Medication therapy for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder is associated with lower risk of fracture: a retrospective cohort study.

UNLABELLED: The impact of pharmacotherapy for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder on fracture risk has not been well studied. In this retrospective cohort study, medication therapy was associated with lower fracture incidence. Further studies are needed to better characterize the short-term and long-term effects of these medications on bone health and fracture risk. INTRODUCTION: Attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is associated with increased risk of bone fractures. The impact of pharmacotherapy with either stimulant or non-stimulant medications on fracture risk has not been well characterized. We performed a study to compare fracture incidence in ADHD patients treated with stimulant or non-stimulant medications vs. no pharmacotherapy. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, data were extracted from a large electronic medical record. A total of 10,066 subjects with ADHD, 40 years or younger, were included. We extracted data regarding stimulant and non-stimulant ADHD medications, corticosteroids, fracture data, demographic data, and diabetes history. RESULTS: A total of 1015 patients (10 %) sustained fractures. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard analysis indicated that compared to those with two or more prescriptions for an ADHD medication, individuals without documented medication therapy had a significantly increased hazard of fracture (hazard ratio [HR] 3.9, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 2.6-5.9). However, the hazard ratio for stimulant vs. non-stimulant medication (HR 0.92, 95 % CI 0.60-1.4) was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Three times as many patients with no documented ADHD medication prescriptions suffer a fracture compared to patients with a history of two or more prescriptions for an ADHD medication. Treatment and adherence are thus important to prevent fracture in this population.

Amputation for extremity soft tissue sarcoma does not increase overall survival: a retrospective cohort study.

To determine if amputation increases survival when compared to limb salvage surgery in patients with a soft tissue sarcoma (STS) of the extremity when there is often a misconception among physicians and patients that ablative surgery eliminates local recurrence and increases overall survival. This retrospective cohort study assessed 278 patients with STS and compared 18 patients who had undergone amputations for soft tissue sarcomas of the extremities to a comparative cohort of 260 patients who underwent limb salvage surgery during the same time period. Our limb salvage surgery (LSS) rate was 94% overall for soft tissue sarcomas with a median follow-up of 3.1 years. Patients undergoing amputations either had tumors that involved a critical neurovascular bundle (in particular nerve rather than vessel resection was more responsible for a decision toward ablation), or underlying bone or had neoplasms whose large size would require such an enormous resection that a functional limb would not remain. In comparing prognostic effects, mainly death due to sarcoma, distant metastasis and local recurrence, it was found that there was no statistically significant difference between patients undergoing amputation to those undergoing limb salvage surgery (p > 0.05). While amputations do not increase overall survival in soft tissue sarcomas of the extremity as compared to LSS, they are still a valuable option in a surgeon's arsenal. In particular, amputations can provide improved local control and symptomatic treatment in patients who might not be candidates for limb salvage surgery.