Skip to main content
Annals of Medicine and Surgery logoLink to Annals of Medicine and Surgery
. 2018 Mar 29;29:19–25. doi: 10.1016/j.amsu.2018.03.019

Osteoporosis and its perspective in Pakistan: A review of evidence and issues for addressing fragility fractures

Aysha Habib Khan a,, Lena Jafri a, Sibtain Ahmed a, Shahryar Noordin b
PMCID: PMC5911665  PMID: 29692892

Abstract

Despite major advances in osteoporosis diagnosis and treatment, low rates of investigating and treating osteoporosis in patients with fragility fracture are reported in Pakistan. Cost of therapies, time and cost of resources for diagnosis, concerns about medications and lack of clarity regarding the onus of responsibility to undertake this care, are some of the barriers to osteoporosis identification and treatment. Data from our part of the world on osteoporosis as well as on fragility fractures is sparse. This review addresses the current screening and diagnostic strategies for osteoporosis and reviews the existing literature to highlight the issues prevalent in our society on this major public health problem.

Keywords: Osteoporosis, Fragility fractures, Risk factor, Fracture risk assessment tools, Pakistan

Highlights

  • Despite major advances in osteoporosis diagnosis and treatment, low rates of investigating and treating osteoporosis in patients with fragility fractures are reported.

  • Despite the high prevalence of osteoporosis and osteopenia in Pakistan, there is not enough information regarding the prevalence of osteoporosis related fractures and the burden of the diseases.

  • Efforts are scarce and mostly due to individual efforts.

  • There is lack of recognition by government in the National action plan and osteoporosis is still not recognized as a major health issue in Pakistan.

  • Cost of therapies, time and cost of resources for diagnosis, concerns about medication and lack of clarity regarding the onus of responsibility to undertake this care, are some of the barriers to osteoporosis identification and treatment in Pakistan.

1. Introduction

National Institute of Health (NIH) consensus development panel defines osteoporosis as a systemic skeletal disorder characterized by compromised bone strength predisposing to an increased risk of fracture, where bone strength is reflected by integration of bone density and bone quality [1]. Osteoporotic fractures or fragility fractures are low trauma fractures occurring with a force equal to or less than falling from standing height. This definition arises because a normal human being ought to be able to fall from standing height without breaking any bones, and a fracture therefore suggests weakness of the skeleton. Pain and disability are the potential outcomes. Quality of life is affected with dependence on others [2] [3].

Despite major advances in osteoporosis diagnosis and treatment, low rates of investigating and treating osteoporosis in patients with fragility fracture have been reported internationally [[4], [5], [6], [7]]. Practicing patterns in the diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis after a fragility fracture [8],have shown that patients with fragility fractures are usually not always investigated or treated for the underlying osteoporosis. The rate of investigation of osteoporosis by bone densitometry has also been low. Even in the studies that reported high rates of osteoporosis diagnosis (35–100%), there was only moderate use of pharmacological and life style intervention. Studies on barriers to osteoporosis identification and treatment identifies cost of therapies, time and cost of resources for diagnosis, concerns about medications and lack of clarity regarding the responsibility to undertake this care, as some of the issues [8,9].

Data from our part of the world on osteoporosis as well as on fragility fracture is sparse. Even in developed countries where osteoporosis is widely recognized, the practicing pattern of physicians in screening, diagnosing and then treating fragility fractures with focus on osteoporosis needs a lot to be done [8,10,11]. This review addresses the current screening and diagnostic strategies for osteoporosis and reviews the existing literature to highlight the issues prevalent in our society on this significant public health problem.

2. Methodology

Articles from Google scholar were selected by using the search terms “Osteoporosis”, “osteopenia”, “fracture risk assessment”, “fragility fracture”, “risk factors for osteoporosis”, “bone turn over markers”, “vitamin D” and “bone health” in “Pakistan”. Inclusion criteria were articles published in English in peer-reviewed journals, from Pakistan ranging from 1990 to 2017. The articles were further filtered in a team meeting, keeping in view the ideology behind this narrative review, i.e., current screening and diagnostic strategies for osteoporosis and review of the existing literature to highlight the issues prevalent in our society on this major public health problem.

2.1. Osteoporotic fracture risk assessment

Clinical history, physical examination and routine x-rays diagnose osteoporosis in its advanced stages. Occurrence of first fracture in a previously asymptomatic individual is often the first indication for the presence of osteoporosis. First fracture is a major risk factor for subsequent fractures and therefore the ultimate goal is to diagnose osteoporosis even before first fracture occurs. The value of bone densitometry in the management of individual patients is as a measure of risk and not as either or diagnostic criterion. Low bone mineral density (BMD) cannot always translate into enhanced fracture risk. Information on bone mass should be added to information on clinical risk factors and non-skeletal risk factors like potential to fall should be balanced against the benefits and risks of the intervention considered.

