Timing and risk factors for clinical fractures among postmenopausal women: a 5-year prospective study

BACKGROUND: Many risk factors for fractures have been documented, including low bone-mineral density (BMD) and a history of fractures. However, little is known about the short-term absolute risk (AR) of fractures and the timing of clinical fractures. Therefore, we assessed the risk and timing of incident clinical fractures, expressed as 5-year AR, in postmenopausal women. METHODS: In total, 10 general practice centres participated in this population-based prospective study. Five years after a baseline assessment, which included clinical risk factor evaluation and BMD measurement, 759 postmenopausal women aged between 50 and 80 years, were re-examined, including undergoing an evaluation of clinical fractures after menopause. Risk factors for incident fractures at baseline that were significant in univariate analyses were included in a multivariate Cox survival regression analysis. The significant determinants were used to construct algorithms. RESULTS: In the total group, 12.5% (95% confidence interval (CI) 10.1–14.9) of the women experienced a new clinical fracture. A previous clinical fracture after menopause and a low BMD (T-score <-1.0) were retained as significant predictors with significant interaction. Women with a recent previous fracture (during the past 5 years) had an AR of 50.1% (95% CI 42.0–58.1) versus 21.2% (95% CI 20.7–21.6) if the previous fracture had occurred earlier. In women without a fracture history, the AR was 13.8% (95% CI 10.9–16.6) if BMD was low and 7.0% (95% CI 5.5–8.5) if BMD was normal. CONCLUSION: In postmenopausal women, clinical fractures cluster in time. One in two women with a recent clinical fracture had a new clinical fracture within 5 years, regardless of BMD. The 5-year AR for a first clinical fracture was much lower and depended on BMD

Active rehabilitation for chronic low back pain: Cognitive-behavioral, physical, or both? First direct post-treatment results from a randomized controlled trial [ISRCTN22714229]

BACKGROUND: The treatment of non-specific chronic low back pain is often based on three different models regarding the development and maintenance of pain and especially functional limitations: the deconditioning model, the cognitive behavioral model and the biopsychosocial model. There is evidence that rehabilitation of patients with chronic low back pain is more effective than no treatment, but information is lacking about the differential effectiveness of different kinds of rehabilitation. A direct comparison of a physical, a cognitive-behavioral treatment and a combination of both has never been carried out so far. METHODS: The effectiveness of active physical, cognitive-behavioral and combined treatment for chronic non-specific low back pain compared with a waiting list control group was determined by performing a randomized controlled trial in three rehabilitation centers. Two hundred and twenty three patients were randomized, using concealed block randomization to one of the following treatments, which they attended three times a week for 10 weeks: Active Physical Treatment (APT), Cognitive-Behavioral Treatment (CBT), Combined Treatment of APT and CBT (CT), or Waiting List (WL). The outcome variables were self-reported functional limitations, patient's main complaints, pain, mood, self-rated treatment effectiveness, treatment satisfaction and physical performance including walking, standing up, reaching forward, stair climbing and lifting. Assessments were carried out by blinded research assistants at baseline and immediately post-treatment. The data were analyzed using the intention-to-treat principle. RESULTS: For 212 patients, data were available for analysis. After treatment, significant reductions were observed in functional limitations, patient's main complaints and pain intensity for all three active treatments compared to the WL. Also, the self-rated treatment effectiveness and satisfaction appeared to be higher in the three active treatments. Several physical performance tasks improved in APT and CT but not in CBT. No clinically relevant differences were found between the CT and APT, or between CT and CBT. CONCLUSION: All three active treatments were effective in comparison to no treatment, but no clinically relevant differences between the combined and the single component treatments were found