K L Holloway1, M J Henry2, S L Brennan-Olsen3,4,5,6, G Bucki-Smith3, G C Nicholson4,7, S Korn2, K M Sanders4,5,6, J A Pasco3,2,5, M A Kotowicz3,2,5. 1. Epi-Centre for Healthy Ageing (ECHA), IMPACT Strategic Research Centre, Kitchener House (Barwon Health), PO Box 281, Geelong, VIC, 3220, Australia. khollo@barwonhealth.org.au. 2. Barwon Health, Ryrie Street, Geelong, VIC, Australia. 3. Epi-Centre for Healthy Ageing (ECHA), IMPACT Strategic Research Centre, Kitchener House (Barwon Health), PO Box 281, Geelong, VIC, 3220, Australia. 4. The Institute for Health and Ageing, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. 5. Department of Medicine, The University of Melbourne, St Albans, VIC, Australia. 6. Australian Institute for Musculoskeletal Science, The University of Melbourne, 176 Furlong Rd, St Albans, VIC, Australia. 7. Rural Clinical School, The University of Queensland, Toowoomba, QLD, Australia.
Abstract
SUMMARY: Non-hip, non-vertebral fractures (NHNVF) were compared with hip, vertebral and controls. NHNVF were younger and heavier than controls and hip/vertebral fractures in both men and women, respectively. Falls and prior fractures were less common in NHNVF than hip fractures. Glucocorticoid use was lower in NHNVF compared to vertebral fracture (VF) in men. INTRODUCTION: Although hip fracture (HF) and vertebral fractures (VF) receive the most attention in the literature and are the targeted sites for fracture prevention, non-hip, non-vertebral fracture (NHNVF) sites account for a greater proportion of fractures than the hip or vertebrae. This study aimed to assess risk factors for NHNVF and compare them with those for HF, VF and controls. METHODS: Incident fractures during 2005-2007 for men and 1994-1996 for women were identified using computerised keyword searches of radiological reports, and controls were selected at random from electoral rolls for participation in the Geelong Osteoporosis Study. Participants aged 60+ years were included in this study. RESULTS: Compared to controls, men and women with NHNVF were younger (ORs, 0.90, 95% CI 0.86-0.94; and 0.96, 0.93-0.98, respectively) and had a lower femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD) T-score (age-adjusted; difference [men] 0.383, P = 0.002; [women] 0.287, P = 0.001). Compared to HF, men and women with NHNVF were heavier (difference [men] 9.0 kg, P = 0.01; [women] 7.6 kg, P < 0.001). Heavier weight was also a risk factor for women with NHNVF compared to VF (1.03, 1.01-1.06). In men with NHNVF, falls (0.37, 0.14-0.97) and prior fractures (0.38, 0.15-0.98) were less common compared to HF; and glucocorticoid use was less common for NHNVF (0.30, 0.11-0.85) compared to VF. CONCLUSIONS: Given the high numbers of NHNVF sustained by men and women in this study, fracture prevention strategies should focus on individuals with high risk of sustaining these types of fractures, as well as on individuals who are more likely to sustain a HF or VF.
SUMMARY: Non-hip, non-vertebral fractures (NHNVF) were compared with hip, vertebral and controls. NHNVF were younger and heavier than controls and hip/vertebral fractures in both men and women, respectively. Falls and prior fractures were less common in NHNVF than hip fractures. Glucocorticoid use was lower in NHNVF compared to vertebral fracture (VF) in men. INTRODUCTION: Although hip fracture (HF) and vertebral fractures (VF) receive the most attention in the literature and are the targeted sites for fracture prevention, non-hip, non-vertebral fracture (NHNVF) sites account for a greater proportion of fractures than the hip or vertebrae. This study aimed to assess risk factors for NHNVF and compare them with those for HF, VF and controls. METHODS: Incident fractures during 2005-2007 for men and 1994-1996 for women were identified using computerised keyword searches of radiological reports, and controls were selected at random from electoral rolls for participation in the Geelong Osteoporosis Study. Participants aged 60+ years were included in this study. RESULTS: Compared to controls, men and women with NHNVF were younger (ORs, 0.90, 95% CI 0.86-0.94; and 0.96, 0.93-0.98, respectively) and had a lower femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD) T-score (age-adjusted; difference [men] 0.383, P = 0.002; [women] 0.287, P = 0.001). Compared to HF, men and women with NHNVF were heavier (difference [men] 9.0 kg, P = 0.01; [women] 7.6 kg, P < 0.001). Heavier weight was also a risk factor for women with NHNVF compared to VF (1.03, 1.01-1.06). In men with NHNVF, falls (0.37, 0.14-0.97) and prior fractures (0.38, 0.15-0.98) were less common compared to HF; and glucocorticoid use was less common for NHNVF (0.30, 0.11-0.85) compared to VF. CONCLUSIONS: Given the high numbers of NHNVF sustained by men and women in this study, fracture prevention strategies should focus on individuals with high risk of sustaining these types of fractures, as well as on individuals who are more likely to sustain a HF or VF.
