SUMMARY: We assessed the association between the rate of forearm bone loss and non-vertebral fracture. Bone loss at the distal forearm predicted fractures, independently of baseline BMD, but not independently of follow-up BMD in women. The BMD level where an individual ends up is the significant predictor of fracture risk. INTRODUCTION: Bone loss may predict fracture risk independently of baseline BMD. The influence of follow-up BMD on this prediction is unknown. The aim of this study was to assess the association between bone loss and fracture risk in both sexes in a prospective population-based study. METHODS: We included 1,208 postmenopausal women (50 to 74 years), and 1,336 men (55 to 74 years) from the Tromsø Study, who had repeated distal and ultra-distal forearm BMD measurements. Non-vertebral fractures were registered from 2001 to 2005. RESULTS: A total of 100 women and 46 men sustained fractures during the follow-up time. Independent of baseline BMD, the RR associated with distal site bone loss of 1 SD %/year was 1.23 (1.01-1.50) for low-trauma fractures (excluding hand, foot, skull & high-trauma) and 1.32 (1.07-1.62) for osteoporotic fractures (hip, wrist and shoulder). However, bone loss did not predict fracture after adjusting for follow-up BMD. The BMD level where an individual ends up became the significant predictor of fracture risk and not the rate of bone loss. Follow-up BMD at ultra-distal site was associated with low-trauma fractures in both sexes. While ultra-distal site BMD changes were not associated with fracture risk in both sexes. CONCLUSION: Bone loss at the distal forearm predicted non-vertebral fractures, independently of baseline BMD, but not independently of follow-up BMD, in women. The BMD level where an individual ends up is the significant predictor of fracture risk and not the rate of bone loss.
SUMMARY: We assessed the association between the rate of forearm bone loss and non-vertebral fracture. Bone loss at the distal forearm predicted fractures, independently of baseline BMD, but not independently of follow-up BMD in women. The BMD level where an individual ends up is the significant predictor of fracture risk. INTRODUCTION:Bone loss may predict fracture risk independently of baseline BMD. The influence of follow-up BMD on this prediction is unknown. The aim of this study was to assess the association between bone loss and fracture risk in both sexes in a prospective population-based study. METHODS: We included 1,208 postmenopausal women (50 to 74 years), and 1,336 men (55 to 74 years) from the Tromsø Study, who had repeated distal and ultra-distal forearm BMD measurements. Non-vertebral fractures were registered from 2001 to 2005. RESULTS: A total of 100 women and 46 men sustained fractures during the follow-up time. Independent of baseline BMD, the RR associated with distal site bone loss of 1 SD %/year was 1.23 (1.01-1.50) for low-trauma fractures (excluding hand, foot, skull & high-trauma) and 1.32 (1.07-1.62) for osteoporotic fractures (hip, wrist and shoulder). However, bone loss did not predict fracture after adjusting for follow-up BMD. The BMD level where an individual ends up became the significant predictor of fracture risk and not the rate of bone loss. Follow-up BMD at ultra-distal site was associated with low-trauma fractures in both sexes. While ultra-distal site BMD changes were not associated with fracture risk in both sexes. CONCLUSION:Bone loss at the distal forearm predicted non-vertebral fractures, independently of baseline BMD, but not independently of follow-up BMD, in women. The BMD level where an individual ends up is the significant predictor of fracture risk and not the rate of bone loss.
Authors: Katie L Stone; Dana G Seeley; Li-Yung Lui; Jane A Cauley; Kristine Ensrud; Warren S Browner; Michael C Nevitt; Steven R Cummings Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: K Holvik; C G Gjesdal; G S Tell; G Grimnes; B Schei; E M Apalset; S O Samuelsen; R Blomhoff; K Michaëlsson; H E Meyer Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2014-07-26 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: C Neuerburg; R Schmidmaier; S Schilling; C Kammerlander; W Böcker; W Mutschler; U Stumpf Journal: Unfallchirurg Date: 2015-11 Impact factor: 1.000
Authors: D Schray; C Neuerburg; J Stein; M Gosch; M Schieker; W Böcker; C Kammerlander Journal: Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg Date: 2016-07-25 Impact factor: 3.693
Authors: Carolyn J Crandall; Kathleen M Hovey; Christopher A Andrews; Jane A Cauley; JoAnn E Manson; Jean Wactawski-Wende; Nicole C Wright; Wenjun Li; Kristen Beavers; Jeffrey R Curtis; Meryl S LeBoff Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2015-09-14 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Frank Mo; Ineke C Neutel; Howard Morrison; Doug Hopkins; Caroline Da Silva; Ying Jiang Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2013-03-13 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Ann V Schwartz; Susan K Ewing; Anne M Porzig; Charles E McCulloch; Helaine E Resnick; Teresa A Hillier; Kristine E Ensrud; Dennis M Black; Michael C Nevitt; Steven R Cummings; Deborah E Sellmeyer Journal: Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) Date: 2013-05-30 Impact factor: 5.555