Construction and validation of a simplified fracture risk assessment tool for Canadian women and men: results from the CaMos and Manitoba cohorts

Risk Assessment Tools for Osteoporosis Screening in Postmenopausal Women: A Systematic Review

Osteoporotic fractures are common in postmenopausal women. Tools are available to estimate the risk of low bone mineral density (BMD) or fracture. This systematic review retrieved articles that evaluated osteoporosis risk assessment tools among postmenopausal women in North America. For identifying BMD T-score ≤-2.5, most studies of the Simple Calculated Osteoporosis Risk Estimation tool (SCORE) and Osteoporosis Risk Assessment Instrument (ORAI) reported sensitivity ≥90 %. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was usually <0.75 for SCORE and ≥0.75 for ORAI. Among women 50-64 years old, a Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) threshold ≥9.3 % had a sensitivity of 33 % for identifying BMD T-score ≤-2.5 and 26 % for predicting major osteoporotic fracture (MOF). For predicting MOF, sensitivity was higher for SCORE and Osteoporosis Self-assessment Tool equation (OST), and higher in women ≥65 years old. For predicting BMD T-score ≤-2.5 in women ≥65 years old, the sensitivities of SCORE; ORAI; and Age, Body Size, No Estrogen (ABONE) were very high. No optimal osteoporosis risk assessment tool is available for identifying low BMD and MOF risk.

Osteoporosis prescribing in long-term care: impact of a provincial knowledge translation strategy

This study described prescribing trends before and after implementing a provincial strategy aimed at improving osteoporosis and fracture prevention in Ontario long-term care (LTC) homes. Data were obtained from a pharmacy provider for 10 LTC homes in 2007 and 166 homes in 2012. We used weighted, multiple linear regression analyses to examine facility-level changes in vitamin D, calcium, and osteoporosis medication prescribing rates between 2007 and 2012. After five years, the estimated increase in vitamin D, calcium, and osteoporosis medication prescribing rates, respectively, was 38.2 per cent (95% confidence interval [CI]: 29.0, 47.3; p < .001), 4.0 per cent (95% CI: -3.9, 12.0; p = .318), and 0.2 per cent (95% CI: -3.3, 3.7; p = .91). Although the study could not assess causality, findings suggest that wide-scale knowledge translation activities successfully improved vitamin D prescribing rates, although ongoing efforts are needed to target homes with low uptake.

What Do We Know about Individuals Who Are Assessed as Being at Moderate Risk for Future Fracture in Canada?

OBJECTIVE

We examined what was known about individuals in Canada who were assessed as being at moderate risk for future fracture.

METHODS

A scoping review was conducted. Eligible articles were Canadian studies published from 2010 onwards reporting on primary data that included patients at moderate risk for future fracture. We limited the search to Canada as fracture risk categorization is unique to each country. Studies were identified by searching relevant databases. Two reviewers independently reviewed titles and abstracts to determine each study's eligibility. General information about each study, demographic information about the moderate risk groups (including tool used to determine moderate risk (Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX), Canadian Association of Radiologists and Osteoporosis Canada (CAROC)), and outcomes (number of patients: recommended treatment, prescribed treatment, initiating treatment, persisting with treatment after six months, who re-fractured, who died) were documented.

RESULTS

We identified 1193 papers which were further screened for eligibility. Of the 1193 identified, 7 were eligible for the review but only 4 articles contained demographic or outcome data on moderate risk patients. In one study, 1.8% of moderate risk patients died over a mean 5.3 years of observation and in three studies, the risk of fracture was 5.9% over a median of 3 years of follow-up, 8.3% over a mean of 5.4 years, and 14.7% over 10 years of follow-up.

CONCLUSION

There is a wide knowledge gap in the literature concerning individuals who are assessed as moderate risk for future fracture in Canada.

A practical approach to osteoporosis management in the geriatric population

Osteoporosis is a medical condition that is seen commonly in elderly patients, and it is associated with a large burden of morbidity and mortality. This article provides a practical approach to the workup and management of osteoporosis in patients 65 years or older.

Fragility fracture: recent developments in risk assessment

More than half of older women who sustain a fragility fracture do not have osteoporosis by World Health Organization (WHO) bone mineral density (BMD) criteria; and, while BMD has been used to assess fracture risk for over 30 years, a range of other skeletal and nonskeletal clinical risk factors (CRFs) for fracture have been recognized. More than 30 assessment tools using CRFs have been developed, some predicting fracture risk and others low BMD alone. Recent systematic reviews have reported that many tools have not been validated against fracture incidence, and that the complexity of tools and the number of CRFs included do not ensure best performance with poor assessment of (internal or comparative) validity. Internationally, FRAX® is the most commonly recommended tool, in addition to QFracture in the UK, The Canadian Association of Radiologists and Osteoporosis Canada (CAROC) tool in Canada and Garvan in Australia. All tools estimate standard 10-year risk of major osteoporotic and 10-year risk of hip fracture: FRAX® is able to estimate fracture risk either with or without BMD, but CAROC and Garvan both require BMD and QFracture does not. The best evidence for the utility of these tools is in case finding but there may be future prospects for the use of 10-year fracture risk as a common currency with reference to the benefits of treatment, whether pharmacological or lifestyle. The use of this metric is important in supporting health economic analyses. However, further calibration studies will be needed to prove that the tools are robust and that their estimates can be used in supporting treatment decisions, independent of BMD.

Skeletal health in adults with HIV infection

Concern has been raised that HIV infection, its treatment, or both adversely affect skeletal health. Cross-sectional studies show that bone mineral density (BMD) is 3-5% lower in patients infected with HIV than in uninfected controls, but patients with HIV infection are, on average, 5 kg lighter than uninfected people. After this weight difference is accounted for, BMD differences are smaller and not clinically relevant. Longitudinal studies show short-term BMD loss of 2-4% over 1-2 years when antiretroviral therapy is started, followed by longer periods of BMD increase or stability. Losses are greatest with treatment regimens that contain tenofovir. Patients infected with HIV have slightly higher fracture rates than controls, but the increased risk of fracture is substantially attenuated by adjustment for traditional risk factors for fracture. These reassuring findings suggest that management of skeletal health in HIV should follow guidelines for the general population. In general, effective antiretroviral treatment and avoidance of undernutrition are the two most important factors for maintenance of skeletal health in patients infected with HIV.

Estimating osteoporotic fracture risk following a wrist fracture: a tale of two systems

The WHO fracture risk assessment (FRAX) and Canadian Association of Radiologists and Osteoporosis Canada (CAROC) tools can both be used to determine an individual's 10-year risk of osteoporotic fracture. However, these tools differ in their risk calculation. For participants <65 years with a wrist fracture, FRAX provides a lower fracture risk estimate than CAROC resulting in fewer decisions to initiate therapy.

PURPOSE

The purpose of the current report is to compare fracture risk prediction rates using the CAROC and the FRAX® tools.

METHODS

Individuals ≥50 years with a distal radius fracture resulting from a fall from standing height or less were recruited from a single orthopedic clinic. Participants underwent a DXA scan of their lumbar spine and hip. Femoral neck (FN) bone mineral density (BMD) and fracture risk factors were used to determine each participant's 10-year fracture risk using both fracture risk assessment tools. Participants were categorized as low (<10 %), moderate (10-20 %), or high (>20 %) risk. Stratified by age (<65 years, >65 years), the proportion of participants in each category was compared between the tools.

RESULTS

Analyses included 60 participants (mean age 65.7 ± 9.6 years). In those <65 years (n = 26), the proportion of individuals at low, moderate, and high risk differed between the FRAX and CAROC tools (p < 0.0001). FRAX categorized 69 % as low (CAROC 0 %) and 3 % as high (CAROC 12 %) risk. For individuals >65 years, almost all were at least at moderate risk (FRAX 79 %, CAROC 53 %), but fewer were at high risk using FRAX (18 vs. 47 %, p < 0.0003).

CONCLUSION

For participants <65 years with a wrist fracture, FRAX provides a lower estimate of 10-year fracture risk than CAROC resulting in fewer decisions to initiate therapy. However, almost all participants >65 years were at moderate or high risk under both FRAX and CAROC and should at least be considered for pharmacotherapy.

Bone Mineral Density Reporting Underestimates Fracture Risk in Ontario

Objective

Analysis of clinical documents such as bone mineral density (BMD) reports is an important component of program evaluation because it can provide insights into the accuracy of assessment of fracture risk communicated to patients and practitioners. Our objective was to compare fracture risk calculations from BMD test reports to those based on the 2010 Canadian guidelines.

Methods

We retrieved BMD reports from fragility fracture patients screened through a community hospital fracture clinic participating in Ontario’s Fracture Clinic Screening Program. Fracture risk was determined according to the 2010 Canadian guidelines using age, sex, and T-score at the femoral neck, in addition to three clinical factors. Three researchers classified patients’ fracture risk until consensus was achieved.

Results

We retrieved reports for 17 patients from nine different BMD clinics in the Greater Toronto Area. Each patient had a different primary care physician and all BMD tests were conducted after the 2010 Canadian guidelines were published. The fracture risk of 10 patients was misclassified with 9 of the 10 reports underestimating fracture risk. Nine reports acknowledged that the prevalence of a fragility fracture raised the risk category by one level but only four of these reports acknowledged that the patient had, or may have sustained, a fragility fracture. When we raised fracture risk by one level according to these reports, eight patients were still misclassified. Fracture risk in the majority of these patients remained underestimated. Inconsistent classification was found in the majority of cases where reports came from the same clinic. Four reports described risk levels for two different types of risk.

Conclusions

More than half of patients received BMD reports which underestimated fracture risk. Bone health management recommendations based on falsely low fracture risk are likely to be sub-optimal.

Fracture risk in long term care: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective observational studies

BACKGROUND

The risk factors associated with fractures have been well-characterized in community dwelling populations, but have not been clearly defined in long-term care (LTC) settings. The objective of this review was to identify risk factors for fractures in LTC settings.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE and CINAHL up to June 2014, scanned reference lists of articles and consulted with experts in the field to identify relevant prospective cohort studies that evaluated risk factors associated with fracture incidence in LTC. We included studies that assessed the association between risk factors included in the WHO-Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX®) or other predictors relevant to LTC (psychotropic medications, cognitive impairment, mobility, and falls). All articles were screened and extracted by two authors. Available data on the association between a given risk factor and fracture incidence were pooled when possible. We used the GRADE criteria to provide a summary of evidence. The GRADE approach defines the quality of a body of evidence as the extent to which one can be confident that an estimate of effect or association is close to the quantity of specific interest.

RESULTS

We identified 13 prospective cohort studies which examined fracture incidence among LTC residents. Most predictors showed moderate increases in fracture risk, but the quality of the evidence was often low. Moderate quality evidence showed that prior fractures and falls may moderately increase the risk of fractures. Being a woman and cognitive impairment are probably associated with a small increase. The effect of mobility and psychotropic medication use is still uncertain primarily due to the various definitions used in the studies and difficulty summarising the results.

CONCLUSIONS

In addition to criteria used in the FRAX assessment tool, such as a previous fracture and female gender, we found that falls and cognitive impairment are also associated with a small to moderate increases in the risk of fractures in LTC. Developing an assessment tool that includes risk factors that are specific to LTC may improve the identification of individuals who can benefit from fracture prevention programs in these settings.

Patient perceptions of provider barriers to post-fracture secondary prevention

We examined patients' experiences regarding bone mineral density (BMD) testing and bone health treatment after being screened through Ontario's Fracture Clinic Screening Program. Provider-level barriers to testing and treatment appeared to be as significant as patient-level barriers and potentially had more of an impact on treatment than on testing.

INTRODUCTION

Post-fracture secondary prevention programs have had modest effects on bone densitometry rates and osteoporosis (OP) treatment initiation. Few studies have examined in depth the reasons that patients choose to seek or avoid investigation and treatment after screening through such a program. Our purpose was to examine patients' experiences regarding bone mineral density (BMD) testing and bone health treatment after screening through Ontario's Fracture Clinic Screening Program (FCSP).

