Osteoporosis

TOPLINE:

The Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX), with bone mineral density, predicts the risk for major osteoporotic fractures and hip fractures in patients with cancer, but FRAX without bone mineral density slightly overestimates these risks, a new analysis found.

METHODOLOGY:

• Cancer-specific guidelines recommend using FRAX to assess fracture risk, but its applicability in patients with cancer remains unclear.
• This retrospective cohort study included 9877 patients with cancer (mean age, 67.1 years) and 45,875 matched control individuals without cancer (mean age, 66.2 years). All participants had dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans.
• Researchers collected data on bone mineral density and fractures. The 10-year probabilities of major osteoporotic fractures and hip fractures were calculated using FRAX, and the observed 10-year probabilities of these fractures were compared with FRAX-derived probabilities.
• Compared with individuals without cancer, patients with cancer had a shorter mean follow-up duration (8.5 vs 7.6 years), a slightly higher mean body mass index, and a higher percentage of parental hip fractures (7.0% vs 8.2%); additionally, patients with cancer were more likely to have secondary causes of osteoporosis (10% vs 38.4%) and less likely to receive osteoporosis medication (9.9% vs 4.2%).

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with individuals without cancer, patients with cancer had a significantly higher incidence rate of major fractures (12.9 vs 14.5 per 1000 person-years) and hip fractures (3.5 vs 4.2 per 1000 person-years).
• FRAX with bone mineral density exhibited excellent calibration for predicting major osteoporotic fractures (slope, 1.03) and hip fractures (0.97) in patients with cancer, regardless of the site of cancer diagnosis. FRAX without bone mineral density, however, underestimated the risk for both major (0.87) and hip fractures (0.72).
• In patients with cancer, FRAX with bone mineral density findings were associated with incident major osteoporotic fractures (hazard ratio [HR] per SD, 1.84) and hip fractures (HR per SD, 3.61).
• When models were adjusted for FRAX with bone mineral density, patients with cancer had an increased risk for both major osteoporotic fractures (HR, 1.17) and hip fractures (HR, 1.30). No difference was found in the risk for fracture between patients with and individuals without cancer when the models were adjusted for FRAX without bone mineral density, even when considering osteoporosis medication use.

IN PRACTICE:

“This retrospective cohort study demonstrates that individuals with cancer are at higher risk of fracture than individuals without cancer and that FRAX, particularly with BMD [bone mineral density], may accurately predict fracture risk in this population. These results, along with the known mortality risk of osteoporotic fractures among cancer survivors, further emphasize the clinical importance of closing the current osteoporosis care gap among cancer survivors,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Carrie Ye, MD, MPH, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

This study cohort included a selected group of cancer survivors who were referred for DXA scans and may not represent the general cancer population. The cohort consisted predominantly of women, limiting the generalizability to men with cancer. Given the heterogeneity of the population, the findings may not be applicable to all cancer subgroups. Information on cancer stage or the presence of bone metastases at the time of fracture risk assessment was lacking, which could have affected the findings.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the CancerCare Manitoba Foundation. Three authors reported having ties with various sources, including two who received grants from various organizations.
 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX), with bone mineral density, predicts the risk for major osteoporotic fractures and hip fractures in patients with cancer, but FRAX without bone mineral density slightly overestimates these risks, a new analysis found.

METHODOLOGY:

• Cancer-specific guidelines recommend using FRAX to assess fracture risk, but its applicability in patients with cancer remains unclear.
• This retrospective cohort study included 9877 patients with cancer (mean age, 67.1 years) and 45,875 matched control individuals without cancer (mean age, 66.2 years). All participants had dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans.
• Researchers collected data on bone mineral density and fractures. The 10-year probabilities of major osteoporotic fractures and hip fractures were calculated using FRAX, and the observed 10-year probabilities of these fractures were compared with FRAX-derived probabilities.
• Compared with individuals without cancer, patients with cancer had a shorter mean follow-up duration (8.5 vs 7.6 years), a slightly higher mean body mass index, and a higher percentage of parental hip fractures (7.0% vs 8.2%); additionally, patients with cancer were more likely to have secondary causes of osteoporosis (10% vs 38.4%) and less likely to receive osteoporosis medication (9.9% vs 4.2%).

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with individuals without cancer, patients with cancer had a significantly higher incidence rate of major fractures (12.9 vs 14.5 per 1000 person-years) and hip fractures (3.5 vs 4.2 per 1000 person-years).
• FRAX with bone mineral density exhibited excellent calibration for predicting major osteoporotic fractures (slope, 1.03) and hip fractures (0.97) in patients with cancer, regardless of the site of cancer diagnosis. FRAX without bone mineral density, however, underestimated the risk for both major (0.87) and hip fractures (0.72).
• In patients with cancer, FRAX with bone mineral density findings were associated with incident major osteoporotic fractures (hazard ratio [HR] per SD, 1.84) and hip fractures (HR per SD, 3.61).
• When models were adjusted for FRAX with bone mineral density, patients with cancer had an increased risk for both major osteoporotic fractures (HR, 1.17) and hip fractures (HR, 1.30). No difference was found in the risk for fracture between patients with and individuals without cancer when the models were adjusted for FRAX without bone mineral density, even when considering osteoporosis medication use.

IN PRACTICE:

“This retrospective cohort study demonstrates that individuals with cancer are at higher risk of fracture than individuals without cancer and that FRAX, particularly with BMD [bone mineral density], may accurately predict fracture risk in this population. These results, along with the known mortality risk of osteoporotic fractures among cancer survivors, further emphasize the clinical importance of closing the current osteoporosis care gap among cancer survivors,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Carrie Ye, MD, MPH, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

This study cohort included a selected group of cancer survivors who were referred for DXA scans and may not represent the general cancer population. The cohort consisted predominantly of women, limiting the generalizability to men with cancer. Given the heterogeneity of the population, the findings may not be applicable to all cancer subgroups. Information on cancer stage or the presence of bone metastases at the time of fracture risk assessment was lacking, which could have affected the findings.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the CancerCare Manitoba Foundation. Three authors reported having ties with various sources, including two who received grants from various organizations.
 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX), with bone mineral density, predicts the risk for major osteoporotic fractures and hip fractures in patients with cancer, but FRAX without bone mineral density slightly overestimates these risks, a new analysis found.

METHODOLOGY:

• Cancer-specific guidelines recommend using FRAX to assess fracture risk, but its applicability in patients with cancer remains unclear.
• This retrospective cohort study included 9877 patients with cancer (mean age, 67.1 years) and 45,875 matched control individuals without cancer (mean age, 66.2 years). All participants had dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans.
• Researchers collected data on bone mineral density and fractures. The 10-year probabilities of major osteoporotic fractures and hip fractures were calculated using FRAX, and the observed 10-year probabilities of these fractures were compared with FRAX-derived probabilities.
• Compared with individuals without cancer, patients with cancer had a shorter mean follow-up duration (8.5 vs 7.6 years), a slightly higher mean body mass index, and a higher percentage of parental hip fractures (7.0% vs 8.2%); additionally, patients with cancer were more likely to have secondary causes of osteoporosis (10% vs 38.4%) and less likely to receive osteoporosis medication (9.9% vs 4.2%).

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with individuals without cancer, patients with cancer had a significantly higher incidence rate of major fractures (12.9 vs 14.5 per 1000 person-years) and hip fractures (3.5 vs 4.2 per 1000 person-years).
• FRAX with bone mineral density exhibited excellent calibration for predicting major osteoporotic fractures (slope, 1.03) and hip fractures (0.97) in patients with cancer, regardless of the site of cancer diagnosis. FRAX without bone mineral density, however, underestimated the risk for both major (0.87) and hip fractures (0.72).
• In patients with cancer, FRAX with bone mineral density findings were associated with incident major osteoporotic fractures (hazard ratio [HR] per SD, 1.84) and hip fractures (HR per SD, 3.61).
• When models were adjusted for FRAX with bone mineral density, patients with cancer had an increased risk for both major osteoporotic fractures (HR, 1.17) and hip fractures (HR, 1.30). No difference was found in the risk for fracture between patients with and individuals without cancer when the models were adjusted for FRAX without bone mineral density, even when considering osteoporosis medication use.

IN PRACTICE:

“This retrospective cohort study demonstrates that individuals with cancer are at higher risk of fracture than individuals without cancer and that FRAX, particularly with BMD [bone mineral density], may accurately predict fracture risk in this population. These results, along with the known mortality risk of osteoporotic fractures among cancer survivors, further emphasize the clinical importance of closing the current osteoporosis care gap among cancer survivors,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Carrie Ye, MD, MPH, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

This study cohort included a selected group of cancer survivors who were referred for DXA scans and may not represent the general cancer population. The cohort consisted predominantly of women, limiting the generalizability to men with cancer. Given the heterogeneity of the population, the findings may not be applicable to all cancer subgroups. Information on cancer stage or the presence of bone metastases at the time of fracture risk assessment was lacking, which could have affected the findings.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the CancerCare Manitoba Foundation. Three authors reported having ties with various sources, including two who received grants from various organizations.
 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Matthew F. Watto, MD: Welcome back to The Curbsiders. I’m Dr Matthew Frank Watto, here with my great friend and America’s primary care physician, Dr. Paul Nelson Williams. 

Paul, we’re going to talk about our primary hyperparathyroidism podcast with Dr. Lindsay Kuo. It’s a topic that I feel much more clear on now.

Now, Paul, in primary care, you see a lot of calcium that is just slightly high. Can we just blame that on thiazide diuretics?

Paul N. Williams, MD: It’s a place to start. As you’re starting to think about the possible etiologies, primary hyperparathyroidism and malignancy are the two that roll right off the tongue, but it is worth going back to the patient’s medication list and making sure you’re not missing something.

Thiazides famously cause hypercalcemia, but in some of the reading I did for this episode, they may just uncover it a little bit early. Patients who are on thiazides who become hypercalcemic seem to go on to develop primary hyperthyroidism anyway. So I don’t think you can solely blame the thiazide.

Another medication that can be causative is lithium. So a good place to look first after you’ve repeated the labs and confirmed hypercalcemia is the patient’s medication list. 

Dr. Watto: We’ve talked before about the basic workup for hypercalcemia, and determining whether it’s PTH dependent or PTH independent. On the podcast, we talk more about the full workup, but I wanted to talk about the classic symptoms. Our expert made the point that we don’t see them as much anymore, although we do see kidney stones. People used to present very late in the disease because they weren’t having labs done routinely.

The classic symptoms include osteoporosis and bone tumors. People can get nephrocalcinosis and kidney stones. I hadn’t really thought of it this way because we’re used to diagnosing it early now. Do you feel the same? 

Dr. Williams: As labs have started routinely reporting calcium levels, this is more and more often how it’s picked up. The other aspect is that as we are screening for and finding osteoporosis, part of the workup almost always involves getting a parathyroid hormone and a calcium level. We’re seeing these lab abnormalities before we’re seeing symptoms, which is good.

But it also makes things more diagnostically thorny.

Dr. Watto: Dr. Lindsay Kuo made the point that when she sees patients before and after surgery, she’s aware of these nonclassic symptoms — the stones, bones, groans, and the psychiatric overtones that can be anything from fatigue or irritability to dysphoria.

Some people have a generalized weakness that’s very nonspecific. Dr. Kuo said that sometimes these symptoms will disappear after surgery. The patients may just have gotten used to them, or they thought these symptoms were caused by something else, but after surgery they went away.

There are these nonclassic symptoms that are harder to pin down. I was surprised by that.

Dr. Williams: She mentioned polydipsia and polyuria, which have been reported in other studies. It seems like it can be anything. You have to take a good history, but none of those things in and of themselves is an indication for operating unless the patient has the classic renal or bone manifestations. 

Dr. Watto: The other thing we talked about is a normal calcium level in a patient with primary hyperparathyroidism, or the finding of a PTH level in the normal range but with a high calcium level that is inappropriate. Can you talk a little bit about those two situations? 

Dr. Williams: They’re hard to say but kind of easy to manage because you treat them the same way as someone who has elevated calcium and PTH levels. 

The normocalcemic patient is something we might stumble across with osteoporosis screening. Initially the calcium level is elevated, so you repeat it and it’s normal but with an elevated PTH level. You’re like, shoot. Now what?

It turns out that most endocrine surgeons say that the indications for surgery for the classic form of primary hyperparathyroidism apply to these patients as well, and it probably helps with the bone outcomes, which is one of the things they follow most closely. If you have hypercalcemia, you should have a suppressed PTH level, the so-called normohormonal hyperparathyroidism, which is not normal at all. So even if the PTH is in the normal range, it’s still relatively elevated compared with what it should be. That situation is treated in the same way as the classic elevated PTH and elevated calcium levels.

Dr. Watto: If the calcium is abnormal and the PTH is not quite what you’d expect it to be, you can always ask your friendly neighborhood endocrinologist to help you figure out whether the patient really has one of these conditions. You have to make sure that they don’t have a simple secondary cause like a low vitamin D level. In that case, you fix the vitamin D and then recheck the numbers to see if they’ve normalized. But I have found a bunch of these edge cases in which it has been helpful to confer with an endocrinologist, especially before you send someone to a surgeon to take out their parathyroid gland. 

This was a really fantastic conversation. If you want to hear the full podcast episode, click here.
 

Dr. Watto, Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine at University of Pennsylvania; Internist, Department of Medicine, Hospital Medicine Section, Pennsylvania Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Williams, Associate Professor of Clinical Medicine, Department of General Internal Medicine, Lewis Katz School of Medicine; Staff Physician, Department of General Internal Medicine, Temple Internal Medicine Associates, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for The Curbsiders, and has received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from The Curbsiders.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Matthew F. Watto, MD: Welcome back to The Curbsiders. I’m Dr Matthew Frank Watto, here with my great friend and America’s primary care physician, Dr. Paul Nelson Williams. 

Paul, we’re going to talk about our primary hyperparathyroidism podcast with Dr. Lindsay Kuo. It’s a topic that I feel much more clear on now.

Now, Paul, in primary care, you see a lot of calcium that is just slightly high. Can we just blame that on thiazide diuretics?

Paul N. Williams, MD: It’s a place to start. As you’re starting to think about the possible etiologies, primary hyperparathyroidism and malignancy are the two that roll right off the tongue, but it is worth going back to the patient’s medication list and making sure you’re not missing something.

Thiazides famously cause hypercalcemia, but in some of the reading I did for this episode, they may just uncover it a little bit early. Patients who are on thiazides who become hypercalcemic seem to go on to develop primary hyperthyroidism anyway. So I don’t think you can solely blame the thiazide.

Another medication that can be causative is lithium. So a good place to look first after you’ve repeated the labs and confirmed hypercalcemia is the patient’s medication list. 

