Abstract: Osteoporosis results in approximately one-half of older white women and one-third of men sustaining fractures, which cause significant disability and increased mortality. Interventions are now available which reduce fracture risk by about one-half, and there is evidence that they also reduce mortality in frail elderly by about 10%. The mechanism of this reduced mortality is unclear but it has the potential to substantially impact on the cost-benefit of osteoporosis treatment. Available treatments are generally well-tolerated. Bisphosphonates cause gastrointestinal side-effects when administered orally, and acute phase responses when given intravenously. Osteonecrosis of the jaw is overwhelmingly a problem of cancer sufferers rather than those with osteoporosis, but atypical patterns of fracture in the upper femoral shaft sometimes occur in users of these drugs, though they are very rare in comparison with the other osteoporotic fractures which these drugs prevent. Thus, the cost-benefit of bisphosphonate use is clearly positive in those with osteoporosis. In contrast, calcium supplements probably increase the risk of myocardial infarction, admissions to hospital with acute gastrointestinal complaints and risk of renal calculi, whereas their impact on fracture is marginal (about a 10% reduction). Thus, they are not cost-effective, and a balanced diet is a safer way of obtaining one's calcium requirements.Highlights:
