Timing of Subsequent Fractures after an Initial Fracture

A prior fracture is a well-documented risk factor for a subsequent fracture and it doubles the risk of subsequent fractures. Few studies have investigated the time that elapses between the initial and subsequent fracture. These studies show that the subsequent fracture risk is not constant, but fluctuates over time. The risk of subsequent vertebral, hip, and nonvertebral non-hip fractures is highest immediately after initial hip, clinical, and radiographic vertebral fractures and nonvertebral fractures and declines afterward, regardless of gender, age, and initial fracture location. These studies indicate the need for early action after an initial fracture with medical interventions that have an effect within a short term to reduce the preventable risks of subsequent fractures

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

Calibration of FRAX ® 3.1 to the Dutch population with data on the epidemiology of hip fractures

SummaryThe FRAX tool has been calibrated to the entire Dutch population, using nationwide (hip) fracture incidence rates and mortality statistics from the Netherlands. Data used for the Dutch model are described in this paper.IntroductionRisk communication and decision making about whether or not to treat with anti-osteoporotic drugs with the use of T-scores are often unclear for patients. The recently developed FRAX models use easily obtainable clinical risk factors to estimate an individual's 10-year probability of a major osteoporotic fracture and hip fracture that is useful for risk communication and subsequent decision making in clinical practice. As of July 1, 2010, the tool has been calibrated to the total Dutch population. This paper describes the data used to develop the current Dutch FRAX model and illustrates its features compared to other countries.MethodsAge- and sex-stratified hip fracture incidence rates (LMR database) and mortality rates (Dutch national mortality statistics) for 2004 and 2005 were extracted from Dutch nationwide databases (patients aged 50+ years). For other major fractures, Dutch incidence rates were imputed, using Swedish ratios for hip to osteoporotic fracture (upper arm, wrist, hip, and clinically symptomatic vertebral) probabilities (age- and gender-stratified). The FRAX tool takes into account age, sex, body mass index (BMI), presence of clinical risk factors, and bone mineral density (BMD).ResultsFracture incidence rates increased with increasing age: for hip fracture, incidence rates were lowest among Dutch patients aged 50–54 years (per 10,000 inhabitants: 2.3 for men, 2.1 for women) and highest among the oldest subjects (95–99 years; 169 of 10,000 for men, 267 of 10,000 for women). Ten-year probability of hip or major osteoporotic fracture was increased in patients with a clinical risk factor, lower BMI, female gender, a higher age, and a decreased BMD T-score. Parental hip fracture accounted for the greatest increase in 10-year fracture probability.ConclusionThe Dutch FRAX tool is the first fracture prediction model that has been calibrated to the total Dutch population, using nationwide incidence rates for hip fracture and mortality rates. It is based on the original FRAX methodology, which has been externally validated in several independent cohorts. Despite some limitations, the strengths make the Dutch FRAX tool a good candidate for implementation into clinical practice

BONE: New guidelines for multistep fracture prevention in men

Study of the efficacy of fracture prevention approaches has been neglected in men, in comparison with women. Guidelines from the Endocrine Society for the management of osteoporosis and fracture risk in men are thus welcome, but further research into fracture prevention in men is required