Dr. Watto: We’ve talked before about the basic workup for hypercalcemia, and determining whether it’s PTH dependent or PTH independent. On the podcast, we talk more about the full workup, but I wanted to talk about the classic symptoms. Our expert made the point that we don’t see them as much anymore, although we do see kidney stones. People used to present very late in the disease because they weren’t having labs done routinely.

The classic symptoms include osteoporosis and bone tumors. People can get nephrocalcinosis and kidney stones. I hadn’t really thought of it this way because we’re used to diagnosing it early now. Do you feel the same? 

Dr. Williams: As labs have started routinely reporting calcium levels, this is more and more often how it’s picked up. The other aspect is that as we are screening for and finding osteoporosis, part of the workup almost always involves getting a parathyroid hormone and a calcium level. We’re seeing these lab abnormalities before we’re seeing symptoms, which is good.

But it also makes things more diagnostically thorny.

Dr. Watto: Dr. Lindsay Kuo made the point that when she sees patients before and after surgery, she’s aware of these nonclassic symptoms — the stones, bones, groans, and the psychiatric overtones that can be anything from fatigue or irritability to dysphoria.

Some people have a generalized weakness that’s very nonspecific. Dr. Kuo said that sometimes these symptoms will disappear after surgery. The patients may just have gotten used to them, or they thought these symptoms were caused by something else, but after surgery they went away.

There are these nonclassic symptoms that are harder to pin down. I was surprised by that.

Dr. Williams: She mentioned polydipsia and polyuria, which have been reported in other studies. It seems like it can be anything. You have to take a good history, but none of those things in and of themselves is an indication for operating unless the patient has the classic renal or bone manifestations. 

Dr. Watto: The other thing we talked about is a normal calcium level in a patient with primary hyperparathyroidism, or the finding of a PTH level in the normal range but with a high calcium level that is inappropriate. Can you talk a little bit about those two situations? 

Dr. Williams: They’re hard to say but kind of easy to manage because you treat them the same way as someone who has elevated calcium and PTH levels. 

The normocalcemic patient is something we might stumble across with osteoporosis screening. Initially the calcium level is elevated, so you repeat it and it’s normal but with an elevated PTH level. You’re like, shoot. Now what?

It turns out that most endocrine surgeons say that the indications for surgery for the classic form of primary hyperparathyroidism apply to these patients as well, and it probably helps with the bone outcomes, which is one of the things they follow most closely. If you have hypercalcemia, you should have a suppressed PTH level, the so-called normohormonal hyperparathyroidism, which is not normal at all. So even if the PTH is in the normal range, it’s still relatively elevated compared with what it should be. That situation is treated in the same way as the classic elevated PTH and elevated calcium levels.

Dr. Watto: If the calcium is abnormal and the PTH is not quite what you’d expect it to be, you can always ask your friendly neighborhood endocrinologist to help you figure out whether the patient really has one of these conditions. You have to make sure that they don’t have a simple secondary cause like a low vitamin D level. In that case, you fix the vitamin D and then recheck the numbers to see if they’ve normalized. But I have found a bunch of these edge cases in which it has been helpful to confer with an endocrinologist, especially before you send someone to a surgeon to take out their parathyroid gland. 

This was a really fantastic conversation. If you want to hear the full podcast episode, click here.
 

Dr. Watto, Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine at University of Pennsylvania; Internist, Department of Medicine, Hospital Medicine Section, Pennsylvania Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Williams, Associate Professor of Clinical Medicine, Department of General Internal Medicine, Lewis Katz School of Medicine; Staff Physician, Department of General Internal Medicine, Temple Internal Medicine Associates, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for The Curbsiders, and has received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from The Curbsiders.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Matthew F. Watto, MD: Welcome back to The Curbsiders. I’m Dr Matthew Frank Watto, here with my great friend and America’s primary care physician, Dr. Paul Nelson Williams. 

Paul, we’re going to talk about our primary hyperparathyroidism podcast with Dr. Lindsay Kuo. It’s a topic that I feel much more clear on now.

Now, Paul, in primary care, you see a lot of calcium that is just slightly high. Can we just blame that on thiazide diuretics?

Paul N. Williams, MD: It’s a place to start. As you’re starting to think about the possible etiologies, primary hyperparathyroidism and malignancy are the two that roll right off the tongue, but it is worth going back to the patient’s medication list and making sure you’re not missing something.

Thiazides famously cause hypercalcemia, but in some of the reading I did for this episode, they may just uncover it a little bit early. Patients who are on thiazides who become hypercalcemic seem to go on to develop primary hyperthyroidism anyway. So I don’t think you can solely blame the thiazide.

Another medication that can be causative is lithium. So a good place to look first after you’ve repeated the labs and confirmed hypercalcemia is the patient’s medication list. 

Dr. Watto: We’ve talked before about the basic workup for hypercalcemia, and determining whether it’s PTH dependent or PTH independent. On the podcast, we talk more about the full workup, but I wanted to talk about the classic symptoms. Our expert made the point that we don’t see them as much anymore, although we do see kidney stones. People used to present very late in the disease because they weren’t having labs done routinely.

The classic symptoms include osteoporosis and bone tumors. People can get nephrocalcinosis and kidney stones. I hadn’t really thought of it this way because we’re used to diagnosing it early now. Do you feel the same? 

Dr. Williams: As labs have started routinely reporting calcium levels, this is more and more often how it’s picked up. The other aspect is that as we are screening for and finding osteoporosis, part of the workup almost always involves getting a parathyroid hormone and a calcium level. We’re seeing these lab abnormalities before we’re seeing symptoms, which is good.

But it also makes things more diagnostically thorny.

Dr. Watto: Dr. Lindsay Kuo made the point that when she sees patients before and after surgery, she’s aware of these nonclassic symptoms — the stones, bones, groans, and the psychiatric overtones that can be anything from fatigue or irritability to dysphoria.

Some people have a generalized weakness that’s very nonspecific. Dr. Kuo said that sometimes these symptoms will disappear after surgery. The patients may just have gotten used to them, or they thought these symptoms were caused by something else, but after surgery they went away.

There are these nonclassic symptoms that are harder to pin down. I was surprised by that.

Dr. Williams: She mentioned polydipsia and polyuria, which have been reported in other studies. It seems like it can be anything. You have to take a good history, but none of those things in and of themselves is an indication for operating unless the patient has the classic renal or bone manifestations. 

Dr. Watto: The other thing we talked about is a normal calcium level in a patient with primary hyperparathyroidism, or the finding of a PTH level in the normal range but with a high calcium level that is inappropriate. Can you talk a little bit about those two situations? 

Dr. Williams: They’re hard to say but kind of easy to manage because you treat them the same way as someone who has elevated calcium and PTH levels. 

The normocalcemic patient is something we might stumble across with osteoporosis screening. Initially the calcium level is elevated, so you repeat it and it’s normal but with an elevated PTH level. You’re like, shoot. Now what?

It turns out that most endocrine surgeons say that the indications for surgery for the classic form of primary hyperparathyroidism apply to these patients as well, and it probably helps with the bone outcomes, which is one of the things they follow most closely. If you have hypercalcemia, you should have a suppressed PTH level, the so-called normohormonal hyperparathyroidism, which is not normal at all. So even if the PTH is in the normal range, it’s still relatively elevated compared with what it should be. That situation is treated in the same way as the classic elevated PTH and elevated calcium levels.

Dr. Watto: If the calcium is abnormal and the PTH is not quite what you’d expect it to be, you can always ask your friendly neighborhood endocrinologist to help you figure out whether the patient really has one of these conditions. You have to make sure that they don’t have a simple secondary cause like a low vitamin D level. In that case, you fix the vitamin D and then recheck the numbers to see if they’ve normalized. But I have found a bunch of these edge cases in which it has been helpful to confer with an endocrinologist, especially before you send someone to a surgeon to take out their parathyroid gland. 

This was a really fantastic conversation. If you want to hear the full podcast episode, click here.
 

Dr. Watto, Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine at University of Pennsylvania; Internist, Department of Medicine, Hospital Medicine Section, Pennsylvania Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Williams, Associate Professor of Clinical Medicine, Department of General Internal Medicine, Lewis Katz School of Medicine; Staff Physician, Department of General Internal Medicine, Temple Internal Medicine Associates, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for The Curbsiders, and has received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from The Curbsiders.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

We know exercise can be a powerful medical intervention. Now scientists are finally starting to understand why.

A recent study in rats found that exercise positively changes virtually every tissue in the body. The research was part of a large National Institutes of Health initiative called MoTrPAC (Molecular Transducers of Physical Activity Consortium) to understand how physical activity improves health and prevents disease. As part of the project, a large human study is also underway.

“What was mind-blowing to me was just how much every organ changed,” said cardiologist Euan A. Ashley, MD, professor of medicine at Stanford University, Stanford, California, and the study’s lead author. “You really are a different person on exercise.”

The study examined hundreds of previously sedentary rats that exercised on a treadmill for 8 weeks. Their tissues were compared with a control group of rats that stayed sedentary.

Your patients, unlike lab animals, can’t be randomly assigned to run on a treadmill until you switch the machine off.

So how do you persuade your patients to become more active?

We asked seven doctors what works for them. They shared 10 of their most effective persuasion tactics.
 

1. Focus on the First Step

“It’s easy to say you want to change behavior,” said Jordan Metzl, MD, a sports medicine specialist at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York City who instructs medical students on how to prescribe exercise. “It’s much more difficult to do it.”

He compares it with moving a tractor tire from point A to point B. The hardest part is lifting the tire off the ground and starting to move it. “Once it’s rolling, it takes much less effort to keep it going in the same direction,” he said.

How much exercise a patient does is irrelevant until they’ve given that tire its first push.

“Any amount of exercise is better than nothing,” Dr. Ashley said. “Let’s just start with that. Making the move from sitting a lot to standing more has genuine health benefits.” 
 

2. Mind Your Language

Many patients have a deep-rooted aversion to words and phrases associated with physical activity.

“Exercise” is one. “Working out” is another.

“I often tell them they just have to start moving,” said Chris Raynor, MD, an orthopedic surgeon based in Ottawa, Ontario. “Don’t think about it as working out. Think about it as just moving. Start with something they already like doing and work from there.”
 

3. Make It Manageable

This also applies to patients who’re injured and either waiting for or recovering from surgery.

“Joints like motion,” said Rachel M. Frank, MD, an orthopedic surgeon at the University of Colorado Sports Medicine, Denver, Colorado. “The more mobile you can be, the easier your recovery’s going to be.”

That can be a challenge for a patient who wasn’t active before the injury, especially if he or she is fixed on the idea that exercise doesn’t matter unless they do it for 30-45 minutes at a time.

“I try to break it down into manageable bits they can do at home,” Dr. Frank said. “I say, ‘Look, you brush your teeth twice a day, right? Can you do these exercises for 5 or 10 minutes before or after you brush your teeth?’ ”
 

4. Connect Their Interests to Their Activity Level

Chad Waterbury, DPT, thought he knew how to motivate a postsurgical patient to become more active and improve her odds for a full recovery. He told her she’d feel better and have more energy — all the usual selling points.

None of it impressed her.

But one day she mentioned that she’d recently become a grandmother for the first time. Dr. Waterbury, a physical therapist based in Los Angeles, noticed how she lit up when she talked about her new granddaughter.

“So I started giving her scenarios, like taking her daughter to Disneyland when she’s 9 or 10. You have to be somewhat fit to do something like that.”

It worked, and Dr. Waterbury learned a fundamental lesson in motivation. “You have to connect the exercise to something that’s important in their life,” he said.
 

5. Don’t Let a Crisis Go to Waste

“There are very few things more motivating than having a heart attack,” Dr. Ashley said. “For the vast majority of people, that’s a very sobering moment where they reassess everything in their lives.”

There’ll never be a better time to persuade a patient to become more active. In his cardiology practice, Dr. Ashley has seen a lot of patients make that switch.

“They really do start to prioritize their health in a way they never did before,” he said.
 

6. Emphasize the Practical Over the Ideal

Not all patients attach negative feelings to working out. For some, it’s the goal.

Todd Ivan, MD, calls it the “ ’I need to get to the gym’ lament”: Something they’ve aspired to but rarely if ever done.

“I tell them I’d welcome a half-hour walk every day to get started,” said Dr. Ivan, a consultation-liaison psychiatrist at Summa Health in Akron, Ohio. “It’s a way to introduce the idea that fitness begins with small adjustments.”
 

7. Go Beneath the Surface

“Exercise doesn’t generally result in great weight loss,” said endocrinologist Karl Nadolsky, DO, an obesity specialist and co-host of the Docs Who Lift podcast.

But a lot of his patients struggle to break that connection. It’s understandable, given how many times they’ve been told they’d weigh less if they moved more.

Dr. Nadolsky tells them it’s what’s on the inside that counts. “I explain it as very literal, meaning their physical health, metabolic health, and mental health.”

By reframing physical activity with an internal rather than external focus — the plumbing and wiring vs the shutters and shingles — he gives them permission to approach exercise as a health upgrade rather than yet another part of their lifelong struggle to lose weight.

“A significant number of our patients respond well to that,” he said.
 

8. Appeal to Their Intellect

Some patients think like doctors: No matter how reluctant they may be to change their mind about something, they’ll respond to evidence.

Dr. Frank has learned to identify these scientifically inclined patients. “I’ll flood them with data,” she said. “I’ll say, ‘These studies show that if you do x, y, z, your outcome will be better.’ ”

Dr. Ashley takes a similar approach when his patients give him the most common reason for not exercising: “I don’t have time.”

He tells them that exercise doesn’t take time. It gives you time.

That’s according to a 2012 study of more than 650,000 adults that associated physical activity with an increased lifespan.

As one of the authors said in an interview, a middle-aged person who gets 150 minutes a week of moderate exercise will, on average, gain 7 more minutes of life for each minute of exercise, compared with someone who doesn’t get any exercise.

The strategy works because it brings patients out of their day-to-day lives and into the future, Dr. Ashley said.

“What about your entire life?” he asks them. “You’re actually in this world for 80-plus years, you hope. How are you going to spend that? You have to think about that when you’re in your 40s and 50s.”
 

9. Show Them the Money

Illness and injury, on top of everything else, can be really expensive.

Even with good insurance, a health problem that requires surgery and/or hospitalization might cost thousands of dollars out of pocket. With mediocre insurance, it might be tens of thousands.

Sometimes, Dr. Frank said, it helps to remind patients of the price they paid for their treatment. “I’ll say, ‘Let’s get moving so you don’t have to pay for this again.’ ”

Protecting their investment can be a powerful motivation.
 

10. Make It a Team Effort

While the doctors we interviewed have a wide range of specialties — cardiology, sports medicine, psychiatry, endocrinology, orthopedics, and physical therapy — their patients have one thing in common.

They don’t want to be in a doctor’s office. It means they have something, need something, or broke something.

