Management of Patients With High Baseline Hip Fracture Risk by FRAX Reduces Hip Fractures-A Post Hoc Analysis of the SCOOP Study

Update on fracture risk assessment in osteoporosis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The assessment of fracture risk is playing an ever-increasing role in osteoporosis clinical management and informing international guidelines for osteoporosis. FRAX, a fracture risk calculator that provides individualized 10-year probabilities of hip and major osteoporotic fracture, has been widely used since 2008. In this review, we recap the development and limitations of intervention thresholds and the role of absolute fracture risk.

RECENT FINDINGS

There is an increasing awareness of disparities and inequities in the setting of intervention thresholds in osteoporosis. The limitations of the simple use of prior fracture or the DXA-derived BMD T -score threshold are increasingly being discussed; one solution is to use fracture risk or probabilities in the setting of such thresholds. This approach also permits more objective assessment of high and very high fracture risk to enable physicians to make choices not just about the need to treat but what agents to use in individual patients.

SUMMARY

Like all clinical tools, FRAX has limitations that need to be considered, but the use of fracture risk in deciding who to treat, when to treat and what agent to use is a mechanism to target treatment equitably to those at an increased risk of fracture.

Osteoporosis treatment prevents hip fracture similarly in both sexes: the FOCUS observational study

Randomized trials have not been performed, and may never be, to determine if osteoporosis treatment prevents hip fracture in men. Addressing that evidence gap, we analyzed data from an observational study of new hip fractures in a large integrated healthcare system to compare the reduction in hip fractures associated with standard-of-care osteoporosis treatment in men versus women. Sampling from 271 389 patients age ≥ 65 who had a hip-containing computed tomography scan during care between 2005-2018, we selected all who subsequently had a first hip fracture (cases) after the CT scan (start of observation) and a sex-matched equal number of randomly selected patients. From those, we analyzed all who tested positive for osteoporosis (DXA-equivalent hip bone mineral density T-score ≤ -2.5, measured from the CT scan using VirtuOst). We defined "treated" as at least six months of any osteoporosis medication by prescription fill data during follow up; "not-treated" was no prescription fill. Sex-specific odds ratios of hip fracture for treated versus not-treated patients were calculated by logistic regression; adjustments included age, BMD T-score, a BMD-treatment interaction, body mass index, race/ethnicity, and seven baseline clinical risk factors. At two-year follow-up, 33.9% of the women (750/2211 patients) and 24.0% of the men (175/728 patients) were treated, primarily with alendronate; 51.3% and 66.3%, respectively, were not-treated; and 721 and 269, respectively, had a first hip fracture since the CT scan. Odds ratio of hip fracture for treated versus not-treated was 0.26 (95% confidence interval: 0.21-0.33) for women and 0.21 (0.13-0.34) for men; the ratio of these odds ratios (men:women) was 0.81 (0.47-1.37), indicating no significant sex effect. Various sensitivity and stratified analyses confirmed these trends, including results at five-year follow-up. Given these results and considering the relevant literature, we conclude that osteoporosis treatment prevents hip fracture similarly in both sexes.

An overview of the use of the fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX) in osteoporosis

FRAX®, a simple-to-use fracture risk calculator, was first released in 2008 and since then has been used increasingly worldwide. By calculating the 10-year probabilities of a major osteoporotic fracture and hip fracture, it assists clinicians when deciding whether further investigation, for example a bone mineral density measurement (BMD), and/or treatment is needed to prevent future fractures. In this review, we explore the literature around osteoporosis and how FRAX has changed its management. We present the characteristics of this tool and describe the use of thresholds (diagnostic and therapeutic). We also present arguments as to why screening with FRAX should be considered. FRAX has several limitations which are described in this review. This review coincides with the release of a version, FRAXplus, which addresses some of these limitations.

A study on whether deep learning models based on CT images for bone density classification and prediction can be used for opportunistic osteoporosis screening

This study utilized deep learning to classify osteoporosis and predict bone density using opportunistic CT scans and independently tested the models on data from different hospitals and equipment. Results showed high accuracy and strong correlation with QCT results, showing promise for expanding osteoporosis screening and reducing unnecessary radiation and costs.

