Summary and Conclusions

Osteoporosis – Prevention,
Diagnosis and Treatment
A Systematic Review

The Swedish Council on Technology Assessment in Health Care

SBU Board of Directors
and Scientific Advisory Committee

Secretariat
NINA REHNQVIST
Executive Director

Board of Directors
KERSTIN HAGENFELDT STEN LINDAHL KERSTIN WIGZELL
Karolinska Institute (Chair) Swedish Research Council National Board of Health
and Welfare
EVA FERNVALL MARKSTEDT TORE LÖWSTEDT
Swedish Association of Swedish Federation of GUNNAR ÅGREN
Health Professionals County Councils National Institute of
Public Health
BERNHARD GREWIN MADELEINE ROHLIN
Swedish Medical Association Faculty of Odontology, ULLA ÅHS
Malmö Swedish Association of
THOMAS IHRE
Local Authorities
Swedish Society of Medicine ULF WETTERBERG
Swedish Federation of
County Councils

SBU Scientific Advisory Committee

PETER ASPELIN LISA EKSELIUS KERSTIN NILSSON
Huddinge University Uppsala University Örebro University Hospital
Hospital (Chair)
MATS ELIASSON JAN PALMBLAD
HANS-OLOV ADAMI Sunderby Hospital, Luleå Karolinska Institute
Karolinska Institute
ANN-KATHRINE GRANÉRUS MÅNS ROSÉN
ANDERS ANELL Linköping University National Board of Health
The Swedish Institute for Hospital and Welfare
Health Economics, Lund
BJÖRN KLINGE GUNNEVI SUNDELIN
BJÖRN BEERMANN Karolinska Institute Umeå University
Medical Products Agency,
ANDERS LINDGREN GIGGI UDÉN
Uppsala
Ministry of Health and Malmö University
DAVID BERGQVIST Social Affairs
Uppsala University Hospital
Summary and Conclusions of the SBU Report on:

Osteoporosis – Prevention,
Diagnosis and Treatment
A Systematic Literature Review
October 2003

Report prepared by:

Kerstin Hagenfeldt Kerstin Nilsson From SBU:
(Chair) Hans Ringertz Viveka Alton
Christer Johansson Lars-Erik Strender (Project Director)
Olof Johnell Maria Sääf Susanne Eksell
Östen Ljunggren Ivar Sønbø Kristiansen (Project Assistant)
Margareta Möller Niklas Zethraeus Lars-Åke Marké
Berit Mørland (Health Economist)

Scientific Reviewers:
Mats Palmér Olle Svensson
Karin Ringsberg

Report: Osteoporosis – Prevention, Diagnosis and Treatment

Type: Systematic Literature Review • ISBN: 91-87890-86-0, 3
91-87890-90-9 • Report no: 2 volumes, 165/1+2 • Publication year: 2003
 Conclusions
❑ Osteoporosis is a common condition in Sweden. One in three
women aged 70 through 79 years is found to have osteo-
porosis, revealed by measuring bone density in the hip.
Osteoporosis may lead to fractures following minor stress on
the bone. Annually, osteoporosis is associated with approxi-
mately 70 000 fractures, whereof 18 000 are hip fractures.
The quality of life deteriorates for many hip fracture patients,
and the mortality rate is high. Hip fractures account for more
than one half of all direct healthcare costs related to fractures.
The national economic costs for osteoporosis and
osteoporosis-related fractures total approximately 3.5 billion
SEK per year.

❑ Patients with osteoporosis-related fractures are an under-

treated group as regards pharmacotherapy and other inter-
ventions to prevent new fractures. A diagnosis of osteoporosis
is seldom included in the admission or discharge reports of
patients with hip fractures.

❑ Important risk factors for osteoporosis-related fractures that

can be treated are physical inactivity, low weight, tobacco
smoking, high alcohol consumption, tendency to fall,
impaired vision, low exposure to sunlight, and use of
corticosteroids.

❑ Osteoporosis is only one of several risk factors for fractures.

Bone density measurement has little likelihood of predicting
hip fracture in individuals who are otherwise at small risk for
fracture. Important risk factors that cannot be influenced
include old age, female gender, previous fracture, and heredity.
The value of bone density measurement is greater in
those with multiple risk factors.

4 S B U S U M M A RY A N D C O N C L U S I O N S
 conclusions
❑ No particular diagnostic method or measurement site is opti-
mal for determining the risk for fracture in all parts of the
skeleton. Measurement of bone density in the hip is best for
predicting the risk for hip fracture. Measurements in the ver-
tebrae are best for predicting vertebral fracture. There is
more uncertainty regarding comparisons of the various mea-
surement methods – dual energy x-ray absorbtiometry
(DXA), ultrasound, and computed tomography (CT).

❑ Physical exercise for at least 30 minutes, 2 to 3 times per

week, has a positive effect on bone density in both girls and
boys. This effect probably remains throughout young adult-
hood. Physical activity is particularly important in children
and teenagers, when maximum bone mass is formed.
Weight-bearing training such as jumping, aerobic exercise,
endurance training, and weight lifting probably have the
greatest effects on bone density.

❑ High calcium intake, mainly from dairy products, is thought

to increase bone density in children and teenagers, but the
effect on ultimate bone mass has not been sufficiently studied.
Increased calcium intake prior to menopause is thought to
be important, but the positive effects may be a consequence
of generally favorable nutritional conditions.

❑ There is no scientific evidence to support the use of bone

density measurement as a screening method in healthy,
middle-aged individuals. However, bone density measure-
ment plays an important role in examining individuals with
multiple risk factors to predict their fracture risk and
initiate preventive interventions.

❑ Pharmacotherapy: Calcium and vitamin D are shown to

reduce the risk for hip fracture and other fractures, except
vertebral fractures, in elderly women. Alendronate and

F RO M T H E R E P O RT ” O S T E O P O RO S I S –
5
P R E V E N T I O N , D I A G N O S I S A N D T R E AT M E N T ”
 risedronate (bisphosphonates) are shown to reduce the
number of fractures, mainly vertebral fractures, in postmeno-
pausal women with osteoporosis. Estrogen has been shown to
reduce the number of fractures, but its applicability is limited
due to increased risk for undesirable side effects. Selective
estrogen-receptor modulators (SERM) are shown to reduce
the risk for vertebral fractures in postmenopausal women
with osteoporosis.

❑ Hip protectors appear to reduce the risk for hip fractures or

falls among the elderly in residential facilities (nursing
homes).

❑ To reduce the number of falls among elderly, the following

interventions are shown to be important: individually de-
signed muscle strength and balance training, interventions
against the risk for falls at home, combination of training
and modification of risk for falls, including a reduction in
medication.

❑ The following important knowledge gaps have been identified:

• studies in men concerning pharmacotherapy, fracture
prediction by bone density measurement, and assessment
of rehabilitation interventions following fracture
• studies of hip protectors and interventions to prevent falls
and reduce fractures among unselected groups in various
residential care settings
• studies concerning the effects of physical activity on the
risk for fractures
• studies concerning individuals with impaired cognitive
function.
Economic assessments are lacking, due mainly to insufficient
knowledge concerning the effects of various osteoporosis treat-
ments on risks, mortality, quality of life, and costs in different
age groups and risk groups.