It might be a treatable condition that’s merely inconvenient or a life-threatening event that’s flat-out terrifying.

Whatever it is, it pulls them out of their normal world. It can be a lonely, disorienting experience.

Sometimes the best thing a doctor can do is stay connected with the patient. “This is like a team sport,” Dr. Frank tells her patients. “I’m going to be your coach, but you’re the captain of the team.”

In some cases, she’ll ask the patient to message her on the portal after completing the daily or weekly exercises. That alone might motivate the patient — especially when she responds to their messages.

After all, nobody wants to let the coach down.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

We know exercise can be a powerful medical intervention. Now scientists are finally starting to understand why.

A recent study in rats found that exercise positively changes virtually every tissue in the body. The research was part of a large National Institutes of Health initiative called MoTrPAC (Molecular Transducers of Physical Activity Consortium) to understand how physical activity improves health and prevents disease. As part of the project, a large human study is also underway.

“What was mind-blowing to me was just how much every organ changed,” said cardiologist Euan A. Ashley, MD, professor of medicine at Stanford University, Stanford, California, and the study’s lead author. “You really are a different person on exercise.”

The study examined hundreds of previously sedentary rats that exercised on a treadmill for 8 weeks. Their tissues were compared with a control group of rats that stayed sedentary.

Your patients, unlike lab animals, can’t be randomly assigned to run on a treadmill until you switch the machine off.

So how do you persuade your patients to become more active?

We asked seven doctors what works for them. They shared 10 of their most effective persuasion tactics.
 

1. Focus on the First Step

“It’s easy to say you want to change behavior,” said Jordan Metzl, MD, a sports medicine specialist at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York City who instructs medical students on how to prescribe exercise. “It’s much more difficult to do it.”

He compares it with moving a tractor tire from point A to point B. The hardest part is lifting the tire off the ground and starting to move it. “Once it’s rolling, it takes much less effort to keep it going in the same direction,” he said.

How much exercise a patient does is irrelevant until they’ve given that tire its first push.

“Any amount of exercise is better than nothing,” Dr. Ashley said. “Let’s just start with that. Making the move from sitting a lot to standing more has genuine health benefits.” 
 

2. Mind Your Language

Many patients have a deep-rooted aversion to words and phrases associated with physical activity.

“Exercise” is one. “Working out” is another.

“I often tell them they just have to start moving,” said Chris Raynor, MD, an orthopedic surgeon based in Ottawa, Ontario. “Don’t think about it as working out. Think about it as just moving. Start with something they already like doing and work from there.”
 

3. Make It Manageable

This also applies to patients who’re injured and either waiting for or recovering from surgery.

“Joints like motion,” said Rachel M. Frank, MD, an orthopedic surgeon at the University of Colorado Sports Medicine, Denver, Colorado. “The more mobile you can be, the easier your recovery’s going to be.”

That can be a challenge for a patient who wasn’t active before the injury, especially if he or she is fixed on the idea that exercise doesn’t matter unless they do it for 30-45 minutes at a time.

“I try to break it down into manageable bits they can do at home,” Dr. Frank said. “I say, ‘Look, you brush your teeth twice a day, right? Can you do these exercises for 5 or 10 minutes before or after you brush your teeth?’ ”
 

4. Connect Their Interests to Their Activity Level

Chad Waterbury, DPT, thought he knew how to motivate a postsurgical patient to become more active and improve her odds for a full recovery. He told her she’d feel better and have more energy — all the usual selling points.

None of it impressed her.

But one day she mentioned that she’d recently become a grandmother for the first time. Dr. Waterbury, a physical therapist based in Los Angeles, noticed how she lit up when she talked about her new granddaughter.

“So I started giving her scenarios, like taking her daughter to Disneyland when she’s 9 or 10. You have to be somewhat fit to do something like that.”

It worked, and Dr. Waterbury learned a fundamental lesson in motivation. “You have to connect the exercise to something that’s important in their life,” he said.
 

5. Don’t Let a Crisis Go to Waste

“There are very few things more motivating than having a heart attack,” Dr. Ashley said. “For the vast majority of people, that’s a very sobering moment where they reassess everything in their lives.”

There’ll never be a better time to persuade a patient to become more active. In his cardiology practice, Dr. Ashley has seen a lot of patients make that switch.

“They really do start to prioritize their health in a way they never did before,” he said.
 

6. Emphasize the Practical Over the Ideal

Not all patients attach negative feelings to working out. For some, it’s the goal.

Todd Ivan, MD, calls it the “ ’I need to get to the gym’ lament”: Something they’ve aspired to but rarely if ever done.

“I tell them I’d welcome a half-hour walk every day to get started,” said Dr. Ivan, a consultation-liaison psychiatrist at Summa Health in Akron, Ohio. “It’s a way to introduce the idea that fitness begins with small adjustments.”
 

7. Go Beneath the Surface

“Exercise doesn’t generally result in great weight loss,” said endocrinologist Karl Nadolsky, DO, an obesity specialist and co-host of the Docs Who Lift podcast.

But a lot of his patients struggle to break that connection. It’s understandable, given how many times they’ve been told they’d weigh less if they moved more.

Dr. Nadolsky tells them it’s what’s on the inside that counts. “I explain it as very literal, meaning their physical health, metabolic health, and mental health.”

By reframing physical activity with an internal rather than external focus — the plumbing and wiring vs the shutters and shingles — he gives them permission to approach exercise as a health upgrade rather than yet another part of their lifelong struggle to lose weight.

“A significant number of our patients respond well to that,” he said.
 

8. Appeal to Their Intellect

Some patients think like doctors: No matter how reluctant they may be to change their mind about something, they’ll respond to evidence.

Dr. Frank has learned to identify these scientifically inclined patients. “I’ll flood them with data,” she said. “I’ll say, ‘These studies show that if you do x, y, z, your outcome will be better.’ ”

Dr. Ashley takes a similar approach when his patients give him the most common reason for not exercising: “I don’t have time.”

He tells them that exercise doesn’t take time. It gives you time.

That’s according to a 2012 study of more than 650,000 adults that associated physical activity with an increased lifespan.

As one of the authors said in an interview, a middle-aged person who gets 150 minutes a week of moderate exercise will, on average, gain 7 more minutes of life for each minute of exercise, compared with someone who doesn’t get any exercise.

The strategy works because it brings patients out of their day-to-day lives and into the future, Dr. Ashley said.

“What about your entire life?” he asks them. “You’re actually in this world for 80-plus years, you hope. How are you going to spend that? You have to think about that when you’re in your 40s and 50s.”
 

9. Show Them the Money

Illness and injury, on top of everything else, can be really expensive.

Even with good insurance, a health problem that requires surgery and/or hospitalization might cost thousands of dollars out of pocket. With mediocre insurance, it might be tens of thousands.

Sometimes, Dr. Frank said, it helps to remind patients of the price they paid for their treatment. “I’ll say, ‘Let’s get moving so you don’t have to pay for this again.’ ”

Protecting their investment can be a powerful motivation.
 

10. Make It a Team Effort

While the doctors we interviewed have a wide range of specialties — cardiology, sports medicine, psychiatry, endocrinology, orthopedics, and physical therapy — their patients have one thing in common.

They don’t want to be in a doctor’s office. It means they have something, need something, or broke something.

It might be a treatable condition that’s merely inconvenient or a life-threatening event that’s flat-out terrifying.

Whatever it is, it pulls them out of their normal world. It can be a lonely, disorienting experience.

Sometimes the best thing a doctor can do is stay connected with the patient. “This is like a team sport,” Dr. Frank tells her patients. “I’m going to be your coach, but you’re the captain of the team.”

In some cases, she’ll ask the patient to message her on the portal after completing the daily or weekly exercises. That alone might motivate the patient — especially when she responds to their messages.

After all, nobody wants to let the coach down.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

We know exercise can be a powerful medical intervention. Now scientists are finally starting to understand why.

A recent study in rats found that exercise positively changes virtually every tissue in the body. The research was part of a large National Institutes of Health initiative called MoTrPAC (Molecular Transducers of Physical Activity Consortium) to understand how physical activity improves health and prevents disease. As part of the project, a large human study is also underway.

“What was mind-blowing to me was just how much every organ changed,” said cardiologist Euan A. Ashley, MD, professor of medicine at Stanford University, Stanford, California, and the study’s lead author. “You really are a different person on exercise.”

The study examined hundreds of previously sedentary rats that exercised on a treadmill for 8 weeks. Their tissues were compared with a control group of rats that stayed sedentary.

Your patients, unlike lab animals, can’t be randomly assigned to run on a treadmill until you switch the machine off.

So how do you persuade your patients to become more active?

We asked seven doctors what works for them. They shared 10 of their most effective persuasion tactics.
 

1. Focus on the First Step

“It’s easy to say you want to change behavior,” said Jordan Metzl, MD, a sports medicine specialist at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York City who instructs medical students on how to prescribe exercise. “It’s much more difficult to do it.”

He compares it with moving a tractor tire from point A to point B. The hardest part is lifting the tire off the ground and starting to move it. “Once it’s rolling, it takes much less effort to keep it going in the same direction,” he said.

How much exercise a patient does is irrelevant until they’ve given that tire its first push.

“Any amount of exercise is better than nothing,” Dr. Ashley said. “Let’s just start with that. Making the move from sitting a lot to standing more has genuine health benefits.” 
 

2. Mind Your Language

Many patients have a deep-rooted aversion to words and phrases associated with physical activity.

“Exercise” is one. “Working out” is another.

“I often tell them they just have to start moving,” said Chris Raynor, MD, an orthopedic surgeon based in Ottawa, Ontario. “Don’t think about it as working out. Think about it as just moving. Start with something they already like doing and work from there.”
 

3. Make It Manageable

This also applies to patients who’re injured and either waiting for or recovering from surgery.

“Joints like motion,” said Rachel M. Frank, MD, an orthopedic surgeon at the University of Colorado Sports Medicine, Denver, Colorado. “The more mobile you can be, the easier your recovery’s going to be.”

That can be a challenge for a patient who wasn’t active before the injury, especially if he or she is fixed on the idea that exercise doesn’t matter unless they do it for 30-45 minutes at a time.

“I try to break it down into manageable bits they can do at home,” Dr. Frank said. “I say, ‘Look, you brush your teeth twice a day, right? Can you do these exercises for 5 or 10 minutes before or after you brush your teeth?’ ”
 

4. Connect Their Interests to Their Activity Level

Chad Waterbury, DPT, thought he knew how to motivate a postsurgical patient to become more active and improve her odds for a full recovery. He told her she’d feel better and have more energy — all the usual selling points.

None of it impressed her.

But one day she mentioned that she’d recently become a grandmother for the first time. Dr. Waterbury, a physical therapist based in Los Angeles, noticed how she lit up when she talked about her new granddaughter.

“So I started giving her scenarios, like taking her daughter to Disneyland when she’s 9 or 10. You have to be somewhat fit to do something like that.”

It worked, and Dr. Waterbury learned a fundamental lesson in motivation. “You have to connect the exercise to something that’s important in their life,” he said.
 

5. Don’t Let a Crisis Go to Waste

“There are very few things more motivating than having a heart attack,” Dr. Ashley said. “For the vast majority of people, that’s a very sobering moment where they reassess everything in their lives.”

There’ll never be a better time to persuade a patient to become more active. In his cardiology practice, Dr. Ashley has seen a lot of patients make that switch.

“They really do start to prioritize their health in a way they never did before,” he said.
 

6. Emphasize the Practical Over the Ideal

Not all patients attach negative feelings to working out. For some, it’s the goal.

Todd Ivan, MD, calls it the “ ’I need to get to the gym’ lament”: Something they’ve aspired to but rarely if ever done.

“I tell them I’d welcome a half-hour walk every day to get started,” said Dr. Ivan, a consultation-liaison psychiatrist at Summa Health in Akron, Ohio. “It’s a way to introduce the idea that fitness begins with small adjustments.”
 

7. Go Beneath the Surface

“Exercise doesn’t generally result in great weight loss,” said endocrinologist Karl Nadolsky, DO, an obesity specialist and co-host of the Docs Who Lift podcast.

But a lot of his patients struggle to break that connection. It’s understandable, given how many times they’ve been told they’d weigh less if they moved more.

Dr. Nadolsky tells them it’s what’s on the inside that counts. “I explain it as very literal, meaning their physical health, metabolic health, and mental health.”

By reframing physical activity with an internal rather than external focus — the plumbing and wiring vs the shutters and shingles — he gives them permission to approach exercise as a health upgrade rather than yet another part of their lifelong struggle to lose weight.

“A significant number of our patients respond well to that,” he said.
 

8. Appeal to Their Intellect

Some patients think like doctors: No matter how reluctant they may be to change their mind about something, they’ll respond to evidence.

Dr. Frank has learned to identify these scientifically inclined patients. “I’ll flood them with data,” she said. “I’ll say, ‘These studies show that if you do x, y, z, your outcome will be better.’ ”

Dr. Ashley takes a similar approach when his patients give him the most common reason for not exercising: “I don’t have time.”

He tells them that exercise doesn’t take time. It gives you time.

That’s according to a 2012 study of more than 650,000 adults that associated physical activity with an increased lifespan.

As one of the authors said in an interview, a middle-aged person who gets 150 minutes a week of moderate exercise will, on average, gain 7 more minutes of life for each minute of exercise, compared with someone who doesn’t get any exercise.

The strategy works because it brings patients out of their day-to-day lives and into the future, Dr. Ashley said.

“What about your entire life?” he asks them. “You’re actually in this world for 80-plus years, you hope. How are you going to spend that? You have to think about that when you’re in your 40s and 50s.”
 

9. Show Them the Money

Illness and injury, on top of everything else, can be really expensive.

Even with good insurance, a health problem that requires surgery and/or hospitalization might cost thousands of dollars out of pocket. With mediocre insurance, it might be tens of thousands.

Sometimes, Dr. Frank said, it helps to remind patients of the price they paid for their treatment. “I’ll say, ‘Let’s get moving so you don’t have to pay for this again.’ ”

Protecting their investment can be a powerful motivation.
 

10. Make It a Team Effort

While the doctors we interviewed have a wide range of specialties — cardiology, sports medicine, psychiatry, endocrinology, orthopedics, and physical therapy — their patients have one thing in common.

They don’t want to be in a doctor’s office. It means they have something, need something, or broke something.

It might be a treatable condition that’s merely inconvenient or a life-threatening event that’s flat-out terrifying.

Whatever it is, it pulls them out of their normal world. It can be a lonely, disorienting experience.

Sometimes the best thing a doctor can do is stay connected with the patient. “This is like a team sport,” Dr. Frank tells her patients. “I’m going to be your coach, but you’re the captain of the team.”

