Assessing Change in Spine Bone Density from Different Numbers and Combinations of Lumbar Vertebrae: The Manitoba BMD Registry.

INTRODUCTION: Change in bone mineral density (BMD) is considered significant when it exceeds the 95 % least significant change (LSC) derived from that facility's precision study. The lumbar spine is often affected by structural artifact such that not all four lumbar vertebrae are evaluable. Guidelines suggest using a site-matched LSC when omitting vertebrae from the BMD measurement. The current study describes significant BMD change related to intervening anti-osteoporosis treatment for different numbers and combinations of lumbar vertebrae using site-matched LSC values. METHODOLOGY: We identified 10,526 untreated adult women mean age 59.6 years with baseline and repeat spine BMD testing (mean interval 4.7 years) where all 4 lumbar vertebrae were evaluable. Change in spine BMD for different combinations of lumbar vertebrae was assessed in relation to intervening anti-resorptive treatment, contrasting women with high treatment exposure (medication possession ratio, MPR ≥ 0.8) versus women who remained untreated. Site-matched LSC values were derived from 879 test-retest precision measurements. RESULTS: There was consistent linear trend between increasing MPR and BMD change exceeding the LSC for all lumbar vertebral combinations, positive with BMD increase and negative with BMD decrease (all p-trend <0.001). In the high treatment exposure group, mean percent increases in spine BMD were similar for all vertebral combinations, from L1-4 to a single vertebra. In untreated women, mean percent decreases in spine BMD were also similar for all vertebral combinations. The net treatment response (proportion of women with treatment-concordant changes minus proportion with treatment-discordant changes exceeding the LSC) was 29.7 % for 4 vertebrae, 27.5-30.0 % for 3 vertebrae, 22.4-28.5 % for 2 vertebrae, and 18.1-21.9 % for a single vertebra. CONCLUSIONS: All numbers and combinations of lumbar vertebrae, when used in conjunction with site-matched LSC values, can provide clinically meaningful follow-up in treated and untreated patients, even when spine BMD is based on a single vertebral body.

Estimating Lumbar Spine Least Significant Change for Fewer than Four Vertebrae: The Manitoba BMD Registry.

INTRODUCTION: The International Society of Clinical Densitometry recommends omitting lumbar vertebrae affected by structural artifact from spine BMD measurement. Since reporting fewer than 4 vertebrae reduces spine BMD precision, least significant change (LSC) needs to be adjusted upwards when reporting spine BMD change based on fewer than 4 vertebrae. METHODOLOGY: In order to simplify estimating LSC from combinations of vertebrae other than L1-L4 (denoted LSCL1-4 ), we analyzed 879 DXA spine scan-pairs from the Manitoba BMD Program's ongoing precision evaluation. The additional impact on the LSC of performing the second scan on the same day vs different day was also assessed. RESULTS: LSC progressively increased when fewer vertebrae were included, and also increased when the scans were performed on different days. We estimated that the LSCL1-4 should be adjusted upwards by 7 %, 24 % and 65 % to approximate the LSC for 3, 2, or 1 vertebral body, respectively. To additionally capture the greater LSC when the precision study was done on different days, LSCL1-4 derived from a precision study where scans were done on the same day should be adjusted upwards by 39 %, 60 % and 112 % for 3, 2, or 1 vertebral body, respectively. CONCLUSION: LSCL1-4 derived from a precision study where scans are performed on the same day can be used to estimate LSC for fewer than 4 vertebrae and for scans performed on different days.

Reporting of Full-Length Femur Imaging to Detect Incomplete Atypical Femur Fractures: 2023 Official Positions of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry.

Incomplete atypical femur fractures (iAFFs) are associated with the long-term use of anti-resorptive therapies. Although X-rays are typically used to screen for iAFFs, images from dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) offer an alternate method for detecting iAFFs. Although a previous 2019 ISCD Official Position on this subject exists, our task force aimed to update the literature review and to propose recommendations on reporting findings related to iAFFs that may be observed on DXA images. The task force recommended that full-length femur imaging (FFI) from DXA can be used as a screening tool for iAFFs. The presence of focal lateral cortical thickening and transverse lucencies should be reported, if identified on the FFI. This task force proposed a classification system to determine the likelihood of an iAFF, based on radiographic features seen on the FFI. Lastly, the task force recommended that the clinical assessment of prodromal symptoms (pain) is not required for the assessment of FFI.

DXA Reporting Updates: 2023 Official Positions of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry.

