Osteoporosis International : a Journal Established As Result of Cooperation Between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA, 19(4), 581-587, 2007
The osteoporosis care gap in men with fragility fractures: the Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study
Alexandra Papaioannou, C C Kennedy, G Ioannidis
Yiyuan Gao, A M Sawka, David Goltzman, Alan Tenenhouse , Robert G Josse, Nancy Kreiger , Jerilynn C Prior, Tassos Anastassiades, Jonathan D Adachi, CaMos Research Group , David A Hanley, J P Brown, K Shawn Davison, L Pickard , S Kaiser, W P Olszynski
We examined osteoporosis diagnosis/treatment in 2,187 community dwelling men age 50+. After five years in the study, 90% of men with fragility fractures remained undiagnosed and untreated for osteoporosis. The need to treat fragility fractures is well established in guidelines, and these numbers represent an important care gap.
Introduction
Whether physicians in the community are recognizing and appropriately treating osteoporosis and fragility fractures in men remains unknown. We examined the rate of diagnosis and treatment in community dwelling men participating in the Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study (CaMos).
Methods
Between February 1996 and September 2002, 2,187 participants were recruited from nine sites across Canada and prospectively followed. Information on osteoporosis diagnosis, fractures, medications were collected annually by a detailed questionnaire. DXA examination of lumbar spine (L1-4) and hip were conducted at baseline and year five.
Results
Diagnosis and treatment in men with clinical fragility fractures was low: at baseline and year five only 2.3% and 10.3% of men with a clinical fracture reported an osteoporosis diagnosis, respectively. At year five, 90% of men with a clinical fragility fracture were untreated. Hip fractures were the most commonly treated (37.5% by year five). A diagnosis of osteoporosis resulted in greater treatment: 67% of participants with diagnosed osteoporosis were treated with a bisphosphonate and 87% were taking calcium and/or vitamin D (year five).
Conclusions
In this population-based study, both a diagnostic and therapeutic gap existed between knowledge and practice related to fragility fractures and osteoporosis in men aged >or=50 years.
osteoporosis care gap men, fragility fracture men untreated, male osteoporosis diagnosis, CaMos men fracture, underdiagnosis osteoporosis men, bone density testing men, secondary fracture prevention gap, clinical guideline adherence osteoporosis, community dwelling men fracture, osteoporosis treatment gap
PMID 17924051 17924051 DOI 10.1007/s00198-007-0483-0 10.1007/s00198-007-0483-0
Cite this article
Papaioannou, A., Kennedy, C. C., Ioannidis, G., Gao, Y., Sawka, A. M., Goltzman, D., Tenenhouse, A., Pickard, L., Olszynski, W. P., Davison, K. S., Kaiser, S., Josse, R. G., Kreiger, N., Hanley, D. A., Prior, J. C., Brown, J. P., Anastassiades, T., Adachi, J. D., & CaMos Research Group (2008). The osteoporosis care gap in men with fragility fractures: the Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study. Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA, 19(4), 581-587. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-007-0483-0
Papaioannou A, Kennedy CC, Ioannidis G, Gao Y, Sawka AM, Goltzman D, et al. The osteoporosis care gap in men with fragility fractures: the Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study. Osteoporos Int. 2008;19(4):581-587. doi:10.1007/s00198-007-0483-0
Papaioannou, A., et al. "The osteoporosis care gap in men with fragility fractures: the Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study." Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA, vol. 19, no. 4, 2008, pp. 581-587.
Keywords
Bone Density Conservation Agents, Diphosphonates, Vitamin D
Using prospective data from the Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study (CaMos), we compared health utilities index (HUI) scores after 5 years of follow-up among participants (50 years and older) with and without incident clinical fractures. Incident fractures had a negative impact on HUI scores over time.