In some cases, she’ll ask the patient to message her on the portal after completing the daily or weekly exercises. That alone might motivate the patient — especially when she responds to their messages.

After all, nobody wants to let the coach down.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Poorer physical function, not poorer bone mineral density (BMD), could be the principal reason for the increased fracture risk in older women with type 2 diabetes (T2D), according to a Swedish prospective observational study in JAMA Network Open.

The study was conducted in more than 3000 Swedish women by Mattias Lorentzon, MD, a professor of geriatric medicine at Gothenburg University, and chief physician at the Osteoporosis Clinic at Sahlgrenska University Hospital in Mölndal, and colleagues.

Study Details

A fractures study was performed in the Gothenburg area from March 2013 to May 2016 with follow-up of incident fracture data completed in March 2023. Data were collected from questionnaires and through examination of anthropometrics, physical function, and bone measurements using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry and high-resolution peripheral computed tomography. A subsample underwent bone microindentation to assess BMSi.

Among the cohort’s 3008 women, ages 75-80 (mean, 77.8), 294 patients with T2D were compared with 2714 same-age unaffected women.

During a median follow-up of 7.3 years, 1071 incident fractures, 853 major osteoporotic fractures, and 232 hip fractures occurred. In models adjusted for age, BMI, clinical risk factors, and femoral neck BMD, T2D was associated with an increased risk of any fracture: hazard ratio (HR), 1.26; (95% CI, 1.04-1.54), and major osteoporotic fracture (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.00-1.56).

Most fractures were due to falls, with the most common affected sites being the forearm, upper arm, spine, and hip, Dr. Lorentzon said.

Among the findings:

• In bone microarchitecture, women with T2D had higher BMD at all sites: total hip, 4.4% higher; femoral neck, 4.9% higher; and lumbar spine, 5.2% higher.
• At the tibia, the T2D group had 7.4% greater cortical area and 1.3% greater density, as well as 8.7% higher trabecular bone volume fraction.

“Our findings regarding BMD are consistent with previous publications showing higher BMD in individuals with T2D compared with those without diabetes,” Dr. Lorentzon said. A 2012 meta-analysis, for example, showed higher BMD levels in T2D patients. “Some smaller studies, however, have found worse bone microstructure and lower bone material strength in contrast to the results from our study,” Dr. Lorentzon said.

• There was no difference in BMSi, with a mean of 78 in both groups.
• The T2D group had lower performance on all physical function tests: a 9.7% lower grip strength, 9.9% slower gait speed, and 13.9% slower timed up-and-go time than women without diabetes.

“We found all parameters regarding physical function, such as muscle strength, balance, and performance, were much worse in women with diabetes than in those without,” Dr. Lorentzon said. “Dizziness could also be a contributor to the increased risk of falls, but this factor was not investigated in our study.”

Commenting on the study but not involved in it, Anthony J. Pick, MD, an endocrinologist at Northwestern Medicine Lake Forest Hospital in Lake Forest, Illinois, said sarcopenia is a common and often under-recognized problem in older adults and is especially prevalent in T2D, obesity, and heart failure. “I believe that ‘exercise is medicine’ is a key concept for metabolic and osteoporosis patients — and wellness and longevity in general — and I certainly hope studies like this drive awareness of the importance of engaging in strengthening exercises.”

Poorer physical function, not poorer bone mineral density (BMD), could be the principal reason for the increased fracture risk in older women with type 2 diabetes (T2D), according to a Swedish prospective observational study in JAMA Network Open.

The study was conducted in more than 3000 Swedish women by Mattias Lorentzon, MD, a professor of geriatric medicine at Gothenburg University, and chief physician at the Osteoporosis Clinic at Sahlgrenska University Hospital in Mölndal, and colleagues.

Study Details

A fractures study was performed in the Gothenburg area from March 2013 to May 2016 with follow-up of incident fracture data completed in March 2023. Data were collected from questionnaires and through examination of anthropometrics, physical function, and bone measurements using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry and high-resolution peripheral computed tomography. A subsample underwent bone microindentation to assess BMSi.

Among the cohort’s 3008 women, ages 75-80 (mean, 77.8), 294 patients with T2D were compared with 2714 same-age unaffected women.

During a median follow-up of 7.3 years, 1071 incident fractures, 853 major osteoporotic fractures, and 232 hip fractures occurred. In models adjusted for age, BMI, clinical risk factors, and femoral neck BMD, T2D was associated with an increased risk of any fracture: hazard ratio (HR), 1.26; (95% CI, 1.04-1.54), and major osteoporotic fracture (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.00-1.56).

Most fractures were due to falls, with the most common affected sites being the forearm, upper arm, spine, and hip, Dr. Lorentzon said.

Among the findings:

• In bone microarchitecture, women with T2D had higher BMD at all sites: total hip, 4.4% higher; femoral neck, 4.9% higher; and lumbar spine, 5.2% higher.
• At the tibia, the T2D group had 7.4% greater cortical area and 1.3% greater density, as well as 8.7% higher trabecular bone volume fraction.

“Our findings regarding BMD are consistent with previous publications showing higher BMD in individuals with T2D compared with those without diabetes,” Dr. Lorentzon said. A 2012 meta-analysis, for example, showed higher BMD levels in T2D patients. “Some smaller studies, however, have found worse bone microstructure and lower bone material strength in contrast to the results from our study,” Dr. Lorentzon said.

• There was no difference in BMSi, with a mean of 78 in both groups.
• The T2D group had lower performance on all physical function tests: a 9.7% lower grip strength, 9.9% slower gait speed, and 13.9% slower timed up-and-go time than women without diabetes.

“We found all parameters regarding physical function, such as muscle strength, balance, and performance, were much worse in women with diabetes than in those without,” Dr. Lorentzon said. “Dizziness could also be a contributor to the increased risk of falls, but this factor was not investigated in our study.”

Commenting on the study but not involved in it, Anthony J. Pick, MD, an endocrinologist at Northwestern Medicine Lake Forest Hospital in Lake Forest, Illinois, said sarcopenia is a common and often under-recognized problem in older adults and is especially prevalent in T2D, obesity, and heart failure. “I believe that ‘exercise is medicine’ is a key concept for metabolic and osteoporosis patients — and wellness and longevity in general — and I certainly hope studies like this drive awareness of the importance of engaging in strengthening exercises.”

Poorer physical function, not poorer bone mineral density (BMD), could be the principal reason for the increased fracture risk in older women with type 2 diabetes (T2D), according to a Swedish prospective observational study in JAMA Network Open.

The study was conducted in more than 3000 Swedish women by Mattias Lorentzon, MD, a professor of geriatric medicine at Gothenburg University, and chief physician at the Osteoporosis Clinic at Sahlgrenska University Hospital in Mölndal, and colleagues.

Study Details

A fractures study was performed in the Gothenburg area from March 2013 to May 2016 with follow-up of incident fracture data completed in March 2023. Data were collected from questionnaires and through examination of anthropometrics, physical function, and bone measurements using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry and high-resolution peripheral computed tomography. A subsample underwent bone microindentation to assess BMSi.

Among the cohort’s 3008 women, ages 75-80 (mean, 77.8), 294 patients with T2D were compared with 2714 same-age unaffected women.

During a median follow-up of 7.3 years, 1071 incident fractures, 853 major osteoporotic fractures, and 232 hip fractures occurred. In models adjusted for age, BMI, clinical risk factors, and femoral neck BMD, T2D was associated with an increased risk of any fracture: hazard ratio (HR), 1.26; (95% CI, 1.04-1.54), and major osteoporotic fracture (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.00-1.56).

Most fractures were due to falls, with the most common affected sites being the forearm, upper arm, spine, and hip, Dr. Lorentzon said.

Among the findings:

• In bone microarchitecture, women with T2D had higher BMD at all sites: total hip, 4.4% higher; femoral neck, 4.9% higher; and lumbar spine, 5.2% higher.
• At the tibia, the T2D group had 7.4% greater cortical area and 1.3% greater density, as well as 8.7% higher trabecular bone volume fraction.

“Our findings regarding BMD are consistent with previous publications showing higher BMD in individuals with T2D compared with those without diabetes,” Dr. Lorentzon said. A 2012 meta-analysis, for example, showed higher BMD levels in T2D patients. “Some smaller studies, however, have found worse bone microstructure and lower bone material strength in contrast to the results from our study,” Dr. Lorentzon said.

• There was no difference in BMSi, with a mean of 78 in both groups.
• The T2D group had lower performance on all physical function tests: a 9.7% lower grip strength, 9.9% slower gait speed, and 13.9% slower timed up-and-go time than women without diabetes.

“We found all parameters regarding physical function, such as muscle strength, balance, and performance, were much worse in women with diabetes than in those without,” Dr. Lorentzon said. “Dizziness could also be a contributor to the increased risk of falls, but this factor was not investigated in our study.”

Commenting on the study but not involved in it, Anthony J. Pick, MD, an endocrinologist at Northwestern Medicine Lake Forest Hospital in Lake Forest, Illinois, said sarcopenia is a common and often under-recognized problem in older adults and is especially prevalent in T2D, obesity, and heart failure. “I believe that ‘exercise is medicine’ is a key concept for metabolic and osteoporosis patients — and wellness and longevity in general — and I certainly hope studies like this drive awareness of the importance of engaging in strengthening exercises.”

TOPLINE:

People with obesity who exercise while taking glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs; liraglutide) showed increased weight loss and preserved bone health, according to a study published in JAMA Network Open.

METHODOLOGY:

• Patients were placed on an initial diet that consisted of no more than 800 calories per day for 8 weeks. Those who lost at least 5% of their starting weight were then placed into a 1-year program.
• Participants included 195 adults aged between 18 and 65 years with obesity and no diabetes, 64% of whom were women.
• They were split into four groups of interventions: Exercise only (48 patients), liraglutide only (49 patients), a combination of both (49 participants), and placebo (49 participants), for a 1-year period.
• Patients received liraglutide or volume-matched placebo as daily injections starting at 0.6 mg/d with a weekly increase until 3 mg/d was reached; exercise entailed 30-minute sessions for 4 days a week.
• Researchers studied bone health at each patient’s hip, spine, and forearm after they lost weight, by measuring bone mineral density (BMD).

TAKEAWAY:

• The overall average change in weight loss over the course of 52 weeks was 7.03 kg in the placebo group, 11.19 kg in the exercise group, 13.74 kg in the liraglutide group, and 16.88 kg in the combination group.
• After the initial low-calorie diet-induced weight loss, the placebo group regained weight, the exercise and liraglutide groups maintained weight loss, and the combination group lost additional weight.
• BMD did not change in the combination group in comparison to the placebo group at the hip (mean change, −0.006 g/cm²; 95% CI, −0.017 to 0.004 g/cm²; P = .24) or spine (−0.010 g/cm²; 95% CI, −0.025 to 0.005 g/cm²; P = .20).
• BMD of the spine in the liraglutide group decreased in comparison to the exercise group (mean change, −0.016 g/cm²; 95% CI, −0.032 to −0.001 g/cm²; P = .04) and the placebo group, in addition to decreases in the hip.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results show that the combination of exercise and GLP-1 RA was the most effective weight loss strategy while preserving bone health,” study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Simon Birk Kjær Jensen, PhD, of the Department of Biomedical Sciences and Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark, and published on June 25 in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study only included adults aged between 18 and 65 years without other chronic diseases and may not apply to patients who are older or have diabetes. The study sample was diverse but was conducted in Denmark, with a population of generally similar ancestry.

DISCLOSURES:

One study author reported serving on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, and Amgen, among others. Other authors reported various financial interests, including grants, personal fees, and salaries, from Amgen, Novo Nordisk, and Abbott Lab, among others.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

People with obesity who exercise while taking glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs; liraglutide) showed increased weight loss and preserved bone health, according to a study published in JAMA Network Open.

METHODOLOGY:

• Patients were placed on an initial diet that consisted of no more than 800 calories per day for 8 weeks. Those who lost at least 5% of their starting weight were then placed into a 1-year program.
• Participants included 195 adults aged between 18 and 65 years with obesity and no diabetes, 64% of whom were women.
• They were split into four groups of interventions: Exercise only (48 patients), liraglutide only (49 patients), a combination of both (49 participants), and placebo (49 participants), for a 1-year period.
• Patients received liraglutide or volume-matched placebo as daily injections starting at 0.6 mg/d with a weekly increase until 3 mg/d was reached; exercise entailed 30-minute sessions for 4 days a week.
• Researchers studied bone health at each patient’s hip, spine, and forearm after they lost weight, by measuring bone mineral density (BMD).

TAKEAWAY:

• The overall average change in weight loss over the course of 52 weeks was 7.03 kg in the placebo group, 11.19 kg in the exercise group, 13.74 kg in the liraglutide group, and 16.88 kg in the combination group.
• After the initial low-calorie diet-induced weight loss, the placebo group regained weight, the exercise and liraglutide groups maintained weight loss, and the combination group lost additional weight.
• BMD did not change in the combination group in comparison to the placebo group at the hip (mean change, −0.006 g/cm²; 95% CI, −0.017 to 0.004 g/cm²; P = .24) or spine (−0.010 g/cm²; 95% CI, −0.025 to 0.005 g/cm²; P = .20).
• BMD of the spine in the liraglutide group decreased in comparison to the exercise group (mean change, −0.016 g/cm²; 95% CI, −0.032 to −0.001 g/cm²; P = .04) and the placebo group, in addition to decreases in the hip.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results show that the combination of exercise and GLP-1 RA was the most effective weight loss strategy while preserving bone health,” study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Simon Birk Kjær Jensen, PhD, of the Department of Biomedical Sciences and Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark, and published on June 25 in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study only included adults aged between 18 and 65 years without other chronic diseases and may not apply to patients who are older or have diabetes. The study sample was diverse but was conducted in Denmark, with a population of generally similar ancestry.

DISCLOSURES:

One study author reported serving on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, and Amgen, among others. Other authors reported various financial interests, including grants, personal fees, and salaries, from Amgen, Novo Nordisk, and Abbott Lab, among others.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

People with obesity who exercise while taking glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs; liraglutide) showed increased weight loss and preserved bone health, according to a study published in JAMA Network Open.

METHODOLOGY:

• Patients were placed on an initial diet that consisted of no more than 800 calories per day for 8 weeks. Those who lost at least 5% of their starting weight were then placed into a 1-year program.
• Participants included 195 adults aged between 18 and 65 years with obesity and no diabetes, 64% of whom were women.
• They were split into four groups of interventions: Exercise only (48 patients), liraglutide only (49 patients), a combination of both (49 participants), and placebo (49 participants), for a 1-year period.
• Patients received liraglutide or volume-matched placebo as daily injections starting at 0.6 mg/d with a weekly increase until 3 mg/d was reached; exercise entailed 30-minute sessions for 4 days a week.
• Researchers studied bone health at each patient’s hip, spine, and forearm after they lost weight, by measuring bone mineral density (BMD).