67 S B U S U M M A RY A N D C O N C L U S I O N S
Summary

Consequences of Osteoporosis
Osteoporosis is a common condition in Sweden. Measurement of
bone density in the hip shows that one in three women aged 70
to 79 years has osteoporosis. This means that the skeleton is too
thin and its strength so low that fracture can occur following
minor mechanical stress, ie, low-energy fracture.
Annually, approximately 70 000 fractures in Sweden are asso-
ciated with osteoporosis, whereof approximately 18 000 are hip
fractures. The number of hip fractures has increased in recent
years, mainly because more people are living longer.
In Sweden, the risk that a 50-year-old woman will have an
osteoporosis-related hip fracture at some time during the remain-
der of her life is 23 per cent (11 per cent in men). Corresponding
figures for vertebral fracture are 15 per cent (9 per cent), wrist
fracture 22 per cent (5 per cent), and upper arm fracture 13 per
cent (4 per cent). The risk that a middle-aged women, at some
point during the remainder of her life, will have one or more
osteoporosis-related fractures is approximately 50 per cent, and
the figure for a middle-aged man is approximately 25 per cent.
Women are at higher risk because they have a thinner skeleton
than men do, lose bone mass more quickly in conjunction with
menopause, and because they live longer.
The fracture risk varies among nations, even within Europe.
Sweden and Norway have the highest fracture rates. Although the
reasons have not been confirmed, some of the factors discussed
include heredity, body physique, low level of physical activity,
dietary patterns, and vitamin D deficiency.
The number of hip fractures has increased in recent decades,
mainly due to the aging population. In 1988, Sweden reported

F RO M T H E R E P O RT ” O S T E O P O RO S I S –
9
P R E V E N T I O N , D I A G N O S I S A N D T R E AT M E N T ”
 18 417 hip fractures, while in 1999 the figure was 19 715, an increase
of 7 per cent. Age standardization, which considers that fractures
are more common in higher ages, shows that the incidence (the
annual number of cases per inhabitant) has declined by 5 per cent
among women, but increased equally as much in men.
Osteoporosis-related vertebral fractures and rib fractures may
be spontaneous or caused by minimum stress, while wrist and hip
fractures always occur in conjunction with a fall. Falls may result
from the individual having poor balance, weak muscles, or factors
in the external environment.
Mortality from hip fractures is high. Within one year following
a fracture, mortality in the hip fracture group is 10 per cent to 15
per cent higher than in a corresponding group of the same gender
and age without hip fracture. The social consequences from osteo-
porosis fracture are also substantial. Following a hip fracture, not
everyone can return to his or her own residence, and walking abil-
ity deteriorates, which may increase social isolation. For many
patients, quality of life deteriorates. This also concerns individuals
affected by vertebral fractures. For these patients, pain and altered
appearance contribute toward social isolation.

Costs to Society
Hip fractures account for more than one half of all fracture-rela-
ted, direct healthcare costs. Among women over 45 years of age,
the annual number of patient days in acute care hospitals for hip
fractures is higher than for, eg, myocardial infarction, breast cancer,
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or diabetes mellitus.
Patient rehabilitation, primary care, and municipal housing also
generate major expenditures. The total direct costs for osteoporo-
sis-related fractures is approximately 3.1 billion SEK. This corres-
ponds to 1.9 per cent of the cost for health care. Indirect costs, ie,
for lost productivity, are approximately 440 million SEK. The
total cost in Sweden for osteoporosis and osteoporosis-related frac-
tures is approximately 3.5 billion SEK. Table 1 presents the cost
distribution.

10 S B U S U M M A RY A N D C O N C L U S I O N S
 Table 1. Costs in Sweden for osteoporosis and osteopo-
rosis-related fractures during the first year following
fracture (2001 price level)

Costs (million SEK)

Inpatient care 1 617

Outpatient care 177

Pharmaceuticals 230

Social service 1 032

Total direct costs 3 056

Sick leave 340

Early retirement 100

Total indirect costs 440

Total costs in Sweden 3 496

Background
Osteoporosis results from a reduction in the quantity of bone
tissue and the deterioration of bone microstructure, leading to a
general loss in bone strength.
The skeleton consists of two types of bone tissue. Cortical
bone is the compact tissue that forms an outer shell (cortical=outer)
covering every part of the skeleton. The inner part of the skeleton
consists of cancellous tissue, or trabecular bone, constructed of
small “beams”. Trabecular bone contains more bone cells and is

F RO M T H E R E P O RT ” O S T E O P O RO S I S –
11
P R E V E N T I O N , D I A G N O S I S A N D T R E AT M E N T ”
 replaced faster than cortical bone. The percentage of cortical bone
and trabecular bone varies among the different parts of the skele-
ton. The center of the long bones contains, almost exclusively,
cortical bone while the vertebrae contain approximately 75 per
cent trabecular bone. The basic substance of bone (matrix) consists
of protein. Its hardness and strength depends on the storage of
minerals, mainly calcium salts.
The skeleton is formed (modeled) as the individual grows.
Height increases and dimensions become greater. However, bone
tissue continues to be replaced and modeled even after growth
ceases, adapting to mechanical stresses for the remainder of one’s
life. Small injuries are continually repaired.
If the calcium content in blood becomes too low, calcium is
released from the skeleton. Normal replacement and development
of bone tissue requires sufficient nutrition, normal hormone for-
mation in the body, and sufficient stress on the skeleton.
Bone tissue includes various types of cells. The osteoblasts
build bone by mineralizing tissue, while osteoclasts break down
bone tissue. When people are young, the system is in balance and
the skeleton is maintained. When women reach menopause, the
production of estrogen declines and eventually ceases completely,
and the breakdown of bone tissue increases. At higher ages, in
both men and women, the production of constructive hormones
is diminished, as is the formation of active vitamin D in the kid-
neys. Frequently, physical activity and nutritional intake also de-
cline. Combined, these factors lead toward greater loss of bone
tissue and diminished bone quality in the elderly.

Diagnosis of Osteoporosis
To diagnose osteoporosis, several methods have been developed to
measure bone density. The methods assessed in this report include
dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA), quantitative computed
tomography (QCT), and quantitative ultrasound (QUS). A diag-
nosis is needed to assess the risk for fracture and to design treat-

12 S B U S U M M A RY A N D C O N C L U S I O N S
ment. The risk for fracture is associated with the total decrease in
bone density, ie the decrease associated with age and possibly
greater deterioration compared with others of the same age.
This increasing decrease in bone density is usually expressed as a
T-score, ie the number of standard deviation units from the mean
value in a young, healthy population of the same gender. The
standard deviation units from the mean value in individuals of the
same age and gender (Z-score) provides other information, ie how
deviating the measured value is for an individual of this age.
Hence, an older person may have a T-score value indicating osteo-
porosis, but show a normal value for the age group (Z-score).
(See Figure 1.)
SD

T-score
High bone density WHO

2 1

Low bone density

Z-score
Young adults Postmenopausal women

Figure 1. The curve represents the normal age-related decrease of

bone density in women. In assessing T-scores, a postmenopausal woman
with a measured value corresponding to point  should be compared
with the normal distribution shown at the upper right of the figure. She
would have a T-score corresponding to minus 3 SD, ie, osteoporosis
value based on the WHO criteria. Thus, she is compared with the nor-
mal values for a young healthy individual. Compared with the normal
distribution for women of the same age (lower right), her measured
value is above the mean value for her age group (Z-score), or plus 1.5
SD. A young woman (point ‚) with the same measured value for bone
density would have both a T-score and Z-score corresponding to minus 3 SD.

F RO M T H E R E P O RT ” O S T E O P O RO S I S –
13
P R E V E N T I O N , D I A G N O S I S A N D T R E AT M E N T ”
 An expert group under the World Health Organization (WHO)
proposed a definition for osteoporosis based on DXA to measure
bone density in the hip, vertebra, or lower arm in postmenopausal
women. Other measurement methods for bone density may use
other diagnostic boundaries. Neither children, adolescents, men,
nor very old people are included in this classification since there is
insufficient information on the “normal” bone density values
in these groups.

WHO Definition
Normal bone density: The measured value is no more than 1 stan-
dard deviation (SD) below the mean for young adults in the same
population.
Reduced bone density (osteopenia): The measured value is between
1 and 2.5 standard deviations below the mean for young adults in
the same population.
Osteoporosis: The measured value is more than 2.5 standard devia-
tions below the mean for young adults in the same population.
Established osteoporosis: Value is more than 2.5 standard deviations
below the mean for young adults in the same population, and
patients have at least one fracture caused by low energy trauma.

Osteoporosis is common in the natural, biological aging process,

but does not affect everyone equally. Two different types have
been defined:
Primary osteoporosis is caused by natural aging, menopause, and life-
style factors such as smoking, alcohol, diet, and physical inactivity.
Secondary osteoporosis is caused by some diseases and drugs.