PURPOSE

To explore the feasibility of using deep learning to establish a model for osteoporosis classification and bone density value prediction based on opportunistic CT scans and to verify its generalization and diagnostic ability using an independent test set.

METHODS

A total of 1219 cases of opportunistic CT scans were included in this study, with QCT results as the reference standard. The training set: test set: independent test set ratio was 703: 176: 340, and the independent test set data of 340 cases were from 3 different hospitals and 4 different CT scanners. The VB-Net structure automatic segmentation model was used to segment the trabecular bone, and DenseNet was used to establish a three-classification model and bone density value prediction regression model. The performance parameters of the models were calculated and evaluated.

RESULTS

The ROC curves showed that the mean AUCs of the three-category classification model for categorizing cases into "normal," "osteopenia," and "osteoporosis" for the training set, test set, and independent test set were 0.999, 0.970, and 0.933, respectively. The F1 score, accuracy, precision, recall, precision, and specificity of the test set were 0.903, 0.909, 0.899, 0.908, and 0.956, respectively, and those of the independent test set were 0.798, 0.815, 0.792, 0.81, and 0.899, respectively. The MAEs of the bone density prediction regression model in the training set, test set, and independent test set were 3.15, 6.303, and 10.257, respectively, and the RMSEs were 4.127, 8.561, and 13.507, respectively. The R-squared values were 0.991, 0.962, and 0.878, respectively. The Pearson correlation coefficients were 0.996, 0.981, and 0.94, respectively, and the p values were all < 0.001. The predicted values and bone density values were highly positively correlated, and there was a significant linear relationship.

CONCLUSION

Using deep learning neural networks to process opportunistic CT scan images of the body can accurately predict bone density values and perform bone density three-classification diagnosis, which can reduce the radiation risk, economic consumption, and time consumption brought by specialized bone density measurement, expand the scope of osteoporosis screening, and have broad application prospects.

Screening for the primary prevention of fragility fractures among adults aged 40 years and older in primary care: systematic reviews of the effects and acceptability of screening and treatment, and the accuracy of risk prediction tools

BACKGROUND

To inform recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care, we reviewed evidence on the benefits, harms, and acceptability of screening and treatment, and on the accuracy of risk prediction tools for the primary prevention of fragility fractures among adults aged 40 years and older in primary care.

METHODS

For screening effectiveness, accuracy of risk prediction tools, and treatment benefits, our search methods involved integrating studies published up to 2016 from an existing systematic review. Then, to locate more recent studies and any evidence relating to acceptability and treatment harms, we searched online databases (2016 to April 4, 2022 [screening] or to June 1, 2021 [predictive accuracy]; 1995 to June 1, 2021, for acceptability; 2016 to March 2, 2020, for treatment benefits; 2015 to June 24, 2020, for treatment harms), trial registries and gray literature, and hand-searched reviews, guidelines, and the included studies. Two reviewers selected studies, extracted results, and appraised risk of bias, with disagreements resolved by consensus or a third reviewer. The overview of reviews on treatment harms relied on one reviewer, with verification of data by another reviewer to correct errors and omissions. When appropriate, study results were pooled using random effects meta-analysis; otherwise, findings were described narratively. Evidence certainty was rated according to the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

