3.8 Article

Evaluation of Children with Secondary Osteoporosis: A Single-center Experience

Journal

MEDICAL JOURNAL OF BAKIRKOY
Volume 19, Issue 1, Pages 51-56

Publisher

GALENOS PUBL HOUSE
DOI: 10.4274/BMJ.galenos.2023.2023.1-12

Keywords

Bisphosphonates; secondary osteoporosis; pediatric endocrinology

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study evaluated the clinical characteristics and treatment responses of children with chronic diseases, finding that they are at risk of inadequate bone mineralization. Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) was used to assess bone mineral density, and it was found that bisphosphonate treatment significantly improved bone density.
Objective: Children with chronic diseases are at a risk of inadequate bone mineralization due to the effects of the primary disease and/or treatment. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical characteristics and treatment responses of patients with secondary osteoporosis.Methods: Forty-four patients with chronic diseases who had bone mineral density (BMD) Z-score of <=-2.0 on the dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) were included.Results: Age at diagnosis of osteoporosis was 9.2 +/- 4.9 years (1.4-17.7 years). Chronic disease groups were defined as gastrointestinal (29.5%), neurological (22.7%), hematologic (18.2%), inborn errors in metabolism (11.4%), rheumatologic (9.1%), and renal (9.1%). The rate of receiving steroid treatment was 63.6%. DXA Z-score was-2.8 +/- 0.9. The fracture frequency in the long bones was 20.5%. Bisphosphonate (BP) treatment was given in 34.1% (n=15) of the patients. BP was the most commonly used in neurological diseases (50%). A significant difference was found between the initial and final DXA Z-scores in BP patients (-3.3 +/- 1.0 and-2.4 +/- 0.9; p=0.004). Conclusion: In our study, a heterogeneous group of chronic systemic diseases was evaluated, and BP treatment provided a significant improvement in BMD. Further prospective studies are still required in which clinical and radiological improvements are evaluated in large groups of patients.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available