METHODS

We conducted a prospective qualitative study in fragility fracture patients screened through one site of the FCSP. Eligible patients not on antiresorptive medication at the time of fracture were assessed by an osteoporosis screening coordinator and advised to follow up with their primary care physician for a BMD test and appropriate treatment. Participants were interviewed within 6, and within 18, months of their clinic visit. Fracture risk was assessed by the study team. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed by two researchers.

RESULTS

We conducted 51 interviews with 25 patients (22 females, 3 males) aged 50-79 years old, of whom 8 were deemed high risk for future fracture. Eighteen participants had a BMD test between baseline and follow-up and three reported receiving a prescription for pharmacotherapy. We categorized 21 participants as experiencing at least one barrier to BMD testing and appropriate treatment including health care providers telling participants that the fracture was not a fragility fracture, using participants' appearance/demographic information and X-rays to judge bone density, telling participants that a BMD test was not appropriate, failing to discuss fracture risk status, and giving unclear or incorrect information about treatment.

CONCLUSION

We identified modifiable barriers to post-fracture secondary prevention from the patient's perspective. Provider-level barriers appeare to be as significant as patient-level barriers and potentially had more of an impact on treatment than on BMD testing.

Normative data for multisite quantitative ultrasound: the Canadian Multicenter Osteoporosis Study

Multisite quantitative ultrasound (mQUS) machines are attractive tools for assessing fragility fracture risk as they are often portable, comparatively inexpensive, require little training for their use, and emit no ionizing radiation. The primary objective of this investigation was to generate an mQUS normative database of speed of sound (SOS, in m/s) measures from a large sample of randomly selected community-based individuals. mQUS (BeamMed Omnisense MultiSite Quantitative Ultrasound 7000 S) measurements were obtained and assessed at the distal radius, tibia, and phalanx. All analyses were made separately for men and women and for each anatomical site. Scatterplots (SOS vs age) identified 30-39 yr of age as periods of both maximal SOS and of relative stability for all 3 sites over the age span investigated (30-96 yr of age; 2948 women and 1176 men) and, thus, was used as the "reference" population. For cross-sectional comparison of trends over aging, a number of age groupings were created: 30-39, 40-49, 50-59, 60-69, 70-79, and 80+ yr. In general, there were decreases in SOS over increasing age groupings. The normative data generated can be used to compare a given patient's mQUS measurement with reference to a young, healthy population, assigning them a gender-appropriate T-score.

Screening, assessment, and treatment of osteoporosis for the nurse practitioner: key questions and answers for clinical practice--a Canadian perspective

PURPOSE

Using a case-based approach, we review key clinical questions relevant to nurse practitioners (NPs) regarding the screening, assessment, and treatment of patients at risk for osteoporosis and fractures in a Canadian general practice setting.

DATA SOURCES

A case presentation with relevant questions and answers to guide management of a patient.

CONCLUSIONS

Osteoporosis is a common condition in both the aging male and female populations. Screening, diagnosis, and treatment of osteoporosis is lagging behind relative to other chronic disease states. NPs have a unique opportunity to help reduce this care gap by playing an integral role in the identification, risk stratification, and treatment of patients at risk for osteoporosis and fractures.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

This case highlights the important role an NP can have in screening a patient previously not diagnosed or managed for osteoporosis. Performing a focused history and physical exam of the patient to determine appropriate screening tests and fracture risk will help in guiding treatment decisions.

Bone health care for patients with prostate cancer receiving androgen deprivation therapy

Patients with prostate cancer often receive androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) as part of their treatment regimen. However, treatment with ADT causes multiple side effects, including reduced bone mineral density (BMD), lower lean body mass, and a higher risk for fractures. Several organizations provide clinical practice guidelines for osteoporosis screening, prevention, and treatment in this population, but adherence to these guidelines remains low. Areas for improvement in provider adherence include baseline and follow-up BMD testing, as well as counseling regarding healthy bone behaviors such as calcium/vitamin D intake, lifestyle changes, and physical exercise. Comparison of osteoporosis care in breast cancer and non-oncology populations shows that suboptimal bone health care is not isolated to prostate cancer. A summary of the literature examining improvements in patient adherence and provider delivery of bone health care is included in this review, but high-quality studies are lacking. Patients may be the most receptive to written educational information delivered at or near the time of ADT initiation. Involvement of a primary care practitioner and oncologist in care delivery is associated with higher BMD test use. Institution-level programs that automatically initiate osteoporosis screening and management may be effective at reducing the incidence of hip fracture. Lastly, suggestions are provided for future approaches to knowledge translation and quality of care studies to improve bone health.

Fracture risk assessment after BMD examination: whose job is it, anyway?

Fracture risk assessments on bone mineral density reports guide family physicians' treatment decisions but are subject to inaccuracy. Qualitative analysis of interviews with 22 family physicians illustrates their pervasive questioning of reported assessment accuracy and independent assumption of responsibility for assessment. Assumption of responsibility is common despite duplicating specialists' work.

INTRODUCTION

Fracture risk is the basis for recommendations of treatment for osteoporosis, but assessments on bone mineral density (BMD) reports are subject to known inaccuracies. This creates a complex situation for referring physicians, who must rely on assessments to inform treatment decisions. This study was designed to broadly understand physicians' current experiences with and preferences for BMD reporting; the present analysis focuses on their interpretation and use of the fracture risk assessments on reports, specifically

METHODS

A qualitative, thematic analysis of one-on-one interviews with 22 family physicians in Ontario, Canada was performed.

RESULTS

The first major theme identified in interview data reflects questioning by family physicians of reported fracture risk assessments' accuracy. Several major subthemes related to this included questioning of: 1) accuracy in raw bone mineral density measures (e.g., g/cm(2)); 2) accurate inclusion of modifying risk factors; and 3) the fracture risk assessment methodology employed. A second major theme identified was family physicians' independent assumption of responsibility for risk assessment and its interpretation. Many participants reported that they computed risk assessments in their practice to ensure accuracy, even when provided with assessments on reports.