We included 4 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 1 controlled clinical trial (CCT) for the benefits and harms of screening, 1 RCT for comparative benefits and harms of different screening strategies, 32 validation cohort studies for the calibration of risk prediction tools (26 of these reporting on the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool without [i.e., clinical FRAX], or with the inclusion of bone mineral density (BMD) results [i.e., FRAX + BMD]), 27 RCTs for the benefits of treatment, 10 systematic reviews for the harms of treatment, and 12 studies for the acceptability of screening or initiating treatment. In females aged 65 years and older who are willing to independently complete a mailed fracture risk questionnaire (referred to as "selected population"), 2-step screening using a risk assessment tool with or without measurement of BMD probably (moderate certainty) reduces the risk of hip fractures (3 RCTs and 1 CCT, n = 43,736, absolute risk reduction [ARD] = 6.2 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 9.0-2.8 fewer, number needed to screen [NNS] = 161) and clinical fragility fractures (3 RCTs, n = 42,009, ARD = 5.9 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 10.9-0.8 fewer, NNS = 169). It probably does not reduce all-cause mortality (2 RCTs and 1 CCT, n = 26,511, ARD = no difference in 1000, 95% CI 7.1 fewer to 5.3 more) and may (low certainty) not affect health-related quality of life. Benefits for fracture outcomes were not replicated in an offer-to-screen population where the rate of response to mailed screening questionnaires was low. For females aged 68-80 years, population screening may not reduce the risk of hip fractures (1 RCT, n = 34,229, ARD = 0.3 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 4.2 fewer to 3.9 more) or clinical fragility fractures (1 RCT, n = 34,229, ARD = 1.0 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 8.0 fewer to 6.0 more) over 5 years of follow-up. The evidence for serious adverse events among all patients and for all outcomes among males and younger females (<65 years) is very uncertain. We defined overdiagnosis as the identification of high risk in individuals who, if not screened, would never have known that they were at risk and would never have experienced a fragility fracture. This was not directly reported in any of the trials. Estimates using data available in the trials suggest that among "selected" females offered screening, 12% of those meeting age-specific treatment thresholds based on clinical FRAX 10-year hip fracture risk, and 19% of those meeting thresholds based on clinical FRAX 10-year major osteoporotic fracture risk, may be overdiagnosed as being at high risk of fracture. Of those identified as being at high clinical FRAX 10-year hip fracture risk and who were referred for BMD assessment, 24% may be overdiagnosed. One RCT (n = 9268) provided evidence comparing 1-step to 2-step screening among postmenopausal females, but the evidence from this trial was very uncertain. For the calibration of risk prediction tools, evidence from three Canadian studies (n = 67,611) without serious risk of bias concerns indicates that clinical FRAX-Canada may be well calibrated for the 10-year prediction of hip fractures (observed-to-expected fracture ratio [O:E] = 1.13, 95% CI 0.74-1.72, I² = 89.2%), and is probably well calibrated for the 10-year prediction of clinical fragility fractures (O:E = 1.10, 95% CI 1.01-1.20, I² = 50.4%), both leading to some underestimation of the observed risk. Data from these same studies (n = 61,156) showed that FRAX-Canada with BMD may perform poorly to estimate 10-year hip fracture risk (O:E = 1.31, 95% CI 0.91-2.13, I² = 92.7%), but is probably well calibrated for the 10-year prediction of clinical fragility fractures, with some underestimation of the observed risk (O:E 1.16, 95% CI 1.12-1.20, I² = 0%). The Canadian Association of Radiologists and Osteoporosis Canada Risk Assessment (CAROC) tool may be well calibrated to predict a category of risk for 10-year clinical fractures (low, moderate, or high risk; 1 study, n = 34,060). The evidence for most other tools was limited, or in the case of FRAX tools calibrated for countries other than Canada, very uncertain due to serious risk of