Secular trends in hip fractures worldwide: opposing trends East versus West.

Despite wide variations in hip rates fractures worldwide, reasons for such differences are not clear. Furthermore, secular trends in the age-specific hip fracture rates are changing the world map of this devastating disease, with the highest rise projected to occur in developing countries. The aim of our investigation is to systematically characterize secular trends in hip fractures worldwide, examine new data for various ethnic groups in the United States, evidence for divergent temporal patterns, and investigate potential contributing factors for the observed change in their epidemiology. All studies retrieved through a complex Medline Ovid search between 1966 and 2013 were examined. For each selected study, we calculated the percent annual change in age-standardized hip fracture rates de-novo. Although occurring at different time points, trend breaks in hip fracture incidence occurred in most Western countries and Oceania. After a steep rise in age-adjusted rates in these regions, a decrease became evident sometimes between the mid-seventies and nineties, depending on the country. Conversely, the data is scarce in Asia and South America, with evidence for a continuous rise in hip fracture rates, with the exception of Hong-Kong and Taiwan that seem to follow Western trends. The etiologies of these secular patterns in both the developed and the developing countries have not been fully elucidated, but the impact of urbanization is at least one plausible explanation. Data presented here show close parallels between rising rates of urbanization and hip fractures across disparate geographic locations and cultures. Once the proportion of the urban population stabilized, hip fracture rates also stabilize or begin to decrease perhaps due to the influence of other factors such as birth cohort effects, changes in bone mineral density and BMI, osteoporosis medication use and/or lifestyle interventions such as smoking cessation, improvement in nutritional status and fall prevention.

Joint Official Positions of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry and International Osteoporosis Foundation on FRAX(®). Executive Summary of the 2010 Position Development Conference on Interpretation and use of FRAX® in clinical practice.

The International Society for Clinical Densitometry (ISCD) and the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) convened the FRAX(®) Position Development Conference (PDC) in Bucharest, Romania, on November 14, 2010, following a two-day joint meeting of the ISCD and IOF on the "Interpretation and Use of FRAX(®) in Clinical Practice." These three days of critical discussion and debate, led by a panel of international experts from the ISCD, IOF and dedicated task forces, have clarified a number of important issues pertaining to the interpretation and implementation of FRAX(®) in clinical practice. The Official Positions resulting from the PDC are intended to enhance the quality and clinical utility of fracture risk assessment worldwide. Since the field of skeletal assessment is still evolving rapidly, some clinically important issues addressed at the PDCs are not associated with robust medical evidence. Accordingly, some Official Positions are based largely on expert opinion. Despite limitations inherent in such a process, the ISCD and IOF believe it is important to provide clinicians and technologists with the best distillation of current knowledge in the discipline of bone densitometry and provide an important focus for the scientific community to consider. This report describes the methodology and results of the ISCD-IOF PDC dedicated to FRAX(®).

FRAX® International Task Force of the 2010 Joint International Society for Clinical Densitometry & International Osteoporosis Foundation Position Development Conference.

Osteoporosis is a serious worldwide epidemic. FRAX® is a web-based tool developed by the Sheffield WHO Collaborating Center team, that integrates clinical risk factors and femoral neck BMD and calculates the 10 year fracture probability in order to help health care professionals identify patients who need treatment. However, only 31 countries have a FRAX® calculator. In the absence of a FRAX® model for a particular country, it has been suggested to use a surrogate country for which the epidemiology of osteoporosis most closely approximates the index country. More specific recommendations for clinicians in these countries are not available. In North America, concerns have also been raised regarding the assumptions used to construct the US ethnic specific FRAX® calculators with respect to the correction factors applied to derive fracture probabilities in Blacks, Asians and Hispanics in comparison to Whites. In addition, questions were raised about calculating fracture risk in other ethnic groups e.g., Native Americans and First Canadians. The International Society for Clinical Densitometry (ISCD) in conjunction with the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) assembled an international panel of experts that ultimately developed joint Official Positions of the ISCD and IOF advising clinicians regarding FRAX® usage. As part of the process, the charge of the FRAX® International Task Force was to review and synthesize data regarding geographic and race/ethnic variability in hip fractures, non-hip osteoporotic fractures, and make recommendations about the use of FRAX® in ethnic groups and countries without a FRAX® calculator. This synthesis was presented to the expert panel and constitutes the data on which the subsequent Official Positions are predicated. A summary of the International Task Force composition and charge is presented here.

Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Santa Fe Bone Symposium, August 3-4, 2007.

The Eighth Annual Santa Fe Bone Symposium convened August 3-4, 2007, in Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA, immediately preceded by the Research Symposium in Metabolic Bone Disease and Osteoporosis Update for Endocrine Fellows, and followed by the International Society for Clinical Densitometry (ISCD) Bone Densitometry Course. The symposium faculty consists of internationally recognized experts in osteoporosis and metabolic bone disease who presented state-of-the-art research data and late-breaking developments in the fields of osteoporosis, metabolic bone disease, and assessment of skeletal health. The presentations and numerous interactive discussions that followed focused on applying what is known from clinical trials, knowledge of bone pathophysiology, and the mechanisms of action of therapeutic interventions, to making real-world patient management decisions. Topics included an update on reimbursement issues for bone density testing in the United States, a report on the 2007 ISCD Pediatric and Adult Position Development Conferences, present and future therapeutic concepts, new paradigms for fracture risk assessment and intervention thresholds, evaluation for secondary causes of osteoporosis, nonvertebral fracture risk reduction-medical evidence and clinical practice, epidemiological insights into the prevention of osteoporotic fractures, osteonecrosis of the jaw facts and fictions, and osteomalacia. Presented here are short essays based on the key clinical presentations of the 2007 Santa Fe Bone Symposium.

Precision assessment and radiation safety for dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry: position paper of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry.

Measurement of bone mineral density (BMD) by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is used to diagnose osteoporosis, assess the risk of fracture, and monitor changes in BMD over time. Because biological changes in BMD are usually small in proportion to the error inherent in the test itself, interpretation of serial BMD tests depends on knowledge of the smallest change in BMD that is beyond the range of error. This value, called the least significant change (LSC), varies according to the instrument used, the patient population being tested, the measurement site, the skill of the technologist at positioning the patient and analyzing the test, and the confidence interval used in the calculation. The precision and LSC values provided by the manufacturer cannot be applied to clinical bone densitometry centers because of the differences in the patients being tested and the technologist performing the test. Because harmful errors in clinical management may occur from incorrectly interpreting serial BMD tests, it is recommended that every DXA technologist conduct a precision assessment and calculate the LSC for each measurement site and DXA instrument used. Precision assessment provides direct benefit to patients by allowing clinicians to make clinical decisions based on genuine change or stability of BMD. The patient-care benefits of precision assessment outweigh the risk of exposure to trivial doses of ionizing radiation.

Therapeutic equivalence of alendronate 35 milligrams once weekly and 5 milligrams daily in the prevention of postmenopausal osteoporosis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of alendronate 35 mg once weekly compared with alendronate 5 mg daily in the prevention of osteoporosis. METHODS: We compared the efficacy and safety of treatment with alendronate 35 mg once weekly (n = 362) and alendronate 5 mg daily (n = 361) in a 1-year, double-blind, multicenter study of postmenopausal women (6 months or greater), aged 40-70 years, with lumbar spine and femoral neck bone mineral density T-scores between -2.5 and 1. The primary efficacy end point was the comparability of lumbar spine bone mineral density increases, defined by strict prespecified criteria. RESULTS: Mean increases in lumbar spine bone mineral density at 12 months were equivalent (difference between the alendronate 35-mg once-weekly group and the alendronate 5-mg daily group [90% confidence interval] at month 12 was -0.3% [-0.6, 0.1], well within the prespecified bounds of +/-1.0%). Bone mineral density increases at other skeletal sites and effects on bone turnover were also virtually identical for the two dosing regimens. Both treatment regimens were well tolerated, and the larger weekly unit dose was not associated with an increased frequency of upper gastrointestinal events. CONCLUSION: Alendronate 35 mg once weekly is therapeutically equivalent to alendronate 5 mg daily and provides patients with greater dosing convenience, in addition to the proven efficacy of alendronate and good tolerability.