INTRODUCTION: Professional guidance and standards assist radiologic interpreters in generating high quality reports. Initially DXA reporting Official Positions were provided by the ISCD in 2003; however, as the field has progressed, some of the current recommendations require revision and updating. This manuscript details the research approach and provides updated DXA reporting guidance. METHODS: Key Questions were proposed by ISCD established protocols and approved by the Position Development Conference Steering Committee. Literature related to each question was accumulated by searching PubMed, and existing guidelines from other organizations were extracted from websites. Modifications and additions to the ISCD Official Positions were determined by an expert panel after reviewing the Task Force proposals and position papers. RESULTS: Since most DXA is now performed in radiology departments, an approach was endorsed that better aligns with standard radiologic reports. To achieve this, reporting elements were divided into required minimum or optional. Collectively, required components comprise a standard diagnostic report and are considered the minimum necessary to generate an acceptable report. Additional elements were retained and categorized as optional. These optional components were considered relevant but tailored to a consultative, clinically oriented report. Although this information is beneficial, not all interpreters have access to sufficient clinical information, or may not have the clinical expertise to expand beyond a diagnostic report. Consequently, these are not required for an acceptable report. CONCLUSION: These updated ISCD positions conform with the DXA field's evolution over the past 20 years. Specifically, a basic diagnostic report better aligns with radiology standards, and additional elements (which are valued by treating clinicians) remain acceptable but are optional and not required. Additionally, reporting guidance for newer elements such as fracture risk assessment are incorporated. It is our expectation that these updated Official Positions will improve compliance with required standards and generate high quality DXA reports that are valuable to the recipient clinician and contribute to best patient care.

Reporting Fewer Than Four Vertebrae: 2023 Official Positions of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry.

The precision for spine bone mineral density (BMD) worsens as vertebrae are excluded, so recommendations are needed for least significant change (LSC) for spine BMDs based on fewer than 4 vertebrae. The task force recommends re-analysis of each facility's L1-L4 in-house precision study to determine the precision in order to calculate the LSC for each combination of 2 or 3 reported vertebrae. The task force recommended not reporting spine BMDs based on single vertebral bodies for either the diagnosis or monitoring of osteoporosis. Specific data for studies assessing the precision of two non-contiguous vertebrae are mixed, but ultimately the task force recommended that spine BMD based on 2 non-contiguous vertebrae can be used for the diagnosis and monitoring of osteoporosis.

Bilateral hip DXA Reporting: 2023 Official Positions of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry.

INTRODUCTION: This position development conference (PDC) Task Force examined the use and reporting of bilateral hip bone mineral density (BMD) measurements. This was deemed appropriate as increased availability of Dual-energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DXA) technology offering bilateral hip measurement resulted in more routine clinical use. The International Society for Clinical Densitometry Official Positions accept bilateral hip BMD measurement for clinical use but currently do not include recommendations for reporting those studies. METHODS: Four key questions regarding bilateral hip reporting were proposed by the PDC Steering Committee. Relevant literature was identified using PubMed. Questions included whether bilateral hip measurements are appropriate for diagnostic classification or monitoring, as well as which bilateral hip regions of interest should be reported for diagnosis and monitoring. Additionally, the appropriate nomenclature for bilateral hip acquisition was defined. RESULTS: The literature review demonstrated that bilateral hip measurement is appropriate and diagnostic classification should be based on the lowest T-score at the right or left side femoral neck or total hip; the mean T-score should not be used for diagnostic purposes. Mean bilateral total hip is preferred for BMD monitoring. The terms hip, or total hip were deemed appropriate nomenclature instead of femur or total proximal femur. CONCLUSION: Bilateral hip acquisition is clinically appropriate and reporting and nomenclature standards are offered herein when a bilateral hip study is acquired. In terms of future research, the impact of discordant hips on diagnosis and monitoring was identified as a significant knowledge gap.

To repeat or not to repeat? Measuring bone mineral density during anti-resorptive therapy or a drug holiday.

An initial bone mineral density (BMD) measurement is used to diagnose osteoporosis and decide whether patients need treatment, but the utility of repeating this test in those on treatment or on a drug holiday (ie, during a pause in bisphosphonate treatment) is controversial. Here, we present evidence for and against the use of BMD monitoring in patients receiving antiresorptive therapy or on a drug holiday, and give our recommendations, arguing against a one-size-fits-all approach.

Effect of Positioning of the Region of Interest on Bone Density of the Hip.