bias concerns and large inconsistency in findings across studies. Postmenopausal females in a primary prevention population defined as <50% prevalence of prior fragility fracture (median 16.9%, range 0 to 48% when reported in the trials) and at risk of fragility fracture, treatment with bisphosphonates as a class (median 2 years, range 1-6 years) probably reduces the risk of clinical fragility fractures (19 RCTs, n = 22,482, ARD = 11.1 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 15.0-6.6 fewer, [number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome] NNT = 90), and may reduce the risk of hip fractures (14 RCTs, n = 21,038, ARD = 2.9 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 4.6-0.9 fewer, NNT = 345) and clinical vertebral fractures (11 RCTs, n = 8921, ARD = 10.0 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 14.0-3.9 fewer, NNT = 100); it may not reduce all-cause mortality. There is low certainty evidence of little-to-no reduction in hip fractures with any individual bisphosphonate, but all provided evidence of decreased risk of clinical fragility fractures (moderate certainty for alendronate [NNT=68] and zoledronic acid [NNT=50], low certainty for risedronate [NNT=128]) among postmenopausal females. Evidence for an impact on risk of clinical vertebral fractures is very uncertain for alendronate and risedronate; zoledronic acid may reduce the risk of this outcome (4 RCTs, n = 2367, ARD = 18.7 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 25.6-6.6 fewer, NNT = 54) for postmenopausal females. Denosumab probably reduces the risk of clinical fragility fractures (6 RCTs, n = 9473, ARD = 9.1 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 12.1-5.6 fewer, NNT = 110) and clinical vertebral fractures (4 RCTs, n = 8639, ARD = 16.0 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 18.6-12.1 fewer, NNT=62), but may make little-to-no difference in the risk of hip fractures among postmenopausal females. Denosumab probably makes little-to-no difference in the risk of all-cause mortality or health-related quality of life among postmenopausal females. Evidence in males is limited to two trials (1 zoledronic acid, 1 denosumab); in this population, zoledronic acid may make little-to-no difference in the risk of hip or clinical fragility fractures, and evidence for all-cause mortality is very uncertain. The evidence for treatment with denosumab in males is very uncertain for all fracture outcomes (hip, clinical fragility, clinical vertebral) and all-cause mortality. There is moderate certainty evidence that treatment causes a small number of patients to experience a non-serious adverse event, notably non-serious gastrointestinal events (e.g., abdominal pain, reflux) with alendronate (50 RCTs, n = 22,549, ARD = 16.3 more in 1000, 95% CI 2.4-31.3 more, [number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome] NNH = 61) but not with risedronate; influenza-like symptoms with zoledronic acid (5 RCTs, n = 10,695, ARD = 142.5 more in 1000, 95% CI 105.5-188.5 more, NNH = 7); and non-serious gastrointestinal adverse events (3 RCTs, n = 8454, ARD = 64.5 more in 1000, 95% CI 26.4-13.3 more, NNH = 16), dermatologic adverse events (3 RCTs, n = 8454, ARD = 15.6 more in 1000, 95% CI 7.6-27.0 more, NNH = 64), and infections (any severity; 4 RCTs, n = 8691, ARD = 1.8 more in 1000, 95% CI 0.1-4.0 more, NNH = 556) with denosumab. For serious adverse events overall and specific to stroke and myocardial infarction, treatment with bisphosphonates probably makes little-to-no difference; evidence for other specific serious harms was less certain or not available. There was low certainty evidence for an increased risk for the rare occurrence of atypical femoral fractures (0.06 to 0.08 more in 1000) and osteonecrosis of the jaw (0.22 more in 1000) with bisphosphonates (most evidence for alendronate). The evidence for these rare outcomes and for rebound fractures with denosumab was very uncertain. Younger (lower risk) females have high willingness to be screened. A minority of postmenopausal females at increased risk for fracture may accept treatment. Further, there is large heterogeneity in the level of risk at which patients may be accepting of initiating treatment, and treatment effects appear to be overestimated.

