H Johansson1, K Siggeirsdóttir2, N C Harvey3,4, A Odén5, V Gudnason2,6, E McCloskey5, G Sigurdsson2, J A Kanis7,8. 1. Institute for Health and Aging, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia. 2. Icelandic Heart Association, Kopavogur, Iceland. 3. MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK. 4. NIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, University of Southampton and University, Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Tremona Road, Southampton, UK. 5. Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield, Beech Hill Road, Sheffield, S10 2RX, UK. 6. University of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland. 7. Institute for Health and Aging, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia. w.j.pontefract@sheffield.ac.uk. 8. Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield, Beech Hill Road, Sheffield, S10 2RX, UK. w.j.pontefract@sheffield.ac.uk.
Abstract
The risk of major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) after a first MOF is increased over the whole duration of follow-up, but the imminent risk is even higher. If the acute increment in risk in the few years following MOF is amenable to therapeutic intervention, then immediate short-term treatments may provide worthwhile clinical dividends in a very cost-effective manner. INTRODUCTION: A history of fracture is a strong risk factor for future fractures. The aim of the present study was to determine whether the predictive value of a past MOF for future MOF changed with time. METHODS: The study was based on a population-based cohort of 18,872 men and women born between 1907 and 1935. Fractures were documented over 510,265 person-years. An extension of Poisson regression was used to investigate the relationship between the first MOF and the second. All associations were adjusted for age and time since baseline. RESULTS: Five thousand thirty-nine individuals sustained one or more MOFs, of whom 1919 experienced a second MOF. The risk of a second MOF after a first increased by 4% for each year of age (95% CI 1.02-1.06) and was 41% higher for women than men (95% CI 1.25-1.59). The risk of a second MOF was highest immediately after the first fracture and thereafter decreased with time though remained higher than the population risk throughout follow-up. For example, 1 year after the first MOF, the risk of a second fracture was 2.7 (2.4-3.0) fold higher than the population risk. After 10 years, this risk ratio was 1.4 (1.2-1.6). The effect was more marked with increasing age. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of MOF after a first MOF is increased over the whole follow-up, but the imminent risk is even higher. If the acute increment in risk in the few years following MOF is amenable to therapeutic intervention, then immediate short-term treatments may provide worthwhile clinical dividends in a very cost-effective manner, particularly in the elderly.
The risk of major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) after a first MOF is increased over the whole duration of follow-up, but the imminent risk is even higher. If the acute increment in risk in the few years following MOF is amenable to therapeutic intervention, then immediate short-term treatments may provide worthwhile clinical dividends in a very cost-effective manner. INTRODUCTION: A history of fracture is a strong risk factor for future fractures. The aim of the present study was to determine whether the predictive value of a past MOF for future MOF changed with time. METHODS: The study was based on a population-based cohort of 18,872 men and women born between 1907 and 1935. Fractures were documented over 510,265 person-years. An extension of Poisson regression was used to investigate the relationship between the first MOF and the second. All associations were adjusted for age and time since baseline. RESULTS: Five thousand thirty-nine individuals sustained one or more MOFs, of whom 1919 experienced a second MOF. The risk of a second MOF after a first increased by 4% for each year of age (95% CI 1.02-1.06) and was 41% higher for women than men (95% CI 1.25-1.59). The risk of a second MOF was highest immediately after the first fracture and thereafter decreased with time though remained higher than the population risk throughout follow-up. For example, 1 year after the first MOF, the risk of a second fracture was 2.7 (2.4-3.0) fold higher than the population risk. After 10 years, this risk ratio was 1.4 (1.2-1.6). The effect was more marked with increasing age. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of MOF after a first MOF is increased over the whole follow-up, but the imminent risk is even higher. If the acute increment in risk in the few years following MOF is amenable to therapeutic intervention, then immediate short-term treatments may provide worthwhile clinical dividends in a very cost-effective manner, particularly in the elderly.
Entities:
Keywords:
Epidemiology; Iceland; Osteoporotic fracture; Poisson regression model; Second fracture
Authors: A A Ismail; W Cockerill; C Cooper; J D Finn; K Abendroth; G Parisi; D Banzer; L I Benevolenskaya; A K Bhalla; J B Armas; J B Cannata; P D Delmas; J Dequeker; G Dilsen; R Eastell; O Ershova; J A Falch; B Felsch; S Havelka; K Hoszowski; I Jajic; U Kragl; O Johnell; A Lopez Vaz; R Lorenc; G Lyritis; F Marchand; P Masaryk; C Matthis; T Miazgowski; H A Pols; G Poor; A Rapado; H H Raspe; D M Reid; W Reisinger; J Janott; C Scheidt-Nave; J Stepan; C Todd; K Weber; A D Woolf; G Ambrecht; W Gowin; D Felsenberg; M Lunt; J A Kanis; J Reeve; A J Silman; T W O'Neill Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2001 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Patrick Haentjens; Olof Johnell; John A Kanis; Roger Bouillon; Cyrus Cooper; Guyve Lamraski; Dirk Vanderschueren; Jean-Marc Kaufman; Steven Boonen Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2004-09-20 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: R Lindsay; S L Silverman; C Cooper; D A Hanley; I Barton; S B Broy; A Licata; L Benhamou; P Geusens; K Flowers; H Stracke; E Seeman Journal: JAMA Date: 2001-01-17 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Heike A Bischoff-Ferrari; Bess Dawson-Hughes; Walter C Willett; Hannes B Staehelin; Marlet G Bazemore; Robert Y Zee; John B Wong Journal: JAMA Date: 2004-04-28 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: J A Kanis; O Johnell; C De Laet; H Johansson; A Oden; P Delmas; J Eisman; S Fujiwara; P Garnero; H Kroger; E V McCloskey; D Mellstrom; L J Melton; H Pols; J Reeve; A Silman; A Tenenhouse Journal: Bone Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 4.398
Authors: O Johnell; J A Kanis; A Odén; I Sernbo; I Redlund-Johnell; C Petterson; C De Laet; B Jönsson Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2003-12-23 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Frances M Weaver; Brian Le; Cara Ray; Scott Miskevics; Beverly Gonzalez; Laura D Carbone Journal: J Spinal Cord Med Date: 2019-03-19 Impact factor: 1.985
Authors: J A Kanis; H Johansson; A Odén; N C Harvey; V Gudnason; K M Sanders; G Sigurdsson; K Siggeirsdottir; L A Fitzpatrick; F Borgström; E V McCloskey Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2018-06-12 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: B C S de Vries; J H Hegeman; W Nijmeijer; J Geerdink; C Seifert; C G M Groothuis-Oudshoorn Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2021-01-07 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: James Watt; Jonathan Schuon; Jacob Davis; Tekeda F Ferguson; David A Welsh; Patricia E Molina; Martin J J Ronis Journal: Alcohol Clin Exp Res Date: 2019-10-01 Impact factor: 3.455
Authors: H Spechbach; I Fabreguet; E Saule; M Hars; J Stirnemann; S Ferrari; R Rizzoli; T Chevalley Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2019-02-28 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: P Evenepoel; J Cunningham; S Ferrari; M Haarhaus; M K Javaid; M-H Lafage-Proust; D Prieto-Alhambra; P U Torres; J Cannata-Andia Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2021-06-15 Impact factor: 4.507