Among younger individuals and males, secondary osteoporosis is

most common.
Osteoporosis in elderly women is due mainly to normal aging
and general morbidity. Osteoporosis per se does not yield symp-
toms and is viewed more as a risk factor than as a disease. The clin-
ical manifestation of osteoporosis is low-energy fracture.

14 S B U S U M M A RY A N D C O N C L U S I O N S
Project Scope and Design
New methods for diagnosing osteoporosis have emerged in recent
years. Several pharmaceuticals have been approved for treating
osteoporosis and preventing fractures. Protective devices to help
prevent damage caused by falls have become available. These
interventions provide some advantages, but also generate costs
and, in some cases, disadvantages for the patients. The aim of the
project has been to systematically and critically assess the scientific
evidence on the effectiveness of various interventions. It was par-
ticularly important to address the following issues:
• Can different risk groups be defined?
• Can preventive interventions be recommended?
• Is general screening justified?
• How should new diagnostic methods be assessed?
• How should pharmacotherapy be assessed?
The charge to the Project Group also included assessment of the
costs and cost effectiveness of the various treatment models.
This report was compiled by a Project Group of 15 individuals
representing most of the specialties that care for patients with
osteoporosis.
Relevant questions were formulated and criteria were estab-
lished to include or exclude studies in the areas to be reviewed.
The criteria established for the studies’ design, outcome measures,
followup period, population size, and time periods vary among
different subject areas, depending mainly on the availability of
studies. In pharmacotherapy, randomized controlled trials were
required, usually with fracture as an endpoint. For diagnostics,
risk factors, and rehabilitation, an epidemiological study was usu-
ally required. In addition to fracture, other accepted outcome
measures include quality of life and the secondary endpoints of
bone density and bone mass.
The first step in researching the literature was to investigate
the availability of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the
Cochrane Library databases as regards the questions to be an-
swered. Thereafter, several searches were conducted in Medline.

F RO M T H E R E P O RT ” O S T E O P O RO S I S –
15
P R E V E N T I O N , D I A G N O S I S A N D T R E AT M E N T ”
 Sources, mainly the Cochrane Library, were periodically checked
to identify any new systematic reviews. Complementary searches
related to certain questions were conducted in the EmBase,
Cinahl, Cats, and SciSearch databases. In addition, reference lists
were reviewed and relevant journals and Swedish dissertations
were checked.
The first selection of studies was carried out by reviewing how
well the summaries identified in the database searches fulfilled the
predetermined criteria. The next stage involved ordering full text
articles or other documents. From the studies selected, the data
that would be essential for the final assessment were extrapolated
and tabulated.

Synthesis and Grading the Conclusions

Each study was reviewed, and its quality was assessed. The strength
of the synthesized evidence presented was graded according to the
scale below.
Evidence Grade 1: Strong scientific evidence; at least two studies
presenting high study quality and relevance.
Evidence Grade 2: Moderately strong scientific evidence; one
study presenting high and at least two studies presenting medium
study quality and relevance.
Evidence Grade 3: Limited scientific evidence; at least two studies
presenting medium study quality and relevance.

Results

Risk Factors for Osteoporosis and/or Fractures

The only risk factor for secondary osteoporosis that has been
evaluated is the effect of synthetic glucocorticoids (cortisone) on
bone density and fractures. The risk factors can be divided into
non-treatable and treatable categories. Table 2 presents a summary
of the factors discussed in the following text.

16 S B U S U M M A RY A N D C O N C L U S I O N S
Table 2 Risk Factors
Non-treatable risk factors Treatable risk factors
High age Physical inactivity
Previous fracture Low weight/low BMI
Female gender Cortisone treatment
Menopause Low bone density
Heredity Tendency to fall
Ethnicity Tobacco smoking
Body height Alcohol consumption
Low exposure to sunlight
Impaired vision

Non-treatable Risk Factors

High Age
Bone density declines in both genders as age increases. In women,
bone loss is more rapid following menopause and continues
throughout life. In men, bone loss is more continuous. Parallel
with bone loss, the risk for fracture among women aged 80 years
and older is approximately 30 per cent higher than in women
aged 50 to 59 years. High age increases the risk for low bone
density, and for fractures in both women and men (Evidence
Grade 1).

Previous Fracture
Both women and men who previously experienced vertebral com-
pression or fractures in the wrist, upper arm, or hip are at in-
creased risk for hip fracture and vertebral compression (Evidence
Grade 1). For example, the risk for hip fracture is more than
double in those who have already experienced such a fracture.

F RO M T H E R E P O RT ” O S T E O P O RO S I S –
17
P R E V E N T I O N , D I A G N O S I S A N D T R E AT M E N T ”
 Female Gender
Women between the ages of 60 and 80 years lose nearly twice the
bone density than men of the same age. The risk for hip fracture
in women is also nearly doubled. In both women and men the
risk for hip fracture doubles every fifth year. Men in a particular
age group have the same incidence of hip fracture as women in a
group 5 years younger. The prevalence of vertebral fracture in
a Swedish population was twice as high in women as in men.
(Evidence Grade 1)

Menopause
The average age of menopause among Swedish women is 51 years.
In menopause, the production of estrogen in the ovaries declines
and eventually ceases, leading to increased bone loss. Bone loss is
greatest during the first years following menopause (Evidence
Grade 1). Menopause is usually defined as early if it occurs prior
to 45 years of age. Women with early menopause have less bone
density than women of comparable age with normal menopause.
The risk for osteoporosis-related fractures in women with early
menopause is triple that of comparably aged women with normal
menopause. The importance of this risk factor is thought to decline
after 70 years of age. (Evidence Grade 2)

Heredity
Women having a mother with osteoporosis run a slightly higher
risk for osteoporosis. If the mother experienced a hip fracture, the
risk for the daughter is moderately increased (Evidence Grade 2).
There is some evidence that hip fracture in the mother increases
the risk for vertebral compression in her sons (Evidence Grade 3).
Studies of twins have yielded inconsistent findings.

Ethnicity
Different ethnic groups have different maximum bone mass and
different rates of bone loss following menopause. This is probably

18 S B U S U M M A RY A N D C O N C L U S I O N S
due to the fact that body measurements and lifestyle differ among
different ethnic groups. Studies in the United States show that
bone density was highest among Afro-Americans, lower among
whites, and lowest among Asian women. The risk for fracture
was, nevertheless, lower among Asian women than among white
women, but lowest among Afro-American women. These differ-
ences can be partly explained by differences in body composition.
(Evidence Grade 2)

Body Height
Tall women are at greater risk for osteoporosis and fractures
(Evidence Grade 1). There is weak evidence that tall body height
at 25 years of age can predict later fracture (Evidence Grade 3).

Treatable Risk Factors

Physical Inactivity
The percentage of physically inactive individuals increases with
increasing age. Elderly women are more inactive than elderly
men. Physical inactivity comprises an independent risk factor for
hip fractures in both women and men. The absence of weight-
bearing muscle exercise increases the risk for hip fracture
(Evidence Grade 1).

Low Weight and BMI

Women having low weight and low BMI run a higher risk for
osteoporosis and fractures (Evidence Grade 1). Furthermore, it
appears that weight loss, and oscillating weight loss and gain,
comprise risk factors for fracture (Evidence Grade 2). Even
among men, low body weight, tall body height, low BMI, and
oscillating weight comprise risk factors for hip fracture (Evidence
Grade 3).

F RO M T H E R E P O RT ” O S T E O P O RO S I S –
19
P R E V E N T I O N , D I A G N O S I S A N D T R E AT M E N T ”
 Corticosteroids Treatment
Treatment (tablets) based on a daily dose corresponding to at least
5 mg prednisolone reduces bone density and increases the risk for
fracture. A single daily dose of 7.5 mg prednisolone for a longer
period doubles the risk for hip fracture and nearly triples the risk
for vertebral fracture (Evidence Grade 1). Low and moderate
doses of inhalation steroids for longer periods in treating asthma
do not increase the risk for osteoporosis and fracture (Evidence
Grade 2).

Low Bone Density

Low bone density is a major risk factor for future fractures in the
wrist, upper arm, vertebrae, and hip. The level of increased risk
varies among studies. A review addressing age and other risk fac-
tors accentuated the importance of bone density. Bone density is a
continuous variable, and the risk for fracture increases as bone
density decreases in both genders (Evidence Grade 1).

