MJA
MJA

Inappropriate prescribing for osteoporosis

Ego Seeman, Mark A Kotowicz, Peter T Nash and Philip N Sambrook
Med J Aust 2009; 191 (6): . || doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2009.tb02824.x
Published online: 21 September 2009

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.

Online responses are no longer available. Please refer to our instructions for authors page for more information.