BACKGROUND: Large changes in positioning of the global region of interest (ROI) influence the measurement of bone mineral density (BMD) in the hip and forearm regions. However, it is unknown whether minor shifts in the positioning of the bottom of the global hip ROI affect the measurement of total hip BMD. METHODS: The hip BMDs of 40 clinical densitometry patients were analyzed at baseline with the bottom of the global hip ROI positioned as usual, 10 mm distal to the base of the lesser trochanter (position 0). Then the hip was reanalyzed by shifting the bottom of the global hip ROI 1 mm proximally 10 times (positions +1 through +10) and then by shifting the bottom of the global hip ROI 1 mm distally 10 times (positions -1 through -10). The significance of the differences between mean values at the various distances from baseline was assessed using a Wilcoxon signed-rank test. RESULTS: The mean total hip area, bone mineral content and BMD decreased as the bottom of the global hip ROI was shifted proximally; the decrease was significant when shifted by even 1 mm (p < 0.001). The mean total hip area, bone mineral content and BMD increased as the bottom of the global hip ROI was shifted distally; the increase was significant when shifted by even 1 mm (p < 0.001). The change in BMD with each 1 mm shift was uniform across the range studied from positions +10 through -10, and was approx 0.54%/mm. When the least significant change was based on 40 pairs of measurements, where each pair was comprised of the baseline scan and the same scan at -1 position, the least significant change was 0.01 g/cm2. CONCLUSIONS: The BMD of the total hip is sensitive to even minor changes in the positioning of the bottom of the global hip ROI. Although a 1 mm change in the bottom of the global hip ROI positioning would make little difference in the reported T-score, it could easily affect the determination of significance in changes in BMD over time.

Executive Summary of the 2019 ISCD Position Development Conference on Monitoring Treatment, DXA Cross-calibration and Least Significant Change, Spinal Cord Injury, Peri-prosthetic and Orthopedic Bone Health, Transgender Medicine, and Pediatrics.

To answer important questions in the fields of monitoring with densitometry, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry machine cross-calibration, monitoring, spinal cord injury, periprosthetic and orthopedic bone health, transgender medicine, and pediatric bone health, the International Society for Clinical Densitometry (ISCD) held a Position Development Conference from March 20 to 23, 2019. Potential topics requiring guidance were solicited from ISCD members in 2017. Following that, a steering committee selected, prioritized, and grouped topics into Task Forces. Chairs for each Task Force were appointed and the members were co-opted from suggestions by the Steering Committee and Task Force Chairs. The Task Forces developed key questions, performed literature searches, and came up with proposed initial positions with substantiating draft publications, with support from the Steering Committee. An invited Panel of Experts first performed a review of draft positions using a modified RAND Appropriateness Method with voting for appropriateness. Draft positions deemed appropriate were further edited and presented at the Position Development Conference meeting in an open forum. A second round of voting occurred after discussions to approve or reject the positions. Finally, a face-to-face closed session with experts and Task Force Chairs, and subsequent electronic follow-up resulted in 34 Official Positions of the ISCD approved by the ISCD Board on May 28, 2019. The Official Positions and the supporting evidence were submitted for publication on July 1, 2019. This paper provides a summary of the all the ISCD Adult and Pediatric Official Positions, with the new 2019 positions highlighted in bold.

Bone Densitometry in Transgender and Gender Non-Conforming (TGNC) Individuals: 2019 ISCD Official Position.

The indications for initial and follow-up bone mineral density (BMD) in transgender and gender nonconforming (TGNC) individuals are poorly defined, and the choice of which gender database to use to calculate Z-scores is unclear. Herein, the findings of the Task Force are presented after a detailed review of the literature. As long as a TGNC individual is on standard gender-affirming hormone treatment, BMD should remain stable to increasing, so there is no indication to monitor for bone loss or osteoporosis strictly on the basis of TGNC status. TGNC individuals who experience substantial periods of hypogonadism (>1 yr) might experience bone loss or failure of bone accrual during that time, and should be considered for baseline measurement of BMD. To the extent that this hypogonadism continues over time, follow-up measurements can be appropriate. TGNC individuals who have adequate levels of endogenous or exogenous sex steroids can, of course, suffer from other illnesses that can cause osteoporosis and bone loss, such as hyperparathyroidism and steroid use; they should have measurement of BMD as would be done in the cisgender population. There are no data that TGNC individuals have a fracture risk different from that of cisgender individuals, nor any data to suggest that BMD predicts their fracture risk less well than in the cisgender population. The Z-score in transgender individuals should be calculated using the reference data (mean and standard deviation) of the gender conforming with the individual's gender identity. In gender nonconforming individuals, the reference data for the sex recorded at birth should be used. If the referring provider or the individual requests, a set of "male" and "female" Z-scores can be provided, calculating the Z-score against male and female reference data, respectively.