CONCLUSION

An offer of 2-step screening with risk assessment and BMD measurement to selected postmenopausal females with low prevalence of prior fracture probably results in a small reduction in the risk of clinical fragility fracture and hip fracture compared to no screening. These findings were most applicable to the use of clinical FRAX for risk assessment and were not replicated in the offer-to-screen population where the rate of response to mailed screening questionnaires was low. Limited direct evidence on harms of screening were available; using study data to provide estimates, there may be a moderate degree of overdiagnosis of high risk for fracture to consider. The evidence for younger females and males is very limited. The benefits of screening and treatment need to be weighed against the potential for harm; patient views on the acceptability of treatment are highly variable.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO): CRD42019123767.

Optimizing osteoporosis management: targeting to treat — an initiative by the Egyptian Academy of Bone Health

The overarching goal of treating osteoporotic patients is to reduce the incidence of fractures, yet interventions that support early detection of osteoporosis and prevention of osteoporotic fractures are underutilized. Osteoporosis and, specifically, the associated burden of fractures call for a screening strategy offering an opportunity to intervene early. Such strategy should be clinically feasible and cost-effective, aiming to identify and treat subjects at high or very high risk of fragility fracture.

The low sensitivity of bone mineral density measurements in identifying high-risk patients is evidenced by the high number of osteoporotic fractures occurring in subjects with BMD values above threshold required for a diagnosis of osteoporosis. Consequently, DXA scanning is not considered appropriate as a public screening tool identifying patients at risk of sustaining fragility fractures and current efforts focus on identifying non-BMD-related risk factors.

In Egypt, we are fortunate in having all modalities of osteoporosis therapy and assessment tools available, yet there remains a significant treatment gap in osteoporosis management. Furthermore, screening for fracture risk is not currently advocated nationally. This manuscript describes a national initiative for a population screening intervention to identify patients at risk of developing a fragility fracture aiming to reduce fragility fractures especially in older adults.

Definition and management of very high fracture risk in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis: a position statement from the Brazilian Society of Endocrinology and Metabolism (SBEM) and the Brazilian Association of Bone Assessment and Metabolism (ABRASSO)

Several drugs are available for the treatment of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women. Over the last decades, most patients requiring pharmacological intervention were offered antiresorptive drugs as first-line therapy, while anabolic agents were considered a last resource for those with therapeutic failure. However, recent randomized trials in patients with severe osteoporosis have shown that anabolic agents reduce fractures to a greater extent than antiresorptive medications. Additionally, evidence indicates that increases in bone mineral density (BMD) are maximized when patients are treated with anabolic agents first, followed by antiresorptive therapy. This evidence is key, considering that greater increases in BMD during osteoporosis treatment are associated with a more pronounced reduction in fracture risk. Thus, international guidelines have recently proposed an individualized approach to osteoporosis treatment based on fracture risk stratification, in which the stratification risk has been refined to include a category of patients at very high risk of fracture who should be managed with anabolic agents as first-line therapy. In this document, the Brazilian Society of Endocrinology and Metabolism and the Brazilian Association of Bone Assessment and Metabolism propose the definition of very high risk of osteoporotic fracture in postmenopausal women, for whom anabolic agents should be considered as first-line therapy. This document also reviews the factors associated with increased fracture risk, trials comparing anabolic versus antiresorptive agents, efficacy of anabolic agents in patients who are treatment naïve versus those previously treated with antiresorptive agents, and safety of anabolic agents.

Osteoporosis in 2022: Care gaps to screening and personalised medicine

Osteoporosis care has evolved markedly over the last 50 years, such that there are now an established clinical definition, validated methods of fracture risk assessment, and a range of effective pharmacological agents. However, it is apparent that both in the context of primary and secondary fracture prevention, there is a considerable gap between the population at high fracture risk and those actually receiving appropriate antiosteoporosis treatment. In this narrative review article, we document recent work describing the burden of disease, approaches to management, and service provision across Europe, emerging data on gaps in care, and existing/new ways in which these gaps may be addressed at the level of healthcare systems and policy. We conclude that although the field has come a long way in recent decades, there is still a long way to go, and a concerted, integrated effort is now required from all of us involved in this field to address these urgent issues to ensure the best possible outcomes for our patients.

Is it time to consider population screening for fracture risk in postmenopausal women? A position paper from the International Osteoporosis Foundation Epidemiology/Quality of Life Working Group

The IOF Epidemiology and Quality of Life Working Group has reviewed the potential role of population screening for high hip fracture risk against well-established criteria. The report concludes that such an approach should strongly be considered in many health care systems to reduce the burden of hip fractures.

INTRODUCTION

The burden of long-term osteoporosis management falls on primary care in most healthcare systems. However, a wide and stable treatment gap exists in many such settings; most of which appears to be secondary to a lack of awareness of fracture risk. Screening is a public health measure for the purpose of identifying individuals who are likely to benefit from further investigations and/or treatment to reduce the risk of a disease or its complications. The purpose of this report was to review the evidence for a potential screening programme to identify postmenopausal women at increased risk of hip fracture.

