Table 12Association between lactose intolerance or malabsorption and bone fractures

StudyComparisonOutcomeEstimateMean (95% CI)
Symptomatic lactose intolerance
Goulding, 200489
Country: New Zealand
Prepubertal children with a history of long-term milk avoidance Ca++ intake difference in comparison groups: NR/NR
Symptoms to cow milk vs. noneHistory of fractureCrude OR1.45 (0.44; 4.78)
Enattah, 200529
Country: Finland
Postmenopausal women Ca++ intake difference in comparison groups: NR/NR
Lactose intolerance vs. noneHistory of any fractureCrude OR1.63 (0.88; 3.01)
Vertebral2.45 (0.74; 8.18)
Nonvertebral1.51 (0.79; 2.88)
Kudlacek, 200292
Country: Austria
Adults Ca++ intake difference in comparison groups: NR/NR
Self reported symptoms of LI vs. noneFractureCrude OR 1.96 (1.11; 3.48)
Kull, 200967
Country: Estonia
Adults Ca++ intake difference in comparison groups: NR/NR
Self-reported LI vs. noneFracture occurring after the age of 25Crude OR 2.69 (1.25; 5.78)
Diagnosed with objective tests lactose malabsorption
Honkanen, 1997167
Country: Finland
Perimenopausal women Ca++ intake difference in comparison groups: −280/Y
Positive vs. negative lactose tolerance testA fracture since age of 15Crude OR 1.39 (1.18; 1.63)
Any fracture 1.33 (1.09; 1.62)
Wrist, radius1.05 (0.69; 1.59)
Any fractureAdjusted for age, BMI, number of chronic health disorders, menopausal status (postmenopausal/other), and smoking status OR 1.33 (1.08; 1.64)
Wrist1.04 (0.67; 1.60)
Nonwrist1.21 (0.81; 1.80)
Wheadon, 1991164
Country: New Zealand
Elderly New Zealand women with hip fractures Ca++ intake difference in comparison groups: 317/N
Malabsorbers vs. none (age matched controls)History of fractureAge matched OR0.90 (0.21; 3.82)
Malabsorbers vs. none (young controls)Crude OR 11.00 (2.88; 41.99)
Malabsorbers vs. none (all controls)Crude OR 4.69 (1.45; 15.20)
Kudlacek, 200292
Country: Austria
Adults Ca++ intake difference in comparison groups: NR/NR
Moderate lactose malabsorption vs. noneAll fracturesCrude mean difference0.24 (−0.03; 0.51)
Vertebral fractures/patient−0.17 (−0.34; 0.00)
Severe lactose malabsorption vs. noneAll fractures 0.25 (0.02; 0.48)
Vertebral fractures/patient 0.30 (0.03; 0.57)
Severe lactose malabsorption vs. moderateAll fractures0.01 (−0.31; 0.33)
Vertebral fractures/patient0.47(0.20;0.74)
Lactose malabsorption vs. noneOverall fracturesCrude OR 2.63 (1.52; 4.54)
Moderate lactose malabsorption vs. noneVertebral fracture per individual 0.28 (0.09; 0.87)
Severe lactose malabsorption vs. noneVerterbral fracture per individual 3.62 (1.93; 6.79)
Severe lactose malabsorption vs. moderateVerterbral fracture per individual 12.77 (4.12; 39.57)
Harma, 1988170
Country: Finland
Elderly women Ca++ intake difference in comparison groups: NR/NR
LM (positive blood glucose test) vs. noneSpinal fractureAge and sex matching OR0.80 (0.18; 3.55)
LM (positive blood glucose test) vs. noneHip fracture1.60 (0.50; 5.13)

Bold = statistically significant

From: 3, Results

Cover of Lactose Intolerance and Health
Lactose Intolerance and Health.
Evidence Reports/Technology Assessments, No. 192.
Wilt TJ, Shaukat A, Shamliyan T, et al.

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.