Purpose Osteoporosis affects more than 200 million people worldwide: its prevalence increases with age and is actually growing due to the constant population aging. Women are at greater risk than men, but in recent years it has become increasingly evident that osteoporosis represents a significantly important problem also for men. However, osteoporosis in men is still poorly studied, underdiagnosed and inadequately treated. Materials and Methods We conducted an observational study to identify any gender disparities in osteoporosis screening. For this purpose we observed people consecutively admitted at our Outpatient Service for the Diagnosis of Osteoporosis during the last 3 years. Patients underwent clinical and laboratory assessment and bone mineral density (BMD) measurements by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Bone turnover serum markers have been evaluated and stratified according to gender. Results Out of 3,752 patients, 2,376 subjects who met the inclusion criteria were identified. As expected, the great majority (94.5%) of the screened subjects were women and only 5.4% were men. Women exhibited lower BMD compared to men (T-score values: −2.33±1.14 vs. −1.31±1.55; p<0.001), whereas the prevalence of fractures in osteoporotic men was significantly higher (50% vs. 31%; p<0.001). Women had lower vitamin D and higher bone remodeling markers compared to men. Secondary osteoporosis was more frequent in men (66.67%) than in women (20.83%) and the calculated risk for hip fractures was higher in osteoporotic men compared to women (11.47±10.62 vs. 6.87±7.73; p<0.001). Conclusions Here we highlighted that men are under-screened for osteoporosis and exhibit secondary osteoporosis more frequently than women.

Gender Differences in Osteoporosis: A Single-Center Observational Study

De Martinis, Massimo
;
Sirufo, Maria Maddalena;Polsinelli, Matteo;Placidi, Giuseppe;Di Silvestre, Daniela;Ginaldi, Lia
2020-01-01

Abstract

Purpose Osteoporosis affects more than 200 million people worldwide: its prevalence increases with age and is actually growing due to the constant population aging. Women are at greater risk than men, but in recent years it has become increasingly evident that osteoporosis represents a significantly important problem also for men. However, osteoporosis in men is still poorly studied, underdiagnosed and inadequately treated. Materials and Methods We conducted an observational study to identify any gender disparities in osteoporosis screening. For this purpose we observed people consecutively admitted at our Outpatient Service for the Diagnosis of Osteoporosis during the last 3 years. Patients underwent clinical and laboratory assessment and bone mineral density (BMD) measurements by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Bone turnover serum markers have been evaluated and stratified according to gender. Results Out of 3,752 patients, 2,376 subjects who met the inclusion criteria were identified. As expected, the great majority (94.5%) of the screened subjects were women and only 5.4% were men. Women exhibited lower BMD compared to men (T-score values: −2.33±1.14 vs. −1.31±1.55; p<0.001), whereas the prevalence of fractures in osteoporotic men was significantly higher (50% vs. 31%; p<0.001). Women had lower vitamin D and higher bone remodeling markers compared to men. Secondary osteoporosis was more frequent in men (66.67%) than in women (20.83%) and the calculated risk for hip fractures was higher in osteoporotic men compared to women (11.47±10.62 vs. 6.87±7.73; p<0.001). Conclusions Here we highlighted that men are under-screened for osteoporosis and exhibit secondary osteoporosis more frequently than women.
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
wjmh-38-e62.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipologia: Documento in Post-print
Licenza: Creative commons
Dimensione 508.14 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
508.14 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri
Pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11697/151917
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 49
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 61
social impact