METHODS

The approach took well-established criteria for the development of a screening program, adapted by the UK National Screening Committee, and sought the opinion of 20 members of the International Osteoporosis Foundation's Working Group on Epidemiology and Quality of Life as to whether each criterion was met (yes, partial or no). For each criterion, the evidence base was then reviewed and summarized.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

The report concludes that evidence supports the proposal that screening for high fracture risk in primary care should strongly be considered for incorporation into many health care systems to reduce the burden of fractures, particularly hip fractures. The key remaining hurdles to overcome are engagement with primary care healthcare professionals, and the implementation of systems that facilitate and maintain the screening program.

Osteoporosis case ascertainment strategies in European and Asian countries: a comparative review

While many clinical guidelines recommend screening for osteoporosis for early detection and treatment, there is great diversity in the case-finding strategies globally. We sought to compare case-finding strategies, focusing on the approaches used in European and Asian countries. This article provides an overview of the current case-finding strategies in the UK, Germany (including Austria and German-speaking regions of Switzerland), China, Japan, and Korea. We conducted a review of current treatment guidelines in each country and included expert opinions from key opinion leaders. Most countries define osteoporosis among patients with a radiographically identified fracture of the hip or the vertebrae. However, for other types of fractures, or in the absence of a fracture, varying combinations of risk-factor assessment and areal bone mineral density (aBMD) assessed by dual X-ray absorptiometry are used to define osteoporosis cases. A T-score ≤ - 2.5 is accepted to identify osteoporosis in the absence of a fracture; however, not all countries accept DXA alone as the sole criteria. Additionally, the critera for requiring clinical risk factors in addition to aBMD differ across countries. In most Asian countries, aBMD scanning is only provided beyond a particular age threshold. However, all guidelines recommend fracture risk assessment in younger ages if risk factors are present. Our review identified that strategies for case-finding differ regionally, particularly among patients without a fracture. More homogenized ways of identifying osteoporosis cases are needed, in both the Eastern and the Western countries, to improve osteoporosis case-finding before a fracture occurs.Case-finding in osteoporosis is essential to initiate treatment and minimize fracture risk. We identified differences in case-finding strategies between Eastern and Western countries. In the absence of a diagnosed fracture, varying combinations of risk factors and bone density measurements are used. Standardized case-finding strategies may help improve treatment rates.

Menopausal osteoporosis: screening, prevention and treatment

Screening for osteoporosis in women can be based on age and weight, using the Osteoporosis Screening Tool for Asians and assessment for other risk factors such as early menopause, Chinese ethnicity and other secondary factors. Based on the resulting risk profile, women can be triaged to dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) scanning for definite diagnosis of osteoporosis. Treatment should be considered in women with previous fragility fractures, DEXA-diagnosed osteoporosis and high risk of fracture. Exercise improves muscle function, can help prevent falls and has moderate effects on improvements in bone mass. Women should ensure adequate calcium intake and vitamin D. Menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) effectively prevents osteoporosis and fractures, and should be encouraged in those aged < 50 years. For women aged < 60 years, MHT or tibolone can be considered, especially if they have vasomotor or genitourinary symptoms. Risedronate or bisphosphonates may then be reserved for those aged over 60 years.

The treatment gap: The missed opportunities for osteoporosis therapy

Despite substantial advances in delineation of the epidemiology, pathophysiology, risk assessment and treatment of osteoporosis over the last three decades, a substantial proportion of men and women at high risk of fracture remain untreated - the so-called "treatment gap". This review summarises the important patient-, physician- and policyrelated causes of this treatment gap, before discussing in greater detail: (a) the evidence base for the efficacy of bisphosphonates in osteoporosis; (b) recent evidence relating to the adverse effects of this widely used therapeutic class, most notably atypical femoral fracture and osteonecrosis of the jaw; (c) available strategies to improve both secondary and primary prevention pathways for the management of this disorder.