Tendency to Fall
Fractures in the hip and the wrist are often caused by a fall on a
level plane. Falling sideways is of importance in hip fractures.
One fourth of those over 65 years of age have fallen at least once
in the past year. For individuals aged 80 through 84 years, the
figure is approximately 40 per cent. Factors shown to increase the
risk for fracture by falling include major body instability, low
muscle strength, impaired mobility, urinary incontinence in the
oldest age group, medications that reduce the awareness level, and
impaired vision. The increased tendency to fall is a major risk
factor for fractures among the elderly (Evidence Grade 1).

Tobacco Smoking
Tobacco smoking influences metabolism in the skeleton, both
indirectly via the hormone system, but also through direct toxic
effects on bone tissue. Bone density is lower among smokers and

20 S B U S U M M A RY A N D C O N C L U S I O N S
ex-smokers. This applies to both genders (Evidence Grade 1). The
risk for hip fracture among women who smoke is up to three
times higher than among non-smokers. The greatest risk is found
among low weight women. Even men who smoke are at an in-
creased risk for hip fracture (Evidence Grade 1). Although smo-
king cessation will reduce the risk, some elevated risk will remain.

Alcohol Consumption
The risk for hip fracture increases in both genders as alcohol intake
increases. Men who are high consumers of alcohol have a five
times greater risk for hip fracture than those who abstain. Women
with high alcohol consumption have a 40 per cent increase in the
risk for hip fracture (Evidence Grade 2). This increase in risk may
be associated with the poor nutritional situation and increased
tendency to fall among alcoholics.

Low Exposure to Sunlight

The patient registry at the National Swedish Board of Health and
Welfare was used to study the prevalence of hip fracture in all
individuals aged over 50 years between 1987 and 1996. The study
shows that hip fractures increase with the Northern latitude and
also show seasonal variations. One reason may be that the low
angle of the sun in Nordic countries leads to poor vitamin D
levels that increase the risk for osteoporosis and hip fracture.
Other studies support the Swedish findings (Evidence Grade 2).

Impaired Vision
In people aged 75 years and older, impaired vision is included as
an independent risk factor for falls and fractures. The risk for hip
fractures five times greater among women with impaired vision at
a mean age of 80 years. Impaired vision is an important risk factor
for accidental falls leading to hip fracture in both genders
(Evidence Grade 2).

F RO M T H E R E P O RT ” O S T E O P O RO S I S –
21
P R E V E N T I O N , D I A G N O S I S A N D T R E AT M E N T ”
 Methods to Determine Bone Mass and Predict
Fracture Risk
The bone density measurement methods that have been adequately
assessed scientifically, and assessed in this section, include DXA,
QCT, and QUL. As presented in the introduction, osteoporosis
is defined by WHO as bone density that is at least 2.5 standard
deviations below the mean value in a young, healthy, gender-
matched population. A low value measured in part of the skeleton
is sufficient to establish a diagnosis of osteoporosis. If several parts
of the skeleton are measured, the probability for establishing a
diagnosis increases.

What are the characteristics of the various methods used to

measure bone density?
Table 3 presents a comparison of various methods for measuring
bone density.

22 S B U S U M M A RY A N D C O N C L U S I O N S
 Method Body part Examination Accuracy % Precision % Advantages Disadvantages
time (min)

DXA Whole body 3–10 3–9 0,5–3 Relatively high Measure in gram
(DEXA) Lumbar spine per body part precision per surface area,
Hip Low radiation size dependent.
Heel dose Relatively high
Many body price. Influenced
parts including by arthrosis and
determining bone density.

central skeleton vascular calcifica-

tion

Ultrasound Heel 5 * 1,5–6 No ionizing radia- Not validated

(Finger, wrist, (20) tion. Low price. using durability
knee) Mobile equipment or ash weight

QCT Vertebrae 5–30 5–15 2–6 Provides true High radiation

Wrist density. High dose. High price.
resolution. Major errors
Describes the associated with
difference betwe- accuracy and
Table 3 Comparison of the most common methods for

en trabecular and precision

cortical bone

* Ultrasound measurements use sound speed and ultrasound attenuation in bone. Hence, accuracy is not relevant in relation to bone density.
Measuring a certain sound speed with a certain accuracy does not tell how accurately the bone density has been indirectly estimated.

P R E V E N T I O N , D I A G N O S I S A N D T R E AT M E N T ”
F RO M T H E R E P O RT ” O S T E O P O RO S I S –
23
 There are no optimal diagnostic methods or measurement sites for
determining fracture risks in all parts of the skeleton. Measuring
bone density in the hip is best for predicting the risk for hip frac-
ture. Comparisons of the various measurement methods – DXA,
ultrasound, and CT – are less certain. This uncertainty is not due
solely to the methods themselves, but also to biological variations;
bone density declines in winter but is unchanged or
increases in the summer.

Can bone density measurement predict fracture risk?

The findings are summarized in Table 4.

Table 4 Relative risk for fracture in postmenopausal women with

T-score –1.

Measure- Type of fracture

ment site Lower arm Hip Vertebrae All

Wrist 1.7 (1.4–2.0) 1.8 (1.4–2.2) 1.7 (1.4–2.1) 1.4 (1.3–1.6)

Hip 1.4 (1.4–1.6) 2.6 (2.0–3.5) 1.8 (1,1–2.7) 1.6 (1.4–1.8)

Lumbar 1.5 (1.3–1.8) 1.6 (1.2–2.2) 2.3 (1.9–2.8) 1.5 (1.4–1.7)

vertebrae
Heel 1.6 (1.4–1.8) 2.0 (1.5–2.7) 2.4 (1.8–3.2) 1.5 (1.3–1.8)

All 1.6 (1.5–1.7)* 2.0 (1.7–2.4)* 2.1 (1.9–2.3)* 1.5 (1.4–1.6)*

Heel as
measured 2.2 (1.8–2.7) 1.8 (1.5–2.2) 1.5 (1.4–1.7)
by ultrasound

* The confidence interval is equivalent to the lowest individual confidence interval for each
measurement site.

24 S B U S U M M A RY A N D C O N C L U S I O N S
Table 5 compares the absolute 10-year risk for hip fracture in both
genders having osteoporosis at different ages (T-score –2.5 SD)
with the absolute fracture risk in corresponding age groups.

Table 5 Fracture risk in osteoporosis at different ages. Absolute

10-year risk for fractures in women and men (T-score –2.5 SD)
compared to absolute fracture risk in comparable age groups
(shown in percent).

Women Relative risk for Absolute risk for Absolute risk for
hip fracture versus hip fracture hip, wrist, vertebral,
the population shoulder fracture

60 yr 1.9 4.4 16.2

70 yr 1.2 8.6 22.8

80 yr 0.74 11.3 25.6

Men Relative risk for Absolute risk for Absolute risk for
hip fracture versus hip fracture hip, wrist, vertebral,
the population shoulder fracturer

60 yr 3.1 3.8 9.5

70 yr 2.5 8.4 13.1

80 yr 1.8 13.0 18.7

F RO M T H E R E P O RT ” O S T E O P O RO S I S –
P R E V E N T I O N , D I A G N O S I S A N D T R E AT M E N T ”
25
 The relative risk (RR) for fracture is high among 60-year-old
women and men with osteoporosis compared to corresponding
age groups. In the group aged 80 years (T-score –2.5 SD) there is
no such difference in the risk for fracture. However, the opposite
applies regarding the absolute risk, ie, the younger group with a
high relative risk have a lower absolute risk than 80-year-old group.

Is there evidence to recommend a particular measurement method?

