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

Treatment of osteoporosis in an older home care population

BACKGROUND: Previous research indicates that many patients with fractures indicative of underlying osteoporosis are not receiving appropriate diagnostic follow-up and therapy. We assessed osteoporosis treatment coverage in older home care clients with a diagnosis of osteoporosis and/or prevalent fracture. METHODS: Subjects included 330 home care clients, aged 65+, participating in a longitudinal study of medication adherence and health-related outcomes. Data on clients' demographic, health and functional status and service utilization patterns were collected using the Minimum Data Set for Home Care (MDS-HC). A medication review included prescribed and over-the-counter medications taken in the past 7 days. Criteria for indications for osteoporosis therapy included diagnosis of osteoporosis or a recent fracture. Coverage for treatment was examined for anti-osteoporotic therapies approved for use in 2000. RESULTS: Of the 330 home care clients, 78 (24%) had a diagnosis of osteoporosis (n = 47) and/or had sustained a recent fracture (n = 34). Drug data were available for 77/78 subjects. Among the subjects with osteoporosis or a recent fracture, 45.5% were receiving treatment for osteoporosis; 14% were receiving only calcium and vitamin D, and an additional 31% were receiving drug therapy (bisphosphonate or hormone replacement therapy). The remaining 54.5% of subjects were not receiving any approved osteoporosis therapy. CONCLUSIONS: The high prevalence of undertreatment among a population of older adults with relatively high access to health care services raises concern regarding the adequacy of diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis in the community

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

The association between iliocostal distance and the number of vertebral and non-vertebral fractures in women and men registered in the Canadian Database For Osteoporosis and Osteopenia (CANDOO)

BACKGROUND: The identification of new methods of evaluating patients with osteoporotic fracture should focus on their usefulness in clinical situations such that they are easily measured and applicable to all patients. Thus, the purpose of this study was to examine the association between iliocostal distance and vertebral and non-vertebral fractures in patients seen in a clinical setting. METHODS: Patient data were obtained from the Canadian Database of Osteoporosis and Osteopenia (CANDOO). A total of 549 patients including 508 women and 41 men participated in this cross-sectional study. There were 142 women and 18 men with prevalent vertebral fractures, and 185 women and 21 men with prevalent non-vertebral fractures. RESULTS: In women multivariable regression analysis showed that iliocostal distance was negatively associated with the number of vertebral fractures (-0.18, CI: -0.27, -0.09; adjusted for bone mineral density at the Ward's triangle, epilepsy, cerebrovascular disease, inflammatory bowel disease, etidronate use, and calcium supplement use) and for the number of non-vertebral fractures (-0.09, CI: -0.15, -0.03; adjusted for bone mineral density at the trochanter, cerebrovascular disease, inflammatory bowel disease, and etidronate use). However, in men, multivariable regression analysis did not demonstrate a significant association between iliocostal distance and the number of vertebral and non-vertebral fractures. CONCLUSIONS: The examination of iliocostal distance may be a useful clinical tool for assessment of the possibility of vertebral fractures. The identification of high-risk patients is important to effectively use the growing number of available osteoporosis therapies

Capture the fracture: a best practice framework and global campaign to break the fragility fracture cycle