Global impact of COVID-19 on non-communicable disease management: descriptive analysis of access to FRAX fracture risk online tool for prevention of osteoporotic fractures

The COVID-19 pandemic, and its management, is markedly impacting the management of osteoporosis as judged by access to online FRAX fracture risk assessments. Globally, access was 58% lower in April than in February 2020. Strategies to improve osteoporosis care, with greater use of fracture risk assessments, offer a partial solution.

INTRODUCTION

The COVID-19 pandemic is having a significant detrimental impact on the management of chronic diseases including osteoporosis. We have quantified the global impact by examining changes in the usage of online FRAX fracture risk assessments before and after the declaration of the pandemic (11 March 2020).

METHODS

The study comprised a retrospective analysis using GoogleAnalytics data on daily sessions on the FRAX® website ( www.sheffield.ac.uk/FRAX ) from November 2019 to April 2020 (main analysis period February-April 2020), and the geographical source of that activity.

RESULTS

Over February-April 2020, the FRAX website recorded 460,495 sessions from 184 countries, with 210,656 sessions in February alone. In March and April, the number of sessions fell by 23.1% and 58.3% respectively, a pattern not observed over the same period in 2019. There were smaller reductions in Asia than elsewhere, partly related to earlier and less-marked nadirs in some countries (China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, South Korea and Vietnam). In Europe, the majority of countries (24/31, 77.4%) reduced usage by at least 50% in April. Seven countries showed smaller reductions (range - 2.85 to - 44.1%) including Poland, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Germany, Norway, Sweden and Finland. There was no significant relationship between the reduction in FRAX usage and measures of disease burden such as COVID-attributed deaths per million of the population.

CONCLUSION

This study documents a marked global impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the management of osteoporosis as reflected by FRAX online fracture risk assessments. The analysis suggests that impact may relate to the societal and healthcare measures taken to ameliorate the pandemic.

Comparison of OSTA, FRAX and BMI for Predicting Postmenopausal Osteoporosis in a Han Population in Beijing: A Cross Sectional Study

Purpose

To validate the efficacies of three screening tools including the Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool for Asians (OSTA), Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) without bone mineral density (BMD), and body mass index (BMI) for predicting postmenopausal osteoporosis (OP) and to define the ideal thresholds for avoidance of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scanning in a Han Chinese population in Beijing.

Patients and Methods

A total of 2055 community-dwelling Han Beijing postmenopausal females aged ≥45 years were enrolled in this study. All participants completed a questionnaire, and BMD was measured by DXA. OP was defined by a T-score at least -2.5 SD less than that of average young adults in different diagnostic criteria [lumbar spine, femoral neck, total hip, worst hip, WHO]. The abilities of the OSTA, FRAX, and BMI to predict OP were analyzed by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Sensitivity, specificity, and area under the ROC curves (AUC) were calculated. Ideal thresholds for identifying OP were proposed.

Results

The prevalence of OP ranged from 8.1% to 28.4% according to different diagnostic criteria. The AUC range for the OSTA (0.758-0.849) was similar to the FRAX (0.728-0.855), which revealed that both tools predicted OP reliably. The AUC range for BMI was 0.643-0.682, suggesting limited predictive value. According to WHO criteria, the AUC values for the FRAX for hip fracture risk (FRAX-HF) and for the OSTA were 0.796 and 0.798, with corresponding sensitivities of 74.79% and 69.64% and specificities of 70.45% and 75.07%, respectively. At defined thresholds, the FRAX-HF and OSTA allowed avoidance of DXA in 42.4-37.6% of participants, at a cost of missing only 7.2-8.6% of individuals with OP.

Conclusion

The OSTA and FRAX-HF may be reliable and effective tools for identifying postmenopausal OP in the Han Beijing population without BMD.

