|
Home | Issues | eMJA shop | Classifieds | Contact | More... | Topics | Search | Login | Buy full access |
→ Contents list for this issue
→ More articles on Rheumatology
→ More articles on Pharmacology
→ More articles on Endocrinology
Click to Login
Hide the Login Box
To the Editor: Nordin and colleagues raised important issues about prescribing for osteoporosis.1 We agree that the Pharmaceutical Benefits Schedule guidelines for therapy are imperfect, but they do not necessarily lead, as Nordin et al claim, to inappropriate prescribing. For historical reasons, osteoporosis is held to be synonymous with vertebral fractures, but this misrepresents the epidemiology of fractures. Non-vertebral fractures account for 80% of all fractures and 90% of the loss of quality of life and economic costs. Vertebral fractures contribute only 20% of the burden.2 Most fractures arise in the large population at moderate risk with osteopenia — the “bell” of the Gaussian bone mineral density (BMD) distribution, not its “tail”, which comprises those with osteoporosis (defined by a bone densitometry T-score less than – 2.5). Concentrating on vertebral fractures and screening for osteoporosis with bone densitometry, as recommended by Nordin et al, is no solution to this public health problem.
Login or register to purchase access to the full article
|
|
Home | Issues | eMJA shop | Terms of use | Classifieds | More... | Contact | Topics | Search |
©The Medical Journal of Australia 2009 www.mja.com.au PRINT ISSN: 0025-729X ONLINE ISSN: 1326-5377