CONCLUSIONS

Results indicate family physicians question accuracy of risk assessments on BMD reports and often assume responsibility both for revising and relating assessments to treatment recommendations. This assumption of responsibility is common despite the fact that it may duplicate the efforts of reading physicians. Better capture of risk information on BMD referrals, quality control standards for images and standardization of risk reporting may help attenuate some inefficiency.

Bisphosphonates for treatment of osteoporosis: expected benefits, potential harms, and drug holidays

OBJECTIVE

To outline the efficacy and risks of bisphosphonate therapy for the management of osteoporosis and describe which patients might be eligible for bisphosphonate "drug holiday."

QUALITY OF EVIDENCE

MEDLINE (PubMed, through December 31, 2012) was used to identify relevant publications for inclusion. Most of the evidence cited is level II evidence (non-randomized, cohort, and other comparisons trials).

MAIN MESSAGE

The antifracture efficacy of approved first-line bisphosphonates has been proven in randomized controlled clinical trials. However, with more extensive and prolonged clinical use of bisphosphonates, associations have been reported between their administration and the occurrence of rare, but serious, adverse events. Osteonecrosis of the jaw and atypical subtrochanteric and diaphyseal femur fractures might be related to the use of bisphosphonates in osteoporosis, but they are exceedingly rare and they often occur with other comorbidities or concomitant medication use. Drug holidays should only be considered in low-risk patients and in select patients at moderate risk of fracture after 3 to 5 years of therapy.

CONCLUSION

When bisphosphonates are prescribed to patients at high risk of fracture, their antifracture benefits considerably outweigh their potential for harm. For patients taking bisphosphonates for 3 to 5 years, reassess the need for ongoing therapy.

Secondary prevention after an osteoporosis-related fracture: an overview

This article is an overview of the status of postfracture secondary prevention programs. The concept of fracture risk, the inclusion of fracture risk in clinical practice guidelines for osteoporosis, and how fracture risk has contributed to the development of postfracture secondary prevention programs are described. The scope of postfracture secondary prevention programs, the gaps in care that persist despite these initiatives, and the potential reasons for these gaps are also described. Recommendations for future research in the area of postfracture secondary prevention are provided.

[FRAX® thresholds to identify people with high or low risk of osteoporotic fracture in Spanish female population]

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

To detect FRAX(®) threshold levels that identify groups of the population that are at high/low risk of osteoporotic fracture in the Spanish female population using a cost-effective assessment.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This is a cohort study. Eight hundred and sixteen women 40-90 years old selected from the FRIDEX cohort with densitometry and risk factors for fracture at baseline who received no treatment for osteoporosis during the 10 year follow-up period and were stratified into 3 groups/levels of fracture risk (low<10%, 10-20% intermediate and high>20%) according to the real fracture incidence.

RESULTS

The thresholds of FRAX(®) baseline for major osteoporotic fracture were: low risk<5; intermediate ≥ 5 to <7.5 and high ≥ 7.5. The incidence of fracture with these values was: low risk (3.6%; 95% CI 2.2-5.9), intermediate risk (13.7%; 95% CI 7.1-24.2) and high risk (21.4%; 95% CI12.9-33.2). The most cost-effective option was to refer to dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA-scan) for FRAX(®)≥ 5 (Intermediate and high risk) to reclassify by FRAX(®) with DXA-scan at high/low risk. These thresholds select 17.5% of women for DXA-scan and 10% for treatment. With these thresholds of FRAX(®), compared with the strategy of opportunistic case finding isolated risk factors, would improve the predictive parameters and reduce 82.5% the DXA-scan, 35.4% osteoporosis prescriptions and 28.7% cost to detect the same number of women who suffer fractures.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of FRAX ® thresholds identified as high/low risk of osteoporotic fracture in this calibration (FRIDEX model) improve predictive parameters in Spanish women and in a more cost-effective than the traditional model based on the T-score ≤ -2.5 of DXA scan.

Performance of risk assessment instruments for predicting osteoporotic fracture risk: a systematic review

We systematically reviewed the literature on the performance of osteoporosis absolute fracture risk assessment instruments. Relatively few studies have evaluated the calibration of instruments in populations separate from their development cohorts, and findings are mixed. Many studies had methodological limitations making susceptibility to bias a concern.

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature on the performance of osteoporosis clinical fracture risk assessment instruments for predicting absolute fracture risk, or calibration, in populations other than their derivation cohorts.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review, and MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and multiple other literature sources were searched. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied and data extracted, including information about study participants, study design, potential sources of bias, and predicted and observed fracture probabilities.

RESULTS

A total of 19,949 unique records were identified for review. Fourteen studies met inclusion criteria. There was substantial heterogeneity among included studies. Six studies assessed the WHO's Fracture Risk Assessment (FRAX) instrument in five separate cohorts, and a variety of risk assessment instruments were evaluated in the remainder of the studies. Approximately half found good instrument calibration, with observed fracture probabilities being close to predicted probabilities for different risk categories. Studies that assessed the calibration of FRAX found mixed performance in different populations. A similar proportion of studies that evaluated simple risk assessment instruments (≤5 variables) found good calibration when compared with studies that assessed complex instruments (>5 variables). Many studies had methodological features making them susceptible to bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Few studies have evaluated the performance or calibration of osteoporosis fracture risk assessment instruments in populations separate from their development cohorts. Findings are mixed, and many studies had methodological limitations making susceptibility to bias a possibility, raising concerns about use of these tools outside of the original derivation cohorts. Further studies are needed to assess the calibration of instruments in different populations prior to widespread use.

Glucocorticoids predict 10-year fragility fracture risk in a population-based ambulatory cohort of men and women: Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study (CaMos)

We determined the prospective 10-year association among incident fragility fractures and four glucocorticoid (GC) treatment groups (Never GC, Prior GC, Baseline GC, and Ever GC). Results showed that GC treatment is associated with increased 10-year incident fracture risk in ambulatory men and women across Canada.

