Search

Background Accurate estimation of the imminent fragility fracture risk currently represents a challenging task. The novel Fragility Score (FS) parameter, obtained during a Radiofrequency Echographic Multi Spectrometry (REMS) scan of lumbar or femoral regions, has been developed for the non-ionizing estimation of skeletal fragility. Aims The aim of this study was to assess the performance of FS in the early identification of patients at risk for incident fragility fractures with respect to bone mineral density (BMD) measurements. Methods Data from 1989 Caucasians of both genders were analysed and the incidence of fractures was assessed during a follow-up period up to 5 years. The diagnostic performance of FS to discriminate between patients with and without incident fragility fracture in comparison to that of the BMD T-scores measured by both Dual X-ray Absorptiometry (DXA) and REMS was assessed through ROC analysis. Results Concerning the prediction of generic osteoporotic fractures, FS provided AUC = 0.811 for women and AUC = 0.780 for men, which resulted in AUC = 0.715 and AUC = 0.758, respectively, when adjusted for age and body mass index (BMI). For the prediction of hip fractures, the corresponding values were AUC = 0.780 for women and AUC = 0.809 for men, which became AUC = 0.735 and AUC = 0.758, respectively, after age- and BMI-adjustment. Overall, FS showed the highest prediction ability for any considered fracture type in both genders, resulting always being significantly higher than either T-scores, whose AUC values were in the range 0.472–0.709. Conclusion FS displayed a superior performance in fracture prediction, representing a valuable diagnostic tool to accurately detect a short-term fracture risk.

Background Patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) have an increased or normal BMD; however fragility fractures represent one of the most important complications of T2DM. Aims This study aimed to evaluate whether the use of the Radiofrequency Echographic multi spectrometry (REMS) technique may improve the identification of osteoporosis in T2DM patients. Methods In a cohort of 90 consecutive postmenopausal elderly (70.5 ± 7.6 years) women with T2DM and in 90 healthy controls we measured BMD at the lumbar spine (LS-BMD), at femoral neck (FN-BMD) and total hip (TH-BMD) using a dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry device; moreover, REMS scans were also carried out at the same axial sites. Results DXA measurements were all higher in T2DM than in non-T2DM women; instead, all REMS measurements were lower in T2DM than in non T2DM women. Moreover, the percentage of T2DM women classified as “osteoporotic”, on the basis of BMD by REMS was markedly higher with respect to those classified by DXA (47.0% vs 28.0%, respectively). On the contrary, the percentage of T2DM women classified as osteopenic or normal by DXA was higher with respect to that by REMS (48.8% and 23.2% vs 38.6% and 14.5%, respectively). T2DM women with fragility fractures presented lower values of both BMD-LS by DXA and BMD-LS by REMS with respect to those without fractures; however, the difference was significant only for BMD-LS by REMS (p Conclusions Our data suggest that REMS technology may represent a useful approach to enhance the diagnosis of osteoporosis in patients with T2DM.

Background At present, although cholecalciferol represents the form of vitamin D of choice for the treatment of vitamin D deficiency, there is a growing interest in calcifediol. Aims This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and the safety of two different daily doses of calcifediol. Methods Fifty osteopenic/osteoporotic women with serum levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25OHD) between 10 and 20 ng/ml were randomized to a 6-month treatment with oral calcifediol 20 µg/day (n = 25) or oral calcifediol 30 µg/day (n = 25). In all, we measured the time course of the levels of 25OHD and other biochemical parameters. Moreover, we evaluated handgrip strength and serum levels of myostatin. Results The peak increase in 25OHD levels was reached after 90 days of treatment in group 1 (59.3 ng/ml) and after only 60 days in group 2 (72.3 ng/ml); thereafter in both groups, the levels of 25OHD showed a tendency towards stabilization. After 30 days, all the patients treated with 30 µg/day had values of 25OHD > 30 ng/ml. Handgrip strength showed a modest but progressive increase which reached the statistical significance in the 30 µg/day group. This latter group also presented a modest and non-significant decrease in serum levels of myostatin. Conclusions Calcifediol is able to rapidly normalize the vitamin D deficiency, and the 30 µg daily dosage could be suggested in those patients who need to rapidly reach optimal 25OHD levels. Moreover, the 6-month treatment with calcifediol at a dose of 30 µg results in a modest but significant increase in upper limb strength.