Authors: Juliet E Compston; Nelson B Watts; Roland Chapurlat; Cyrus Cooper; Steven Boonen; Susan Greenspan; Johannes Pfeilschifter; Stuart Silverman; Adolfo Díez-Pérez; Robert Lindsay; Kenneth G Saag; J Coen Netelenbos; Stephen Gehlbach; Frederick H Hooven; Julie Flahive; Jonathan D Adachi; Maurizio Rossini; Andrea Z Lacroix; Christian Roux; Philip N Sambrook; Ethel S Siris Journal: Am J Med Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: K M Sanders; E Seeman; A M Ugoni; J A Pasco; T J Martin; B Skoric; G C Nicholson; M A Kotowicz Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 1999 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: E A Greco; R Fornari; F Rossi; V Santiemma; G Prossomariti; C Annoscia; A Aversa; M Brama; M Marini; L M Donini; G Spera; A Lenzi; C Lubrano; S Migliaccio Journal: Int J Clin Pract Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: K M Sanders; J A Pasco; A M Ugoni; G C Nicholson; E Seeman; T J Martin; B Skoric; S Panahi; M A Kotowicz Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 1998-08 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: Helena Johansson; John A Kanis; Anders Odén; Eugene McCloskey; Roland D Chapurlat; Claus Christiansen; Steve R Cummings; Adolfo Diez-Perez; John A Eisman; Saeko Fujiwara; Claus-C Glüer; David Goltzman; Didier Hans; Kay-Tee Khaw; Marc-Antoine Krieg; Heikki Kröger; Andrea Z LaCroix; Edith Lau; William D Leslie; Dan Mellström; L Joseph Melton; Terence W O'Neill; Julie A Pasco; Jerilynn C Prior; David M Reid; Fernando Rivadeneira; Tjerd van Staa; Noriko Yoshimura; M Carola Zillikens Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2014-01 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: Sarah P Chu; Jennifer L Kelsey; Theresa H M Keegan; Barbara Sternfeld; Mila Prill; Charles P Quesenberry; Stephen Sidney Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2004-08-15 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: D S Domiciano; L G Machado; C P Figueiredo; V F Caparbo; R M Oliveira; P R Menezes; R M R Pereira Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2020-10-10 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Robert Brommage; Jeff Liu; Peter Vogel; Faika Mseeh; Andrea Y Thompson; David G Potter; Melanie K Shadoan; Gwenn M Hansen; Sabrina Jeter-Jones; Jie Cui; Dawn Bright; Jennifer P Bardenhagen; Deon D Doree; Sofia Movérare-Skrtic; Karin H Nilsson; Petra Henning; Ulf H Lerner; Claes Ohlsson; Arthur T Sands; James E Tarver; David R Powell; Brian Zambrowicz; Qingyun Liu Journal: Bone Res Date: 2019-01-08 Impact factor: 13.567
Authors: Jason Talevski; Kerrie M Sanders; Sara Vogrin; Gustavo Duque; Alison Beauchamp; Ego Seeman; Sandra Iuliano; Axel Svedbom; Fredrik Borgström; John A Kanis; Amanda L Stuart; Sharon L Brennan-Olsen Journal: Arch Osteoporos Date: 2021-07-15 Impact factor: 2.617