Evidence Hub

Vitamin D status and response to treatment in post-menopausal osteoporosis

Adami S, Giannini S, Bianchi G, Sinigaglia L, Di Munno O, Fiore CE, Minisola S, Rossini M

Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA, 2009

1,515 participants · 242 citations

Abstract

UNLABELLED: Treatment with anti-resorptive agents over 13 months was associated with for three to fivefold lower bone mineral density changes and 1.5-fold increased risk of incidence fracture in vitamin D insufficient as compared to vitamin D repleted postmenopausal osteoporotic women.

INTRODUCTION: Several drugs were registered for the treatment of osteoporosis on the basis of clinical trials in which vitamin D repletion was a pre-requisite inclusion criteria and vitamin D supplements were used as adjunctive therapy. However, in routine clinical practice these supplements are not consistently recommended.

METHODS: We studied 1515 women with postmenopausal osteoporosis under treatment with anti-resorbing agents (alendronate, risedronate, raloxifene) for 13.1 months with an adherence > 75%. The patients were classified as vitamin D deficient (N = 514) or vitamin D repleted (N = 1001) according to risk factors (N = 1062) or the level of 25(OH) vitamin D [25(OH)D] above or below 50 nmol/l (N = 453).

RESULTS: Vitamin D deficient and vitamin D repleted subjects differed significantly for annualized spine and hip bone mineral density (BMD) changes adjusted for all available confounding factors (type of treatment, age, global calcium intake, baseline BMD values). One hundred fifty one patients suffered from a new incident clinical fracture. The adjusted odds ratio for incident fractures in vitamin D deficient as compared to vitamin D repleted women was 1.77 (1.20 - 2.59, 95% CI; p…

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: 1,515 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