It has been shown that the values of bone density from various
methods are not comparable. Precision is limited, and the correla-
tions are poor among measurement values from the different meth-
ods. Hence, comprehensive assessments are needed to determine a
standard to compare various measurement values and measure-
ment sites for the purpose for predicting fracture risks. The same
problem is also found in regard to selecting the measurement site
to determine treatment for osteoporosis. Most pharmacological
studies have been performed using DXA of the hip and/or
lumbar spine.
Using DXA to examine the hip requires a high standard of
accuracy. Nevertheless, it offers better opportunities for predicting
all types of fractures than do examinations of the lumbar spine
(Evidence Grade 2). DXA studies of the hip are best at predicting
hip fracture (Evidence Grade 1).
DXA measurement of the heel has been used in a few studies
involving different types of equipment. Studies using older heel
measurement devices show that fractures can be predicted. New
DXA equipment is being developed.
Agreement between DXA hip and back studies is limited, and
no longitudinal studies have yet confirmed how well the new
measurements can predict the risk for fracture.
In women over the age of 65 to 70 years, ultrasound examina-
tion of the heel offers about the same reliability in predicting the
risk for hip and vertebral fracture as DXA does for the hip or back
(Evidence Grade 2). In women below 65 years of age, the scienti-
fic evidence is insufficient regarding ultrasound examination of

26 S B U S U M M A RY A N D C O N C L U S I O N S
the heel in predicting fractures.
Ultrasound studies of the fingers, wrist, and knee are not
shown to be superior to studies of the heel, which is therefore
recommended among the ultrasound examination options
(Evidence Grade 3). Quantitative computed tomography of
central aspects of the skeleton is a research method, since it
yields a high radiation dose and poor accuracy (Evidence Grade 1).

Is there scientific evidence that screening is warranted

and cost effective?
The goal of screening is to reduce the number of individuals who
contract and die prematurely from a disease by detecting and treat-
ing the disease before it generates symptoms or has caused irrepa-
rable damage. With osteoporosis, it is fractures that need to be
prevented. Osteoporosis is one of several risk factors for fracture,
but is not defined as a preliminary stage. Hence, screening to
measure bone density cannot be compared with, eg, mammo-
graphy screening. A better comparison would be measurement of
cholesterol or blood pressure to detect the risk for cardiovascular
disease.
The WHO list of standards can be used to analyze screening
involving bone density measurement to detect osteoporosis. Such
an analysis shows that general screening is not warranted to mea-
sure bone density to prevent fractures. The most important rea-
son is that we are dealing with a risk factor, not an early diagnosis
of a disease. Furthermore, there is uncertainty about the exami-
nation methods. No randomized controlled trials compare the
outcome in a screened group versus the outcome in a non-screened
group. Cost effectiveness has not been assessed.
Hence, there is no scientific evidence to support the use of
bone density measurement as a screening method in healthy,
middle-aged individuals. However, measurement of bone density
plays an important role in the examination of individuals with
several risk factors to predict their fracture risk (Evidence Grade 1).

F RO M T H E R E P O RT ” O S T E O P O RO S I S –
27
P R E V E N T I O N , D I A G N O S I S A N D T R E AT M E N T ”
 Biomedical and Genetic Markers for Bone Remodeling
In the remodeling of mature bone, several different substances are
released that can serve as markers of bone metabolism. These
markers circulate in the blood and are excreted in the urine where
they can be analyzed. The hope is that these substances can be
used to identify individuals at increased risk for fracture, to facili-
tate diagnosis and to predict the effects of osteoporosis treatment.
Research is under way to investigate the genetic background of
osteoporosis.
Biochemical markers are currently a research instrument, and
are not used in routine health services. Genetic markers for bone
density also remain at the research stage and cannot be used in
clinical practice.

Physical Activity
Total physical activity refers to how much a person moves on his
or her way to and from work, during work, at home, and during
leisure-time activities. The higher incidence of osteoporosis could
possible reflect a change in life style that involves reduced physical
activity.
A mechanical load that places greater stress on a part of the
skeleton leads to the formation of new bone in that part. Too little
load in any part of the skeleton leads to degradation of bone and
a reduction in bone mass. Biomechanical stresses and muscles
play a role in the formation of bone tissue. Heavy, quick, and
varied load or stress probably has the greatest effect on bone for-
mation. Continual weight-bearing stimuli are thought to have the
greatest effect on maintaining bone mass.
In assessing the effect of physical activity on health and bone
mass, one must consider several factors that may influence the
outcome. Individuals who are physically active may differ from
others in several respects. People with good health, good muscle
power, and good dietary habits are probably more physically ac-
tive than others. Hence, it is important to assess the population

28 S B U S U M M A RY A N D C O N C L U S I O N S
studied, how exercise is designed and registered, and how the
outcome measures are selected in relation to the population and
its level of physical activity. In most cases, bone mass or bone
density are used as outcome measures. Isolated studies have re-
ported on the rate of fracture. There are many types of physical
activity: regular walking, aerobics, jogging, jumping, bodybuil-
ding, weight lifting, school gymnastics, bicycling, and swimming.
Other activities also apply to those heavily involved in sports.

Can physical activity increase/maintain bone mass and/or

reduce the loss of bone mass and influence the occurrence of
fractures?
In both girls and boys, physical activity for at least 30 minutes at
least 2 to 3 times per week has a positive effect on bone density,
mainly in the femur and the lumbar spine. The normal increase
in bone mass is greatest around the time of puberty. According to
some studies, the effects of increased physical activity are greatest
prior to puberty, but other studies report around puberty or
shortly after it starts. The effects probably remain in young adults
(Evidence Grade 2). In healthy women prior to menopause (aged
20–50 years) the effects of exercise on bone density are less certain
(Evidence Grade 3). In women following menopause (aged 50–65
years), bone density in the hip, lumbar spine, lower arm, and
heel, and the rate of fractures, have been studied. Moderate evi-
dence suggests that exercise increases bone density (Evidence
Grade 2). Weaker evidence suggests that exercise can prevent
fractures (Evidence Grade 3).
Studies in women older than 65 years of age have investigated
bone density in different parts of the skeleton, fracture rates, and
general physical ability including strength and well being. These
studies have yielded contradictory results about the effects of
physical exercise on bone density. One study reports a reduced
risk for hip fracture. A general increase in physical ability has
been shown. (Evidence Grade 3) Studies of men are few, and the
data are insufficient to assess the effects of physical activity.

F RO M T H E R E P O RT ” O S T E O P O RO S I S –
29
P R E V E N T I O N , D I A G N O S I S A N D T R E AT M E N T ”
 Studies of people involved in sports have included rowers, ten-
nis players, bicyclists, and runners. All studies are small, and rea-
sons other than exercise cannot be excluded in explaining differen-
ces. Generally, one finds an increase in bone mass in parts of the
skeleton that have been subjected to substantial load (Evidence
Grade 3).

What types of physical activity can influence bone mass?

The interventions that have yielded positive results in children
and teenagers are weight-bearing exercises such as jumping, aero-
bic exercise, weight lifting, and school gymnastics (Evidence
Grade 2).
Even in postmenopausal women various types of weight bear-
ing exercise such as walking, aerobic exercise, endurance, and
strength training have the greatest effects on bone density
(Evidence Grade 2).

Which age groups benefit from physical activity?

As presented in the section on risk factors, physical inactivity pre-
sents a substantial risk factor for the development of osteoporosis
and fracture. Physical activity is therefore important in all age
groups. Particularly important is activity in children and teenagers
when the formation of maximum bone mass occurs. Moderate
evidence also suggests that physical exercise in women following
menopause prevents the loss of bone mass and prevents fractures.
Physical activity is also valuable in women over 65 years of age,
primarily because it improves general physical performance.

Does physical activity have effects in individuals with confirmed

osteoporosis?
The few studies that have been conducted show that physical
exercise increases well being, but has no confirmed effects on falls
and fracture prevalence in patients with osteoporosis.

30 S B U S U M M A RY A N D C O N C L U S I O N S
Does physical activity have different effects in men and women?
Most studies are conducted on women. Among children and
teenagers, one observes the same positive effects in both genders
(Evidence Grade 2). A few studies in adult men found no effects
on bone density from physical activity, but a possible effect in
terms of reduced risk for vertebral compression after long-term
exercise.

