A Tony Lembke Site
Posterous theme by Cory Watilo

29th April 2011

Who to screen for osteoporosis, who treat for osteoporosis

Who to screen for osteoporosis 

Age and weight is as good as any other tool!

http://therapeuticseducation.org/podcast/episode-121-atraumatic-way-break-down-evidence-around-bone-density-measurements

First who wants to be treated!
  • 2% absolute risk reduction for primary prevention (98% no benefit)
  • 6% absolute risk reduction for secondary prevention (92% no benefit)
If they do - they maybe can't do math ... but if they do

Age - Weight (kg)

If greater than minus 5, increased risk of osteoporosis and BMD is warranted (A cut-off of greater than positive 5 should be used for Asian patients)

So lets stop looking at the guidelines!

Once you do the test at 65 everyone has either Osteopenia or Osteoporosis unless they are over 100kg

Lets use some common sense

If everyone in the family has had a # under age 60 lets look into it but otherwise lets use  Age - Weight (kg) but only if people are happy to take a tablet every day for 5 years and have a 98% of no benefit!

If we do it looks like we have some significant savings available in terms of ... everything!

by email

| Viewed
times | Favorited 0 times

4 Comments

Apr 29, 2011
Chris said...
Woops 94% no benefit!
Apr 29, 2011
Tony Lembke said...
Thanks Chris,
Australian Prescriber had some data on NNT
http://www.australianprescriber.com/magazine/23/6/133/6/
The NNT for hip fracture (as opposed to vertebral fracture) is very high.

Dan E is keen on Osteoporosis and I wonder what his take is?

May 01, 2011
Dan said...
your comment is an over simplification of the absolute risk issue. If you use an absolute risk estimation tool such as the WHO FRAX tool, then you can apply the 30% relative risk reduction (from the studies) to the person's absolute risk. Primary prevention is only subsidised if over 70 and BMD T<-3. In this group the absolute risk is usually going to be quite high, so treatment often very worth doing . If absolute risk is say 15%, 30% RRR gives a 5% risk reduction, given NNT of 20. The compares very favourably with many other treatments we do such as in cardiovascular disease.

Dan Ewald

May 01, 2011
Christopher said...
I agree this compares favourably with a 1% risk reduction for cardiovascular disease - I don't agree that we should necessarily be doing something for these sort of numbers other than giving people choices 

I suspect most of my patients given a choice would say that a 95% chance of no benefit would make treatment not high on their priority list age 70

Cheers Chris 

Leave a comment...