Advertisement

Osteoporosis International

, Volume 29, Issue 8, pp 1747–1757 | Cite as

Characteristics of recurrent fractures

  • J. A. Kanis
  • H. Johansson
  • A. Odén
  • N. C. Harvey
  • V. Gudnason
  • K. M. Sanders
  • G. Sigurdsson
  • K. Siggeirsdottir
  • L. A. Fitzpatrick
  • F. Borgström
  • E. V. McCloskey
Original Article

Abstract

Summary

The present study, drawn from a sample of the Icelandic population, quantified high immediate risk and utility loss of subsequent fracture after a sentinel fracture (at the hip, spine, distal forearm and humerus) that attenuated with time.

Introduction

The risk of a subsequent osteoporotic fracture is particularly acute immediately after an index fracture and wanes progressively with time. The aim of this study was to quantify the risk and utility consequences of subsequent fracture after a sentinel fracture (at the hip, spine, distal forearm and humerus) with an emphasis on the time course of recurrent fracture.

Methods

The Reykjavik Study fracture registration, drawn from a sample of the Icelandic population (n = 18,872), recorded all fractures of the participants from their entry into the study until December 31, 2012. Medical records for the participants were manually examined and verified. First sentinel fractures were identified. Subsequent fractures, deaths, 10-year probability of fracture and cumulative disutility using multipliers derived from the International Costs and Utilities Related to Osteoporotic fractures Study (ICUROS) were examined as a function of time after fracture, age and sex.

Results

Over 10 years, subsequent fractures were sustained in 28% of 1498 individuals with a sentinel hip fracture. For other sentinel fractures, the proportion ranged from 35 to 38%. After each sentinel fracture, the risk of subsequent fracture was highest in the immediate post fracture interval and decreased markedly with time. Thus, amongst individuals who sustained a recurrent fracture, 31–45% did so within 1 year of the sentinel fracture. Hazard ratios for fracture recurrence (population relative risks) were accordingly highest immediately after the sentinel fracture (2.6–5.3, depending on the site of fracture) and fell progressively over 10 years (1.5–2.2). Population relative risks also decreased progressively with age. The utility loss during the first 10 years after a sentinel fracture varied by age (less with age) and sex (greater in women). In women at the age of 70 years, the mean utility loss due to fractures in the whole cohort was 0.081 whereas this was 12-fold greater in women with a sentinel hip fracture, and was increased 15-fold for spine fracture, 4-fold for forearm fracture and 8-fold for humeral fracture.

Conclusion

High fracture risks and utility loss immediately after fracture suggest that treatment given as soon as possible after fracture would avoid a higher number of new fractures compared with treatment given later. This provides the rationale for very early intervention immediately after a sentinel fracture.

Keywords

Fracture probability Imminent risk Sentinel fracture Utility loss 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank the participants in the Reykjavik Study for their valuable contribution.

Compliance with ethical standards

The study was approved by the National Bioethics Committee and the Data Protection Authority in Iceland. All participants gave informed written consent.

Conflicts of interest

Radius Health, Inc., was the sponsor for this study and provided financial support for its completion. LF is an employee of Radius Health. None of the other authors declare competing interests with regard to this paper.