PURPOSE

Using the Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study dataset, we determined the prospective 10-year association between incident fragility fractures and GC treatment.

METHODS

We conducted a 10-year prospective observational cohort study at nine sites across Canada. A total of 9,263 ambulatory men and women 25 years of age and older were included in the analysis. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards analyses were conducted to determine the relationship among GC treatment groups in four levels that included Never GC, Prior GC, Baseline GC, and Ever GC (combined baseline and prior groups) and time to fracture.

RESULTS

In each of the Never GC, Prior GC, Baseline GC, and Ever GC treatment groups, the number of participants were 8,832 (95.4 %), 303 (3.3 %), 128 (1.4 %), and 431 (4.7 %), respectively. Of the 9,263 individuals enrolled, incident fragility non-spine, hip, spine, and any fractures were experienced by a total of 896 (9.67 %), 157 (1.69 %), 130 (1.40 %), and 1,102 (11.90 %) over 10-years, respectively. For men and women combined, prior GC treatment was associated with a higher hazard ratio (HR) for time to incident non-vertebral (HR = 1.5, 95 % confidence interval [CI] = 1.1, 2.0), hip (HR = 2.1, 95 % CI = 1.1, 4.0), and any fracture (HR = 1.4, 95 % CI = 1.0, 1.8) compared with never GC treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

GC treatment is associated with increased 10-year incident fracture risk; this highlights the importance of considering therapy to prevent GC-induced fractures for patients who are using GC for various medical conditions.

Dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scan autoanalysis vs manual analysis

The measurement of bone mineral density (BMD) with dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is valuable for the determination of 10-yr fracture risk and for antifracture treatment follow-up. Ensuring patient scans are performed with accuracy, and reliability is imperative, requiring both technician competence and regular machine calibration. With DXA, analysis of each scan can be performed either with the machine's default autoanalysis or can be optimized manually. For 1 yr, all patients sent for DXA measurements to the Saskatoon Osteoporosis Center had each lumbar spine and hip scan analyzed with both manual and autoanalysis methods and the 2 sets of scans compared. We compared the concordance between the 2 analysis methods by calculating a BMD percent error for all of the scans, with the manually adjusted scans acting as the reference standard. Mann-Whitney U tests were completed to test for statistically significance differences between analysis types. In this investigation, scans completed with manual analysis were more accurate with respect to BMD (up to 4.7% error) and T-scores (up to 0.38 difference). In addition, many errors were identified with autoanalysis. Consequently, technicians using DXA should not rely on autoanalysis but rather be trained in and use manual analysis.

Comparison between various fracture risk assessment tools

The suboptimal performance of bone mineral density as the sole predictor of fracture risk and treatment decision making has led to the development of risk prediction algorithms that estimate fracture probability using multiple risk factors for fracture, such as demographic and physical characteristics, personal and family history, other health conditions, and medication use. We review theoretical aspects for developing and validating risk assessment tools, and illustrate how these principles apply to the best studied fracture probability tools: the World Health Organization FRAX®, the Garvan Fracture Risk Calculator, and the QResearch Database's QFractureScores. Model development should follow a systematic and rigorous methodology around variable selection, model fit evaluation, performance evaluation, and internal and external validation. Consideration must always be given to how risk prediction tools are integrated into clinical practice guidelines to support better clinical decision making and improved patient outcomes. Accurate fracture risk assessment can guide clinicians and individuals in understanding the risk of having an osteoporosis-related fracture and inform their decision making to mitigate these risks.

Multisite quantitative ultrasound for the prediction of fractures over 5 years of follow-up: the Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study

This study assessed the ability of multisite quantitative ultrasound (mQUS) to predict fracture over a 5-year follow-up. Participants were a subset of the Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study. mQUS-assessed speed of sound (SOS in m/s) at three sites (distal radius, tibia, and phalanx) and extensive questionnaires were completed, after which participants were followed for 5 years and incident fractures recorded. Two survival analyses were completed for each site--a univariate analysis and an adjusted multivariate analysis controlling for age, antiresorptive use, femoral neck bone mineral density, number of diseases, previous fractures, body mass index (BMI), parental history of hip fracture, current smoking, current alcoholic drinks >3 per day, current use of glucocorticoids, and rheumatoid arthritis diagnosis (variables from the FRAX 10-year fracture risk assessment tool). The unit of change for regression analyses was one standard deviation for all measurement sites, specific to site and sex. Separate analyses were completed for all clinical fractures, nonvertebral fractures, and hip fractures by sex. There were 2633 women and 1108 men included, and they experienced 204 incident fractures over 5 years (5.5% fractured). Univariate models revealed statistically significant (p < 0.05) predictive ability of mQUS for all three measurement sites for women alone for all three fracture types (one standard deviation decrease in SOS was associated with a 52% to 130% increase in the risk of fracture), but not for the men's group. The adjusted model found that measures at the distal radius and tibia in the women's group could significantly (p < 0.05) predict all clinical fractures and nonvertebral fractures within the next 5 years (one standard deviation decrease in SOS was associated with a 25% to 31% increase in the risk of fracture). mQUS provided significant 5-year clinical fracture prediction in women, independent of bone mineral density and other significant risk factors for fracture, when measured at the distal radius and tibia sites.

Denosumab, a new pharmacotherapy option for postmenopausal osteoporosis

BACKGROUND

According to the 2010 Osteoporosis Canada Clinical Practice Guidelines, denosumab is a first-line option for the pharmacological management of postmenopausal osteoporosis (PMO), along with several therapeutics that may be more familiar to family practice doctors: bisphosphonates, raloxifene, teriparatide, and hormone therapy. Denosumab is indicated for postmenopausal patients at high risk for fracture or others who have failed, or are intolerant to, other osteoporosis therapies.

SCOPE

We undertook a review of the efficacy and safety of denosumab in PMO, searching the English-language literature on this drug via PubMed queries as of July 2012.

