Degenerative inter-vertebral disc disease osteochondrosis intervertebralis in Europe: prevalence, geographic variation and radiological correlates in men and women aged 50 and over.

Objectives.: To assess the prevalences across Europe of radiological indices of degenerative inter-vertebral disc disease (DDD); and to quantify their associations with, age, sex, physical anthropometry, areal BMD (aBMD) and change in aBMD with time. Methods.: In the population-based European Prospective Osteoporosis Study, 27 age-stratified samples of men and women from across the continent aged 50+ years had standardized lateral radiographs of the lumbar and thoracic spine to evaluate the severity of DDD, using the Kellgren-Lawrence (KL) scale. Measurements of anterior, mid-body and posterior vertebral heights on all assessed vertebrae from T4 to L4 were used to generate indices of end-plate curvature. Results.: Images from 10 132 participants (56% female, mean age 63.9 years) passed quality checks. Overall, 47% of men and women had DDD grade 3 or more in the lumbar spine and 36% in both thoracic and lumbar spine. Risk ratios for DDD grades 3 and 4, adjusted for age and anthropometric determinants, varied across a three-fold range between centres, yet prevalences were highly correlated in men and women. DDD was associated with flattened, non-ovoid inter-vertebral disc spaces. KL grade 4 and loss of inter-vertebral disc space were associated with higher spine aBMD. Conclusion.: KL grades 3 and 4 are often used clinically to categorize radiological DDD. Highly variable European prevalences of radiologically defined DDD grades 3+ along with the large effects of age may have growing and geographically unequal health and economic impacts as the population ages. These data encourage further studies of potential genetic and environmental causes

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

Strontium ranelate in the prevention of osteoporotic fractures

Osteoporosis results from a decrease in bone strength yielding increased susceptibility to fractures. Hip and spine fractures are a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the elderly population. With an increasingly ageing world population, early prevention of bone loss is essential for adequate control of this condition. Strontium ranelate (PROTELOS (R)), an oral drug for postmenopausal osteoporosis, has been reported to decrease bone resorption and to stimulate bone formation. The efficacy in reducing vertebral fractures, non-vertebral including hip fractures, and the safety of strontium ranelate has been initially demonstrated over 3 years in the SOTI (Spinal Osteoporosis Therapeutic Intervention) and TROPOS (TReatment Of Peripheral OSteoporosis) studies and confirmed recently over up to 5 years. A preplanned analysis of a sub-group of patients aged 80 years and over showed that, currently, strontium ranelate is the only antiosteoporotic agent to reduce vertebral and non-vertebral fractures in this age group

Degenerative inter-vertebral disc disease (Osteochondrosis Intervertebralis) in Europe: prevalence, geographic variation, and radiological correlates in men and women aged 50 and over

Objectives: To assess the prevalence across Europe of radiological indices of degenerative inter-vertebral disc disease (DDD); and to quantify their associations with, age, sex, physical anthropometry, areal bone mineral density (aBMD) and change in aBMD with time. Methods: In the population-based European Prospective Osteoporosis Study 27 age-stratified samples of men and women from across the continent aged 50+ had standardized lateral radiographs of the lumbar and thoracic spine to evaluate the severity of DDD, using the Kellgren-Lawrence (KL) scale. Measurements of anterior, mid-body and posterior vertebral heights on all assessed vertebrae from T4 to L4 were used to generate indices of end-plate curvature. Results: Images from 10,132 participants (56% female, mean age 63.9 years) passed quality checks. Overall, 47% of men and women had DDD grade 3 or more in the lumbar spine and 36% in both thoracic and lumbar spine. Risk ratios for DDD grades 3 and 4, adjusted for age and anthropometric determinants, varied across a three-fold range between centres, yet prevalences were highly correlated in men and women. DDD was associated with flattened, non-ovoid inter-vertebral disc spaces. KL grade 4 and loss of inter-vertebral disc space were associated with higher spine aBMD. Discussion: KL Grades 3 and 4 are often used clinically to categorise radiological DDD. Highly variable European prevalences of radiologically-defined DDD Grades 3+ along with the large effects of age may have growing and geographically unequal health and economic impacts as the population ages. These data encourage further studies of potential genetic and environmental causes

The difference between hazard and risk in the relation between bone density and fracture

The original publication can be found at www.springerlink.comThe relation between fracture risk and bone density is frequently defined in terms of a relative hazard derived from the Cox proportional hazards model. The relative hazard is a multiplicative factor representing the rise in hazard for each standard deviation fall in bone mineral density, which has a typical value of about 1.5. It is not generally appreciated that this hazard may only be equated with absolute risk when risk is very low; at higher risk and over long periods, it is inappropriate to apply a multiplicative factor to absolute risk because risk has a range of 0-1 and cannot exceed unity. Here, we show how “hazard” can be converted to risk and how misleading the current practice of equating relative hazards with relative risks can be.B. E. Christopher Nordin, Peter A. Baghurst and Andrew Metcalf