A number of BMD-independent risk factors for insufficiency fractures are now recognized. It is important to differentiate risk factors for low bone mass from risk factors for fracture and risk factors for falling (Table 1). None of the risk factors predict bone mass with sufficient accuracy in an individual patient. The best combination of risk factors accounts for 20% variability in bone mass and provide information about the risk of osteoporosis. They are used to target individuals for further investigations (BMD and bone turnover marker) and treatment. They also provide an opportunity to discuss with the patient those factors (life style and secondary causes of osteoporosis) that can be eliminated or altered.

Table 1.

Clinical evaluation of bone health based on risk factors.

Risk factors for low bone mass Risk factors for fall Risk factors for fracture
Intrinsic Causes
Age (x2 risk/decade)
Female gender
Caucasian or Asian ethnicity
Thin body build (body mass index<20)
Previous fragility fracture (x10 risk of future fracture)
Low trauma fracture in first degree relative
Endocrine Causes
Premature menopause (<45 years) – natural or surgical
Previous amenorrhea (>6 months duration)
Cushing's syndrome
Hyperparathyroidism (primary or secondary)
Hypogonadism
Thyrotoxicosis
Gastrointestinal and nutritional factors
Life style
Low level of physical activity
Poor calcium intake (<0.5 g/d)
Alcohol excess (>14 units/week)
Cigarette smoking
Fragility fracture
Reduced Vision
Orthostatic hypertension
Pain
Impaired ambulation and/or balance
Muscle weakness
Depression
Long term disability
Living alone
Use of drugs: sedatives, diuretic or anti-arrhythmic
Foot problems (bunions, toe deformities, ulcers, deformed nails)
Improper use of assistive device
Extrinsic factors: Lack of stair handrails, Lack of bathroom grab bars, Dim lighting
Low bone mineral density
Advancing age
Prior fracture
Family history of osteoporosis or fragility fracture in a first degree relative
Current smoker
Low body weight
Falls
Sarcopenia
Dementia
Chronic illnesses
Use of corticosteroids

The limited accuracy of BMD alone to predict fractures has led to the development of fracture risk assessment tools that utilize the combination of bone density and clinical risk factors to improve fracture risk prediction. The fracture risk assessment tools qualitatively predict the 10-year fracture probability of hip and major osteoporosis related fractures and can be used to define cost effective intervention strategies for primary and secondary fracture prevention. Available major osteoporosis screening instruments and algorithms include WHO Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX), the Garvan Institute fracture risk calculator (Garvan) and QfractureScores (Qfracture), simple calculated osteoporosis risk estimation (SCORE), Age, BOdy size, No Estrogen (ABONE), OSteoporosis Index of RISk (OSIRIS), Study of Osteoporosis Fractures-Study Utilizing Risk Factors (SOFSURF), osteoporosis self-assessment tool (OST), National Osteoporosis Foundation (NOF) guidelines, Weight-Only–EPIDOS (WO-E) and Osteoporosis Risk Assessment Instrument (ORAI) [[12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25]]. Most of these are based on non-Asian populations. Unfortunately no such tool is available for Pakistan where the risk factors are different from the Caucasians. Osteoporosis screening questionnaires have thus far not been validated in Pakistani community.

2.2. Value of bone mineral density

The definition of osteoporosis developed for World Health Organization (WHO) is based on bone densitometry. Normal bone mass is defined as BMD above or below 1 standard deviation (SD) from the premenopausal mean value (T-score), osteopenia as BMD below -1SD but above −2.5 SD and osteoporosis is as BMD below −2.5SD [26,27]. These definitions are used to provide diagnostic labels, but not necessarily indications for intervention.

It is useful for fracture risk assessment as BMD is correlated with bone; for each SD decrease in BMD there is an approximately two fold increase in risk of fracture, depending on site of measurement and the technique used [28]. Quantitative assessment of bone mass by DXA allows serial monitoring of patients. In untreated patients, significant loss may be an indication for treatment and is associated with an increased fracture risk. In treated patients, DXA is used to monitor response to therapy. An increase in BMD or stable BMD is encouraging and is associated with fracture risk reduction. Further evaluation is considered for those who are losing BMD. The National Osteoporosis Foundation (NOF), American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and International Society for Clinical Densitometry (ISCD) recommend BMD testing for women ≥65 years of age and for younger women with high risk of fracture [29]. Monitoring for treatment effects is recommended 1–2 years after starting or changing therapy, with consideration of longer testing intervals once a favorable treatment effect is confirmed. Table 2 shows the indications for BMD testing as per ISCD recommendations. The ISCD official position states that intervals between BMD testing should be determined according to each patient's clinical status.

Table 2.

Indications for bone mineral density (BMD) testing.

Women aged 65 and older
Post-menopausal women under age 65 with risk factors for fracture
Women during the menopausal transition with clinical risk factors for fracture, such as low body weight, prior fracture, or high risk medication use
Men aged 70 years or older
Men under age 70 with clinical risk factors for fracture
Adults with a fragility fracture
Adults with a disease or condition associated with low bone mass or bone loss
Adults taking medicine associated with low bone mass or bone loss
Anyone being considered for pharmacologic therapy
Anyone being treated, to monitor treatment effect
Anyone not receiving therapy in whom evidence of bone loss would lead to treatment

2.3. Value of bone turnover markers

High bone turnover as estimated by biochemical markers is associated with an increased rate of bone loss, and predicts the risk of fracture independently of BMD [[30], [31], [32]]. Markers of bone turnover can be allocated into two groups: markers of resorption and markers of formation. The primary markers of bone formation are total alkaline phosphatase, the bone isoenzyme alkaline phosphatase, osteocalcin, and the procollagen propeptides of type I collagen. The odds ratio for hip fracture seems to be increased around 2 fold in those with normal BMD but bone turnover biochemical marker above the premenopausal range [33]. Several assays are currently available that measure bone turnover markers. These assays measure collagen breakdown products and other molecules in blood and urine released from osteoclasts and osteoblasts during the process of bone resorption and formation. If bone turnover markers are used to monitor osteoporosis therapy baseline and post-treatment serum/urine samples should be obtained under standardized conditions and analysis should be performed from same laboratory.

2.4. Screening for secondary causes of osteoporosis

Certain medical conditions and medications completely unrelated to osteoporosis can nevertheless have the effect of causing osteoporosis. In patients with symptomatic vertebral fractures, secondary causes of osteoporosis should be identified by careful history, physical examination and appropriate investigation. Underlying secondary causes of osteoporosis should also be sought in men and women presenting with low trauma hip and other non-vertebral fractures. Tests to exclude secondary causes of osteoporosis include complete blood count, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, serum calcium, phosphate, vitamin D, parathyroid hormone, liver and kidney function tests, serum thyroid stimulating hormone and 24-h urinary calcium levels. Routine biochemical profile is probably worthwhile, as hypocalcaemia & hypophosphatemia may indicate possible osteomalacia. In a multinational cohort study (GLOW) by Dennison et al., in 2012, it is shown that co-morbidities contributed significantly to fracture risk and suggested greater awareness of the relationship between co-morbidities and fracture risk in improving fracture-prediction algorithm [34].

2.5. Treatment goals for prevention and treatment of osteoporosis

The treatment goals in the first place include decreasing the fracture risk by stabilizing or increasing bone mass and maintaining or improving bone quality and strength. Therapy is targeted to pathophysiological risk factors for fractures such as calcium/vitamin D deficiency and factors such as estrogen deficiency that cause loss of bone mineral. Patients with osteoporosis are also at risk for fracture because of a tendency to fall; most fractures are the result of a fall onto a fragile bone. Observational studies show that low levels of physical activity and poor muscle strength are risk factors for future fracture, and randomized trials show that exercise will improve muscle strength and reduce the risk of falling [35,36].

There are three components to the non-drug treatment of osteoporosis: diet, exercise, and cessation of smoking. The universal recommendations for improvement of bone health from NOF include adequate intake of dietary calcium and vitamin D, regular weight bearing and muscle strengthening exercises, avoidance of smoking and excess alcohol and fall prevention in elderly. Many studies suggest that calcium and vitamin D supplementation decreases the risk of fractures. The incidence of non-vertebral fractures in 3270 ambulatory elderly women who were randomized to receive either 1200 mg of calcium and 800 IU of vitamin D or placebo; incidence of hip fractures and all non-vertebral fractures was significantly lower in the supplemented group [37]. In a different study of 389 adults age >65, who were randomized to receive either 500 mg of calcium or 700 units of VD daily or placebo. Treatment was associated with an improvement in BMD and a decrease in incidence of all non-vertebral fractures [38]. While not all randomized trials agree that treatment with calcium and vitamin D will reduce the risk of fractures, there are enough data to suggest safety and efficacy to recommend 800 Units of vitamin D and 1200 mg of calcium daily. Though the changes in BMD that occur with treatment with calcium and vitamin D are small, but still resulted in a substantial and significant reduction in fracture risk. There is therefore speculation that treatment with calcium and vitamin D reduce the incidence of fractures by other means as well like reducing falls.

