The prevalence of vertebral fracture amongst patients presenting with non-vertebral fractures

INTRODUCTION: Despite vertebral fracture being a significant risk factor for further fracture, vertebral fractures are often unrecognised. A study was therefore conducted to determine the proportion of patients presenting with a non-vertebral fracture who also have an unrecognised vertebral fracture. METHODS: Prospective study of patients presenting with a non-vertebral fracture in South Glasgow who underwent DXA evaluation with vertebral morphometry (MXA) from DV5/6 to LV4/5. Vertebral deformities (consistent with fracture) were identified by direct visualisation using the Genant semi-quantitative grading scale. RESULTS: Data were available for 337 patients presenting with low trauma non-vertebral fracture; 261 were female. Of all patients, 10.4% were aged 50–64 years, 53.2% were aged 65–74 years and 36.2% were aged 75 years or over. According to WHO definitions, 35.0% of patients had normal lumbar spine BMD (T-score −1 or above), 37.4% were osteopenic (T-score −1.1 to −2.4) and 27.6% osteoporotic (T-score −2.5 or lower). Humerus (n=103, 31%), radius–ulna (n=90, 27%) and hand/foot (n=53, 16%) were the most common fractures. For 72% of patients (n=241) the presenting fracture was the first low trauma fracture to come to clinical attention. The overall prevalence of vertebral deformity established by MXA was 25% (n=83); 45% (n=37) of patients with vertebral deformity had deformities of more than one vertebra. Of the patients with vertebral deformity and readable scans for grading, 72.5% (58/80) had deformities of grade 2 or 3. Patients presenting with hip fracture, or spine T-score ≤−2.5, or low BMI, or with more than one prior non-vertebral fracture were all significantly more likely to have evidence of a prevalent vertebral deformity (p<0.05). However, 19.8% of patients with an osteopenic T-score had a vertebral deformity (48% of which were multiple), and 16.1% of patients with a normal T-score had a vertebral deformity (26.3% of which were multiple). Following non-vertebral fracture, some guidelines suggest that anti-resorptive therapy should be reserved for patients with DXA-proven osteoporosis. However, patients who have one or more prior vertebral fractures (prevalent at the time of their non-vertebral fracture) would also become candidates for anti-resorptive therapy—which would have not been the case had their vertebral fracture status not been known. Overall in this study, 8.9% of patients are likely to have had a change in management by virtue of their underlying vertebral deformity status. In other words, 11 patients who present with a non-vertebral fracture would need to undergo vertebral morphometry in order to identify one patient who ought to be managed differently. CONCLUSIONS: Our results support the recommendation to perform vertebral morphometry in patients who are referred for DXA after experiencing a non-vertebral fracture. Treatment decisions will then better reflect any given patient’s future absolute fracture risk. The 'Number Needed to Screen' if vertebral morphometry is used in this way would be seven to identify one patient with vertebral deformity, and 14 to identify one patient with two or more vertebral deformities. Although carrying out MXA will increase radiation exposure for the patient, this increased exposure is significantly less than would be obtained if X-rays of the dorso-lumbar spine were obtained

Riesgo de fractura en la cohorte FRODOS. Estudio comparativo de la aplicación del modelo FRAX® español, francés, inglés y sueco

Fundamento y objetivos: Los estudios sobre validación del FRAX® en España muestran una infravaloración del riesgo de fracturas osteoporóticas principales (FOP) y predicciones más ajustadas para las fracturas femorales (FF). Se ha sugerido que este algoritmo podría mejorarse con datos más concretos de la epidemiología de las fracturas en España. Los objetivos de este trabajo fueron describir el riesgo basal de fracturas según el modelo español FRAX® en las participantes de la cohorte FRODOS y comparar estos datos con la aplicación de otros modelos europeos FRAX® en la misma cohorte.Métodos: Estudio observacional en una cohorte poblacional de 2.968 mujeres postmenopáusicas (59-70 años); se utilizó la versión online desktop de FRAX® para múltiples entradas de datos para calcular los riesgos de FOP y FF a 10 años aplicando los modelos español, francés, inglés y sueco en la misma cohorte.Resultados: El riesgo más bajo correspondió al modelo español: FF: 1,22% (36 fracturas esperadas) y FOP: 5,28% (n=197), mientras que el riesgo más alto fue el del modelo sueco: FF: 3,15% y FOP 13,51% (n=401). Los modelos de Francia y el Reino Unido presentaron valores intermedios. Conclusión: En una cohorte española de 2.968 mujeres postmenopáusicas el riesgo porcentual de fracturas esperadas a 10 años se incrementa con un gradiente de latitud sur-norte al aplicar diferentes modelos FRAX® europeos. Los resultados de incidencia de fracturas en la cohorte FRODOS previsto para los próximos años, confirmarán o no la utilidad del presente análisis

Riesgo de fractura en la cohorte FRODOS. Estudio comparativo de la aplicación del modelo FRAX® español, francés, inglés y sueco.