Diet
Dietary habits, exactly like other lifestyle factors, may be associa-
ted with bone density and the risk for fracture resulting from
osteoporosis. Diet is important, both because it is necessary to
have a sufficient supply of energy and nutrition and because poor
dietary habits may cause deficiencies in vitamins and minerals.
Nutritional deficiencies are common among the elderly with ill-
ness. A Swedish study found that 28 per cent of the patients who
were admitted to a geriatric department were undernourished.
This also applied to 38 per cent of the patients with hip fracture
and 8 per cent of stroke patients.

Is total dietary intake important for bone mass and fracture risk?
A certain intake of energy and nutrition is necessary so that the
supply of nutritional substances is sufficient and that protein is
not burned off as energy. Low-weight individuals have a different
hormone balance and a lower content of important growth fac-
tors. A slim individual also has little tissue to cushion falls.
Undernourishment and low weight increases the risk for osteopo-
rosis and fractures caused by osteoporosis (Evidence Grade 2).

What ingredients in food are particularly important for bone

mass and fracture risk?
Protein is needed for the continuous formation of bone tissue and
is important for achieving maximum bone mass. Hence, protein
is of special importance prior to and during puberty. However, no

F RO M T H E R E P O RT ” O S T E O P O RO S I S –
31
P R E V E N T I O N , D I A G N O S I S A N D T R E AT M E N T ”
 research findings have demonstrated the effect that protein con-
tent in the diet has on bone loss and fractures caused by osteopo-
rosis (Evidence Grade 3).

The vitamins which have been studied in conjunction with osteo-

porosis include A, C, D, and K. High content of vitamin A in
food is associated with reduced bone density in the femoral neck
and increased risk for hip fracture in both men and women
(Evidence Grade 2).

Vitamin K is required in normal amounts so the body can form a

sufficient amount of the protein osteocalcin (binds calcium and is
found in bone tissue). The impact of vitamin K deficiency on
bone tissue is unknown. High content or high intake of vitamin
K in the diet is associated with reduced risk for hip fracture
(Evidence Grade 2).

Vitamin C is important to allow the normal formation of collagen

in the skeleton. Reports on the effects which vitamin C supple-
ments have on the risk for fracture are inconsistent.

Vitamin D is necessary so that sufficient amounts of calcium can

be taken up in the intestine and so that minerals can be stored in
the skeleton. The risk for vitamin D deficiency is high among
those who are elderly and sick. Studies that specifically investigate
the correlation between osteoporosis and vitamin D in the diet are
lacking.

Calcium. The skeleton contains 99 per cent of the body’s calci-

um. Calcium salts make the skeleton strong. They are released
from the skeleton if intake from the diet is insufficient. Some stud-
ies suggest that increased intake of calcium, mainly from milk
products, increases bone density in children and teenagers.
Increased calcium intake prior to menopause is thought to be
important. These positive effects may, however, be a consequence

32 S B U S U M M A RY A N D C O N C L U S I O N S
of a generally good nutritional status (Evidence Grade 2).
Documentation is insufficient to show general co-variation
between calcium intake in the diet and bone density or osteopo-
rosis-related fractures. There may be an effect between calcium
intake (more than 1500 mg/day) and bone density in postmeno-
pausal women (Evidence Grade 3). Documentation on the
relationship between the dietary content of calcium and the risk
for fracture is insufficient. Other minerals in the diet have not
been sufficiently studied

What role does diet play in the formation of bone mass during
growing years?
The studies which have analyzed the importance of diet during
childhood and adolescence clearly suggest that good dietary
habits involving sufficient intake of protein, calcium (milk prod-
ucts), and necessary vitamins is important for developing maxi-
mum bone mass (Evidence Grade 2).

Is diet important in treating individuals with low bone density?

A randomized controlled trial shows that six months of protein
supplements in patients with osteoporosis and recent hip fracture
resulted in a leveling out of bone mineral loss and fewer new ver-
tebral fractures (Evidence Grade 2). Further studies are needed.

Pharmacotherapy
Pharmacotherapy for osteoporosis involves the use of calcium,
vitamin D, and three types of substances that impede the degra-
dation of bone tissue. The three substances include estrogen
agents of moderate potency, selective estrogen receptor modula-
tors (SERM), and bisphosphonates. Agents are available in other
countries which stimulate bone formation, eg, parathormone
(PTH). This agent is expected to be approved in Sweden in the
near future.
Most treatment studies of these drugs have examined their

F RO M T H E R E P O RT ” O S T E O P O RO S I S –
33
P R E V E N T I O N , D I A G N O S I S A N D T R E AT M E N T ”
 effects on bone density or biochemical markers. This report priori-
tizes studies addressing the most important outcome measure,
namely the risk for fracture. Most studies are conducted on middle-
aged and elderly women. Only a few studies involve men. Some
studies address osteoporosis caused by cortisone in men and
women. Most studies have been under way for three years. Isolated
studies have examined safety and tolerance up to seven years.

Calcium and Vitamin D

There is no solid evidence that treatment with calcium alone or
vitamin D alone reduces the risk for osteoporosis-related fractures.
Possibly, treatment in selected groups at high risk for calcium
and/or vitamin D deficiency would provide more positive results.
The combination of calcium and vitamin D reduces the risk
for hip fracture and other fractures, with the exception of vertebral
compression, in elderly women (Evidence Grade 1).
Treatment with 1-alpha-hydroxylated vitamin D may possibly
reduce the risk for vertebral fracture in postmenopausal women
(Evidence Grade 3).
Calcium in combination with different types of vitamin D
counteracts the decline in bone density in men and women treated
with cortisone (Evidence Grade 1).

Estrogen
An earlier SBU report on estrogen treatment concluded that evi-
dence shows that estrogen agents of moderate potency can prevent
bone loss (Evidence Grade 1) and reduce the number of fractures
(Evidence Grade 2). Several studies have been presented since
publication of the SBU report, mainly the Women’s Health
Initiative (WHI) addressing primary prevention. Part of the study
showed that estrogen combined with progesterone reduces the risk
for hip fracture and other fractures. The study was discontinued
prematurely due to increased incidence of breast cancer and
cardiovascular diseases. However the evidence for fracture reduc-

34 S B U S U M M A RY A N D C O N C L U S I O N S
tion is good (Evidence Grade 1). The applicability of treatment is
limited by its undesirable effects. There are no controlled studies
of fractures during estrogen treatment in women at high risk for
osteoporosis fractures.

SERM
A large study has shown a reduced risk for vertebral fractures in
postmenopausal women with osteoporosis (Evidence Grade 1).
Data are lacking for other fractures.

Bisphosphonates
Currently, three bisphosphonates are registered in Sweden for
treatment of osteoporosis: alendronate, etidronate, and risedronate.
There are several large studies of alendronate and risedronate in
women with osteoporosis. All of these studies show a lower frac-
ture prevalence. The best effects concern vertebral fractures and
all peripheral fractures (Evidence Grade 1). There is also a signifi-
cant reduction in the risk for hip fractures among elderly women
with osteoporosis (Evidence Grade 2). Isolated studies suggest
that these agents also have preventive effects for bone mass and
vertebral compression in men (Evidence Grade 3). Risedronate
prevents the loss of bone mass in cortisone-treated patients
(Evidence Grade 1). The evidence is insufficient for determining
the effects on fracture risk in cortisone-treated patients.

Parathormone (PTH) – unregistered drug

Daily subcutaneous injections of PTH have shown positive effects
on the skeleton. A large study reported reduced risk for vertebral
fracture in osteoporotic elderly women with at least one previous
vertebral fracture. The study was discontinued prematurely due to
uncertainty in animal studies. PTH increases bone density in the
back and hip in elderly women with postmenopausal osteoporosis
and reduces the risk for vertebral fractures (Evidence Grade 1).

F RO M T H E R E P O RT ” O S T E O P O RO S I S –
35
P R E V E N T I O N , D I A G N O S I S A N D T R E AT M E N T ”
 Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis
and Preventive Fracture Treatment
A feature common to all economic calculations is the use of
models to estimate the cost effectiveness of different treatments.
Osteoporosis treatment influences the risk of disease for extended
periods, motivating the use of models. Uncertainty about the
costs and effects in the studies requires one to interpret with cau-
tion the conclusions of the cost effectiveness of various treat-
ments. Future economic assessments require further knowledge
about the effects and risks of treatment, mortality, quality of life,
and cost in various ages and risk groups.