There are many things to think about when choosing the right osteoporosis treatment option such as gender, age, the severity of osteoporosis and patient's personal preference. The drugs approved for osteoporosis treatment include bisphosphonates, calcitonin, selective estrogen receptor modulators, parathyroid hormone and RANK ligand inhibitors. Drugs approved for treatment of osteoporosis have been proven in randomized clinical trials to improve BMD and decrease the rate of non-vertebral fractures compared to calcium and vitamin D alone. Data from different trials are not directly comparable, because the clinical trials differed in number and types of patients enrolled [39].

3. Osteoporosis in Pakistan

3.1. Prevalence of osteoporosis

Due to lack of national registries and lack of published data there is a paucity of epidemiological data on osteoporosis in Pakistan. The diagnostic facilities of osteoporosis are meagre and there are limited numbers of DXA machines available only in large towns and cities. In last 5 years, several hospital based studies have shown prevalence of osteoporosis using heel ultra sound and the data on BMD using DXA is scarce. Table 3 summarizes studies done on bone health on Pakistani population in the last decade. Available evidence suggests that the burden of osteoporosis is high in this part of the world ranging from 5.6 to 17.8% in pre-menopausal females and 20–49.3% in postmenopausal females. A study conducted in Peshawar on postmenopausal women (n = 1000) for simple calculated osteoporosis risk estimation, found that 75.3% were predisposed to osteoporosis and the risk increased with age (97% in women of 75–84 years of age compared to 55% in women of 45–54 years of age) [40]. Accurate data on osteoporosis prevalence is lacking and all these studies have used heel ultrasound and not DXA as their research tool. Almost all the studies have been reported from urban areas of the country. There are the concerns that the estimation of osteoporosis burden using available published data underestimates the number of people with the disease.

Table 3.

Studies done on bone health statuses reported from different health centers of Pakistan.

Author [Reference} Year Location Subjects/Age n BMD testing tool Prevalence T scores Risk Factors evaluated Follow-up DXA
Naeem [51] 2015 Karachi Post-menopausal 203 DXA 44.8% osteopenic
28.6% osteoporotic
NA NA
Ejaz [52] 2012 Karachi Pre- menopausal
Post-menopausal
1351
65
Heel ultrasound 63.8% osteopenic
17.8% osteoporotic
43.1% osteopenic
49.3% osteoporotic
NA Daily calcium intake, 30 min or more work against per day. NA
Lowe [46] 2011 Nahaqi, near Peshawar Postmenopausal 140 Heel ultrasound 43% osteopenic
27% osteoporotic
0.00
−1.65
−2.8
Age of menopause and menarche, pregnancies, children, history of personal fracture and of siblings, history of smoking, drugs, occupation, income, 24-h dietary recall food and physical activity recall. NA
Zahoor [41] 2010 Peshawar Postmenopausal from outpatient clinics 240 44% osteopenic
24.5% osteoporotic
NA Social history, past medical history, drug history, menarche, age at menopause, reproductive history and family history of osteoporosis. NA
Jaleel [53] 2010 Karachi Females (18–80 years) visiting Obstetrics and Gynecology health stall at Expo Center 170 Heel ultrasound <45 years (n = 124)
54% osteopenic
5.6% osteoporotic
>45 years (n = 46)
47.8% osteopenic
26.1% osteoporotic
NA Age, marital status, parity and occupation. NA
Mamji MF [47] 2010 Karachi Hip fracture patients (45–80 years) who underwent surgery 103 Not mentioned NA NA History of occupation, literacy, smoking, family history of osteoporosis, steroid usage, calcium intake, lactation, exercise and visual impairment. NA
Lateef [54] 2010 Karachi Females from osteoporotic
clinics and healthy premenopausal females
150 Heel ultrasound NA NA History of fracture, diet, BMI, menarche and years since menopause. NA
Haq [55] 2009 Faisalabad Postmenopausal females 300 Heel ultrasound 44% osteopenic
20% osteoporotic
NA Reproductive and drug history, family history of osteoporosis and level of physical activity NA
Hafeez [56] 2009 Medical College, Lahore Healthy female volunteers 40 post- meopausal& 30 premenopausal Heel ultrasound Lower bone mineral density in postmenopausal NA NA NA
Baig [45] 2009 Karachi Healthy females random sampling from 800 households 925 Heel ultrasound 32.4% osteopenic
6.7% osteoporotic
NA Knowledge, attitude and practices related to menopause. NA
Fatima [44] 2007 Quetta Outpatients and their attendants at obs./gynae unit of Bolan medical College/20–60 years 334 Heel ultrasound 43.7% Normal
43.4% osteopenic
12.9% osteoporotic
−0.29
−1.68
−2.95
Sociodemographic history, medical, smoking, menstrual history, history of low-trauma fracture, family history of fracture, use of steroids, surrogate markers of socioeconomic status and homeopathic medicines.