Summary The International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) Capture the Fracture Campaign aims to support implementation of Fracture Liaison Services (FLS) throughout the world. Introduction FLS have been shown to close the ubiquitous secondary fracture prevention care gap, ensuring that fragility fracture sufferers receive appropriate assessment and intervention to reduce future fracture risk. Methods Capture the Fracture has developed internationally endorsed standards for best practice, will facilitate change at the national level to drive adoption of FLS and increase awareness of the challenges and opportunities presented by secondary fracture prevention to key stakeholders. The Best Practice Framework (BPF) sets an international benchmark for FLS, which defines essential and aspirational elements of service delivery. Results The BPF has been reviewed by leading experts from many countries and subject to beta-testing to ensure that it is internationally relevant and fit-for-purpose. The BPF will also serve as a measurement tool for IOF to award ‘Capture the Fracture Best Practice Recognition’ to celebrate successful FLS worldwide and drive service development in areas of unmet need. The Capture the Fracture website will provide a suite of resources related to FLS and secondary fracture prevention, which will be updated as new materials become available. A mentoring programme will enable those in the early stages of development of FLS to learn from colleagues elsewhere that have achieved Best Practice Recognition. A grant programme is in development to aid clinical systems which require financial assistance to establish FLS in their localities. Conclusion Nearly half a billion people will reach retirement age during the next 20 years. IOF has developed Capture the Fracture because this is the single most important thing that can be done to directly improve patient care, of both women and men, and reduce the spiralling fracture-related care costs worldwide.</p

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

Bone mineral density measurement and osteoporosis treatment after a fragility fracture in older adults: regional variation and determinants of use in Quebec

BACKGROUND: Osteoporosis (OP) is a skeletal disorder characterized by reduced bone strength and predisposition to increased risk of fracture, with consequent increased risk of morbidity and mortality. It is therefore an important public health problem. International and Canadian associations have issued clinical guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of OP. In this study, we identified potential predictors of bone mineral density (BMD) testing and OP treatment, which include place of residence. METHODS: Our study was a retrospective population-based cohort study using data from the Quebec Health Insurance Board. The studied population consisted of all individuals 65 years and older for whom a physician claimed a consultation for a low velocity vertebral, hip, wrist, or humerus fracture in 1999 and 2000. Individuals were considered to have undergone BMD testing if there was a claim for such a procedure within two years following a fracture. They were considered to have received an OP treatment if there was at least one claim to Quebec's health insurance plan (RAMQ) for OP treatment within one year following a fracture. We performed descriptive analyses and logistic regressions by gender. Predictors included age, site of fracture, social status, comorbidity index, prior BMD testing, prior OP treatment, long-term glucocorticoid use, and physical distance to BMD device. RESULTS: The cohort, 77% of which was female, consisted of 25,852 individuals with fragility fractures. BMD testing and OP treatment rates were low and gender dependent (BMD: men 4.6%; women 13.1%; OP treatment: men 9.9%; women 29.7%). There was an obvious regional variation, particularly in BMD testing, ranging from 0 to 16%. Logistic regressions demonstrate that individuals living in long term care facilities received less BMD testing. Patients who had suffered from vertebral fractures, or who had received prior OP treatment or BMD testing, regardless of gender, subsequently received more BMD testing and OP treatments. Furthermore, increasing the distance between a patient's residence and BMD facility precluded likelihood of BMD testing. CONCLUSION: BMD testing rate was extremely low but not completely explained by reduced physical access; gender, age, social status, prior BMD testing and OP treatment were all important predictors for future BMD testing and OP treatment

Contralateral hip fractures and other osteoporosis-related fractures in hip fracture patients: Incidence and risk factors. An observational cohort study of 1,229 patients

Purpose: To report risk factors, 1-year and overall risk for a contralateral hip and other osteoporosis-related fractures in a hip fracture population. Methods: An observational study on 1,229 consecutive patients of 50 years and older, who sustained a hip fracture between January 2005 and June 2009. Fractures were scored retrospectively for 2005-2008 and prospectively for 2008-2009. Rates of a contralateral hip and other osteoporosis- related fractures were compared between patients with and without a history of a fracture. Previous fractures, gender, age and ASA classification were analysed as possible risk factors. Results: The absolute risk for a contralateral hip fracture was 13.8 %, for one or more osteoporosis-related fracture( s) 28.6 %. First-, second- and third-year risk for a second hip fracture was 2, 1 and 0 %. Median (IQR) interval between both hip fractures was 18.5 (26.6) months. One-year incidence of other fractures was 6 %. Only age was a risk factor for a contralateral hip fracture, hazard ratio (HR) 1.02 (1.006-1.042, p = 0.008). Patients with a history of a fracture (33.1 %) did not have a higher incidence of fractures during follow-up (16.7 %) than patients without fractures in their history (14 %). HR for a contralateral hip fracture for the fracture versus the non-fracture group was 1.29 (0.75-2.23, p = 0.360). Conclusion: The absolute risk of a contralateral hip fracture after a hip fracture is 13.8 %, the 1-year risk was 2 %, with a short interval between the 2 hip fractures. Age was a risk factor for sustaining a contralateral hip fracture; a fracture in history was not