Background and objectives: Studies on the validation of FRAX® in Spain show an underestimation of the risk of principal osteoporotic fractures (POFs) and more accurate predictions for femoral fractures (FF). It has been suggested that this algorithm may be improved with more specific data on the epidemiology of these fractures in Spain. The objectives of this work were to describe the baseline risk of fractures according to the Spanish FRAX® model in the participants of the FRODOS cohort, and to compare these data with the application of other European models of FRAX® in the same cohort. Methods: Observational study in a population cohort of 2,968 postmenopausal women (59-70 years of age). The online desktop version of FRAX® was used for multiple data entries to calculate the risk of POFs and FFs at 10 years using the Spanish, French, British and Swedish models in the same cohort. Results: The lowest risk corresponded to the Spanish model: FF: 1.22% (36 expected fractures) and POF: 5.28% (n=197), while the highest risk was for the Swedish model: FF: 3.15% and POF 13.51% (n=401). The models for France and the United Kingdom had intermediate values. Conclusion: In a Spanish cohort of 2,968 postmenopausal women the percentage risk of expected fractures at 10 years increased following a south-north latitude gradient when different European FRAX® models were applied. The results for the incidence of fractures on the FRODOS cohort predicted for the coming years will confirm, or not, the usefulness of this analysis.Fundamento y objetivos: Los estudios sobre validación del FRAX® en España muestran una infravaloración del riesgo de fracturas osteoporóticas principales (FOP) y predicciones más ajustadas para las fracturas femorales (FF). Se ha sugerido que este algoritmo podría mejorarse con datos más concretos de la epidemiología de las fracturas en España. Los objetivos de este trabajo fueron describir el riesgo basal de fracturas según el modelo español FRAX® en las participantes de la cohorte FRODOS y comparar estos datos con la aplicación de otros modelos europeos FRAX® en la misma cohorte. Métodos: Estudio observacional en una cohorte poblacional de 2.968 mujeres postmenopáusicas (59-70 años); se utilizó la versión online desktop de FRAX® para múltiples entradas de datos para calcular los riesgos de FOP y FF a 10 años aplicando los modelos español, francés, inglés y sueco en la misma cohorte. Resultados: El riesgo más bajo correspondió al modelo español: FF: 1,22% (36 fracturas esperadas) y FOP: 5,28% (n=197), mientras que el riesgo más alto fue el del modelo sueco: FF: 3,15% y FOP 13,51% (n=401). Los modelos de Francia y el Reino Unido presentaron valores intermedios. Conclusión: En una cohorte española de 2.968 mujeres postmenopáusicas el riesgo porcentual de fracturas esperadas a 10 años se incrementa con un gradiente de latitud sur-norte al aplicar diferentes modelos FRAX® europeos. Los resultados de incidencia de fracturas en la cohorte FRODOS previsto para los próximos años, confirmarán o no la utilidad del presente análisis

The extracellular signal-regulated kinase cascade is required for NMDA receptor-independent LTP in area CA1 but not area CA3 of the hippocampus

Activation of extracellular signal-regulated kinase (ERK) has been shown to be necessary for NMDA receptor-dependent long-term potentiation (LTP). We studied the role of ERK in three forms of NMDA receptor-independent LTP: LTP induced by very high-frequency stimulation (200 Hz-LTP), LTP induced by the K(+) channel blocker tetraethylammonium (TEA) (TEA-LTP), and mossy fiber (MF) LTP (MF-LTP). We found that ERK was activated in area CA1 after the induction of both 200 Hz-LTP and TEA-LTP and that this activation required the influx of Ca(2+) through voltage-gated Ca(2+) channels. Inhibition of the ERK signaling cascade with either PD 098059 or U0126 prevented the induction of both 200 Hz-LTP and TEA-LTP in area CA1. In contrast, neither PD 098059 nor U0126 prevented MF-LTP in area CA3 induced by either brief or long trains of high-frequency stimulation. U0126 also did not prevent forskolin-induced potentiation in area CA3. However, incubation of slices with forskolin, an activator of the cAMP-dependent protein kinase (PKA) cascade, did result in increases in active ERK and cAMP response element-binding protein (CREB) phosphorylation in area CA3. The forskolin-induced increase in active ERK was inhibited by U0126, whereas the increase in CREB phosphorylation was not, which suggests that in area CA3 the PKA cascade is not coupled to CREB phosphorylation via ERK. Overall, our observations indicate that activation of the ERK signaling cascade is necessary for NMDA receptor-independent LTP in area CA1 but not in area CA3 and suggest a divergence in the signaling cascades underlying NMDA receptor-independent LTP in these hippocampal subregions