The High Prevalence of Vitamin D Insufficiency across Australian Populations Is Only Partly Explained by Season and Latitude

Background Inadequate sun exposure and dietary vitamin D intake can result in vitamin D insufficiency. However, limited data are available on actual vitamin D status and predictors in healthy individuals in different regions and by season.Methods We compared vitamin D status [25-hydroxyvitamin D; 25(OH)D] in people &lt; 60 years of age using data from cross-sectional studies of three regions across Australia: southeast Queensland (27&deg;S; 167 females and 211 males), Geelong region (38&deg;S; 561 females), and Tasmania (43&deg;S; 432 females and 298 males).Results The prevalence of vitamin D insufficiency (&le; 50 nmol/L) in women in winter/spring was 40.5% in southeast Queensland, 37.4% in the Geelong region, and 67.3% in Tasmania. Season, simulated maximum daily duration of vitamin D synthesis, and vitamin D effective daily dose each explained around 14% of the variation in 25(OH)D. Although latitude explained only 3.9% of the variation, a decrease in average 25(OH)D of 1.0 (95% confidence interval, 0.7&ndash;1.3) nmol/L for every degree increase in latitude may be clinically relevant. In some months, we found a high insufficiency or even deficiency when sun exposure protection would be recommended on the basis of the simulated ultraviolet index.Conclusion Vitamin D insufficiency is common over a wide latitude range in Australia. Season appears to be more important than latitude, but both accounted for less than one-fifth of the variation in serum 25(OH)D levels, highlighting the importance of behavioral factors. Current sun exposure guidelines do not seem to fully prevent vitamin D insufficiency, and consideration should be given to their modification or to pursuing other means to achieve vitamin D adequacy.<br /

Hip fracture risk in relation to vitamin D supplementation and serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and observational studies

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Vitamin D supplementation for fracture prevention is widespread despite conflicting interpretation of relevant randomised controlled trial (RCT) evidence. This study summarises quantitatively the current evidence from RCTs and observational studies regarding vitamin D, parathyroid hormone (PTH) and hip fracture risk.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We undertook separate meta-analyses of RCTs examining vitamin D supplementation and hip fracture, and observational studies of serum vitamin D status (25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) level), PTH and hip fracture. Results from RCTs were combined using the reported hazard ratios/relative risks (RR). Results from case-control studies were combined using the ratio of 25(OH)D and PTH measurements of hip fracture cases compared with controls. Original published studies of vitamin D, PTH and hip fracture were identified through PubMed and Web of Science databases, searches of reference lists and forward citations of key papers.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The seven eligible RCTs identified showed no significant difference in hip fracture risk in those randomised to cholecalciferol or ergocalciferol supplementation versus placebo/control (RR = 1.13[95%CI 0.98-1.29]; 801 cases), with no significant difference between trials of <800 IU/day and ≥800 IU/day. The 17 identified case-control studies found 33% lower serum 25(OH)D levels in cases compared to controls, based on 1903 cases. This difference was significantly greater in studies with population-based compared to hospital-based controls (χ²₁(heterogeneity) = 51.02, p < 0.001) and significant heterogeneity was present overall (χ²₁₆(heterogeneity) = 137.9, p < 0.001). Serum PTH levels in hip fracture cases did not differ significantly from controls, based on ten case-control studies with 905 cases (χ²₉(heterogeneity) = 149.68, p < 0.001).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Neither higher nor lower dose vitamin D supplementation prevented hip fracture. Randomised and observational data on vitamin D and hip fracture appear to differ. The reason for this is unclear; one possible explanation is uncontrolled confounding in observational studies. Post-fracture PTH levels are unrelated to hip fracture risk.</p

Mind the (treatment) gap: a global perspective on current and future strategies for prevention of fragility fractures

This narrative review considers the key challenges facing healthcare professionals and policymakers responsible for providing care to populations in relation to bone health. These challenges broadly fall into four distinct themes: (1) case finding and management of individuals at high risk of fracture, (2) public awareness of osteoporosis and fragility fractures, (3) reimbursement and health system policy and (4) epidemiology of fracture in the developing world. Findings from cohort studies, randomised controlled trials, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, in addition to current clinical guidelines, position papers and national and international audits, are summarised, with the intention of providing a prioritised approach to delivery of optimal bone health for all. Systematic approaches to case-finding individuals who are at high risk of sustaining fragility fractures are described. These include strategies and models of care intended to improve case finding for individuals who have sustained fragility fractures, those undergoing treatment with medicines which have an adverse effect on bone health and people who have diseases, whereby bone loss and, consequently, fragility fractures are a common comorbidity. Approaches to deliver primary fracture prevention in a clinically effective and cost-effective manner are also explored. Public awareness of osteoporosis is low worldwide. If older people are to be more pro-active in the management of their bone health, that needs to change. Effective disease awareness campaigns have been implemented in some countries but need to be undertaken in many more. A major need exists to improve awareness of the risk that osteoporosis poses to individuals who have initiated treatment, with the intention of improving adherence in the long term. A multisector effort is also required to support patients and their clinicians to have meaningful discussions concerning the risk-benefit ratio of osteoporosis treatment. With regard to prioritisation of fragility fracture prevention in national policy, there is much to be done. In the developing world, robust epidemiological estimates of fracture incidence are required to inform policy development. As the aging of the baby boomer generation is upon us, this review provides a comprehensive analysis of how bone health can be improved worldwide for all

Fracture in the Elderly Multidisciplinary Rehabilitation (FEMuR): study protocol for a phase II randomised feasibility study of a multidisciplinary rehabilitation package following hip fracture

Objective: To conduct a rigorous feasibility study for a future definitive parallel-group randomised controlled trial (RCT) and economic evaluation of an enhanced rehabilitation package for hip fracture.Setting: Recruitment from 3 acute hospitals in North Wales. Intervention delivery in the community.Participants: Older adults (aged ≥65) who received surgical treatment for hip fracture, lived independently prior to fracture, had mental capacity (assessed by clinical team) and received rehabilitation in the North Wales area.Intervention: Remote randomisation to usual care (control) or usual care+enhanced rehabilitation package (intervention), including six additional home-based physiotherapy sessions delivered by a physiotherapist or technical instructor, novel information workbook and goal-setting diary.Primary and secondary outcome measures: Primary: Barthel Activities of Daily Living (BADL). Secondary measures included Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living scale (NEADL), EQ-5D, ICECAP capability, a suite of self-efficacy, psychosocial and service-use measures and costs. Outcome measures were assessed at baseline and 3-month follow-up by blinded researchers.Results: 62 participants were recruited, 61 randomised (control 32; intervention 29) and 49 (79%) completed 3-month follow-up. Minimal differences occurred between the 2 groups for most outcomes, including BADL (adjusted mean difference 0.5). The intervention group showed a medium-sized improvement in the NEADL relative to the control group, with an adjusted mean difference between groups of 3.0 (Cohen's d 0.63), and a trend for greater improvement in self-efficacy and mental health, but with small effect sizes. The mean cost of delivering the intervention was £231 per patient. There was a small relative improvement in quality-adjusted life year in the intervention group. No serious adverse events relating to the intervention were reported.Conclusions: The trial methods were feasible in terms of eligibility, recruitment and retention. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the rehabilitation package should be tested in a phase III RCT

Models of Care for musculoskeletal pain conditions: Driving change to improve outcomes

No abstract available