FINDINGS

Although established treatments reduce fracture risk among osteoporotic postmenopausal women in trials, their effectiveness in clinical practice is limited by patient adherence. Twice-yearly denosumab treatment is associated with markedly improved bone mineral density (BMD) and cortical and trabecular bone strength, and significantly reduced osteoporotic fracture. Inhibition of bone resorption is fully reversible following discontinuation. Placebo-controlled and open-label extension studies showed similar adverse event (AE) and serious AE rates, relative to placebo, over up to 5 years. Data indicate a potential advantage of denosumab over the bisphosphonate alendronate for BMD and patient adherence and preference.

CONCLUSION

Owing to its efficacy, safety, and potential to improve adherence rates, denosumab is an appropriate first-line pharmacologic option for PMO management.

Treat-to-target for osteoporosis: is now the time?

OBJECTIVES

Current clinical practice guidelines identify patients at high risk for fracture who are likely to benefit from pharmacological therapy and suggest ways to monitor for effectiveness of therapy. However, there is no clear guidance on when fracture risk has been reduced to an acceptably low level. As a consequence, some patients at low risk for fracture may be treated for longer than necessary, whereas others at high risk for fracture may have treatment stopped when they might benefit from continuation of the same treatment or a change to a more potent therapeutic agent. The objective of this statement is to describe the potential clinical utility of developing a "treat-to-target" strategy for the management of patients with osteoporosis.

PARTICIPANTS

We recommend that a task force of clinicians, clinical investigators, and other stakeholders in the care of osteoporosis explore the options, review the evidence, and identify additional areas for investigation to establish osteoporosis treatment targets.

EVIDENCE

Data from large, prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled registration trials for currently available osteoporosis therapies should be analyzed for commonalities of correlations between easily measured endpoints and fracture risk.

CONSENSUS PROCESS

Osteoporosis experts, professional organizations, and patient care advocates should be involved in the process of developing consensus on easily measurable osteoporosis treatment targets that are supported by the best available evidence and likely to be accepted by clinicians and patients in the care of osteoporosis.

CONCLUSIONS

A treat-to-target strategy for osteoporosis offers the potential of improving osteoporosis care by reducing the burden of osteoporotic fractures and limiting adverse effects of therapy.

An economic evaluation: Simulation of the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of universal prevention strategies against osteoporosis-related fractures

A patient-level Markov decision model was used to simulate a virtual cohort of 500,000 women 40 years old and over, in relation to osteoporosis-related hip, clinical vertebral, and wrist bone fractures events. Sixteen different screening options of three main scenario groups were compared: (1) the status quo (no specific national prevention program); (2) a universal primary prevention program; and (3) a universal screening and treatment program based on the 10-year absolute risk of fracture. The outcomes measured were total directs costs from the perspective of the public health care system, number of fractures, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Results show that an option consisting of a program promoting physical activity and treatment if a fracture occurs is the most cost-effective (CE) (cost/fracture averted) alternative and also the only cost saving one, especially for women 40 to 64 years old. In women who are 65 years and over, bone mineral density (BMD)-based screening and treatment based on the 10-year absolute fracture risk calculated using a Canadian Association of Radiologists and Osteoporosis Canada (CAROC) tool is the best next alternative. In terms of cost-utility (CU), results were similar. For women less than 65 years old, a program promoting physical activity emerged as cost-saving but BMD-based screening with pharmacological treatment also emerged as an interesting alternative. In conclusion, a program promoting physical activity is the most CE and CU option for women 40 to 64 years old. BMD screening and pharmacological treatment might be considered a reasonable alternative for women 65 years old and over because at a healthcare capacity of $50,000 Canadian dollars ($CAD) for each additional fracture averted or for one QALY gained its probabilities of cost-effectiveness compared to the program promoting physical activity are 63% and 75%, respectively, which could be considered socially acceptable. Consideration of the indirect costs could change these findings.

Competing mortality and fracture risk assessment

SUMMARY

Failure to account for competing mortality gave higher estimates of 10-year fracture probability than if appropriate adjustment is made for competing mortality, particularly among subgroups with higher mortality. A modified Kaplan-Meier method is easy to implement and provides an alternative approach to existing methods for competing mortality risk adjustment.

INTRODUCTION

A unique feature of FRAX(®) is that 10-year fracture probability accounts for mortality as a competing risk. We compared the effect of competing mortality adjustment on nonparametric and parametric methods of fracture probability estimation.

METHODS

The Manitoba Bone Mineral Density (BMD) database was used to identify men and women age ≥50 years with FRAX probabilities calculated using femoral neck BMD (N = 39,063). Fractures were assessed from administrative data (N = 2,543 with a major osteoporotic fracture, N = 549 with a hip fracture during mean 5.3 years follow-up).

RESULTS

The following subgroups with higher mortality were identified: men, age >80 years, high fracture probability, and presence of diabetes. Failure to account for competing mortality in these subgroups overestimated fracture probability by 16-56 % with the standard nonparametric (Kaplan-Meier) method and 15-29 % with the standard parametric (Cox) model. When the outcome was hip fractures, failure to account for competing mortality overestimated hip fracture probability by 18-36 % and 17-35 %, respectively. A simple modified Kaplan-Meier method showed very close agreement with methods that adjusted for competing mortality (within 2 %).

CONCLUSIONS

Failure to account for competing mortality risk gives considerably higher estimates of 10-year fracture probability than if adjustment is made for this competing risk.

Partnership for fragility bone fracture care provision and prevention program (P4Bones): study protocol for a secondary fracture prevention pragmatic controlled trial

Background

Fractures associated with bone fragility in older adults signal the potential for secondary fracture. Fragility fractures often precipitate further decline in health and loss of mobility, with high associated costs for patients, families, society and the healthcare system. Promptly initiating a coordinated, comprehensive pharmacological bone health and falls prevention program post-fracture may improve osteoporosis treatment compliance; and reduce rates of falls and secondary fractures, and associated morbidity, mortality and costs.