TAKEAWAY:

• The overall average change in weight loss over the course of 52 weeks was 7.03 kg in the placebo group, 11.19 kg in the exercise group, 13.74 kg in the liraglutide group, and 16.88 kg in the combination group.
• After the initial low-calorie diet-induced weight loss, the placebo group regained weight, the exercise and liraglutide groups maintained weight loss, and the combination group lost additional weight.
• BMD did not change in the combination group in comparison to the placebo group at the hip (mean change, −0.006 g/cm²; 95% CI, −0.017 to 0.004 g/cm²; P = .24) or spine (−0.010 g/cm²; 95% CI, −0.025 to 0.005 g/cm²; P = .20).
• BMD of the spine in the liraglutide group decreased in comparison to the exercise group (mean change, −0.016 g/cm²; 95% CI, −0.032 to −0.001 g/cm²; P = .04) and the placebo group, in addition to decreases in the hip.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results show that the combination of exercise and GLP-1 RA was the most effective weight loss strategy while preserving bone health,” study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Simon Birk Kjær Jensen, PhD, of the Department of Biomedical Sciences and Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark, and published on June 25 in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study only included adults aged between 18 and 65 years without other chronic diseases and may not apply to patients who are older or have diabetes. The study sample was diverse but was conducted in Denmark, with a population of generally similar ancestry.

DISCLOSURES:

One study author reported serving on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, and Amgen, among others. Other authors reported various financial interests, including grants, personal fees, and salaries, from Amgen, Novo Nordisk, and Abbott Lab, among others.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

An influential US panel may largely reaffirm its current recommendation in favor of screening older women to prevent osteoporotic fractures, while also repeating its call for more research to try to determine whether men would benefit from this kind of routine testing.

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) on June 11 released a draft update of its recommendations on osteoporosis screening. The task force will accept comments on the draft through July 8. Federal law gives the USPSTF recommendations extra clout, requiring insurers to cover — without co-pay — services that get top marks “A” or “B” from the task force.

The task force intends to maintain a “B” recommendation on screening of older women, indicating that the evidence gathered to date suggests a moderate net benefit. But the draft includes a shift in the approach to this screening.

The USPSTF proposed saying that it recommends screening for osteoporosis in both women aged 65 years and older and postmenopausal women younger than 65 years who are at an increased risk for an osteoporotic fracture. The current recommendation, finalized in 2018, advises “screening for osteoporosis with bone measurement testing [emphasis added]” for these groups.

The proposed change in language — dropping the phrase “with bone measurement testing” — is intended to expand flexibility for clinicians, Esa Davis, MD, MPH, a member of USPSTF and a professor at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, told this news organization.

USPSTF

University of Chicago Medicine

Insufficient Evidence

The USPSTF’s “I” grade is different from a “D” grade, which is what the task force uses to recommend against the use of a service.

A “D” grade means the USPSTF says there is moderate or high certainty that the service has no net benefit or that the harms outweigh the benefits. (The USPSTF makes it easy to search online for grades given to preventive services, including those that got a “D.”)

The USPSTF is calling for more studies on the benefits and harms of screening for osteoporosis to prevent fractures and related morbidity and mortality in men.

“Men do get osteoporosis,” Dr. Davis said. “But unfortunately, the evidence isn’t there” to allow USPSTF to make a recommendation on screening approaches.

“Any man who has concerns about bone health should certainly talk to his clinician and figure out what is the best form of screening” he might want to do, she said.

There’s been a growing interest in the question of whether to screen men for osteoporosis and bone health. For example, Osteoporosis Canada last year updated a guideline to emphasize the need to assess older patients of both sexes for the risk for fractures. But the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care in 2023 came to a conclusion in line with the USPSTF draft.

The Canadian task force recommended against routine screening in men, while adding that clinicians should be alert to changes in health that may indicate the patient has experienced or is at a higher risk for fragility fracture.
 

Risk Factors, Concerns About Tests

The USPSTF said that risk factors associated with fragility fractures are similar in men and women. These include:

• Increasing age
• Low body mass index
• Excessive alcohol intake
• Current smoking
• Chronic corticosteroid use
• History of prior fractures, falls within the past year, cerebrovascular accident, and diabetes
• Hypogonadism

The process of updating the USPSTF recommendations can serve as a chance to expand public awareness about osteoporosis, as many men may not know to raise the question of their fracture risk during medical appointments, Dr. Davis said.

“Clinicians need to be aware of the risk factors and to be able to have conversations with men,” she said.

Dr. Davis also cautioned about the need to be aware of limitations with clinical risk assessment tools. In the draft recommendation statement, the USPSTF noted that some tools and approaches may be less likely to identify Black, Hispanic, and Asian people as high risk, and subsequently, clinicians may be less likely to offer treatment to them compared with White people of the same age, bone mineral density, and clinical risk profile.

Dr. Davis had no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Jain received research funding from the Amgen Foundation.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

An influential US panel may largely reaffirm its current recommendation in favor of screening older women to prevent osteoporotic fractures, while also repeating its call for more research to try to determine whether men would benefit from this kind of routine testing.

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) on June 11 released a draft update of its recommendations on osteoporosis screening. The task force will accept comments on the draft through July 8. Federal law gives the USPSTF recommendations extra clout, requiring insurers to cover — without co-pay — services that get top marks “A” or “B” from the task force.

The task force intends to maintain a “B” recommendation on screening of older women, indicating that the evidence gathered to date suggests a moderate net benefit. But the draft includes a shift in the approach to this screening.

The USPSTF proposed saying that it recommends screening for osteoporosis in both women aged 65 years and older and postmenopausal women younger than 65 years who are at an increased risk for an osteoporotic fracture. The current recommendation, finalized in 2018, advises “screening for osteoporosis with bone measurement testing [emphasis added]” for these groups.

The proposed change in language — dropping the phrase “with bone measurement testing” — is intended to expand flexibility for clinicians, Esa Davis, MD, MPH, a member of USPSTF and a professor at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, told this news organization.

USPSTF

University of Chicago Medicine

Insufficient Evidence

The USPSTF’s “I” grade is different from a “D” grade, which is what the task force uses to recommend against the use of a service.

A “D” grade means the USPSTF says there is moderate or high certainty that the service has no net benefit or that the harms outweigh the benefits. (The USPSTF makes it easy to search online for grades given to preventive services, including those that got a “D.”)

The USPSTF is calling for more studies on the benefits and harms of screening for osteoporosis to prevent fractures and related morbidity and mortality in men.

“Men do get osteoporosis,” Dr. Davis said. “But unfortunately, the evidence isn’t there” to allow USPSTF to make a recommendation on screening approaches.

“Any man who has concerns about bone health should certainly talk to his clinician and figure out what is the best form of screening” he might want to do, she said.

There’s been a growing interest in the question of whether to screen men for osteoporosis and bone health. For example, Osteoporosis Canada last year updated a guideline to emphasize the need to assess older patients of both sexes for the risk for fractures. But the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care in 2023 came to a conclusion in line with the USPSTF draft.

The Canadian task force recommended against routine screening in men, while adding that clinicians should be alert to changes in health that may indicate the patient has experienced or is at a higher risk for fragility fracture.
 

Risk Factors, Concerns About Tests

The USPSTF said that risk factors associated with fragility fractures are similar in men and women. These include:

• Increasing age
• Low body mass index
• Excessive alcohol intake
• Current smoking
• Chronic corticosteroid use
• History of prior fractures, falls within the past year, cerebrovascular accident, and diabetes
• Hypogonadism

The process of updating the USPSTF recommendations can serve as a chance to expand public awareness about osteoporosis, as many men may not know to raise the question of their fracture risk during medical appointments, Dr. Davis said.

“Clinicians need to be aware of the risk factors and to be able to have conversations with men,” she said.

Dr. Davis also cautioned about the need to be aware of limitations with clinical risk assessment tools. In the draft recommendation statement, the USPSTF noted that some tools and approaches may be less likely to identify Black, Hispanic, and Asian people as high risk, and subsequently, clinicians may be less likely to offer treatment to them compared with White people of the same age, bone mineral density, and clinical risk profile.

Dr. Davis had no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Jain received research funding from the Amgen Foundation.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

An influential US panel may largely reaffirm its current recommendation in favor of screening older women to prevent osteoporotic fractures, while also repeating its call for more research to try to determine whether men would benefit from this kind of routine testing.

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) on June 11 released a draft update of its recommendations on osteoporosis screening. The task force will accept comments on the draft through July 8. Federal law gives the USPSTF recommendations extra clout, requiring insurers to cover — without co-pay — services that get top marks “A” or “B” from the task force.

The task force intends to maintain a “B” recommendation on screening of older women, indicating that the evidence gathered to date suggests a moderate net benefit. But the draft includes a shift in the approach to this screening.

The USPSTF proposed saying that it recommends screening for osteoporosis in both women aged 65 years and older and postmenopausal women younger than 65 years who are at an increased risk for an osteoporotic fracture. The current recommendation, finalized in 2018, advises “screening for osteoporosis with bone measurement testing [emphasis added]” for these groups.

The proposed change in language — dropping the phrase “with bone measurement testing” — is intended to expand flexibility for clinicians, Esa Davis, MD, MPH, a member of USPSTF and a professor at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, told this news organization.

USPSTF

University of Chicago Medicine

Insufficient Evidence

The USPSTF’s “I” grade is different from a “D” grade, which is what the task force uses to recommend against the use of a service.

A “D” grade means the USPSTF says there is moderate or high certainty that the service has no net benefit or that the harms outweigh the benefits. (The USPSTF makes it easy to search online for grades given to preventive services, including those that got a “D.”)

The USPSTF is calling for more studies on the benefits and harms of screening for osteoporosis to prevent fractures and related morbidity and mortality in men.

“Men do get osteoporosis,” Dr. Davis said. “But unfortunately, the evidence isn’t there” to allow USPSTF to make a recommendation on screening approaches.

“Any man who has concerns about bone health should certainly talk to his clinician and figure out what is the best form of screening” he might want to do, she said.

There’s been a growing interest in the question of whether to screen men for osteoporosis and bone health. For example, Osteoporosis Canada last year updated a guideline to emphasize the need to assess older patients of both sexes for the risk for fractures. But the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care in 2023 came to a conclusion in line with the USPSTF draft.

The Canadian task force recommended against routine screening in men, while adding that clinicians should be alert to changes in health that may indicate the patient has experienced or is at a higher risk for fragility fracture.
 

Risk Factors, Concerns About Tests

The USPSTF said that risk factors associated with fragility fractures are similar in men and women. These include:

• Increasing age
• Low body mass index
• Excessive alcohol intake
• Current smoking
• Chronic corticosteroid use
• History of prior fractures, falls within the past year, cerebrovascular accident, and diabetes
• Hypogonadism

The process of updating the USPSTF recommendations can serve as a chance to expand public awareness about osteoporosis, as many men may not know to raise the question of their fracture risk during medical appointments, Dr. Davis said.

“Clinicians need to be aware of the risk factors and to be able to have conversations with men,” she said.

Dr. Davis also cautioned about the need to be aware of limitations with clinical risk assessment tools. In the draft recommendation statement, the USPSTF noted that some tools and approaches may be less likely to identify Black, Hispanic, and Asian people as high risk, and subsequently, clinicians may be less likely to offer treatment to them compared with White people of the same age, bone mineral density, and clinical risk profile.

Dr. Davis had no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Jain received research funding from the Amgen Foundation.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Some vitamin D tests may give misleading results despite progress made in recent years to improve the quality of these assays, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Otoe Sugahara manager of the CDC Vitamin D Standardization-Certification Program (VDSCP), presented an update of her group’s work at ENDO 2024, the Endocrine Society’s annual meeting in Boston. 

“Though most vitamin D tests in our program have improved, there still remain some sample-specific inaccuracies. The CDC is working with program participants to address these situations,” Ms. Sugahara said in a statement released by the Endocrine Society.

For example, some assays measure other compounds besides 25-hydroxyvitamin D, which can falsely elevate results of some blood samples, Ms. Sugahara reported. Thus, some tests may be misclassified, with results seen as sufficient from samples that should have indicated a vitamin D deficiency.

“While most vitamin D tests are effective, it is important for healthcare providers to be aware of the potential inconsistencies associated with vitamin D tests to avoid misclassification of the patients,” Ms. Sugahara and coauthors said in an abstract provided by the Endocrine Society.

Ms. Sugahara’s report provided a snapshot of the state of longstanding efforts to improve the quality of a widely performed service in US healthcare: testing vitamin D levels.

These include an international collaboration that gave rise in 2010 to a vitamin D standardization program, from which the CDC’s VDSCP certification emerged. Among the leaders of these efforts was Christopher Sempos, PhD, then with the Office of Dietary Supplements at the National Institutes of Health.

Many clinicians may not be aware of the concerns about the accuracy of vitamin D tests that led to the drive for standardization, Dr. Sempos, now retired, said in an interview. And, in his view, it’s something that busy practitioners should not have to consider.

“They have literally thousands of diseases they have to be able to recognize and diagnose,” Dr. Sempos said. “They should be able to count on the laboratory system to give them accurate and precise data.”
 

‘Nudging’ Toward Better Results

The CDC’s certification program gives labs and companies detailed information about the analytical accuracy and precision of their vitamin D tests. 

This feedback has paid off with improved results, Andy Hoofnagle, MD, PhD, professor of laboratory medicine and pathology at the University of Washington in Seattle, told this news organization. It helps by “nudging manufacturers in the right direction,” he said.

“Some manufacturers reformulated, others recalibrated, which is a lot of effort on their part, so that when the patient get a number, it actually means the right thing,” said Dr. Hoofnagle, who is also chair of the Accuracy-Based Programs Committee of the College of American Pathologists.

“There are still many immunoassays on the market that aren’t giving the correct results, unfortunately, but the standardization certification program has really pushed the field in the right direction,” he said.

US scientists use two main types of technologies to measure vitamin D in the blood, Ms. Sugahara said. One is mass spectrometry, which separately measures 25-hydroxyvitamin D2 and D3 and sums the values. The other type, immunoassay, measures both compounds at the same time and reports one result for total 25-hydroxyvitamin D.

At the ENDO 2024 meeting, Ms. Sugahara reported generally positive trends seen in the VDSCP. For example, the program looks at specific tests’ bias, or the deviation of test results from the true value, as determined with the CDC’s reference method for vitamin D.

Average calibration bias was less than 1% for all assays in the VDSCP in 2022, Ms. Sugahara said. The average calibration bias for immunoassays was 0.86%, and for assays using mass spectrometry, it was 0.55%, Ms. Sugahara reported. 

