Calcium Intake From Diet and Supplements and the Risk of Coronary Artery Calcification and its Progression Among Older Adults: 10-Year Follow-up of the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA)

Osteoporosis: a discussion on the past 5 years

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW

The purposes of this study are to examine the literature within the past 5 years regarding osteoporosis and offer a discussion on new topics and controversies.

RECENT FINDINGS

Patient compliance with therapy remains an issue. The effectiveness of Vitamin D and calcium are being called into question Atypical femur fractures have been associated with bisphosphonate and denosumab use. Treatment is both surgical and pharmaceutical. A multidisciplinary approach to osteoporotic fractures is important and having some form of fracture liaison service (FLS) improves the efficacy of osteoporotic care and decreases secondary fractures. Screening for osteoporosis remains low. Ultrasound may be cost-effective for diagnosis. Understanding of osteoporosis has come a long way in the medical community, but the translation to the lay community has lagged behind. Patients often take a laissez-faire attitude toward osteoporosis that can affect compliance. Information read by patients often focuses on complications, such as atypical femur fractures and myocardial infarctions. It is essential for providers to be able to discuss these issues with patients. Newer medications and more cost-effective diagnostic tests exist, but availability may be limited. FLS are effective, but the most cost-effective model for therapy still eludes us. Areas for further investigation include FLS models, the effectiveness of vitamin supplementation, and more ubiquitous and cost-effective diagnostic tools.

Content Validity of a Short Calcium Intake List to Estimate Daily Dietary Calcium Intake of Patients with Osteoporosis

PURPOSE

Calcium supplements are prescribed for prevention of osteoporotic fractures, but there is controversy whether excess of calcium intake is associated with cardiovascular events. While an accurate estimation of dietary calcium intake is a prerequisite to prescribe the adequate amount of supplementation, the most adequate tools for estimating intake are time-consuming. The aim of this study is to validate a short calcium intake list (SCaIL) that is feasible in daily clinical practice.

METHODS

Based on the food groups contributing most to daily dietary calcium intake and portion sizes determined in an earlier study, a three-item, 1-min SCaIL was designed. As a reference method, an extensive dietary history (DH) with specific focus on calcium-rich foods and extra attention for portion sizes was performed. Beforehand, a difference of ≥250 mg calcium between both methods was considered clinically relevant.

RESULTS

Sixty-six patients with either primary (n = 40) or secondary (n = 26) osteoporosis were included. On average, the SCaIL showed a small and clinically non-relevant difference in calcium intake with the DH: 24 ± 350 mg/day (1146 ± 440 vs. 1170 ± 485 mg, respectively; p = 0.568). Sensitivity and specificity of the SCaIL, compared to the DH, were 73 and 80%, respectively. However, in 50% of the individuals, a clinically relevant difference of ≥250 mg calcium was observed between both methods, while in 17% this was even ≥500 mg.

CONCLUSIONS

The SCaIL is a quick and easy questionnaire to estimate dietary calcium intake at a group level, but is not sufficiently reliable for use in individual patients. Remarkably, the mean dietary calcium intake estimated by the DH of 1170 mg/day indicates that a large proportion of osteoporosis patients might not even need calcium supplementation, although more data are needed to confirm this finding.