This study examined change in health-related quality of life (HRQL) in those with and without incident clinical fractures as measured by the HUI. The study cohort was 4,820 women and 1,783 men (50 years and older) from the CaMos. The HUI was administered at baseline and year 5. Participants were sub-divided into incident fracture groups (hip, rib, spine, forearm, pelvis, other) and were compared with those without these fractures. The effects of both time and fracture type on HUI scores were examined in multivariable regression analyses. Men and women with hip fractures, compared to those without, had lower HUI measures that ranged from -0.05 to -0.25. Both women and men with spine fractures had significant deficits on the pain attributes (-0.07 to -0.12). In women, self-care (-0.06), mobility and ambulation (-0.05) were also negatively impacted. Women with rib fractures had deficits similar to women with spine fractures, and these effects persisted over time. In men, rib fractures did not significantly affect HUI scores. Pelvic and forearm fractures did not substantially influence HUI scores. The HUI was a sensitive measure of HRQL change over time. These results will inform economic analyses evaluating osteoporosis therapies.
Observational studies are needed to quantify real-life effectiveness of antiresorptive therapy in the prevention of clinical fractures. Antiresorptive therapies were associated with an overall 32% reduction in low-trauma nonvertebral fracture risk among women 50 and older. Effectiveness may be lower among older women and those without risk factors.
Randomized controlled trials have shown that antiresorptive therapies reduce the risk of fracture in selected populations, but further study is needed to quantify their real-life effectiveness. The study objective was to determine the association between antiresorptive use and low-trauma nonvertebral fracture in women 50 and older. The design was a retrospective nested case-control study (density-based sampling) within the Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study. There were 5,979 eligible women with 453 cases and 1,304 matched controls. The current use of antiresorptives was associated with a decreased risk of fracture with OR = 0.68, 95% CI: 0.52-0.91; where OR is the adjusted odds ratio and CI is the confidence interval. Subgroup analysis yielded OR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.42-0.89 for ages 50-74; OR = 0.76, 95% CI: 0.50-1.17 for ages 75+; OR = 0.58, 95% CI: 0.40-0.83 for those with a major risk factor; and OR = 0.92; 95% CI: 0.59-1.42 for those without a major risk factor. Major risk factors were prevalent low-trauma fracture, vertebral deformity (grade 2+), and BMD T-score < or = -2.5. Antiresorptive therapy is associated with a clinically important reduction in low-trauma nonvertebral fracture risk among community-dwelling women aged 50 and older. Antiresorptive therapy may be less effective for women 75 and older and women without major risk factors.
Male infertility is an increasing and serious medical concern, though the mechanism remains poorly understood. Impaired male reproductive function affects approximately half of infertile couples worldwide. Multiple factors related to the environment, genetics, age, and comorbidities have been associated with impaired sperm function. Present-day clinicians rely primarily on standard semen analysis to diagnose male reproductive potential and develop treatment strategies. To address sperm quality assessment bias and enhance analysis accuracy, the World Health Organization (WHO) has recommended standardized sperm testing; however, conventional diagnostic and therapeutic options for male infertility, including physical examination and semen standard analysis, remain ineffective in relieving the associated social burden. Instead, assisted reproductive techniques are becoming the primary therapeutic approach. In the post-genomic era, multiomics technologies that deeply interrogate the genome, transcriptome, proteome, and/or the epigenome, even at single-cell level, besides the breakthroughs in robotic surgery, stem cell therapy, and big data, offer promises towards solving semen quality deterioration and male factor infertility. This review highlights the complex etiology of male infertility, especially the roles of lifestyle and environmental factors, and discusses advanced technologies/methodologies used in characterizing its pathophysiology. A comprehensive combination of these innovative approaches in a global and multi-centric setting and fulfilling the suitable ethical consent could ensure optimal reproductive and developmental outcomes. These combinatorial approaches should allow for the development of diagnostic markers, molecular stratification classes, and personalized treatment strategies. Since lifestyle choices and environmental factors influence male fertility, their integration in any comprehensive approach is required for safe, proactive, cost-effective, and noninvasive precision male infertility theranostics that are affordable, accessible, and facilitate couples realizing their procreation dream.
de Ligny W et al., 2022·Cochrane Database Syst Rev
The inability to have children affects 10% to 15% of couples worldwide. A male factor is estimated to account for up to half of the infertility cases with between 25% to 87% of male subfertility considered to be due to the effect of oxidative stress. Oral supplementation with antioxidants is thought to improve sperm quality by reducing oxidative damage. Antioxidants are widely available and inexpensive when compared to other fertility treatments, however most antioxidants are uncontrolled by regulation and the evidence for their effectiveness is uncertain. We compared the benefits and risks of different antioxidants used for male subfertility. To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of supplementary oral antioxidants in subfertile men. The Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, AMED, and two trial registers were searched on 15 February 2021, together with reference checking and contact with experts in the field to identify additional trials.