BMI, Waist Circumference, and Risk of Incident Vertebral Fracture in Women.

OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to investigate the association between BMI, waist circumference, and vertebral fracture (VF) risk in women. METHODS: This prospective study was conducted in 54,934 Nurses' Health Study participants. BMI was assessed biennially, and waist circumference was assessed in the year 2000. Self-reports of VF were confirmed by record review. BMI reflects lean body mass, and waist circumference reflects abdominal adiposity when included in the same regression model. RESULTS: This study included 536 VF cases (2002 to 2014). Compared with women with BMI of 21.0 to 24.9 kg/m2 , the multivariable-adjusted relative risk (RR) of VF for women with BMI ≥ 32.0 was 0.84 (95% CI: 0.61-1.14; Ptrend = 0.08). After further adjustment for waist circumference, the multivariable-adjusted RR of VF for women with BMI ≥ 32.0 was 0.70 (95% CI: 0.49-0.98; Ptrend = 0.003). Compared with women with waist circumference < 71.0 cm, the multivariable-adjusted RR of VF for women with waist circumference ≥ 108.0 cm was 1.76 (95% CI: 1.06-2.92; Ptrend = 0.01), and after further adjustment for BMI, the multivariable-adjusted RR of VF was 2.49 (95% CI: 1.44-4.33; Ptrend < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Greater lean body mass was independently associated with lower VF risk. Larger waist circumference was independently associated with higher VF risk. These findings suggest that fat distribution is an important predictor of VF and that avoiding central adiposity, as well as maintaining muscle mass, may potentially confer reduced risk of VF in older women.

BISPHOSPHONATES FOR THE TREATMENT OF CALCITRIOL-INDUCED HYPERCALCEMIA.

OBJECTIVE: Calcitriol excess is a less common cause of hypercalcemia than hyperparathyroidism. Hypercalcemia due to calcitriol excess is usually managed acutely with intravenous (IV) fluid administration and dietary calcium restriction. Steroids and ketoconazole are second-line agents. There is evidence supporting the role of bone resorption in the genesis of hypercalcemia in vitamin D intoxication and for a rapid response of hypercalcemia to treatment with bisphosphonates. We seek to demonstrate the utility of bisphosphonates in calcitriol-induced hypercalcemia (CIH). METHODS: We present the case of a patient with recurrent CIH from a follicular lymphoma who achieved normalization and subsequent stabilization of serum calcium levels following bisphosphonate administration. RESULTS: A 77-year-old woman with a history of non-small cell lung cancer was admitted with dry mouth, polyuria, weight loss, and fatigue. She was found to have a calcium level of 14.7 mg/dL (normal range is 8.5 to 10.2 mg/dL), 25-hydroxyvitamin D of 47 ng/mL (normal range is 30 to 60 ng/mL), 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D of 89 pg/mL (normal range is 18 to 72 pg/mL), and parathyroid hormone of 19 pg/mL (normal range is 15 to 65 pg/mL), which recurred despite treatment with IV fluids and strict low-calcium diet. She received 5 mg of IV zoledronic acid and normocalcemia was maintained thereafter, without any diagnosis-specific treatment for >3 months. Positron emission tomography with computed tomography eventually showed new innumerable foci of increased uptake in the skeleton and lymph node biopsy revealed grade 3A follicular lymphoma. CONCLUSION: The first choice for CIH is treating the underlying cause. Bisphosphonates are, however, useful until a diagnosis is made, as they may be safer than steroids and can provide rapid relief even with a single treatment with minimal side effects.

Optimizing calcium and vitamin D intake through diet and supplements.

Calcium, a key component of bone, is obtained through diet or supplements, or both, and vitamin D is necessary for normal calcium absorption. Controversy exists as to the efficacy and even the safety of calcium. Our opinion, backed by studies and guidelines, is that adequate amounts of calcium are a must for patients concerned about bone health, and cardiovascular safety is not a concern.

How Would You Manage This Patient With Osteoporosis?: Grand Rounds Discussion From Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.