These are improved results compared with 2019 data, in which mass spectrometry–based assays had a mean bias of 1.9% and immunoassays had a mean bias of 2.4%, the CDC told this news organization in an email exchange.

The CDC said the VDSCP supports laboratories and researchers from around the world, including ones based in the US, China, Australia, Japan, and Korea.
 

Call for Research

Vitamin D tests are widely administered despite questions about their benefit for people who do not appear likely to be deficient of it. 

The Endocrine Society’s newly released practice guideline recommends against routine testing of blood vitamin D levels in the general population.

Laboratory testing has increased over the years owing to studies reporting associations between blood vitamin D [25(OH)D] levels and a variety of common disorders, including musculoskeletal, metabolic, cardiovascular, malignant, autoimmune, and infectious diseases, wrote Marie B. Demay, MD, of Harvard Medical School in Boston, and coauthors in the new guideline. It was published on June 3 in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

‘”Although a causal link between serum 25(OH)D concentrations and many disorders has not been clearly established, these associations have led to widespread supplementation with vitamin D and increased laboratory testing for 25(OH)D in the general population,” they wrote.

It’s uncertain that “any putative benefits of screening would outweigh the increased burden and cost, and whether implementation of universal 25(OH)D screening would be feasible from a societal perspective,” Dr. Demay and coauthors added.

They noted that the influential US Preventive Services Task Force also has raised doubts about widespread use of vitamin D tests. 

The USPSTF has a somewhat different take from the Endocrine Society. The task force in 2021 reiterated its view that there is not enough evidence to recommend for or against widespread vitamin D testing for adults. The task force gave this test an I grade, meaning there is insufficient evidence to weigh the risks and benefits. That’s the same grade the task force gave it in 2014.

The USPSTF uses a grade of D to recommend against use of a test or service.

In an interview with this news organization, John Wong, MD, vice chair of the USPSTF, reiterated his group’s call for more research into the potential benefits and harms of vitamin D screening. 

One of the challenges in addressing this issue, Dr. Wong noted, has been the variability of test results. Therefore, efforts such as the CDC’s VDSCP in improving test quality may help in eventually building up the kind of evidence base needed for the task force to offer a more definitive judgment on the tests, he said.

Wong acknowledged it must be frustrating for clinicians and patients to hear that experts don’t have the evidence needed to make a broad call about whether routine vitamin D tests are beneficial.

“We really would like to have that evidence because we recognize that it’s an important health question to help everybody in this nation stay healthy and live longer,” Dr. Wong said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Some vitamin D tests may give misleading results despite progress made in recent years to improve the quality of these assays, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Otoe Sugahara manager of the CDC Vitamin D Standardization-Certification Program (VDSCP), presented an update of her group’s work at ENDO 2024, the Endocrine Society’s annual meeting in Boston. 

“Though most vitamin D tests in our program have improved, there still remain some sample-specific inaccuracies. The CDC is working with program participants to address these situations,” Ms. Sugahara said in a statement released by the Endocrine Society.

For example, some assays measure other compounds besides 25-hydroxyvitamin D, which can falsely elevate results of some blood samples, Ms. Sugahara reported. Thus, some tests may be misclassified, with results seen as sufficient from samples that should have indicated a vitamin D deficiency.

“While most vitamin D tests are effective, it is important for healthcare providers to be aware of the potential inconsistencies associated with vitamin D tests to avoid misclassification of the patients,” Ms. Sugahara and coauthors said in an abstract provided by the Endocrine Society.

Ms. Sugahara’s report provided a snapshot of the state of longstanding efforts to improve the quality of a widely performed service in US healthcare: testing vitamin D levels.

These include an international collaboration that gave rise in 2010 to a vitamin D standardization program, from which the CDC’s VDSCP certification emerged. Among the leaders of these efforts was Christopher Sempos, PhD, then with the Office of Dietary Supplements at the National Institutes of Health.

Many clinicians may not be aware of the concerns about the accuracy of vitamin D tests that led to the drive for standardization, Dr. Sempos, now retired, said in an interview. And, in his view, it’s something that busy practitioners should not have to consider.

“They have literally thousands of diseases they have to be able to recognize and diagnose,” Dr. Sempos said. “They should be able to count on the laboratory system to give them accurate and precise data.”
 

‘Nudging’ Toward Better Results

The CDC’s certification program gives labs and companies detailed information about the analytical accuracy and precision of their vitamin D tests. 

This feedback has paid off with improved results, Andy Hoofnagle, MD, PhD, professor of laboratory medicine and pathology at the University of Washington in Seattle, told this news organization. It helps by “nudging manufacturers in the right direction,” he said.

“Some manufacturers reformulated, others recalibrated, which is a lot of effort on their part, so that when the patient get a number, it actually means the right thing,” said Dr. Hoofnagle, who is also chair of the Accuracy-Based Programs Committee of the College of American Pathologists.

“There are still many immunoassays on the market that aren’t giving the correct results, unfortunately, but the standardization certification program has really pushed the field in the right direction,” he said.

US scientists use two main types of technologies to measure vitamin D in the blood, Ms. Sugahara said. One is mass spectrometry, which separately measures 25-hydroxyvitamin D2 and D3 and sums the values. The other type, immunoassay, measures both compounds at the same time and reports one result for total 25-hydroxyvitamin D.

At the ENDO 2024 meeting, Ms. Sugahara reported generally positive trends seen in the VDSCP. For example, the program looks at specific tests’ bias, or the deviation of test results from the true value, as determined with the CDC’s reference method for vitamin D.

Average calibration bias was less than 1% for all assays in the VDSCP in 2022, Ms. Sugahara said. The average calibration bias for immunoassays was 0.86%, and for assays using mass spectrometry, it was 0.55%, Ms. Sugahara reported. 

These are improved results compared with 2019 data, in which mass spectrometry–based assays had a mean bias of 1.9% and immunoassays had a mean bias of 2.4%, the CDC told this news organization in an email exchange.

The CDC said the VDSCP supports laboratories and researchers from around the world, including ones based in the US, China, Australia, Japan, and Korea.
 

Call for Research

Vitamin D tests are widely administered despite questions about their benefit for people who do not appear likely to be deficient of it. 

The Endocrine Society’s newly released practice guideline recommends against routine testing of blood vitamin D levels in the general population.

Laboratory testing has increased over the years owing to studies reporting associations between blood vitamin D [25(OH)D] levels and a variety of common disorders, including musculoskeletal, metabolic, cardiovascular, malignant, autoimmune, and infectious diseases, wrote Marie B. Demay, MD, of Harvard Medical School in Boston, and coauthors in the new guideline. It was published on June 3 in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

‘”Although a causal link between serum 25(OH)D concentrations and many disorders has not been clearly established, these associations have led to widespread supplementation with vitamin D and increased laboratory testing for 25(OH)D in the general population,” they wrote.

It’s uncertain that “any putative benefits of screening would outweigh the increased burden and cost, and whether implementation of universal 25(OH)D screening would be feasible from a societal perspective,” Dr. Demay and coauthors added.

They noted that the influential US Preventive Services Task Force also has raised doubts about widespread use of vitamin D tests. 

The USPSTF has a somewhat different take from the Endocrine Society. The task force in 2021 reiterated its view that there is not enough evidence to recommend for or against widespread vitamin D testing for adults. The task force gave this test an I grade, meaning there is insufficient evidence to weigh the risks and benefits. That’s the same grade the task force gave it in 2014.

The USPSTF uses a grade of D to recommend against use of a test or service.

In an interview with this news organization, John Wong, MD, vice chair of the USPSTF, reiterated his group’s call for more research into the potential benefits and harms of vitamin D screening. 

One of the challenges in addressing this issue, Dr. Wong noted, has been the variability of test results. Therefore, efforts such as the CDC’s VDSCP in improving test quality may help in eventually building up the kind of evidence base needed for the task force to offer a more definitive judgment on the tests, he said.

Wong acknowledged it must be frustrating for clinicians and patients to hear that experts don’t have the evidence needed to make a broad call about whether routine vitamin D tests are beneficial.

“We really would like to have that evidence because we recognize that it’s an important health question to help everybody in this nation stay healthy and live longer,” Dr. Wong said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Some vitamin D tests may give misleading results despite progress made in recent years to improve the quality of these assays, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Otoe Sugahara manager of the CDC Vitamin D Standardization-Certification Program (VDSCP), presented an update of her group’s work at ENDO 2024, the Endocrine Society’s annual meeting in Boston. 

“Though most vitamin D tests in our program have improved, there still remain some sample-specific inaccuracies. The CDC is working with program participants to address these situations,” Ms. Sugahara said in a statement released by the Endocrine Society.

For example, some assays measure other compounds besides 25-hydroxyvitamin D, which can falsely elevate results of some blood samples, Ms. Sugahara reported. Thus, some tests may be misclassified, with results seen as sufficient from samples that should have indicated a vitamin D deficiency.

“While most vitamin D tests are effective, it is important for healthcare providers to be aware of the potential inconsistencies associated with vitamin D tests to avoid misclassification of the patients,” Ms. Sugahara and coauthors said in an abstract provided by the Endocrine Society.

Ms. Sugahara’s report provided a snapshot of the state of longstanding efforts to improve the quality of a widely performed service in US healthcare: testing vitamin D levels.

These include an international collaboration that gave rise in 2010 to a vitamin D standardization program, from which the CDC’s VDSCP certification emerged. Among the leaders of these efforts was Christopher Sempos, PhD, then with the Office of Dietary Supplements at the National Institutes of Health.

Many clinicians may not be aware of the concerns about the accuracy of vitamin D tests that led to the drive for standardization, Dr. Sempos, now retired, said in an interview. And, in his view, it’s something that busy practitioners should not have to consider.

“They have literally thousands of diseases they have to be able to recognize and diagnose,” Dr. Sempos said. “They should be able to count on the laboratory system to give them accurate and precise data.”
 

‘Nudging’ Toward Better Results

The CDC’s certification program gives labs and companies detailed information about the analytical accuracy and precision of their vitamin D tests. 

This feedback has paid off with improved results, Andy Hoofnagle, MD, PhD, professor of laboratory medicine and pathology at the University of Washington in Seattle, told this news organization. It helps by “nudging manufacturers in the right direction,” he said.

“Some manufacturers reformulated, others recalibrated, which is a lot of effort on their part, so that when the patient get a number, it actually means the right thing,” said Dr. Hoofnagle, who is also chair of the Accuracy-Based Programs Committee of the College of American Pathologists.

“There are still many immunoassays on the market that aren’t giving the correct results, unfortunately, but the standardization certification program has really pushed the field in the right direction,” he said.

US scientists use two main types of technologies to measure vitamin D in the blood, Ms. Sugahara said. One is mass spectrometry, which separately measures 25-hydroxyvitamin D2 and D3 and sums the values. The other type, immunoassay, measures both compounds at the same time and reports one result for total 25-hydroxyvitamin D.

At the ENDO 2024 meeting, Ms. Sugahara reported generally positive trends seen in the VDSCP. For example, the program looks at specific tests’ bias, or the deviation of test results from the true value, as determined with the CDC’s reference method for vitamin D.

Average calibration bias was less than 1% for all assays in the VDSCP in 2022, Ms. Sugahara said. The average calibration bias for immunoassays was 0.86%, and for assays using mass spectrometry, it was 0.55%, Ms. Sugahara reported. 

These are improved results compared with 2019 data, in which mass spectrometry–based assays had a mean bias of 1.9% and immunoassays had a mean bias of 2.4%, the CDC told this news organization in an email exchange.

The CDC said the VDSCP supports laboratories and researchers from around the world, including ones based in the US, China, Australia, Japan, and Korea.
 

Call for Research

Vitamin D tests are widely administered despite questions about their benefit for people who do not appear likely to be deficient of it. 

The Endocrine Society’s newly released practice guideline recommends against routine testing of blood vitamin D levels in the general population.

Laboratory testing has increased over the years owing to studies reporting associations between blood vitamin D [25(OH)D] levels and a variety of common disorders, including musculoskeletal, metabolic, cardiovascular, malignant, autoimmune, and infectious diseases, wrote Marie B. Demay, MD, of Harvard Medical School in Boston, and coauthors in the new guideline. It was published on June 3 in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

‘”Although a causal link between serum 25(OH)D concentrations and many disorders has not been clearly established, these associations have led to widespread supplementation with vitamin D and increased laboratory testing for 25(OH)D in the general population,” they wrote.

It’s uncertain that “any putative benefits of screening would outweigh the increased burden and cost, and whether implementation of universal 25(OH)D screening would be feasible from a societal perspective,” Dr. Demay and coauthors added.

They noted that the influential US Preventive Services Task Force also has raised doubts about widespread use of vitamin D tests. 

The USPSTF has a somewhat different take from the Endocrine Society. The task force in 2021 reiterated its view that there is not enough evidence to recommend for or against widespread vitamin D testing for adults. The task force gave this test an I grade, meaning there is insufficient evidence to weigh the risks and benefits. That’s the same grade the task force gave it in 2014.

The USPSTF uses a grade of D to recommend against use of a test or service.

In an interview with this news organization, John Wong, MD, vice chair of the USPSTF, reiterated his group’s call for more research into the potential benefits and harms of vitamin D screening. 

One of the challenges in addressing this issue, Dr. Wong noted, has been the variability of test results. Therefore, efforts such as the CDC’s VDSCP in improving test quality may help in eventually building up the kind of evidence base needed for the task force to offer a more definitive judgment on the tests, he said.

Wong acknowledged it must be frustrating for clinicians and patients to hear that experts don’t have the evidence needed to make a broad call about whether routine vitamin D tests are beneficial.

“We really would like to have that evidence because we recognize that it’s an important health question to help everybody in this nation stay healthy and live longer,” Dr. Wong said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON — Use of over-the-counter arthritis supplements containing undisclosed glucocorticoids can lead to iatrogenic adrenal dysfunction, Cushing syndrome, and/or adrenal insufficiency (AI). 

Patients who have been taking these supplements for prolonged periods must slowly taper off them with corticosteroid replacement, because abruptly stopping the supplement can precipitate AI, Kevin S. Wei, MD, said in a presentation of 12 cases — the largest such series to date of the phenomenon — at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

The specific supplements used were Artri King in eight of the patients, Ardosons in two, and Ajo Rey in one. In April 2022, the US Food and Drug Administration issued a warning that Artri King contains diclofenac and dexamethasone not listed on the product label. In July 2023, the agency issued an expanded warning about that product and others including Ajo Rey.

The supplements are not believed to be sold in the United States, but they are available in Mexico and can be ordered online, said Dr. Wei, a second-year resident at the Keck School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“We found that quite a lot of patients after they’ve been on the Artri King or some other over the counter arthritis supplement, started developing these cushingoid features seen in the physical exam, such as rounded facial features or stretch marks of their abdomen,” he said.