3.2. Status of knowledge about osteoporosis

There is generally a low level of osteoporosis awareness in the country. Though there have been individual efforts, but no government policy and osteoporosis is still not recognized as a major health issue in Pakistan. The low awareness levels is linked to low level of education, infrequent contact with the health service, large family size and poor economic conditions. In addition, people are not aware of importance of calcium intake in peri-menopausal period [41]. A study on healthy females attending a tertiary care hospital reported that Pakistani women from higher socioeconomic status had significantly better knowledge about osteoporosis than women of lower socioeconomic status but this knowledge did not improve life style/preventive habits for osteoporosis [42]. A study from a tertiary care hospital showed low rates of calcium and vitamin D supplementation for patients discharged after surgery for hip insufficiency fractures [43].

3.3. Osteoporosis risk factors in Pakistan

There is a scarcity of solid epidemiological data on osteoporosis in Pakistan but the osteoporosis risk factors, multi-parity, increased post-menopausal years, decreased calcium intake, vitamin D deficiency and lack of physical activity are on the rise [44,45]. Risk factors included from research work from Peshawar included age of menopause and menarche, pregnancies, children, history of personal fracture and of siblings, history of smoking, drugs, occupation and income while the mean calcium intake in these 140 postmenopausal females was significantly lower than the World Health Organization's dietary recommended intake of 1300 mg/day [46].

Significant osteoporosis risk factors found in 103 post-menopausal females having hip fracture; were early menopause, longer duration of menopause, low BMI, poor socioeconomic conditions, multi-parity, smoking, illiteracy, lack of calcium supplements, injudicious use of steroids and poor visual acuity. The mean age of the study group was 64.6 years and average duration of menopause was 9.9 years and the study also reported that 70.9% women did not exercise [47].

3.4. Bone turnover

Although relatively little is known about the osteoporosis risk factors in Indian & Pakistani, osteoporotic fractures usually occur 10–20 years earlier in Indian men and women compared with their western counterparts. In a cross sectional study the relative contributions of ethnicity, reproductive history, body size and composition, bone turnover, serum 25 OHD, dietary intake of calcium, fiber & alcohol & energy expenditure to femoral BMD & hip axis length were studied in Indians/Pakistanis and Caucasians. Findings revealed that Indian/Pakistani women had lower BMD than their American counterparts, placing them at greater risk of fracture. Shorter hip axis length of the Indian/Pakistani vs American Caucasians might attenuate hip fracture risk in the former group. Some of the significant contributors to proximal femur BMD were calcium intake and usual alcohol intake. Although serum 25OHD & urinary NTx concentration did not contribute to femoral BMD in the regression models, the lower serum 25OHD & higher NTx values in Indian Pakistani versus American Caucasian, respectively coupled with their lower BMD, places them at higher risk of osteoporosis. In one of our studies to assess bone health in healthy females, high bone turnover was seen with vitamin D deficiency and secondary hyperparathyroidism.

3.5. Vitamin D status

The two main determinants of bone health are calcium and vitamin D. Recently, studies from different cities of Pakistan has shown very high prevalence of vitamin D deficiency and insufficiency in randomly selected healthy and patient population (Table 4). According to the ‘National Nutrition Survey 2011’ of Pakistan, 66.2% of the non-pregnant and 68.5% of the pregnant mothers were found D deficient [48]. Despite ample sunshine, Pakistan has the highest rates of vitamin D deficiency worldwide. In a recent study to assess bone health in healthy adult population high bone turnover was seen in healthy premenopausal community females [49].

Table 4.

Prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in Pakistani population residing in different geographical areas.

Authors (ref) Year Place of study Study population Sample size Vitamin D deficiency %
Khan [50] 2012 Karachi Premenopausal women from community 305 90.5
Dar [49] 2012 Karachi Premenopausal healthy women 200 82
Hossain [57] 2011 Karachi Women in labor 75 89
Mansoor [58] 2010 Karachi Apparently healthy adults 123 90%
Zuberi [59] 2008 Karachi, Ambulatory care adult patients 119 92% (female: male ratio of 5:1)
Masud [60] 2007 Lahore Pre-menopausal women 195 81%

Consistent predictors of low levels of 25OHD are duration of sun exposure and practice of wearing veil. Entire need for vitamin D can be met by adequate exposure to sunlight. Exposure of arms & legs for 5–30 min (depending on time of day, season, latitude & skin pigmentation) between 10am and 3pm twice a week is often adequate. In the absence of adequate sun exposure the body depends on dietary supply for vitamin D. Unlike many Western countries that have a vitamin D food fortification policy, Pakistan does not have a mandatory vitamin D fortification policy in place. With longer exposure to UVB rays, an equilibrium is achieved in the skin, and the vitamin simply degrades as fast as it is generated.