Reduction in Fracture Rate and Back Pain and Increased Quality of Life in Postmenopausal Women Treated with Teriparatide: 18-Month Data from the European Forsteo Observational Study (EFOS)

The European Forsteo Observational Study was designed to examine the effectiveness of teriparatide in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis treated for up to 18 months in normal clinical practice in eight European countries. The incidence of clinical vertebral and nonvertebral fragility fractures, back pain, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL, EQ-5D) were assessed. Spontaneous reports of adverse events were collected. All 1,648 enrolled women were teriparatide treatment-naive, 91.0% of them had previously received other anti-osteoporosis drugs, and 72.8% completed the 18-month study. A total of 168 incident clinical fractures were sustained by 138 (8.8%) women (821 fractures/10,000 patient-years). A 47% decrease in the odds of fracture in the last 6-month period compared to the first 6-month period was observed (P < 0.005). Mean back pain VAS was reduced by 25.8 mm at end point (P < 0.001). Mean change from baseline in EQ-VAS was 13 mm by 18 months. The largest improvements were reported in the EQ-5D subdomains of usual activities and pain/discomfort. There were 365 adverse events spontaneously reported, of which 48.0% were considered related to teriparatide; adverse events were the reason for discontinuation for 79 (5.8%) patients. In conclusion, postmenopausal women with severe osteoporosis who were prescribed teriparatide in standard clinical practice had a significant reduction in the incidence of fragility fractures and a reduction in back pain over an 18-month treatment period. This was associated with a clinically significant improvement in HRQoL. Safety was consistent with current prescribing information. These results should be interpreted in the context of the open-label, noncontrolled design of the study

Longitudinal analysis of vertebral fracture and BMD in a Canadian cohort of adult cystic fibrosis patients

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Vertebral fractures in patients with cystic fibrosis (CF) may contribute to an accelerated decline in lung function and can be a contraindication to lung transplantation. In this study, we examined longitudinal change in bone mineral density (BMD) and the prevalence of vertebral fractures in adult CF patients, without lung-transplant, attending a Canadian specialty clinic.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Retrospective chart review of all patients attending an Adult Cystic Fibrosis Clinic at Hamilton Health Sciences in Hamilton, Canada. Forty-nine of 56 adults met inclusion criteria. Chest radiographs were graded by consensus approach using Genant's semi-quantitative method to identify and grade fractured vertebrae. Dual x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans were also reviewed.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The mean age of the cohort was 25.2 years (SD 9.4), 43% were male. The mean body mass index (BMI) was 19.8 (2.8) for males and 21.7 (5.1) for females. At baseline, the rate of at least one vertebral fracture was 16.3%; rising to 21.3% (prevalent and incident) after a 3-year follow-up. The mean BMD T-or Z-scores at baseline were -0.80 (SD 1.1) at the lumbar spine, -0.57 (SD 0.97) at the proximal femur, and -0.71 (SD 1.1) at the whole body. Over approximately 4-years, the mean percent change in BMD was -1.93% at the proximal femur and -0.73% at the lumbar spine.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Approximately one in five CF patients demonstrated at least one or more vertebral fractures. Moderate declines in BMD were observed. Given the high rate of vertebral fractures noted in this cohort of adult CF patients, and the negative impact they have on compromised lung functioning, regular screening for vertebral fractures should be considered on routine chest radiographs.</p