions for modifying the tool included the addition of a percentile graph showing patients' 10-year risk for osteoporosis or fractures, and ensuring that the tool takes no more than 5 minutes to complete.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Focus group data revealed the facilitators and barriers to using the osteoporosis tool at the point of care so that it can be optimized to aid physicians in their clinical decision making.</p

Effects of discontinuing oral bisphosphonate treatments for postmenopausal osteoporosis on bone turnover markers and bone density

The antiresorptive potency varies between different bisphosphonates. We investigated the effect of stopping oral bisphosphonate treatment for postmenopausal osteoporosis (ibandronate, alendronate, risedronate) on BTMs and BMD. After stopping treatment, all three groups showed an increase in BTMs and a decrease in hip BMD; however, none returned to pre-treatment baseline values. INTRODUCTION: Bisphosphonates (BPs) continue to suppress bone turnover markers (BTMs) after treatment has stopped, leading to the suggestion that a pause in treatment could be considered for low-risk patients. Indirect comparisons suggest that after cessation of treatment, the effects on bone may differ between drugs. We investigated the effects of stopping oral BP treatments for postmenopausal osteoporosis on BTMs and bone mineral density (BMD). METHODS: We studied postmenopausal osteoporotic women who had previously taken part in a 2-year randomised study of three oral BPs (ibandronate, alendronate, or risedronate). At the end of the study, women with hip BMD T-score > - 2.5 and considered clinically appropriate to discontinue treatment were invited to participate in a further 2-year observational study. Biochemical response was assessed using BTMs, and BMD was measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. RESULTS: All BTMs increased after treatment withdrawal but remained below the pre-treatment baseline with less suppression of BTMs for the risedronate group compared to alendronate and ibandronate up to 48 weeks. There was no difference between the BP groups 96 weeks after stopping treatment. The change in BMD during the 96 weeks after stopping treatment was - 1.6% (95% CI - 1.9 to - 1.2, P < 0.001) for the total hip and - 0.6% (95% CI - 1.1 to - 0.2, P = 0.17) at the lumbar spine with no difference between the three BP groups (P = 0.85 and P = 0.48, respectively). CONCLUSION: For all treatment groups, there was an increase in BTMs and a decrease in hip BMD after stopping BPs for 2 years; however, none returned to pre-treatment baseline values