Evidence Hub

Reduced mortality and subsequent fracture risk associated with oral bisphosphonate recommendation in a fracture liaison service setting: A prospective cohort study

T. van Geel, D. Bliuc, P. Geusens, J. Center, G. Dinant, Thach Tran, J. V. D. van den Bergh, A. McLellan et al.

PLoS ONE, 2018

5,011 participants · 71 citations

Abstract

Objective Osteoporotic fragility fractures, that are common in men and women, signal increased risk of future fractures and of premature mortality. Less than one-third of postmenopausal women and fewer men are prescribed active treatments to reduce fracture risk. Therefore, in this study the association of oral bisphosphonate recommendation with subsequent fracture and mortality over eight years in a fracture liaison service setting was analysed. Materials and methods In this prospective cohort study, 5011 men and women aged >50 years, who sustained a clinical fracture, accepted the invitation to attend the fracture liaison service of the West Glasgow health service between 1999 and 2007. These patients were fully assessed and all were recommended calcium and vitamin D. Based on pre-defined fracture risk criteria, 2534 (50.7%) patients were additionally also recommended oral bisphosphonates. Mortality and subsequent fracture risk were the pre-defined outcomes analysed using Cox proportional hazard models. Results Those recommended bisphosphonates were more often female (82.9 vs. 72.4%), were older (73.4 vs. 64.4 years), had lower bone mineral density T-score (-3.1 vs. -1.5) and more had sustained hip fractures (21.7 vs. 6.2%; p < 0.001). After adjustments, patients recommended bisphosphonates had lower subsequent fracture risk (Hazard Ratio (HR): 0.60; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.49–0.73) and lower mortality risk (HR: 0.79, 95%CI: 0.64–0.97). Conclusion Of the patients,…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a clinical trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 5,011 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free