Search

Objective: We aimed to assess whether individuals with type 2 diabetes (T2D) have increased risk of vertebral fractures (VFs) and to estimate nonvertebral fracture and mortality risk among individuals with both prevalent T2D and VFs.Research Design and Methods: A systematic PubMed search was performed to identify studies that investigated the relationship between T2D and VFs. Cohorts providing individual participant data (IPD) were also included. Estimates from published summary data and IPD cohorts were pooled in a random-effects meta-analysis. Multivariate Cox regression models were used to estimate nonvertebral fracture and mortality risk among individuals with T2D and VFs.Results: Across 15 studies comprising 852,705 men and women, individuals with T2D had lower risk of prevalent (odds ratio [OR] 0.84 [95% CI 0.74-0.95]; I2 = 0.0%; Phet = 0.54) but increased risk of incident VFs (OR 1.35 [95% CI 1.27-1.44]; I2 = 0.6%; Phet = 0.43). In the IPD cohorts (N = 19,820), risk of nonvertebral fractures was higher in those with both T2D and VFs compared with those without T2D or VFs (hazard ratio [HR] 2.42 [95% CI 1.86-3.15]) or with VFs (HR 1.73 [95% CI 1.32-2.27]) or T2D (HR 1.94 [95% CI 1.46-2.59]) alone. Individuals with both T2D and VFs had increased mortality compared with individuals without T2D and VFs (HR 2.11 [95% CI 1.72-2.59]) or with VFs alone (HR 1.84 [95% CI 1.49-2.28]) and borderline increased compared with individuals with T2D alone (HR 1.23 [95% CI 0.99-1.52]).Conclusions: Based on our findings, individuals with T2D should be systematically assessed for presence of VFs, and, as in individuals without T2D, their presence constitutes an indication to start osteoporosis treatment for the prevention of future fractures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Until recently there has been little evidence available to validate any method by which to make an accurate diagnosis of an osteoporotic vertebral fractures (OVFs) from plain radiographs. In part this reflects a lack of a completely satisfactory "gold standard," but primarily it relates to the absence of well‐designed prospective studies in this context. Historically, OVFs were recognized by evidence of macroscopic structural failure in vertebrae using the criteria applied elsewhere in the skeleton. This comprised altered alignment, fragmentation, cortical disruptions, and breaks, among other changes. However, these morphological criteria were replaced by vertebral morphometry, referring to the use of quantitative or quasi‐quantitative measurement tools for fracture diagnosis. Vertebral morphometry emerged as an understanding of and treatment for osteoporosis evolved, mainly in response to the need for expeditious assessments of large numbers of spine images for epidemiological and pharmaceutical purposes. Although most of the descriptions of such morphometric tools have stressed that they were not to be applied to clinical diagnosis with respect to individual patients, this constraint has been widely disregarded. Here we review the major attempts to develop a diagnostic strategy for OVF and describe their characteristics in adults and children. Recent evidence suggests that morphometric (quantitative; ie, based on measurement of dimensions and shape description) criteria are inferior to morphologic (qualitative; ie, based on structural integrity) vertebral damage assessment in identifying people with low bone density and at an increased risk of future fracture. Thus there is now an evidentiary basis for suggesting that morphological assessment is the preferred strategy for use in diagnosing OVF from radiographs. © 2019 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Accurate diagnosis of vertebral osteoporotic fractures is crucial for the identification of individuals at high risk of future fractures. Different methods for radiological assessment of vertebral fractures exist, but a gold standard is lacking. The aim of our study was to estimate statistical measures of agreement and prevalence of osteoporotic vertebral fractures in the population-based Rotterdam Study, across two assessment methods. The quantitative morphometry assisted by SpineAnalyzer® (QM SA) method evaluates vertebral height loss that affects vertebral shape whereas the algorithm-based qualitative (ABQ) method judges endplate integrity and includes guidelines for the differentiation of vertebral fracture and nonfracture deformities. Cross-sectional radiographs were assessed for 7582 participants aged 45 to 95 years. With QM SA, the prevalence was 14.2% (95% CI, 13.4% to 15.0%), compared to 4.0% (95% CI, 3.6% to 4.5%) with ABQ. Inter-method agreement according to kappa (κ) was 0.24. The highest agreement between methods was among females (κ = 0.31), participants age >80 years (κ = 0.40), and at the L 1 level (κ = 0.40). With ABQ, most fractures were found at the thoracolumbar junction (T 12 -L 1 ) followed by the T 7 -T 8 level, whereas with QM SA, most deformities were in the mid thoracic (T 7 -T 8 ) and lower thoracic spine (T 11 -T 12 ), with similar number of fractures in both peaks. Excluding mild QM SA deformities (grade 1 with QM) from the analysis increased, the agreement between the methods from κ = 0.24 to 0.40, whereas reexamining mild deformities based on endplate depression increased agreement from κ = 0.24 to 0.50 (p <0.001). Vertebral fracture prevalence differs significantly between QM SA and ABQ; reexamining QM mild deformities based on endplate depression would increase the agreement between methods. More widespread and consistent application of an optimal method may improve clinical care. © 2017 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research., (© 2017 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.)