Osteoporosis is a skeletal disorder characterized by reduced bone strength that increases the risk for fracture. Approximately 10 million men and women in the United States have osteoporosis, and more than 2 million osteoporosis-related fractures occur annually. In 2016, the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists issued the "Clinical Practice Guideline for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Postmenopausal Osteoporosis," and in 2017, the American College of Physicians issued the guideline "Treatment of Low Bone Density or Osteoporosis to Prevent Fracture in Men and Women." Both guidelines agree that patients diagnosed with osteoporosis should be treated with an antiresorptive agent, such as alendronate, that has been shown to reduce hip and vertebral fractures. However, there is no consensus on how long patients with osteoporosis should be treated and whether bone density should be monitored during and after the treatment period. In this Beyond the Guidelines, 2 experts discuss management of osteoporosis in general and for a specific patient, the role of bone density monitoring during and after a 5-year course of alendronate, and treatment recommendations for a patient whose bone density decreases during or after a 5-year course of alendronate.

Proton Pump Inhibitor Use, H2-Receptor Antagonist Use, and Risk of Incident Clinical Vertebral Fracture in Women.

The few prospective studies examining the relation between proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use and risk of vertebral fracture (VF) suggest a higher risk, but the magnitude of the association has been inconsistent. Moreover, no prospective studies have examined the association between substantially longer duration of PPI use and VF risk. Our objective was to determine the association between PPI use, H2RA use, and incident clinical VF in women. We conducted a prospective study in 55,545 women participating in the Nurses' Health Study. PPI and H2RA use was assessed by questionnaire every 4 years. Self-reports of VF were confirmed by medical record. Our analysis included 547 incident VF cases (2002-2014). The multivariate adjusted relative risk (MVRR) of VF for women taking PPIs was 1.29 (95% CI 1.04-1.59) compared with non-users. Longer duration of PPI use was associated with higher VF risk (MVRR 1.16 [0.90-1.49] for < 4 years; 1.27 [0.93-1.73] for 4-7.9 years; 1.64 [1.02-2.64] for ≥ 8 years; ptrend = 0.01). The MVRR of VF for women taking H2RAs was 1.22 (0.90-1.67) compared with non-users. Longer duration of H2RA use was not associated with VF risk (MVRR 1.16 [0.88-1.53] for < 4 years; 0.98 [0.60-1.59] for ≥ 4 years; ptrend = 0.72). PPI use is independently associated with a modestly higher risk of VF and the risk increases with longer duration of use. There was no statistically significant association between H2RA use and VF risk. Our findings add to the growing evidence suggesting caution with PPI use, particularly with longer duration of use.

Effect of Positioning of the ROI on BMD of the Forearm and Its Subregions.

Inconsistent positioning of patients and region of interest (ROI) is known to influence the precision of bone mineral density (BMD) measurements in the spine and hip. However, it is unknown whether minor shifts in the positioning of the ROI along the shaft of the radius affect the measurement of forearm BMD and its subregions. The ultradistal (UD-), mid-, one-third, and total radius BMDs of 50 consecutive clinical densitometry patients were acquired. At baseline the distal end of the ROI was placed at the tip of the ulnar styloid as usual, and then the forearm was reanalyzed 10 more times, each time shifting the ROI 1 mm proximally. No corrections for multiple comparisons were necessary since the differences that were significant were significant at p < 0.001. The UD-radius BMD increased as the ROI was shifted proximally; the increase was significant when shifted even 1 mm proximally (p < 0.001). These same findings held true for the mid- and total radius bone density, though the percent increase with moving proximally was significantly greater for the UD radius than for the other subregions. However, there was no significant change in the one-third radius BMD when shifted proximally 1-10 mm. Minor proximal shifts of the forearm ROI substantially affect the BMD of the UD-, mid- and total radius, while having no effect on the one-third radius BMD. Since the one-third radius is the only forearm region usually reported, minor proximal shifts of the ROI should not influence forearm BMD results significantly.

Enhanced Precision of the New Hologic Horizon Model Compared With the Old Discovery Model Is Less Evident When Fewer Vertebrae Are Included in the Analysis.