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared any type, dose or combination of oral antioxidant supplement with placebo, no treatment, or treatment with another antioxidant, among subfertile men of a couple attending a reproductive clinic. We excluded studies comparing antioxidants with fertility drugs alone and studies that included men with idiopathic infertility and normal semen parameters or fertile men attending a fertility clinic because of female partner infertility.
We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. The primary review outcome was live birth. Clinical pregnancy, adverse events and sperm parameters were secondary outcomes. We included 90 studies with a total population of 10,303 subfertile men, aged between 18 and 65 years, part of a couple who had been referred to a fertility clinic and some of whom were undergoing medically assisted reproduction (MAR). Investigators compared and combined 20 different oral antioxidants. The evidence was of 'low' to 'very low' the main limitation was that out of the 67 included studies in the meta-analysis only 20 studies reported clinical pregnancy, and of those 12 reported on live birth. The evidence is current up to February 2021. antioxidants may lead to increased live birth rates (odds ratio (OR) 1.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07 to 1.91, P = 0.02, 12 RCTs, 1283 men, I(2) = 44%, very low-certainty evidence). Results in the studies contributing to the analysis of live birth rate suggest that if the baseline chance of live birth following placebo or no treatment is assumed to be 16%, the chance following the use of antioxidants is estimated to be between 17% and 27%. However, this result was based on only 246 live births from 1283 couples in 12 small or medium-sized studies. When studies at high risk of bias were removed from the analysis, there was no evidence of increased live birth (Peto OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.75, 827 men, 8 RCTs, P = 0.27, I(2) = 32%). antioxidants may lead to increased clinical pregnancy rates (OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.45 to 2.47, P < 0.00001, 20 RCTs, 1706 men, I(2) = 3%, low-certainty evidence) compared with placebo or no treatment. This suggests that, in the studies contributing to the analysis of clinical pregnancy, if the baseline chance of clinical pregnancy following placebo or no treatment is assumed to be 15%, the chance following the use of antioxidants is estimated to be between 20% and 30%. This result was based on 327 clinical pregnancies from 1706 couples in 20 small studies. only six studies reported on this outcome and the event rate was very low. No evidence of a difference in miscarriage rate was found between the antioxidant and placebo or no treatment group (OR 1.46, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.83, P = 0.27, 6 RCTs, 664 men, I(2) = 35%, very low-certainty evidence). The findings suggest that in a population of subfertile couples, with male factor infertility, with an expected miscarriage rate of 5%, the risk of miscarriage following the use of an antioxidant would be between 4% and 13%. antioxidants may lead to an increase in mild gastrointestinal discomfort when compared with placebo or no treatment (OR 2.70, 95% CI 1.46 to 4.99, P = 0.002, 16 RCTs, 1355 men, I(2) = 40%, low-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the chance of gastrointestinal discomfort following placebo or no treatment is assumed to be 2%, the chance following the use of antioxidants is estimated to be between 2% and 7%. However, this result was based on a low event rate of 46 out of 1355 men in 16 small or medium-sized studies, and the certainty of the evidence was rated low and heterogeneity was high. We were unable to draw conclusions from the antioxidant versus antioxidant comparison as insufficient studies compared the same interventions. AUTHORS' In this review, there is very low-certainty evidence from 12 small or medium-sized randomised controlled trials suggesting that antioxidant supplementation in subfertile males may improve live birth rates for couples attending fertility clinics. Low-certainty evidence suggests that clinical pregnancy rates may increase. There is no evidence of increased risk of miscarriage, however antioxidants may give more mild gastrointestinal discomfort, based on very low-certainty evidence. Subfertile couples should be advised that overall, the current evidence is inconclusive based on serious risk of bias due to poor reporting of methods of randomisation, failure to report on the clinical outcomes live birth rate and clinical pregnancy, often unclear or even high attrition, and also imprecision due to often low event rates and small overall sample sizes. Further large well-designed randomised placebo-controlled trials studying infertile men and reporting on pregnancy and live births are still required to clarify the exact role of antioxidants.