Purpose: Literature data indicate that the proportion of patients with recent hip fracture who receive a prescription for anti-osteoporotic drugs is low and does not seem to increase over time. This study aimed to obtain data on the prescription for anti-osteoporotic drugs in Italian patients discharged after a recent hip fracture and to assess which variables could have influenced the decision for prescribing osteoporosis medication. Methods: A total of four Italian centres located in four different geographical areas (Siena, Verona, Naples and Palermo) participated in this retrospective study. In each centre, experienced clinicians gathered the data of up to 200 consecutive patients discharged after a recent low-trauma hip fracture. The analysis was carried out on 697 patients (540 women and 157 men; mean age 81.9 ± 8.6 years). Results: The percentage of patients who were receiving any type of treatment for osteoporosis before the hip fracture was 8.8% (ranging from 2.4% in Naples to 17.4% in Verona). After the index hip fracture, only 23.2% of patients (namely 10.5% of men and 27.2% of women) received prescription for any pharmacological treatments for osteoporosis. Both female gender and previous use of medications for osteoporosis were positively associated with the likelihood of receiving prescription for anti-osteoporotic treatment at discharge. Conclusions: This study showed that less than 25% of the elderly Italian patients discharged after a hip fracture received a prescription for any type of treatment for osteoporosis and highlights the urgent need for implementing new strategies in the management of hip fracture patients. Purpose: Literature data indicate that the proportion of patients with recent hip fracture who receive a prescription for anti-osteoporotic drugs is low and does not seem to increase over time. This study aimed to obtain data on the prescription for anti-osteoporotic drugs in Italian patients discharged after a recent hip fracture and to assess which variables could have influenced the decision for prescribing osteoporosis medication. Methods: A total of four Italian centres located in four different geographical areas (Siena, Verona, Naples and Palermo) participated in this retrospective study. In each centre, experienced clinicians gathered the data of up to 200 consecutive patients discharged after a recent low-trauma hip fracture. The analysis was carried out on 697 patients (540 women and 157 men; mean age 81.9 ± 8.6 years). Results: The percentage of patients who were receiving any type of treatment for osteoporosis before the hip fracture was 8.8% (ranging from 2.4% in Naples to 17.4% in Verona). After the index hip fracture, only 23.2% of patients (namely 10.5% of men and 27.2% of women) received prescription for any pharmacological treatments for osteoporosis. Both female gender and previous use of medications for osteoporosis were positively associated with the likelihood of receiving prescription for anti-osteoporotic treatment at discharge. Conclusions: This study showed that less than 25% of the elderly Italian patients discharged after a hip fracture received a prescription for any type of treatment for osteoporosis and highlights the urgent need for implementing new strategies in the management of hip fracture patients.

A positive history of fractures in older patients with hip fracture is common. We determined the risk factors associated with a positive history of fractures and the profile of care in hip fracture patients. In the Break Study, we enrolled 1249 women aged ≥60 years, seeking care for a hip fracture. Baseline information included age, body mass index, lifestyle (smoking habit, alcohol consumption), patient's history of fracture after the age of 50 years, family history of fragility fracture and health status (presence of comorbidity, use of specific drugs, pre-fracture walking ability, type of fracture, time to surgery, type of surgery, osteoporosis treatment). In the multivariable model age, smoking, family history, treatment with antiplatelet, anticoagulants and anticonvulsants, were significant predictors of a positive history of fracture. More than 70% of patients underwent surgery more than 48 hours after admission. About 50% were discharged with a treatment for osteoporosis, but more than 30% only with calcium and vitamin D. In conclusion, factors associated with a positive history of fracture are the traditional risk factors, suggesting that they continue to have a negative impact on health even at older ages. Selected drugs, such as antiplatelet and anticoagulants, deserve further consideration as significant factors associated with fractures. Given that delay in surgery is a major cause of mortality and disability, while treatment for osteoporosis decreases significantly the risk of recurrent fractures and disability, interventions to modify these patterns of care are urgently needed. ©2011, Editrice Kurtis.