International recommendations and guidelines regarding desirable doses and levels may not readily apply to population from our region. On the other hand the calcium intake is assessed to be low based on food frequency questionnaire.

3.6. Fractures

Despite the high prevalence of osteoporosis and osteopenia in Pakistan, there is not enough information regarding the prevalence of osteoporosis-related fractures and the burden of the diseases. Published data on incidence rates for hip fractures is not available.

Mortality rates post hip fractures are not known from this region. While such rates vary between 25 and 35% in western population, they are 2–3 folds higher in Middle East. Information on social costs and quality of life is practically non-existent.

3.7. Life style variables

According to The National Osteoporosis Foundation, lifestyle adoptions effect 20–40% of adult bone mass. Therefore, modification of lifestyle factors is a key strategy intended at reducing risk of osteoporosis in advanced age.

A recently published community based study from our center done on females showed that the significant predictors of vitamin D deficiency were aging, housing structure and town of residence [50].

4. Conclusion

Economic development has resulted in rapid socioeconomic changes. Non-communicable diseases have become the leading cause of mortality and morbidity. It is important that concerned stakeholders should establish a priority list of objectives and a time table for a plan of action to develop appropriate programs and advocate for policy change, to render the diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis accessible to all at risk. There is now sufficient evidence to develop action plans. The challenge is to stimulate young audience and to conduct effective education programs to increase general awareness of the problem. Public awareness programs regarding prevention, diagnosis and management of osteoporosis and fragility fractures should be a priority strategy.

As patients with osteoporosis-related fractures are at higher risk of subsequent re-fractures multiple programs have studied the efficacy of systems for the prevention of secondary fractures, often referred to as a fracture liaison service (FLS). Specifically, the FLS is a coordinated care model of multiple providers who help guide the patient through osteoporosis management after a fragility fracture to help prevent future fractures. Keeping in mind its efficiency and cost effectiveness Fracture Liaison Services and development of national database is also dire need of time.

4.1. Recommendations

  • 1)

    It is recommended to cater the rampant Vitamin D Deficiency and calcium intake in Pakistan through promotion of life style modification strategies and implementing food fortification policy.

  • 2)

    Awareness campaigns at community level advocating role of physical activity in promoting bone health to create mindfulness about attaining the peak bone mass disease and its implications are needed.

  • 3)

    Promoting osteoporosis training through medical education curriculum to physicians should be initiated.

  • 4)

    Screening for high risk individuals, provision of adequate diagnostic facilities for DXA scanning for effective management and prompt diagnosis at low cost should be targeted.

  • 5)

    Coordinated care model of fracture liaison service (FLS) should be promoted at Institutional level for prevention of secondary fracture and appropriate follow-ups.

  • 6)

    At national level, osteoporosis should be included in the national action plan for the non-communicable diseases. So efforts to promote development of regional and national data base for fracture can be initiated.

Ethical approval

Review article based on literature search.

Sources of funding

None.

Author contribution

Dr Aysha Habib Khan, conceive the idea, design the study, data gathering, analysis & write up.

Dr Lena Jafri, data gathering, analysis & write-up.

Dr Sibtain, data gathering & write-up.

Dr Shahryar Noordin, critical review of the manuscript and write-up.

Conflicts of interest

None.

Research registration number (UIN)

Not applicable.

Guarantor

Aysha Habib Khan.

