4.6 Article

Fragility Fractures and Osteoporosis in CKD: Pathophysiology and Diagnostic Methods

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF KIDNEY DISEASES
Volume 63, Issue 6, Pages 1049-1059

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2013.12.016

Keywords

Chronic kidney disease; dialysis; osteoporosis; renal osteodystrophy; fractures; bone mineral density; imaging; biomarkers; histomorphometry

Funding

  1. Baxter
  2. ONO Pharma
  3. Fonterra
  4. Alere
  5. Janssen
  6. Johnson Johnson
  7. Immuno Diagnostic Systems
  8. Merck
  9. Amgen
  10. Warner Chilcott
  11. AstraZeneca
  12. Sanofi
  13. Shire
  14. MRC [MR/K006312/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  15. Kidney Research UK [TF2/2014] Funding Source: researchfish
  16. Medical Research Council [MR/K006312/1] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Both chronic kidney disease (CKD) and osteoporosis are major public health problems associated with an aging population. Osteoporosis is characterized by reduced bone mineral density, while CKD results in qualitative changes in bone structure; both conditions increase the predisposition to fragility fractures. There is a significant coprevalence of osteoporotic fractures and CKD, particularly in the elderly population. Not only is the risk of fracture higher in the CKD population, but clinical outcomes are significantly worse, with substantial health care costs. Management of osteoporosis in the CKD population is particularly complex given the impact of renal osteodystrophy on bone quality and the limited safety and hard outcome data for current therapy in patients with severe CKD or on dialysis therapy. In this review, we discuss the pathophysiology of osteoporosis, the impact of CKD on bone strength, and the role of novel imaging techniques and biomarkers in predicting underlying renal osteodystrophy on bone histomorphometry in the context of CKD. (C) 2014 by the National Kidney Foundation, Inc.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available