And “when patients are abruptly taken off those supplements … sometimes this can cause them to go into signs or symptoms of adrenal insufficiency. That can occasionally be life-threatening if it’s not addressed in an inpatient setting,” Dr. Wei said.

In an interview, session moderator Sharon L. Wardlaw, MD, professor of medicine at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, explained that when a person takes these drugs containing hidden glucocorticoids, “they won’t be picked up in a cortisol assay, but they’ll suppress the [adrenocorticotropic hormone] and the person’s own cortisol production. They look like they have Cushing, but when you measure their hormone levels, they’re undetectable. And then people wonder what’s going on. Well, their [hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal] axis is suppressed.”

But if the product is suddenly stopped without cortisol replacement “If they get an infection they can die because they can’t mount a cortisol response.”

The takeaway message, she said, is “always ask patients to show you their supplements and look at them. In many cases, that’s why they work so well for pain relief because they have ingredients that people shouldn’t be taking.”

Twelve Patients Seen During 2022-2023

The 12 patients were seen during 2022-2023 at an endocrinology consult service in an urban safety net hospital. Their median age was 52 years, and one third were women. All had started using the supplements for joint pain, with a median of about 6 months of use prior to cessation.

Presenting symptoms included nausea/vomiting in 42%, fatigue in 42%, abdominal pain in 33%, and dizziness in 17%. Physical exam findings included moon facies in 66%, central adiposity in 66%, abdominal striae in 50%, dorsocervical fat pad in 33%, and bruising in 33%. Three required intensive care admission.

Cortisol testing was performed in 11 of the patients and was normal (≥ 16 mcg/dL) in just one. AI (≤ 3 mcg/dL) was found in three, while the rest had indeterminate results. Of those seven patients, subsequent cosyntropin-stimulation testing suggested AI (cortisol < 16 mcg/dL at 60 minutes post stimulation) in four patients, while the other two showed reduced but normal responses (cortisol 18.2-18.4 mcg/dL).

Ten of the 12 patients were prescribed glucocorticoid tapering replacements to avoid precipitating adrenal crisis, most commonly twice-daily hydrocortisone. Of those ten, eight continued to take the replacement steroids 1-2 years later, Dr. Wei said.

Dr. Wei and Dr. Wardlaw had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON — Use of over-the-counter arthritis supplements containing undisclosed glucocorticoids can lead to iatrogenic adrenal dysfunction, Cushing syndrome, and/or adrenal insufficiency (AI). 

Patients who have been taking these supplements for prolonged periods must slowly taper off them with corticosteroid replacement, because abruptly stopping the supplement can precipitate AI, Kevin S. Wei, MD, said in a presentation of 12 cases — the largest such series to date of the phenomenon — at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

The specific supplements used were Artri King in eight of the patients, Ardosons in two, and Ajo Rey in one. In April 2022, the US Food and Drug Administration issued a warning that Artri King contains diclofenac and dexamethasone not listed on the product label. In July 2023, the agency issued an expanded warning about that product and others including Ajo Rey.

The supplements are not believed to be sold in the United States, but they are available in Mexico and can be ordered online, said Dr. Wei, a second-year resident at the Keck School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“We found that quite a lot of patients after they’ve been on the Artri King or some other over the counter arthritis supplement, started developing these cushingoid features seen in the physical exam, such as rounded facial features or stretch marks of their abdomen,” he said.

And “when patients are abruptly taken off those supplements … sometimes this can cause them to go into signs or symptoms of adrenal insufficiency. That can occasionally be life-threatening if it’s not addressed in an inpatient setting,” Dr. Wei said.

In an interview, session moderator Sharon L. Wardlaw, MD, professor of medicine at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, explained that when a person takes these drugs containing hidden glucocorticoids, “they won’t be picked up in a cortisol assay, but they’ll suppress the [adrenocorticotropic hormone] and the person’s own cortisol production. They look like they have Cushing, but when you measure their hormone levels, they’re undetectable. And then people wonder what’s going on. Well, their [hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal] axis is suppressed.”

But if the product is suddenly stopped without cortisol replacement “If they get an infection they can die because they can’t mount a cortisol response.”

The takeaway message, she said, is “always ask patients to show you their supplements and look at them. In many cases, that’s why they work so well for pain relief because they have ingredients that people shouldn’t be taking.”

Twelve Patients Seen During 2022-2023

The 12 patients were seen during 2022-2023 at an endocrinology consult service in an urban safety net hospital. Their median age was 52 years, and one third were women. All had started using the supplements for joint pain, with a median of about 6 months of use prior to cessation.

Presenting symptoms included nausea/vomiting in 42%, fatigue in 42%, abdominal pain in 33%, and dizziness in 17%. Physical exam findings included moon facies in 66%, central adiposity in 66%, abdominal striae in 50%, dorsocervical fat pad in 33%, and bruising in 33%. Three required intensive care admission.

Cortisol testing was performed in 11 of the patients and was normal (≥ 16 mcg/dL) in just one. AI (≤ 3 mcg/dL) was found in three, while the rest had indeterminate results. Of those seven patients, subsequent cosyntropin-stimulation testing suggested AI (cortisol < 16 mcg/dL at 60 minutes post stimulation) in four patients, while the other two showed reduced but normal responses (cortisol 18.2-18.4 mcg/dL).

Ten of the 12 patients were prescribed glucocorticoid tapering replacements to avoid precipitating adrenal crisis, most commonly twice-daily hydrocortisone. Of those ten, eight continued to take the replacement steroids 1-2 years later, Dr. Wei said.

Dr. Wei and Dr. Wardlaw had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON — Use of over-the-counter arthritis supplements containing undisclosed glucocorticoids can lead to iatrogenic adrenal dysfunction, Cushing syndrome, and/or adrenal insufficiency (AI). 

Patients who have been taking these supplements for prolonged periods must slowly taper off them with corticosteroid replacement, because abruptly stopping the supplement can precipitate AI, Kevin S. Wei, MD, said in a presentation of 12 cases — the largest such series to date of the phenomenon — at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

The specific supplements used were Artri King in eight of the patients, Ardosons in two, and Ajo Rey in one. In April 2022, the US Food and Drug Administration issued a warning that Artri King contains diclofenac and dexamethasone not listed on the product label. In July 2023, the agency issued an expanded warning about that product and others including Ajo Rey.

The supplements are not believed to be sold in the United States, but they are available in Mexico and can be ordered online, said Dr. Wei, a second-year resident at the Keck School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“We found that quite a lot of patients after they’ve been on the Artri King or some other over the counter arthritis supplement, started developing these cushingoid features seen in the physical exam, such as rounded facial features or stretch marks of their abdomen,” he said.

And “when patients are abruptly taken off those supplements … sometimes this can cause them to go into signs or symptoms of adrenal insufficiency. That can occasionally be life-threatening if it’s not addressed in an inpatient setting,” Dr. Wei said.

In an interview, session moderator Sharon L. Wardlaw, MD, professor of medicine at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, explained that when a person takes these drugs containing hidden glucocorticoids, “they won’t be picked up in a cortisol assay, but they’ll suppress the [adrenocorticotropic hormone] and the person’s own cortisol production. They look like they have Cushing, but when you measure their hormone levels, they’re undetectable. And then people wonder what’s going on. Well, their [hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal] axis is suppressed.”

But if the product is suddenly stopped without cortisol replacement “If they get an infection they can die because they can’t mount a cortisol response.”

The takeaway message, she said, is “always ask patients to show you their supplements and look at them. In many cases, that’s why they work so well for pain relief because they have ingredients that people shouldn’t be taking.”

Twelve Patients Seen During 2022-2023

The 12 patients were seen during 2022-2023 at an endocrinology consult service in an urban safety net hospital. Their median age was 52 years, and one third were women. All had started using the supplements for joint pain, with a median of about 6 months of use prior to cessation.

Presenting symptoms included nausea/vomiting in 42%, fatigue in 42%, abdominal pain in 33%, and dizziness in 17%. Physical exam findings included moon facies in 66%, central adiposity in 66%, abdominal striae in 50%, dorsocervical fat pad in 33%, and bruising in 33%. Three required intensive care admission.

Cortisol testing was performed in 11 of the patients and was normal (≥ 16 mcg/dL) in just one. AI (≤ 3 mcg/dL) was found in three, while the rest had indeterminate results. Of those seven patients, subsequent cosyntropin-stimulation testing suggested AI (cortisol < 16 mcg/dL at 60 minutes post stimulation) in four patients, while the other two showed reduced but normal responses (cortisol 18.2-18.4 mcg/dL).

Ten of the 12 patients were prescribed glucocorticoid tapering replacements to avoid precipitating adrenal crisis, most commonly twice-daily hydrocortisone. Of those ten, eight continued to take the replacement steroids 1-2 years later, Dr. Wei said.

Dr. Wei and Dr. Wardlaw had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON — New Endocrine Society guidelines call for limiting vitamin D supplementation beyond the daily recommended intake to specific risk groups and advises against routine 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] testing in healthy individuals. 

The evidence-based document was presented on June 3, 2024, at the Endocrine Society annual meeting, and simultaneously published in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism. It advises that people who may benefit from vitamin D supplementation include: 

• Children aged 1-18 years to prevent rickets and to potentially lower the risk for respiratory tract infections
• Pregnant people to lower the risk for maternal and fetal or neonatal complications
• Adults older than 75 years to lower the risk for mortality
• Adults with prediabetes to lower the risk for type 2 diabetes

In those groups, the recommendation is for daily (rather than intermittent) empiric vitamin D supplementation of more than what was recommended in 2011 by the National Academy of Medicine (NAM), which was then called the Institute of Medicine (IOM): 600 IU/d for those aged 1-70 years and 800 IU/d for those older than 70 years. The document acknowledges that the optimal dose for these populations isn’t known, but it provides the dose ranges that were used in the trials cited as evidence for the recommendations. 

In contrast, the document advises against more vitamin D than the recommended daily intake for most healthier adults younger than 75 years and recommends against testing for blood vitamin D levels in the general population, including those with obesity or darker complexions. 

Guideline author Anastassios G. Pittas, MD, professor of medicine at Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, told this news organization, “this guideline refers to people who are otherwise healthy, and there’s no clear indication for vitamin D, such as people with already established osteoporosis. This guideline is not relevant to them.”

Dr. Pittas also noted, “there’s no single question and single answer about the role of vitamin D in health and disease, which is what people often want to know. There are many questions, and we cannot answer all of them.”

Panel Chair Marie B. Demay, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, told this news organization that indeed the panel was limited by lack of randomized clinical trial evidence to answer many important questions. “There is a paucity of data regarding definition of optimal levels and optimal intake of vitamin D for preventing specific diseases ... What we really need are large scale clinical trials and biomarkers so we can predict disease outcome before it happens.”

Overall, Dr. Demay said, “The recommendations are that populations adhere to the [NAM/IOM] dietary recommended intakes, and there are certain populations that will likely benefit from levels of intake above [those].” 

Asked to comment, session moderator Clifford J. Rosen, MD, director of Clinical and Translational Research and senior scientist at Maine Medical Center Research Institute, Scarborough, Maine, noted that screening for vitamin D is quite common in clinical practice, but the recommendation against doing so makes sense. 

“When clinicians measure vitamin D, then they’re forced to make a decision what to do about it. That’s where questions about the levels come in. And that’s a big problem. So what the panel’s saying is, don’t screen ... This really gets to the heart of the issue, because we have no data that there’s anything about screening that allows us to improve quality of life ... Screening is probably not worthwhile in any age group.”

Dr. Rosen, who was an author on the 2011 NAM/IOM dietary reference intakes, said that since then, new data have come out regarding the role of vitamin D in mortality in people older than 75 years, benefit in children with regard to respiratory illness, and the potential benefit of vitamin D in pregnancy. “Otherwise, I think we’re going over a lot of the same stuff that we’ve talked about since I was on the IOM panel 15 years ago ... But I think the level of evidence and rigor with which they did it is really impressive.”

However, Simeon I. Taylor, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, expressed disappointment that the document was limited to healthy people. “Although acknowledging challenges in managing vitamin D status in patients with several diseases, [such as] chronic kidney disease or inflammatory bowel disease, the new guidelines do not provide sufficient guidance for practicing physicians about how to manage these complex patients.”

In addition, Dr. Taylor said that the guidelines “do not explicitly consider the literature suggesting that alternative testing strategies may provide more relevant insights into vitamin D status. Just as variation in levels of thyroid-binding globulin have convinced endocrinologists not to rely on measurement of total thyroxine; interindividual variation in levels of vitamin D binding protein must be accounted for to interpret measurements of total levels of 25(OH)D. It would have been useful to explicitly consider the possible value of measuring vitamin D binding protein-independent indices of vitamin D status.”

Dr. Taylor also raised the same point as an audience member did during the Q&A period regarding patients with osteoporosis or osteopenia. “The value and utility of the new guidelines would be greatly strengthened by providing guidance for how to approach this important and very large group of individuals.”

Dr. Taylor did say that the document has “several strengths, including the fact that they acknowledge the major limitations of the quality of relevant evidence derived from clinical trials.” 

In an accompanying commentary, the guideline authors delve into the issues of skin pigmentation and race as they pertain to vitamin D metabolism, writing: 

The panel discovered that no randomized clinical trials have directly assessed vitamin D related patient-important outcomes based on participants’ skin pigmentation, although race and ethnicity often served as presumed proxies for skin pigmentation in the literature. In their deliberations, guideline panel members and selected Endocrine Society leaders underscored the critical need to distinguish between skin pigmentation as a biological variable and race and ethnicity as socially determined constructs. This differentiation is vital to maximize scientific rigor and, thus, the validity of resulting recommendations.

Dr. Pittas and Dr. Demay have no disclosures relevant to this clinical practice guideline. Dr. Rosen has no disclosures. Dr. Taylor serves as a consultant for Ionis Pharmaceuticals.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON — New Endocrine Society guidelines call for limiting vitamin D supplementation beyond the daily recommended intake to specific risk groups and advises against routine 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] testing in healthy individuals. 

The evidence-based document was presented on June 3, 2024, at the Endocrine Society annual meeting, and simultaneously published in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism. It advises that people who may benefit from vitamin D supplementation include: 

• Children aged 1-18 years to prevent rickets and to potentially lower the risk for respiratory tract infections
• Pregnant people to lower the risk for maternal and fetal or neonatal complications
• Adults older than 75 years to lower the risk for mortality
• Adults with prediabetes to lower the risk for type 2 diabetes

In those groups, the recommendation is for daily (rather than intermittent) empiric vitamin D supplementation of more than what was recommended in 2011 by the National Academy of Medicine (NAM), which was then called the Institute of Medicine (IOM): 600 IU/d for those aged 1-70 years and 800 IU/d for those older than 70 years. The document acknowledges that the optimal dose for these populations isn’t known, but it provides the dose ranges that were used in the trials cited as evidence for the recommendations. 

In contrast, the document advises against more vitamin D than the recommended daily intake for most healthier adults younger than 75 years and recommends against testing for blood vitamin D levels in the general population, including those with obesity or darker complexions. 

Guideline author Anastassios G. Pittas, MD, professor of medicine at Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, told this news organization, “this guideline refers to people who are otherwise healthy, and there’s no clear indication for vitamin D, such as people with already established osteoporosis. This guideline is not relevant to them.”

Dr. Pittas also noted, “there’s no single question and single answer about the role of vitamin D in health and disease, which is what people often want to know. There are many questions, and we cannot answer all of them.”

Panel Chair Marie B. Demay, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, told this news organization that indeed the panel was limited by lack of randomized clinical trial evidence to answer many important questions. “There is a paucity of data regarding definition of optimal levels and optimal intake of vitamin D for preventing specific diseases ... What we really need are large scale clinical trials and biomarkers so we can predict disease outcome before it happens.”

Overall, Dr. Demay said, “The recommendations are that populations adhere to the [NAM/IOM] dietary recommended intakes, and there are certain populations that will likely benefit from levels of intake above [those].” 

Asked to comment, session moderator Clifford J. Rosen, MD, director of Clinical and Translational Research and senior scientist at Maine Medical Center Research Institute, Scarborough, Maine, noted that screening for vitamin D is quite common in clinical practice, but the recommendation against doing so makes sense. 

“When clinicians measure vitamin D, then they’re forced to make a decision what to do about it. That’s where questions about the levels come in. And that’s a big problem. So what the panel’s saying is, don’t screen ... This really gets to the heart of the issue, because we have no data that there’s anything about screening that allows us to improve quality of life ... Screening is probably not worthwhile in any age group.”

Dr. Rosen, who was an author on the 2011 NAM/IOM dietary reference intakes, said that since then, new data have come out regarding the role of vitamin D in mortality in people older than 75 years, benefit in children with regard to respiratory illness, and the potential benefit of vitamin D in pregnancy. “Otherwise, I think we’re going over a lot of the same stuff that we’ve talked about since I was on the IOM panel 15 years ago ... But I think the level of evidence and rigor with which they did it is really impressive.”

However, Simeon I. Taylor, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, expressed disappointment that the document was limited to healthy people. “Although acknowledging challenges in managing vitamin D status in patients with several diseases, [such as] chronic kidney disease or inflammatory bowel disease, the new guidelines do not provide sufficient guidance for practicing physicians about how to manage these complex patients.”

In addition, Dr. Taylor said that the guidelines “do not explicitly consider the literature suggesting that alternative testing strategies may provide more relevant insights into vitamin D status. Just as variation in levels of thyroid-binding globulin have convinced endocrinologists not to rely on measurement of total thyroxine; interindividual variation in levels of vitamin D binding protein must be accounted for to interpret measurements of total levels of 25(OH)D. It would have been useful to explicitly consider the possible value of measuring vitamin D binding protein-independent indices of vitamin D status.”

Dr. Taylor also raised the same point as an audience member did during the Q&A period regarding patients with osteoporosis or osteopenia. “The value and utility of the new guidelines would be greatly strengthened by providing guidance for how to approach this important and very large group of individuals.”

Dr. Taylor did say that the document has “several strengths, including the fact that they acknowledge the major limitations of the quality of relevant evidence derived from clinical trials.” 

In an accompanying commentary, the guideline authors delve into the issues of skin pigmentation and race as they pertain to vitamin D metabolism, writing: 

The panel discovered that no randomized clinical trials have directly assessed vitamin D related patient-important outcomes based on participants’ skin pigmentation, although race and ethnicity often served as presumed proxies for skin pigmentation in the literature. In their deliberations, guideline panel members and selected Endocrine Society leaders underscored the critical need to distinguish between skin pigmentation as a biological variable and race and ethnicity as socially determined constructs. This differentiation is vital to maximize scientific rigor and, thus, the validity of resulting recommendations.

Dr. Pittas and Dr. Demay have no disclosures relevant to this clinical practice guideline. Dr. Rosen has no disclosures. Dr. Taylor serves as a consultant for Ionis Pharmaceuticals.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON — New Endocrine Society guidelines call for limiting vitamin D supplementation beyond the daily recommended intake to specific risk groups and advises against routine 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] testing in healthy individuals. 

The evidence-based document was presented on June 3, 2024, at the Endocrine Society annual meeting, and simultaneously published in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism. It advises that people who may benefit from vitamin D supplementation include: 

• Children aged 1-18 years to prevent rickets and to potentially lower the risk for respiratory tract infections
• Pregnant people to lower the risk for maternal and fetal or neonatal complications
• Adults older than 75 years to lower the risk for mortality
• Adults with prediabetes to lower the risk for type 2 diabetes

In those groups, the recommendation is for daily (rather than intermittent) empiric vitamin D supplementation of more than what was recommended in 2011 by the National Academy of Medicine (NAM), which was then called the Institute of Medicine (IOM): 600 IU/d for those aged 1-70 years and 800 IU/d for those older than 70 years. The document acknowledges that the optimal dose for these populations isn’t known, but it provides the dose ranges that were used in the trials cited as evidence for the recommendations. 

In contrast, the document advises against more vitamin D than the recommended daily intake for most healthier adults younger than 75 years and recommends against testing for blood vitamin D levels in the general population, including those with obesity or darker complexions. 

Guideline author Anastassios G. Pittas, MD, professor of medicine at Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, told this news organization, “this guideline refers to people who are otherwise healthy, and there’s no clear indication for vitamin D, such as people with already established osteoporosis. This guideline is not relevant to them.”

Dr. Pittas also noted, “there’s no single question and single answer about the role of vitamin D in health and disease, which is what people often want to know. There are many questions, and we cannot answer all of them.”

Panel Chair Marie B. Demay, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, told this news organization that indeed the panel was limited by lack of randomized clinical trial evidence to answer many important questions. “There is a paucity of data regarding definition of optimal levels and optimal intake of vitamin D for preventing specific diseases ... What we really need are large scale clinical trials and biomarkers so we can predict disease outcome before it happens.”

Overall, Dr. Demay said, “The recommendations are that populations adhere to the [NAM/IOM] dietary recommended intakes, and there are certain populations that will likely benefit from levels of intake above [those].” 

Asked to comment, session moderator Clifford J. Rosen, MD, director of Clinical and Translational Research and senior scientist at Maine Medical Center Research Institute, Scarborough, Maine, noted that screening for vitamin D is quite common in clinical practice, but the recommendation against doing so makes sense. 

“When clinicians measure vitamin D, then they’re forced to make a decision what to do about it. That’s where questions about the levels come in. And that’s a big problem. So what the panel’s saying is, don’t screen ... This really gets to the heart of the issue, because we have no data that there’s anything about screening that allows us to improve quality of life ... Screening is probably not worthwhile in any age group.”

Dr. Rosen, who was an author on the 2011 NAM/IOM dietary reference intakes, said that since then, new data have come out regarding the role of vitamin D in mortality in people older than 75 years, benefit in children with regard to respiratory illness, and the potential benefit of vitamin D in pregnancy. “Otherwise, I think we’re going over a lot of the same stuff that we’ve talked about since I was on the IOM panel 15 years ago ... But I think the level of evidence and rigor with which they did it is really impressive.”

However, Simeon I. Taylor, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, expressed disappointment that the document was limited to healthy people. “Although acknowledging challenges in managing vitamin D status in patients with several diseases, [such as] chronic kidney disease or inflammatory bowel disease, the new guidelines do not provide sufficient guidance for practicing physicians about how to manage these complex patients.”

In addition, Dr. Taylor said that the guidelines “do not explicitly consider the literature suggesting that alternative testing strategies may provide more relevant insights into vitamin D status. Just as variation in levels of thyroid-binding globulin have convinced endocrinologists not to rely on measurement of total thyroxine; interindividual variation in levels of vitamin D binding protein must be accounted for to interpret measurements of total levels of 25(OH)D. It would have been useful to explicitly consider the possible value of measuring vitamin D binding protein-independent indices of vitamin D status.”

Dr. Taylor also raised the same point as an audience member did during the Q&A period regarding patients with osteoporosis or osteopenia. “The value and utility of the new guidelines would be greatly strengthened by providing guidance for how to approach this important and very large group of individuals.”

Dr. Taylor did say that the document has “several strengths, including the fact that they acknowledge the major limitations of the quality of relevant evidence derived from clinical trials.” 

In an accompanying commentary, the guideline authors delve into the issues of skin pigmentation and race as they pertain to vitamin D metabolism, writing: 

The panel discovered that no randomized clinical trials have directly assessed vitamin D related patient-important outcomes based on participants’ skin pigmentation, although race and ethnicity often served as presumed proxies for skin pigmentation in the literature. In their deliberations, guideline panel members and selected Endocrine Society leaders underscored the critical need to distinguish between skin pigmentation as a biological variable and race and ethnicity as socially determined constructs. This differentiation is vital to maximize scientific rigor and, thus, the validity of resulting recommendations.

Dr. Pittas and Dr. Demay have no disclosures relevant to this clinical practice guideline. Dr. Rosen has no disclosures. Dr. Taylor serves as a consultant for Ionis Pharmaceuticals.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The cumulative effect of frequent corticosteroid injections (CSIs), a common treatment for musculoskeletal pain, does not appear to increase the risk for fractures.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers utilized an institutional electronic health record database to identify adults in Olmsted County, Minnesota, receiving corticosteroid injections from May 1, 2018, to July 1, 2022.
• Corticosteroid equivalents were calculated for medications injected, including methylprednisolone, triamcinolone, betamethasone, and dexamethasone.
• Patients were excluded if they had a prescription for oral prednisone equivalents greater than 2.5 mg/day for more than 30 days.
• Fracture events were identified using ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes and were included only if they occurred after the first corticosteroid injection.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 7197 patients were analyzed, with a mean age of 64.4 years, and of these patients, 346 (4.8%) had a new fracture in a mean time of 329 days from the first corticosteroid injection, including 149 (43.1%) in classic osteoporotic locations.
• The study reported no increased fracture risk associated with corticosteroid injections and no significant difference in fracture rates across cumulative corticosteroid injection dose quartiles, regardless of osteoporosis status.
• Factors such as previous fractures, age, and Charlson Comorbidity Index were associated with a higher risk for fractures, not corticosteroid injections.

IN PRACTICE:

“Clinicians should be reassured that frequent CSI is not associated with higher fracture risk and should not withhold these important pain treatments owing to concern for fracture,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Terin T. Sytsma, MD, Division of Community Internal Medicine, Geriatrics, and Palliative Care, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s retrospective cohort design and its focus on a predominantly White population in a single community may limit the generalizability of the findings. Confounding variables such as smoking status, alcohol intake, and physical activity were acknowledged as potential contributors to fracture risk. Only clinically apparent fractures were considered, excluding silent vertebral fractures, and differences in corticosteroid formulation were not delineated.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by a Mayo Clinic Catalyst Award to Dr. Sytsma. The authors had no conflicts of interest to report.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The cumulative effect of frequent corticosteroid injections (CSIs), a common treatment for musculoskeletal pain, does not appear to increase the risk for fractures.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers utilized an institutional electronic health record database to identify adults in Olmsted County, Minnesota, receiving corticosteroid injections from May 1, 2018, to July 1, 2022.
• Corticosteroid equivalents were calculated for medications injected, including methylprednisolone, triamcinolone, betamethasone, and dexamethasone.
• Patients were excluded if they had a prescription for oral prednisone equivalents greater than 2.5 mg/day for more than 30 days.
• Fracture events were identified using ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes and were included only if they occurred after the first corticosteroid injection.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 7197 patients were analyzed, with a mean age of 64.4 years, and of these patients, 346 (4.8%) had a new fracture in a mean time of 329 days from the first corticosteroid injection, including 149 (43.1%) in classic osteoporotic locations.
• The study reported no increased fracture risk associated with corticosteroid injections and no significant difference in fracture rates across cumulative corticosteroid injection dose quartiles, regardless of osteoporosis status.
• Factors such as previous fractures, age, and Charlson Comorbidity Index were associated with a higher risk for fractures, not corticosteroid injections.

IN PRACTICE:

“Clinicians should be reassured that frequent CSI is not associated with higher fracture risk and should not withhold these important pain treatments owing to concern for fracture,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Terin T. Sytsma, MD, Division of Community Internal Medicine, Geriatrics, and Palliative Care, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s retrospective cohort design and its focus on a predominantly White population in a single community may limit the generalizability of the findings. Confounding variables such as smoking status, alcohol intake, and physical activity were acknowledged as potential contributors to fracture risk. Only clinically apparent fractures were considered, excluding silent vertebral fractures, and differences in corticosteroid formulation were not delineated.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by a Mayo Clinic Catalyst Award to Dr. Sytsma. The authors had no conflicts of interest to report.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The cumulative effect of frequent corticosteroid injections (CSIs), a common treatment for musculoskeletal pain, does not appear to increase the risk for fractures.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers utilized an institutional electronic health record database to identify adults in Olmsted County, Minnesota, receiving corticosteroid injections from May 1, 2018, to July 1, 2022.
• Corticosteroid equivalents were calculated for medications injected, including methylprednisolone, triamcinolone, betamethasone, and dexamethasone.
• Patients were excluded if they had a prescription for oral prednisone equivalents greater than 2.5 mg/day for more than 30 days.
• Fracture events were identified using ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes and were included only if they occurred after the first corticosteroid injection.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 7197 patients were analyzed, with a mean age of 64.4 years, and of these patients, 346 (4.8%) had a new fracture in a mean time of 329 days from the first corticosteroid injection, including 149 (43.1%) in classic osteoporotic locations.
• The study reported no increased fracture risk associated with corticosteroid injections and no significant difference in fracture rates across cumulative corticosteroid injection dose quartiles, regardless of osteoporosis status.
• Factors such as previous fractures, age, and Charlson Comorbidity Index were associated with a higher risk for fractures, not corticosteroid injections.

IN PRACTICE:

“Clinicians should be reassured that frequent CSI is not associated with higher fracture risk and should not withhold these important pain treatments owing to concern for fracture,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Terin T. Sytsma, MD, Division of Community Internal Medicine, Geriatrics, and Palliative Care, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s retrospective cohort design and its focus on a predominantly White population in a single community may limit the generalizability of the findings. Confounding variables such as smoking status, alcohol intake, and physical activity were acknowledged as potential contributors to fracture risk. Only clinically apparent fractures were considered, excluding silent vertebral fractures, and differences in corticosteroid formulation were not delineated.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by a Mayo Clinic Catalyst Award to Dr. Sytsma. The authors had no conflicts of interest to report.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.