Methods/design

This pragmatic, controlled trial at 11 hospital sites in eight regions in Quebec, Canada, will recruit community-dwelling patients over age 50 who have sustained a fragility fracture to an intervention coordinated program or to standard care, according to the site. Site study coordinators will identify and recruit 1,596 participants for each study arm. Coordinators at intervention sites will facilitate continuity of care for bone health, and arrange fall prevention programs including physical exercise. The intervention teams include medical bone specialists, primary care physicians, pharmacists, nurses, rehabilitation clinicians, and community program organizers.

The primary outcome of this study is the incidence of secondary fragility fractures within an 18-month follow-up period. Secondary outcomes include initiation and compliance with bone health medication; time to first fall and number of clinically significant falls; fall-related hospitalization and mortality; physical activity; quality of life; fragility fracture-related costs; admission to a long term care facility; participants’ perceptions of care integration, expectations and satisfaction with the program; and participants’ compliance with the fall prevention program. Finally, professionals at intervention sites will participate in focus groups to identify barriers and facilitating factors for the integrated fragility fracture prevention program.

This integrated program will facilitate knowledge translation and dissemination via the following: involvement of various collaborators during the development and set-up of the integrated program; distribution of pamphlets about osteoporosis and fall prevention strategies to primary care physicians in the intervention group and patients in the control group; participation in evaluation activities; and eventual dissemination of study results.

Study/trial registration

Clinical Trial.Gov NCT01745068

Study ID number

CIHR grant # 267395

Bisphosphonate therapy for osteoporosis: benefits, risks, and drug holiday

The amino-bisphosphonates are first-line therapy for the treatment of most patients with osteoporosis, with proven efficacy to reduce fracture risk at the spine, hip, and other nonvertebral skeletal sites. Further, bisphosphonates have been associated with a significant decrease in morbidity and increase in survival. Following the use of bisphosphonates in millions of patients in clinical practice, some unexpected possible adverse effects have been reported, including osteonecrosis of the jaw, atypical femur fractures, atrial fibrillation, and esophageal cancer. Because bisphosphonates are incorporated into the skeleton and continue to exert an antiresorptive effect for a period of time after dosing is discontinued, the concept of a drug holiday has emerged, whereby the risk of adverse effects might be decreased while the patient still benefits from antifracture efficacy. Patients receiving bisphosphonates who are not at high risk for fracture are potential candidates for a drug holiday, while for those with bone mineral density in the osteoporosis range or previous history of fragility fracture, the benefits of continuing therapy probably far outweigh the risk of harm.

Vitamin K supplementation for the primary prevention of osteoporotic fractures: is it cost-effective and is future research warranted?

Lifetime supplementation with vitamin K, vitamin D(3), and calcium is likely to reduce fractures and increase survival in postmenopausal women. It would be a cost-effective intervention at commonly used thresholds, but high uncertainty around the cost-effectiveness estimates persists. Further research on the effect of vitamin K on fractures is warranted.

INTRODUCTION

Vitamin K might have a role in the primary prevention of fractures, but uncertainties about its effectiveness and cost-effectiveness persist.

METHODS

We developed a state-transition probabilistic microsimulation model to quantify the cost-effectiveness of various interventions to prevent fractures in 50-year-old postmenopausal women without osteoporosis. We compared no supplementation, vitamin D(3) (800 IU/day) with calcium (1,200 mg/day), and vitamin K(2) (45 mg/day) with vitamin D(3) and calcium (at the same doses). An additional analysis explored replacing vitamin K(2) with vitamin K(1) (5 mg/day).

RESULTS

Adding vitamin K(2) to vitamin D(3) with calcium reduced the lifetime probability of at least one fracture by 25%, increased discounted survival by 0.7 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (95% credible interval (CrI) 0.2; 1.3) and discounted costs by $8,956, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $12,268/QALY. At a $50,000/QALY threshold, the probability of cost-effectiveness was 95% and the population expected value of perfect information (EVPI) was $28.9 billion. Adding vitamin K(1) to vitamin D and calcium reduced the lifetime probability of at least one fracture by 20%, increased discounted survival by 0.4 QALYs (95% CrI -1.9; 1.4) and discounted costs by $4,014, yielding an ICER of $9,557/QALY. At a $50,000/QALY threshold, the probability of cost-effectiveness was 80% while the EVPI was $414.9 billion. The efficacy of vitamin K was the most important parameter in sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Lifetime supplementation with vitamin K, vitamin D(3), and calcium is likely to reduce fractures and increase survival in postmenopausal women. Given high uncertainty around the cost-effectiveness estimates, further research on the efficacy of vitamin K on fractures is warranted.

Does osteoporosis therapy invalidate FRAX for fracture prediction?

Ten-year fracture risk assessment with the fracture risk assessment system (FRAX) is increasingly used to guide treatment decisions. Osteoporosis pharmacotherapy reduces fracture risk, but the effect is greater than can be explained from the increase in bone mineral density (BMD). Whether this invalidates fracture predictions with FRAX is uncertain. A total of 35,764 women (age ≥50 years) and baseline BMD testing (1996–2007) had FRAX probabilities retroactively calculated. A provincial pharmacy database was used to identify osteoporosis medication use. Women were categorized as untreated, current high adherence users [medication possession ratio (MPR) ≥0.80 in the year after BMD testing], current low adherence users (MPR <0.80), and past users. Fractures outcomes to 10 years were established form a population-based health data repository. FRAX and femoral neck BMD alone stratified major osteoporotic and hip fracture risk within untreated and each treated subgroup (all p-values <0.001) with similar area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. In untreated and each treated subgroup, a stepwise gradient in observed 10-year major osteoporotic and hip fracture incidence was found as a function of the predicted probability tertile (all p-values <0.001 for linear trend). Concordance (calibration) plots for major osteoporotic fractures and hip fractures showed good agreement between the predicted and observed 10-year fracture incidence in untreated women and each treated subgroup. Only in the highest risk tertile of women highly adherent to at least 5 years of bisphosphonate use was observed hip fracture risk significantly less than predicted, though major osteoporotic fracture risk was similar to predicted. In summary, this work suggests that the FRAX tool can be used to predict fracture probability in women currently or previously treated for osteoporosis. Although FRAX should not be used to assess the reduction in fracture risk in individuals on treatment, it may still have value for guiding the need for continued treatment or treatment withdrawal

Ankle fractures do not predict osteoporotic fractures in women with or without diabetes

It is not clear whether ankle fractures predict future osteoporotic fractures in women, and whether diabetes influences this relationship. We found that a prior ankle fracture does not predict subsequent osteoporotic fractures in women with or without diabetes.