Estrogen
Reliable conclusions cannot be drawn regarding the cost effective-
ness of hormone treatment in preventive intervention of fractures
in asymptomatic women.

Bisphosphonates
Clinical studies have shown that bisphosphonates protect against
fractures in elderly women with osteoporosis. Economic studies
suggest that treatment with bisphosphonates is cost effective in
elderly women with elevated fracture risk. Assessing this with great-
er certainty would require further studies to analyze the effects of
treatment on fracture risks in these patient groups during and fol-
lowing treatment.

Calcium + Vitamin D
Studies of treatment with calcium and vitamin D have shown a
reduced prevalence of fractures in elderly women with osteoporo-
sis. Since the costs are moderate, the treatment of elderly women
with calcium/vitamin D is cost effective.

36 S B U S U M M A RY A N D C O N C L U S I O N S
Pain and Pain Treatment
Nothing would suggest that osteoporosis alone causes acute or
chronic pain. Symptoms appear following acute fractures, or as
after-effects of previously incurred fractures. Many patients with
osteoporosis may also experience other back problems, eg, degen-
erative changes that cause back pain without the presence of ver-
tebral compression. In older people, both degenerative changes
and osteoporosis with vertebral fractures are common, but the
prevalence varies in different populations. The literature review
focuses on vertebral compression and back pain. Fracture-related
pain and conditions resulting from peripheral fractures are not
addressed since they are oriented more toward orthopedics.

Does vertebral compression cause back pain?

Pain from vertebral fractures is most pronounced when the frac-
ture occurs and in the weeks directly thereafter. Vertebral fractures
that appear in an x-ray image may have occurred a long time
prior to the examination since the x-ray does not distinguish fresh
fractures from old fractures. The more vertebral compressions
found, the greater the probability that the patient has, or has had,
back pain (Evidence Grade 1). Vertebral compression is not
a common cause of back pain in younger, healthy individuals, but
is often a cause of back pain in elderly women and patients treated
with cortisone (Evidence Grade 2).

Do antiosteoporotic agents relieve pain?

Two types of agents have been studied, ie, calcitonin and bis-
phosphonates. Calcitonin has an analgesic effect which is superior
to placebo and mild pain relievers (eg, paracetamol) in acute ver-
tebral fractures (Evidence Grade 2). However, there is no scienti-
fic evidence that calcitonin is more effective than conventional
pain relievers (eg, NSAIDs, codeine, dextropropoxiphene, opiate
analgesics) in alleviating pain for vertebral fractures. There is no
evidence that bisphosphonates reduce pain.

F RO M T H E R E P O RT ” O S T E O P O RO S I S –
37
P R E V E N T I O N , D I A G N O S I S A N D T R E AT M E N T ”
 Is orthopedic surgery using vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty
effective against back pain in osteoporosis?
The methods have been tested since the mid 1990s and involve
injecting bone cement into the vertebral body. In vertebroplasty
and kyphoplasty, bone cement is injected to relieve pain and stabil-
ize the vertebrae. In kyphoplasty, the compromised vertebral body
is initially expanded to restore, either fully or partially, the height
of the vertebrae. Only recent vertebral fractures can be treated
since fracture healing occurs within two months, rendering the
procedure more difficult. Several published case reports suggest
that vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty provide rapid and effective
pain relief in selected patients with fresh vertebral fractures
(Evidence Grade 3). Randomized controlled trials have yet to
show that this invasive treatment has a better effect than conven-
tional pain relief, and that it is effective and safe in long term
followup in unselected patient groups.

Corsets and supportive treatment

Corsets are used for different types of back disorders. There is
insufficient evidence to show when treatment with corsets or other
back support devices is helpful, and whether these devices provide
effective pain relief in acute or chronic back pain resulting from
vertebral fracture.

Physiotherapy
Isolated, well-execute studies suggest that physiotherapy involving
exercise of muscle strength and balance in women with fresh ver-
tebral fractures provides favorable effects, such as lower experience
of pain, reduced use of pain relievers, and improved quality of life
(Evidence Grade 3).

38 S B U S U M M A RY A N D C O N C L U S I O N S
Falls and Preventing Falls
Falls are common and are increasing in absolute
numbers, mainly because the number of elderly is
increasing. During a year, falls occur in approxi-
mately 30 per cent of those over 65 years of age.
Two thirds of the individuals in nursing
homes fall during a year, half of them more
than once. Several factors may, alone or in
combination, cause falls. Causes may
include age-related changes in balance,
joints and muscle problems, vision
problems, dizziness, general weakness,
undernourishment, medication, and hazards
that cause falls inside and outside of the home.
All falls do not lead to fractures, but the risk
increases if the person who falls has osteoporosis.
Several studies address exercise programs to
improve balance. In summary, there is moderate
scientific evidence that walks and aerobic exercise
improve balance, oxygen uptake, strength, and
quality of life (Evidence Grade 2). Individually
designed training programs for muscle strength
and balance have been shown to reduce the
number of falls (Evidence Grade 2).
Also, interventions to reduce the risks at
home can result in reducing number of falls
(Evidence Grade 2). However, interventions are
less successful in reducing the number of falls
among individuals with impaired cognitive
function (Evidence Grade 3). There is no evi-
dence showing that interventions to prevent
falls will reduce the number of fractures.

39
 Hip Protectors
Falling laterally on the upper part of the femur often causes a hip
fracture. Hip protectors are intended to reduce the impact of the
fall on this particular area. Hip protection devices usually consist
of an undergarment with fixed or removable plastic shields cover-
ing the hip. Hence, they are effective only for the upper part of
the femur. Elderly people who live in institutions or their own
home have been studied. Hip protectors appear to reduce the risk
for hip fracture after falls in the elderly who live in nursing homes
or institutions (Evidence Grade 2). A problem is compliance, as
identified in a study where no difference in the fracture rate was
observed among those who used hip protectors and the control
group. The participants did not use the protectors during the
night, and falls occurred when they got out of bed. The use of hip
protectors requires motivating not only the individual but also the
staff.
Studies of hip protectors suggest that they can protect against
fractures in selected elderly, high-risk patient groups in nursing
homes. In these groups, hip protectors can be cost effective. To
reliably assess cost effectiveness, more studies are needed to invest-
igate the costs and effects in different age groups and living situa-
tions.

Rehabilitation Following Osteoporosis Fractures

The goal of rehabilitation is to return the individual to his/her
previous functional level. The previous functional level and type
of living situation often have a greater impact on the outcome of
rehabilitation than the injury itself. Those who experience fragility
fractures are often older women with several concurrent diseases,
poor nutritional situation, less ability to perform activities of daily
living, impaired mobility, and a limited social contact network.

40 S B U S U M M A RY A N D C O N C L U S I O N S
Hip Fractures
Rehabilitation in geriatric, orthopedic, or multidisciplinary care is
equivalent with regard to outcome measures such as mortality,
institutional living, and function (Evidence Grade 1).
Different types of intensive exercise interventions by physio-
therapists and occupational therapists, eg, more frequent exercise,
specific methods for exercising walking skills, or neuromuscular
stimulation, do not shorten the rehabilitation phase nor do they
improve the outcome in cognitively intact patients (Evidence
Grade 2).
Most studies exclude patients with impaired cognitive func-
tion. A few studies suggest that these patients may benefit from
more intensive rehabilitation (Evidence Grade 3). Knowledge
about patients with severe cognitive disorders is inadequate.
Early mobilization and discharge to the patient’s home, with
rehabilitation provided in primary care for patients assessed to be
sufficiently functional, has been a practice in Sweden for many
years. Given the appropriate selection of patients and sufficient
resources in primary care, this treatment yields results equal to
those from inpatient rehabilitation services (Evidence Grade 1).
Since a high percentage of the patients admitted with hip
fractures are undernourished, providing energy rich diets and
extra proteins can shorten the rehabilitation phase. Mortality is
not influenced. (Evidence Grade 2)
The diagnosis of osteoporosis is seldom reported either during
admission or discharge of patients with hip fractures. Few patients
receive adequate treatment with drugs or other interventions to
prevent new fractures (Evidence Grade 2).