Diabetes mellitus (DM) and osteoporotic fractures are two of the most important causes of mortality and morbidity in older subjects. Recent data report a close association between fragility fracture risk and DM of both type 1 (DM1) and type 2 (DM2). However, DM1 is associated with reduced bone mineral density (BMD), whereas patients with DM2 generally have normal or increased BMD. This apparent paradox may be explained by the fact that, at a given level of BMD, diabetic patients present lower bone quality with respect to non-diabetics, as shown by several studies reporting that diabetes may affect bone tissue by means of various mechanisms, including hyperinsulinemia, deposition of advanced glycosylation endproducts (AGEs) in collagen, reduced serum levels of IGF-1, hypercalciuria, renal failure, microangiopathy and inflammation. In addition, the propensity to fall and several comorbidities may further explain the higher fracture incidence in DM patients with respect to the general population. It is reasonable to expect that close metabolic control of diabetes may improve bone status, although its effect on reduction of fracture risk has not yet been demonstrated. However, metformin has a direct effect on bone tissue by reducing AGE accumulation, whereas insulin acts directly on osteoclast activity, and thiazolidinediones (TZD) may have a negative effect by switching mesenchymal progenitor cells to adipose rather than bone tissue. New prospects include the incretins, a class of antidiabetic drugs which may play a role linking nutrition and bone metabolism. Better knowledge on how diabetes and its treatments influence bone tissue may lie at the basis of effective prevention of bone fracture in diabetic patients. Thus, close glycemic control, adequate intake of calcium and vitamin D, screening for low BMD, and prevention and treatment of diabetic complications are key elements in the management of osteoporosis in both DM1 and DM2. Attention should be paid to treating diabetes with TZD in women with DM2, particularly if elderly. Lastly, patients with osteoporosis and diabetes should be offered the same pharmacological treatments as non-diabetics, although specific trials on the effects of anti-osteoporotic drugs in the diabetic population are lacking.

The patients’ adherence to osteoporosis treatments is low. In our study population a history of osteoporotic fractures was associated to better compliance and persistence; however, a 12-month randomized study carried out on 816 osteoporotic women showed that providing the patients with their individual fracture risk information did not prove effective. Several drugs are currently available for the treatment of osteoporosis, but the patients’ compliance and persistence with these treatments are low. This study aimed to both analyze the adherence to oral osteoporosis medications among Italian osteoporotic patients (cross-sectional study) and evaluate if providing patients with their individual fracture risk information may improve compliance and persistence (prospective study). A total of 3379 osteoporotic patients referred as outpatients for a visit 1 year after receiving a prescription of oral osteoporosis medications for the first time, were enrolled for the retrospective study. Moreover, 816 postmenopausal women receiving an oral prescription for osteoporosis for the first time, were randomized into two groups: group 1 (managed according to standard clinical practice) and group 2 (managed with greater patient involvement and information on the individual risk of major osteoporotic fractures calculated by DeFRA algorithm). In the retrospective study, a history of osteoporotic fractures, the frequency of drug administration and a condition of being overweight/obese had a significant influence on both compliance and persistence. Of the 816 patients enrolled in the longitudinal study, 731 (374 of group 1 and 357 of group 2) attended the 1 year follow-up visit. The percentage of women with high compliance or persistence was greater in group 2 (64.2 vs. 58.1 % and 66.8 vs. 62.6 %, respectively), but without reaching any statistical significance. Although providing the patients with their individual fracture risk information was not statistically effective, further studies on additional interventions able to improve the patients’ perceived risk of fracture are warranted.