References

  1. 1.
    Johnell O, Kanis JA, Oden A et al (2004) Fracture risk following an osteoporotic fracture. Osteoporos Int 15:175–179CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hansen L, Petersen KD, Eriksen SA, Langdahl BL, Eiken PA, Brixen K, Abrahamsen B, Jensen JEB, Harsløf T, Vestergaard P (2015) Subsequent fracture rates in a nationwide population-based cohort study with a 10-year perspective. Osteoporos Int 26:513–519CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kanis JA, Johnell O, De Laet C et al (2004) A meta-analysis of previous fracture and subsequent fracture risk. Bone 35:375–382CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Haentjens P, Johnell O, Kanis JA, Bouillon R, Cooper C, Lamraski G, Vanderschueren D, Kaufman JM, Boonen S, Network on Male Osteoporosis in Europe (NEMO) (2004) Gender-related differences in short and long-term absolute risk of hip fracture after Colles’ or spine fracture: Colles’ fracture as an early and sensitive marker of skeletal fragility in men. J Bone Miner Res 19:1933–1944CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Klotzbuecher CM, Ross PD, Landsman PB, Abbott TA 3rd, Berger M (2000) Patients with prior fractures have an increased risk of future fractures: a summary of the literature and statistical synthesis. J Bone Miner Res 15:721–739CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Johnell O, Oden A, Caulin F, Kanis JA (2001) Acute and long-term increase in fracture risk after hospitalization for vertebral fracture. Osteoporos Int 12:207–214CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Giangregorio LM, Leslie WD (2010) Manitoba bone density program. Time since prior fracture is a risk modifier for 10-year osteoporotic fractures. J Bone Miner Res 25:1400–1405CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dretakis KE, Dretakis EK, Papakitsou EF, Psarakis S, Steriopoulos K (1998) Possible predisposing factors for the second hip fracture. Calcif Tissue Int 62:366–369CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nymark T, Lauritsen JM, Ovesen O, Röck ND, Jeune B (2006) Short time-frame from first to second hip fracture in the Funen County Hip Fracture Study. Osteoporos Int 2006;17(9):1353–1357Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lindsay R, Silverman SL, Cooper C, Hanley DA, Barton I, Broy SB, Licata A, Benhamou L, Geusens P, Flowers K, Stracke H, Seeman E (2001) Risk of new vertebral fracture in the year following a fracture. JAMA 285:320–323CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ryg J, Rejnmark L, Overgaard S, Brixen K, Vestergaard P (2009) Hip fracture patients at risk of second hip fracture: a nationwide population-based cohort study of 169,145 cases during 1977-2001. J Bone Miner Res 24:1299–1307CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    van Geel TACM, van Helden S, Geusens PP, Winkens B, Dinant G-J (2016) Clinical subsequent fractures cluster in time after first fractures. Ann Rheum Dis 68:99–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Johansson H, Siggeirsdóttir K, Harvey NC, Odén A, Gudnason V, McCloskey E, Sigurdsson G, Kanis JA (2017) Imminent risk of fracture after fracture. Osteoporos Int 28:775–780CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Siggeirsdottir K, Aspelund T, Sigurdsson G, Mogensen B, Chang M, Jonsdottir B, Eiriksdottir G, Launer LJ, Harris TB, Jonsson BY, Gudnason V (2007) Inaccuracy in self-report of fractures may underestimate association with health outcomes when compared with medical record based fracture registry. Eur J Epidemiol 22:631–639CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kanis JA, Oden A, Johnell O, Jonsson B, de Laet C, Dawson A (2001) The burden of osteoporotic fractures: a method for setting intervention thresholds. Osteoporos Int 12:417–427CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Olerud P, Tidermark J, Ponzer S, Ahrengart L, Bergstrom G (2011) Responsiveness of the EQ-5D in patients with proximal humeral fractures. J Shoulder Elb Surg 20:1200–1206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tidermark J, Bergstrom G (2007) Responsiveness of the EuroQol (EQ-5D) and the Nottingham HealthProfile (NHP) in elderly patients with femoral neck fractures. Qual Life Res 16:321–330CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Oppe M, Devlin NJ, Szende A (2007) EQ-5D value sets: inventory, comparative review and user guide: SpringerGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Borgstrom F, Zethraeus N, Johnell O et al (2006) Costs and quality of life associated with osteoporosis-related fractures in Sweden. Osteoporos Int 