The International Society for Clinical Densitometry guidelines recommend using locally derived precision data for spine bone mineral densities (BMDs), but do not specify whether data derived from L1-L4 spines correctly reflect the precision for spines reporting fewer than 4 vertebrae. Our experience suggested that the decrease in precision with successively fewer vertebrae is progressive as more vertebrae are excluded and that the precision for the newer Horizon Hologic model might be better than that for the previous model, and we sought to quantify. Precision studies were performed on Hologic densitometers by acquiring spine BMD in fast array mode twice on 30 patients, according to International Society for Clinical Densitometry guidelines. This was done 10 different times on various Discovery densitometers, and once on a Horizon densitometer. When 1 vertebral body was excluded from analysis, there was no significant deterioration in precision. When 2 vertebrae were excluded, there was a nonsignificant trend to poorer precision, and when 3 vertebrae were excluded, there was significantly worse precision. When 3 or 4 vertebrae were reported, the precision of the spine BMD measurement was significantly better on the Hologic Horizon than on the Discovery, but the difference in precision between densitometers narrowed and was no longer significant when 1 or 2 vertebrae were reported. The results suggest that (1) the measurement of in vivo spine BMD on the new Hologic Horizon densitometer is significantly more precise than on the older Discovery model; (2) the difference in precision between the Horizon and Discovery models decreases as fewer vertebrae are included; (3) the measurement of spine BMD is less precise as more vertebrae are excluded, but still quite reasonable even when only 1 vertebral body is included; and (4) when 3 vertebrae are reported, L1-L4 precision data can reasonably be used to report significance of changes in BMD. When 1 or 2 vertebrae are reported, precision data for 1 or 2 vertebrae, respectively, should be used, because the exclusion of 2-3 vertebrae significantly worsens precision.

Direct Comparison of the Precision of the New Hologic Horizon Model With the Old Discovery Model.

Previous publications suggested that the precision of the new Hologic Horizon densitometer might be better than that of the previous Discovery model, but these observations were confounded by not using the same participants and technologists on both densitometers. We sought to study this issue methodically by measuring in vivo precision in both densitometers using the same patients and technologists. Precision studies for the Horizon and Discovery models were done by acquiring spine, hip, and forearm bone mineral density twice on 30 participants. The set of 4 scans on each participant (2 on the Discovery, 2 on the Horizon) was acquired by the same technologist using the same scanning mode. The pairs of data were used to calculate the least significant change according to the International Society for Clinical Densitometry guidelines. The significance of the difference between least significant changes was assessed using a Wilcoxon signed-rank test of the difference between the mean square error of the absolute value of the differences between paired measurements on the Discovery (Δ-Discovery) and the mean square error of the absolute value of the differences between paired measurements on the Horizon (Δ-Horizon). At virtually all anatomic sites, there was a nonsignificant trend for the precision to be better for the Horizon than for the Discovery. As more vertebrae were excluded from analysis, the precision deteriorated on both densitometers. The precision between densitometers was almost identical when reporting only 1 vertebral body. (1) There was a nonsignificant trend for greater precision on the new Hologic Horizon compared with the older Discovery model. (2) The difference in precision of the spine bone mineral density between the Horizon and the Discovery models decreases as fewer vertebrae are included. (3) These findings are substantially similar to previously published results which had not controlled as well for confounding from using different subjects and technologists.

Diuretic Use and Risk of Vertebral Fracture in Women.

BACKGROUND: Vertebral fracture is the most common type of osteoporotic fracture. While thiazide diuretics, which are commonly prescribed for the treatment of hypertension, decrease calciuria, they may also induce hyponatremia, which has been associated with increased vertebral fracture risk. Loop diuretics increase calciuria, which would reduce bone mineral density and increase vertebral fracture risk, but they rarely cause hyponatremia. Recent studies on diuretics and fractures did not include or specifically examine vertebral fracture. The few studies of diuretics and vertebral fracture have been limited by cases defined by self-report or administrative data, relatively small number of cases, study design that was not prospective, and lack of long-term follow-up with updated information on diuretic use. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study of thiazide diuretic use, loop diuretic use, and risk of incident clinical vertebral fracture in 55,780 women, 55-82 years of age, participating in the Nurses' Health Study, without a prior history of any fracture. Diuretic use was assessed by questionnaire every 4 years. Self-reported vertebral fracture was confirmed by medical record review. Cox proportional-hazards models were used to simultaneously adjust for potential confounders. RESULTS: Our analysis included 420 incident vertebral fracture cases documented between 2002 and 2012. The multivariate-adjusted relative risk of clinical vertebral fracture for women taking thiazides compared with women not taking thiazides was 1.47 (95% confidence interval, 1.18-1.85). The multivariate adjusted relative risk of vertebral fracture for women taking loop diuretics compared with women not taking loop diuretics was 1.59 (95% confidence interval, 1.12-2.25). CONCLUSION: Thiazide diuretics and loop diuretics are each independently associated with increased risk of vertebral fracture in women.