References

  • 1.Osteoporosis prevention, diagnosis, and therapy. NIH Consens. Statement. 2000;17(1):1–45. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Siris, E.S., et al., The clinical diagnosis of osteoporosis: a position statement from the national bone health alliance working group. Osteoporos. Int.. 25(5): pp 1439–1443. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 3.Silverman S.L. Quality-of-life issues in osteoporosis. Curr. Rheumatol. Rep. 2005;7(1):39–45. doi: 10.1007/s11926-005-0007-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Harrington J.T. Hip fracture patients are not treated for osteoporosis: a call to action. Arthritis Rheum. 2002;47(6):651–654. doi: 10.1002/art.10787. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Khan S.A. Osteoporosis follow-up after wrist fractures following minor trauma. Arch. Intern. Med. 2001;161(10):1309–1312. doi: 10.1001/archinte.161.10.1309. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Kiebzak G.M. Undertreatment of osteoporosis in men with hip fracture. Arch. Intern. Med. 2002;162(19):2217–2222. doi: 10.1001/archinte.162.19.2217. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Sattari M. Osteoporosis in the Women's health initiative: another treatment gap? Am. J. Med. 2017 doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2017.02.042. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Elliot-Gibson V. Practice patterns in the diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis after a fragility fracture: a systematic review. Osteoporos. Int. 2004;15(10):767–778. doi: 10.1007/s00198-004-1675-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Handa R., Ali Kalla A., Maalouf G. Osteoporosis in developing countries. Best Pract. Res. Clin. Rheumatol. 2008;22(4):693–708. doi: 10.1016/j.berh.2008.04.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Gehlbach S.H. Recognition of vertebral fracture in a clinical setting. Osteoporos. Int. 2000;11(7):577–582. doi: 10.1007/s001980070078. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Gehlbach S.H., Fournier M., Bigelow C. Recognition of osteoporosis by primary care physicians. Am. J. Publ. Health. 2002;92(2):271–273. doi: 10.2105/ajph.92.2.271. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Kanis, J.A., et al., Development and use of FRAX in osteoporosis. Osteoporos. Int. 21 Suppl 2: pp S407–S413. [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 13.Leslie, W.D., et al., Construction of a FRAX(R) model for the assessment of fracture probability in Canada and implications for treatment. Osteoporos. Int.. 22(3): pp 817–827. [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 14.Nguyen N.D. Development of prognostic nomograms for individualizing 5-year and 10-year fracture risks. Osteoporos. Int. 2008;19(10):1431–1444. doi: 10.1007/s00198-008-0588-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Hippisley-Cox J., Coupland C. Predicting risk of osteoporotic fracture in men and women in England and Wales: prospective derivation and validation of QFractureScores. BMJ. 2009;339:b4229. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b4229. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Lydick E. Development and validation of a simple questionnaire to facilitate identification of women likely to have low bone density. Am. J. Manag. Care. 1998;4(1):37–48. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Weinstein L., Ullery B. Identification of at-risk women for osteoporosis screening. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2000;183(3):547–549. doi: 10.1067/mob.2000.106594. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Michaelsson K. Screening for osteopenia and osteoporosis: selection by body composition. Osteoporos. Int. 1996;6(2):120–126. doi: 10.1007/BF01623934. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Koh L.K. A simple tool to identify asian women at increased risk of osteoporosis. Osteoporos. Int. 2001;12(8):699–705. doi: 10.1007/s001980170070. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Cadarette S.M. Development and validation of the Osteoporosis Risk Assessment Instrument to facilitate selection of women for bone densitometry. CMAJ (Can. Med. Assoc. J.) 2000;162(9):1289–1294. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Ben Sedrine W. Evaluation of the simple calculated osteoporosis risk estimation (SCORE) in a sample of white women from Belgium. Bone. 2001;29(4):374–380. doi: 10.1016/s8756-3282(01)00583-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Reginster J.Y. Validation of OSIRIS, a prescreening tool for the identification of women with an increased risk of osteoporosis. Gynecol. Endocrinol. 2004;18(1):3–8. doi: 10.1080/09513590310001651713. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Richy F. Validation and comparative evaluation of the osteoporosis self-assessment tool (OST) in a Caucasian population from Belgium. QJM. 2004;97(1):39–46. doi: 10.1093/qjmed/hch002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Bhattacharya S. Multifaceted contributions: health workers and smallpox eradication in India. Ciência Saúde Coletiva. 2008;13(3):955–964. doi: 10.1590/s1413-81232008000300017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Shan, L.P., et al., Developing a Malaysian osteoporosis screening tool (MOST) for early osteoporosis detection in Malaysian women. Sex Reprod Healthc. 2(2): pp 77–82. [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 26.Assessment of fracture risk and its application to screening for postmenopausal osteoporosis. Report of a WHO Study Group. World Health Organ Tech Rep Ser. 1994;843:1–129. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Cosman F. Clinician's guide to prevention and treatment of osteoporosis. Osteoporos. Int. 2014;25(10):2359–2381. doi: 10.1007/s00198-014-2794-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Kanis J.A. Diagnosis of osteoporosis and assessment of fracture risk. Lancet. 2002;359(9321):1929–1936. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)08761-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Lim L.S., Hoeksema L.J., Sherin K. Screening for osteoporosis in the adult U.S. population: ACPM position statement on preventive practice. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2009;36(4):366–375. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2009.01.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Chaki O. The predictive value of biochemical markers of bone turnover for bone mineral density in postmenopausal Japanese women. J. Bone Miner. Res. 2000;15(8):1537–1544. doi: 10.1359/jbmr.2000.15.8.1537. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Ivaska K.K. Serial assessment of serum bone metabolism markers identifies women with the highest rate of bone loss and osteoporosis risk. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 2008;93(7):2622–2632. doi: 10.1210/jc.2007-1508. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Johansson H. A meta-analysis of reference markers of bone turnover for prediction of fracture. Calcif. Tissue Int. 2014;94(5):560–567. doi: 10.1007/s00223-014-9842-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Garnero P. Markers of bone resorption predict hip fracture in elderly women: the EPIDOS Prospective Study. J. Bone Miner. Res. 1996;11(10):1531–1538. doi: 10.1002/jbmr.5650111021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Dennison, E.M., et al., Effect of co-morbidities on fracture risk: findings from the global longitudinal study of osteoporosis in women (GLOW). Bone. 50(6): pp 1288–1293. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 35.Gusi N., Raimundo A., Leal A. Low-frequency vibratory exercise reduces the risk of bone fracture more than walking: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Muscoskel. Disord. 2006;7:92. doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-7-92. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Annweiler C., Beauchet O. Relationship between bone, fracture, and exercise: the key role of vitamin D. Arch. Intern. Med. 2009;169(17):1638. doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2009.322. author reply 1638. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Chapuy M.C. Vitamin D3 and calcium to prevent hip fractures in the elderly women. N. Engl. J. Med. 1992;327(23):1637–1642. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199212033272305. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Dawson-Hughes B. Effect of calcium and vitamin D supplementation on bone density in men and women 65 years of age or older. N. Engl. J. Med. 1997;337(10):670–676. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199709043371003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Watts N.B. National osteoporosis foundation 2008 Clinician's guide to prevention and treatment of osteoporosis and the world health organization fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX): what they mean to the bone densitometrist and bone technologist. J. Clin. Densitom. 2008;11(4):473–477. doi: 10.1016/j.jocd.2008.04.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Habiba U., A.S, Hassan Predisposition to osteoporosis in postmenopausal women. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2002;12:297–301. [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Zahoor S., Ayub U. Prevalence of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women visiting police and services hospital, Peshawar NWFP. JPMI. 2010;24(1):4–8. [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Riaz M. Knowledge about osteoporosis among healthy women attending a tertiary care hospital. J. Pakistan Med. Assoc. 2008;58(4):190–194. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Khan I. Hip fragility fractures: anaemia, calcium and vitamin D supplementation. J. Pakistan Med. Assoc. 2015;65(11 Suppl 3):S55–S58. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Fatima M. Determining the risk factors and prevalence of osteoporosis using quantitative ultrasonography in Pakistani adult women. Singap. Med. J. 2009;50(1):20–28. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Baig L., Mansuri F.A., Karim S.A. Association of menopause with osteopenia and osteoporosis: results from population based study done in Karachi. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2009;19(4):240–244. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Lowe, N.M., et al., Dietary calcium intake, vitamin D status, and bone health in postmenopausal women in rural Pakistan. J. Health Popul. Nutr.. 29(5): pp 465–470. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 47.Mamji, M., J. Hasan, and S. MS., Risk Factors for Osteoporosis in post-menopausal Women with Hip Fractures.
  • 48.Bhutta Z.A. 2011. National Nutrition Survey Pakistan. [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Dar, F.J., et al., Bone health status of premenopausal healthy adult females in Pakistani females. Arch Osteoporos. 7(1–2): pp 93–99. [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 50.Khan, A.H., et al., Prevalence of vitamin D deficiency and its correlates: results of a community-based study conducted in Karachi, Pakistan. Arch Osteoporos. [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 51.Naeem S.T. Bone turnover markers for osteoporosis status assessment at baseline in postmenopausal Pakistani females. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2016;26(5):408–412. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Ejaz S., Qureshi M.A., Ali M. Prevalence of osteoporosis and osteopenia among Pakistani pre and post menopausal women. Journal of Dental and Medical Sciences. 2012;2(6):12–17. [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Jaleel R., N.F, Khan A. Osteopenia in the younger females. Journal of Surgery Pakistan (International) 2010;15(1):29–33. [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Lateef M., Baig M., Azhar A. Estimation of serum osteocalcin and telopeptide-C in postmenopausal osteoporotic females. Osteoporos. Int. 2010;21(5):751–755. doi: 10.1007/s00198-009-1001-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Haq I., M.Z Osteoporosis; prevalence among the postmenopausal women. Prof. Med. J. 2009;16(3):424–427. [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Hafeez F., Z.S, Hasan S., Khurshid R. An assessment of osteoporosis and low bone density in postmenopausal women. Pak J Physiol. 2009;5(1) [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Hossain, N., et al., High prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in Pakistani mothers and their newborns. Int. J. Gynaecol. Obstet. 112(3): pp. 229–233. [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 58.Mansoor, S., et al., Prevalence and significance of vitamin D deficiency and insufficiency among apparently healthy adults. Clin. Biochem.. 43(18): pp. 1431–1435. [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 59.Zuberi L.M. Vitamin D Deficiency in ambulatory patients. J. Pakistan Med. Assoc. 2008;58(9):482–484. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Masud F. Vitamin D levels for optimum bone health. Singap. Med. J. 2007;48(3):207–212. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Annals of Medicine and Surgery are provided here courtesy of Wolters Kluwer Health

RESOURCES