17:637–650CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Svedbom A, Borgstöm B, Hernlund E et al (2017) Quality of life after hip, vertebral, and distal forearm fragility fractures measured using the EQ-5D-3L, EQ-VAS, and time trade-off: results from the ICUROS. Quality of life research. Osteoporos Int 29: 557–566Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dolan P (1997) Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care 35:1095–1108CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Breslow NE, Day NE (1987) Statistical methods in cancer research. IARC scientific publications no 32 volume II:p 131-135Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Oden A, Dawson A, Dere W, Johnell O, Jonsson B, Kanis JA (1998) Lifetime risk of hip fracture is underestimated. Osteoporos Int 8:599–603CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Javaid MK, Kyer C, Mitchell PJ et al (2015) Effective secondary fracture prevention: implementation of a global benchmarking of clinical quality using the IOF capture the fracture® best practice framework tool. Osteoporos Int 26:2573–2578CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kanis JA, McCloskey EV, Johansson H et al (2013) European guidance for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women. Osteoporos Int 24:23–57CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lyles KW, Colón-Emeric CS, Magaziner JS, Adachi JD, Pieper CF, Mautalen C, Hyldstrup L, Recknor C, Nordsletten L, Moore KA, Lavecchia C, Zhang J, Mesenbrink P, Hodgson PK, Abrams K, Orloff JJ, Horowitz Z, Eriksen EF, Boonen S, HORIZON Recurrent Fracture Trial (2007) Zoledronic acid and clinical fractures and mortality after hip fracture. N Engl J Med 357:1799–1809CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bischoff Ferrari HA, Dawson Hughes B, Willett WC et al (2004) Effect of vitamin D on falls: a meta-analysis. JAMA 291:1999–2006CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    van Helden S, Wyers CE, Dagnelie PC et al (2007) Risk of falling in patients with a recent fracture. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 8:55CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bonafede M, Shi N, Barron R, Li X, Crittenden DB, Chandler D (2016) Predicting imminent risk for fracture in patients aged 50 or older with osteoporosis using US claims data. Arch Osteoporos 11:26.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11657-016-0280-5 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bjornsson G, Bjornsson OJ, Davidsson D et al (1982) Report abc XXIV. Health survey in the Reykjavik area—women. Stages I-III, 1968–1969, 1971–1972 and 1976–1978. Participants, invitation, response etc. The Icelandic Heart Association, ReykjavíkGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bjornsson OJ, Davidsson D., Olafsson H et al. (1979) Report XVIII. Health survey in the Reykjavik area—men. Stages I–III, 1967–1968, 1970–1971 and 1974–1975. Participants, invitation, response etc. The Icelandic Heart Association, ReykjavíkGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kanis JA, Odén A, McCloskey EV, Johansson H, Wahl D, Cyrus Cooper C on behalf of the IOF Working Group on Epidemiology and Quality of Life (2012) A systematic review of hip fracture incidence and probability of fracture worldwide. Osteoporos Int 23:2239–2256CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Osteoporosis Foundation and National Osteoporosis Foundation 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. A. Kanis
    • 1
    • 2
  • H. Johansson
    • 1
    • 2
  • A. Odén
    • 1
  • N. C. Harvey
    • 3
    • 4
  • V. Gudnason
    • 5
    • 6
  • K. M. Sanders
    • 2
  • G. Sigurdsson
    • 5
  • K. Siggeirsdottir
    • 5
  • L. A. Fitzpatrick
    • 7
  • F. Borgström
    • 8
  • E. V. McCloskey
    • 1
    • 9
  1. 1.Centre for Metabolic Bone DiseasesUniversity of SheffieldSheffieldUK
  2. 2.Mary McKillop Health InstituteAustralian Catholic UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  3. 3.MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology UnitUniversity of SouthamptonSouthamptonUK
  4. 4.NIHR Southampton Biomedical Research CentreUniversity of Southampton and University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation TrustSouthamptonUK
  5. 5.Icelandic Heart Association Research InstituteKopavogurIceland
  6. 6.University of IcelandReykjavikIceland
  7. 7.Radius HealthWalthamUSA
  8. 8.LIME/MMC, Karolinska InstitutetStockholmSweden
  9. 9.Mellanby Centre for Bone Research, Department of Oncology and MetabolismUniversity of SheffieldSheffieldUK

Personalised recommendations