INTRODUCTION

We aimed to determine: (1) whether a prior ankle fracture was a risk factor for a subsequent major osteoporotic fracture in older women; (2) whether this risk was modified by the presence of diabetes; (3) the risk factors for ankle fracture in older women.

METHODS

We identified 3,054 women age 50 years and older with diabetes and 9,151 matched controls using the Manitoba Bone Density Program database. Multivariable regression models were used to examine factors associated with prior ankle fracture, and the importance of prior ankle fracture as a predictor of subsequent major osteoporotic fracture during a mean 4.8 years of observation.

RESULTS

A prior ankle fracture was not a significant predictor of subsequent major osteoporotic fracture for women with diabetes (hazard ratio [HR] 1.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68-1.83; p = 0.623) or women without diabetes (HR 1.16; 95% CI, 0.79-1.71; p = 0.460), and there was no interaction between diabetes and ankle fracture after pooling all women in the cohort (p = 0.971). The presence of diabetes was not independently associated with prior ankle fracture (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.14 [95% CI, 0.93-1.38], p = 0.200), whereas higher body mass index (adjusted OR 1.04 per standard deviation increase [95% CI, 1.03-1.06], p < 0.001), previous major osteoporotic fracture (adjusted OR 1.40 [95% CI, 1.13-1.75], p = 0.002), and multiple comorbidities (>6 ambulatory diagnostic groups) (adjusted OR 1.81 [95% CI, 1.40-2.36], p < 0.001) were related to prior ankle fracture.

CONCLUSIONS

Ankle fracture was not a significant predictor of major osteoporotic fracture in women, and a diagnosis of diabetes did not influence the relationship.

Assessment of fracture risk

Osteoporosis-related fractures (low-trauma, fragility fractures) are associated with significant morbidity, mortality, and health care expenditure worldwide. In the absence of a defining fracture, the diagnosis of osteoporosis is based on the World Health Organization's T-score criteria using central dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA). Paradoxically, the majority of those patients who will sustain a low-trauma fracture do not meet the T-score definition of osteoporosis. Conversely, younger individuals with bone density in the osteoporotic range but no other risk factors have relatively low fracture rates and yet are frequently considered candidates for osteoporosis therapies. The limited accuracy of bone density testing alone to predict fractures has led to the development of a variety of fracture assessment tools that utilize the combination of bone density and clinical risk factors to improve the prediction of low-trauma fractures. These fracture assessment tools quantitatively predict the 10-year fracture probability of hip and major osteoporosis-related fractures, and can be used to define cost-effective intervention strategies for primary and secondary fracture prevention.

A comparative study of using non-hip bone density inputs with FRAX®

Use of lumbar spine T-score or minimum T-score as a bone mineral density (BMD) input to the FRAX® algorithm led to miscalibration compared with the recommended femoral neck input. Use of a weighted mean between the lumbar spine and femoral neck T-scores was found to provide an arithmetically equivalent result to a previously described offset adjustment.

INTRODUCTION

FRAX assumes that the BMD input, when used in the calculation, is from the femoral neck. Use of other BMD inputs is not recommended, but there are no studies describing how this affects the performance of FRAX.

METHODS

Ten-year probabilities of a major osteoporotic fracture were calculated with different BMD inputs for 20,477 women and men aged 50 years and older from Manitoba, Canada. FRAX probability calculated with femoral neck BMD was designated the reference method. We also derived FRAX probabilities where the BMD input was based upon the lumbar spine T-score, minimum T-score (lumbar spine or femoral neck), weighted mean T-score (lumbar spine or femoral neck), or used an adjustment for the spine-hip T-score difference (offset). Fracture outcomes were assessed using a population-based administrative data repository.

RESULTS

All FRAX models showed good risk stratification with minimal differences. There was no consistent improvement in FRAX performance when lumbar spine or minimum T-score were used as inputs, but calibration was adversely affected due to higher mean fracture probabilities compared with the femoral neck. The weighted mean T-score was found to be equivalent to the spine-hip T-score offset adjustment, and both slightly improved risk classification without a change in calibration.

CONCLUSIONS

The choice of BMD input to the FRAX model has a large effect on performance. The lumbar spine T-score or minimum T-score should not be used as inputs to the FRAX algorithm. Use of a weighted mean between the lumbar spine and femoral neck T-scores slightly improves risk classification.

Osteoporosis Canada 2010 guidelines for the assessment of fracture risk

Osteoporosis Canada's 2010 Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Osteoporosis in Canada focus on the clinical impact of fragility fractures, and on the assessment and management of women and men at high risk for fragility fracture. These guidelines now integrate a 10-year absolute fracture risk prediction into an overall management approach by using validated risk assessment tools. There currently is a large gap between optimal practices and those that are now being provided to Canadians with osteoporosis. These guidelines are part of a concerted effort to close this gap. Key changes from the 2002 guidelines of interest and relevance to radiologists are highlighted in this report.

A comprehensive bone-health management approach for men with prostate cancer receiving androgen deprivation therapy

For advanced and metastatic prostate cancer, androgen deprivation therapy (adt) is the mainstay of treatment. Awareness of the potential bone-health complications consequent to adt use is increasing. Many studies have shown that prolonged adt leads to significant bone loss and increased fracture risk that negatively affect quality of life. Clinical practice guidelines for preserving bone health in men with prostate cancer on adt vary across Canada. This paper reviews recent studies on bone health in men with prostate cancer receiving adt and the current evidence regarding bone-health monitoring and management in reference to Canadian provincial guidelines. Based on this narrative review, we provide general bone-health management recommendations for men with prostate cancer receiving adt.