Wrist Fractures
Intensive exercise under the leadership of a physiotherapist or treat-
ment, eg, with ultrasound, does not shorten the rehabilitation
phase or yield an outcome superior to early exercise on one’s own
following instruction (Evidence Grade 2).

F RO M T H E R E P O RT ” O S T E O P O RO S I S –
41
P R E V E N T I O N , D I A G N O S I S A N D T R E AT M E N T ”
 Vertebral Fractures
Exercise under the guidance of a physiotherapist can result in less
pain, a lower use of painkillers, and improved quality of life in
patients with new fractures (Evidence Grade 3). Continuing to
exercise is important to prevent new fractures and reduce pain
(Evidence Grade 3).

Quality of Life Related to Osteoporosis and Fractures

Quality of life is a more important measure of well being in
patients with osteoporosis and fractures than bone density values
or the number of fractures. Quality of life has been studied using
general tests and tests specific to osteoporosis patients. The associ-
ation between osteoporosis and quality of life is unclear.

Does osteoporosis without fractures reduce the quality of life?

Osteoporosis alone, without fractures, does not appear to impair
function or reduce the quality of life (Evidence Grade 3).

Do hip fractures and vertebral fractures substantially reduce

the quality of life?
Hip fractures lead to long-term impairments in functional capa-
city and quality of life in a large percentage of those affected
(Evidence Grade 1). Pronounced and multiple vertebral fractures
impair the quality of life in women following menopause
(Evidence Grade 1). The situation in men has not been sufficiently
studied, but available studies suggest findings that are similar to
those in women (Evidence Grade 3). It is uncertain whether single,
moderate vertebral deformities detected by x-ray examination lead
to a lower quality of life (Evidence Grade 3).

42 S B U S U M M A RY A N D C O N C L U S I O N S
Ethical and Social Aspects – Priorities
According to a parliamentary decision, priorities in health care
should be based on an ethical platform consisting of three prin-
ciples: the principle of human value, the principle of need, and
the principle of cost effectiveness. Health services should also
adhere to the decision concerning four priority groups. Further-
more, all interventions in health care should be based on four
principles: to do good, to do no harm, to respect autonomy, and
to be just.
The healthcare conditions caused by osteoporosis, ie, fractures
in conjunction with low energy trauma, belong to priority group I.
The same group includes care of individuals having lower autono-
my – among osteoporosis patients, this involves all elderly patients
with dementia. A large number of patients need rehabilitation
after the acute fracture phase and therefore belong to priority
group II. Even primary prevention, which is an important aspect
of prevention in osteoporosis, belongs to priority group II.
There is no scientific evidence to show that general population
screening programs for osteoporosis are of value. Hence, this is
not ethically justified.
The treatment of patients with osteoporosis appears to follow
accepted ethical principles. An exception concerns undertreating
patients who have experienced fractures. Rehabilitation is judged
to be the same from an ethical standpoint. However, there is
some uncertainty as regards hip fracture patients with moderate to
severe cognitive disorders.
With all types of fragility fractures, social rehabilitation is a
necessary complement to pain relief, physical skills training, and
interventions to prevent new fractures.

F RO M T H E R E P O RT ” O S T E O P O RO S I S –
43
P R E V E N T I O N , D I A G N O S I S A N D T R E AT M E N T ”
Reports published by SBU in English
SBU Reports

Evidence Based Nursing: Caring for Persons with Schizophrenia (1999/2001), no 4e

Chemotherapy for Cancer (2001), no 155/2
Mild Head Injury (2000), no 153
CABG/PTCA or Medical Therapy in Anginal Pain (1998) n0 141e
Bone Density Measurement, Journal of Internal Medicine,
Volume 241 Suppl 739 (1997), no 127/suppl
Mass Screening for Prostate Cancer, International Journal of Cancer,
Suppl 9 (1996), no 126/suppl
Radiotherapy for Cancer, Volume 1, Acta Oncologica, Suppl 6 (1996), no 129/1/suppl
Radiotherapy for Cancer, Volume 2, Acta Oncologica, Suppl 7 (1996), no 129/2/suppl
Critical Issues in Radiotherapy (1996), no 130e
Hysterectomy – Ratings of Appropriateness... (1995), no 125e
Moderately Elevated Blood Pressure, Journal of Internal Medicine,
Volume 238 Suppl 737 (1995), no 121/suppl
CABG and PTCA. A Literature Review and Ratings... (1994), no 120e
Literature Searching and Evidence Interpretation (1993), no 119e
Stroke (1992), no 116e
The Role of PTCA (1992), no 115e
The Problem of Back Pain – Conference Report (1989), no 107e
Preoperative Routines (1989), no 101e

SBU Summaries

Osteoporosis – Prevention, Diagnosis and Treatment (2003), no 510-22

Radiotherapy for Cancer (2003), no 510-21
Hearing Aids for Adults (2003), no 510-20
Prevention of Dental Caries (2002), no 510-19
Preventions, Diagnosis & Treatment of Venous Thromboembolism (2002), no 510-18
Obesity – Problems and Interventions (2002), no 510-17
Hormone Replacement Therapy (2002), no 510-16
Treatment of Alcohol and Drug Abuse (2001), no 510-15
Chemotherapy for Cancer (2001), no 510-14
Treatment of Asthma and COPD (2000), no 510-13

F RO M T H E R E P O RT ” O S T E O P O RO S I S –
45
P R E V E N T I O N , D I A G N O S I S A N D T R E AT M E N T ”
 Dyspepsia – Methods of Diagnosis and Treatment (2001), no 510-12
Back Pain, Neck Pain (2000), no 510-11
Prognostic Methods for Acute Coronary Artery Disease (2000), no 510-10
The Patient – Doctor Relationsship (2000), no 510-8
Urinary Incontinence (1999), no 510-9
Smoking Cessation Methods Conclusions (1998), no 510-7
Routine Ultrasound Examination During Pregnancy (1998), no 510-6
Smoking Cessation Conclusions (1998), no 510-5
Surgical Treatment of Rheumatic Diseases (1998), no 510-2
Preventing Disease with Antioxidants (1997), no 510-4
Community Intervention Cardiovascular Disease (1997), no 510-3
The Use of Neuroleptics (1997), no 510-1

Alert Reports

Early assessment of new methods in health care. Find them at www.sbu.se

in pdf format under Alert.

To order SBU Reports

There are also several reports in Swedish. All reports can be ordered via
the Internet at www.sbu.se, by phone (+46-8-412 32 00),
or by fax (+46-8-411 32 60).

46 S B U S U M M A RY A N D C O N C L U S I O N S
SBU Evaluates
Health Care Technology

The Swedish Government has given SBU the following

responsibilities:

• SBU shall evaluate the methods used in health care by

systematically and critically reviewing the scientific evidence
in the field.

• SBU’s assessments shall cover the medical aspects and the

ethical, social, and economic consequences of disseminating
and applying medical and dental technologies.

• SBU’s assessments shall be compiled, presented, and

disseminated in such a way that all affected parties have
access to the information.

• SBU shall contribute, through informational and educational

initiatives, toward ensuring that the knowledge gained is used
to rationally utilize available resources in health care.

• SBU shall draw on national and international experience and

research findings in the field and shall serve as a focal point
for health technology assessment in Sweden. This effort shall
be managed in a way that secures success and respect for the
organization, both domestically and internationally.
 Osteoporosis – Prevention,
Diagnosis and Treatment
The SBU report, “Osteoporosis – Prevention,
Diagnosis and Treatment”, is based on a syste-
matic and critical review of the scientific litera-
ture. It is one of a series of scientific reports
published by SBU (The Swedish Council on
Technology Assessment in Health Care).
The Summary and Conclusions of the
report, presented in this booklet, have been
approved by the SBU Board of Directors and
the SBU Scientific Advisory Committee.

SBU, Box 5650, SE-114 86 Stockholm, Sweden • Visiting Address: Tyrgatan 7

Telephone: +46-8-412 32 00 • Fax: +46-8-411 32 60 • www.sbu.se • E-mail: [email protected]