Evidence Hub

The efficacy of pharmacotherapy in postmenopausal osteoporosis: a longitudinal observational study

Pluskiewicz W, Adamczyk P, Franek E, Sewerynek E, Wichrowska H, Napiórkowska L, Stuss M, Rozwandowicz A et al.

Endokrynologia Polska, 2019

226 participants

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The aim of the study was an assessment of longitudinal changes in fracture probability in postmenopausal women.

MATERIAL AND METHODS: A group of 226 postmenopausal women at baseline mean age 66.46 ± 7.96 years were studied. There were 21 women without therapy, 102 taking calcium + vitamin D, and 103 women on antiresorptive therapy, in the study group. Data concerning clinical risk factors for osteoporosis and hip BMD were gathered. Fracture probability for major and hip fractures was established using FRAXTM.

RESULTS: Mean follow-up time was 2.43 ± 0.59 years. Baseline FRAX value in the whole group for major fracture was 7.1 ± 4.18, and at follow-up it was 7.44 ± 4.04. Respective results for FRAX for hip fracture were 3.17 ± 2.69 and 3.02 ± 2.35. In the whole group the probability for major fractures significantly increased during follow-up (p < 0.05) and for hip fracture did not change. In non-treated patients and patients taking calcium + vitamin D the fracture probability increased significantly. In patients on antiresorptive therapy the fracture probability did not change, which was connected with an improvement in bone status assessed by DXA. Femoral neck T-score in the whole group did not change, in those not treated and taking calcium + vitamin D it decreased significantly (p < 0.05), while in treated women it increased significantly (p < 0.05). In patients with improved bone status the FRAX values for major and hip fractures decreased by 0.44 ± 1.62 and…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, 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: 226 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