Letters
Women's health
Volume 181 - Issue 5

Treatment of osteoporosis: why, whom, when and how to treat

Authors:  B E Christopher Nordin and Allan G Need

Med J Aust 2004; 181 (5): 287-288. || doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2004.tb06282.x
Published online: 6 September 2004
Download PDF
Share: Share on Blue Sky Share on Facebook Share on LinkedIn Share by email

B E Christopher Nordin,* Allan G Need†

* Physician, Endocrine and Metabolic Unit, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, SA; † Head, Division of Clinical Biochemistry, Institute of Medical and Veterinary Science, Adelaide, SA. christopher.nordinATimvs.sa.gov.au

To the Editor: The article by Seeman and Eisman on treatment of osteoporosis1 not only neglects the pathogenesis and prevention of this condition, but also fails to appreciate the profound differences between the three main types of fragility fracture (peripheral non-hip, hip and spine).

To say that adults lose bone with age because the “volume of bone resorbed is greater than the volume replaced” is a spectacular but common tautology which simply describes what would be expected from an external negative calcium balance. The common postmenopausal bone loss can generally be accounted for by the rise in calcium requirement due to a fall in calcium absorption and rise in obligatory calcium excretion.2-4 This can be corrected with hormones or compensated for with a calcium supplement, which is known to suppress bone resorption.5 In 20 trials of calcium therapy completed up to 1997, the loss of bone in 855 postmenopausal women treated with calcium was 0.3% per annum, compared with 1.0% per annum in 635 untreated control women (P < 0.001).6

In older women, this relative calcium deficiency is complicated by a decline in vitamin D status caused by reduced exposure to sunlight and progressive thinning of the skin. It has been known for 30 years that vitamin D deficiency is common in patients with hip fracture,7 for 20 years that this was also true in Australia,8 and for 12 years that vitamin D with calcium can reduce the hip fracture rate by 43% in 18 months in women in residential care.9

When it comes to established osteoporosis (the combination of low bone density with fracture), treatment needs to distinguish between the three main types of fracture referred to above. In hip fractures, surely the first priority must be to give adequate vitamin D and calcium. Most non-hip peripheral fractures occur in women with bone densities in the normal range,10 so the need for treatment is debatable unless bone turnover is very high.

Vertebral fractures are a different matter. Unlike peripheral fractures, they do not “heal” in the usual sense — the deformity remains and often causes local pain and mechanical dysfunction. The recurrence rate is very high, because all the vertebrae have much the same bone density, and the osteoporotic collapse of one indicates that the others are ready to follow. This condition is notoriously difficult to manage and should almost be regarded as a medical emergency that requires full investigation — not least to exclude myeloma — and rapid, effective treatment. It is in the secondary prevention of these fractures that the remedies advocated by Seeman and Eisman probably have their main role and are most cost-effective. In fact, although the authors place great emphasis on prevalent fracture as a risk factor for further fracture, the reference they quote deals with prevalent vertebral fracture, not with prevalent non-hip peripheral fracture, where the evidence of benefit from bisphosphonates and raloxifene is very much weaker.

We are arguing for much greater emphasis on the prevention of osteoporosis with adequate calcium after the menopause and adequate vitamin D in the elderly, and the use of appropriate investigation and selective treatment in the management of the condition when it is established.

Authors

  • B E Christopher Nordin2
  • Allan G Need2
  • 1. Endocrine and Metabolic Unit, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, SA
  • 2. Division of Clinical Biochemistry, Institute of Medical and Veterinary Science, Adelaide, SA. christopher.nordinATimvs.sa.gov.au

Correspondence: christopher.nordin@imvs.sa.gov.au

Competing interests

A G N has received research funding from Eli Lilly, Merck Sharpe & Dohme and Roche Products, and travel assistance from Merck Sharp & Dohme.

References

View this article on Wiley Online Library

More like this

Women's health Perspective 1 September 2026 Open Access

Forty Years in the Making: Reporting on the Co-Creation of a National Roadmap for Birthing on Country Services for the Best Start to Life

Res McCalman, Anneka J. Bowman, Roianne West, Kristie Watego, Jyai Allen, Claire Clack, Sue Kildea, Sue Kruske, Melanie Briggs, Cleone Wellington, Rebecca Coddington, Yu Gao, Isabella Garti, Sascha Kowalenko, Sarah Ireland, Catherine Austin, John D. Boffa, Marah Prior, Kelsie Kahl, Bettina Chaseling, Sarah Khaw, Emily Armstrong, Donna Hartz, Yvette Roe

View more