Non-Pharmacological Interventions towards Preventing the Triad Osteoporosis-Falls Risk-Hip Fracture, in Population Older than 65. Scoping Review

Osteoporosis leads to increased risk of falls, and thus an increase in fractures, highlighting here hip fractures, that result in high mortality, functional disability, and high medical expenditure. The aim is to summarise the available evidence on effective non-pharmacological interventions to prevent the triad osteoporosis/falls risk/hip fracture. A scoping review was conducted consulting the Scientific Electronic Library Online (Scielo), National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) y PubMed.databases. Inclusion criteria were articles published between 2013 and 2019, in Spanish or English. In addition, publications on a population over 65 years of age covering non-pharmacological interventions aimed at hip fracture prevention for both institutionalised patients in long-stay health centres or hospitals, and patients cared for at home, both dependent and non-dependent, were included. Sixty-six articles were selected and 13 non-pharmacological interventions were identified according to the Nursing Interventions Classification taxonomy, aimed at preventing osteoporosis, falls, and hip fracture. The figures regarding the affected population according to the studies are alarming, reflecting the importance of preventing the triad osteoporosis, falls risk, and hip fracture among the population over 65 years of age. The most effective interventions were focused on increasing Bone Mineral Density through diet, exercise, and falls prevention. As a conclusion, primary prevention should be applied to the entire adult population, with special emphasis on people with osteoporosis.

Introducing mobile fracture prevention services with DXA in Northern Scotland: a comparative study of three rural communities

Mobile fracture prevention services, with DXA, significantly improved access to care for those at high risk of fracture living in rural areas. Introduction of mobile services facilitated access to fracture liaison services and development of integrated of care pathways across community- and secondary-based care.

INTRODUCTION

The ageing population is growing faster in rural areas, yet most fracture prevention services are located in urban areas. As part of a wider study, evaluating the introduction of mobile fracture prevention services, we focus on whether mobile services improve access to care for those at highest risk of fracture.

METHODS

Services outcomes were assessed against the Royal Osteoporosis Society clinical standards for fracture liaison services. This included standardised, age-specific referral rates, FRAX 10-year probability of major osteoporotic and hip fracture of referrals, pre- and post-introduction of the mobile service across two island and one rural mainland sites. This was compared with referrals from a similar rural mainland region with local access to a comprehensive service.

RESULTS

Greatest impact occurred in areas with most limited service provision at baseline. Mean age of patients referred increased from 59 to 68 years (CI 6.8-10.1, p < 0.001). Referral rates increased from 2.8 to 5.4 per 1000 population between 2011 and 2018, with a 5-fold rise in those ≥ 75 years (0.4 to 2.0 per 1000). Mean FRAX 10-year risk of major osteoporotic fracture increased from 12.7 to 17.7% (CI 3.2-5.7, p < 0.001). Mean hip fracture risk probability increased from 3.0 to 5.7% (CI 2.0-3.4, p < 0.001). However, referral rates from the mobile sites remained lower than the comparator site.

CONCLUSIONS

Mobile fracture prevention services, including DXA, greatly improved uptake amongst high-risk individuals. Mobile services facilitated development of integrated of care pathways, including fracture liaison services, across community- and secondary-based care.

Anabolic Therapy and Optimal Treatment Sequences for Patients With Osteoporosis at High Risk for Fracture

OBJECTIVE

Provide an update regarding anabolic medications for osteoporosis, which are often considered to be the last resort for patients with osteoporosis, after multiple fractures have already occurred and other medications have already been administered.

METHODS

Literature review and discussion.

RESULTS

Recent pivotal trial data for anabolic agents and randomized trials comparing anabolic and antiresorptive medications suggest that three anabolic agents (teriparatide, abaloparatide, and romosozumab) reduce nonvertebral and vertebral fractures faster and to a greater extent than potent antiresorptive treatments. Furthermore, bone density accrual is maximized when patients are given anabolic agents first, followed by potent antiresorptive therapy. Since total hip bone density during or after osteoporosis treatment has emerged as an excellent surrogate for future fracture risk, attaining a greater hip bone mineral density is a treatment goal for high-risk osteoporosis patients.

CONCLUSION

This review defines the highest-risk patients and summarizes the rationale for the evolving role of anabolic therapy in the management of postmenopausal women at high risk for fracture.

ABBREVIATIONS

ACTIVE = Abaloparatide Comparator Trial in Vertebral Endpoints; ARCH = Active Controlled Fracture Study in Postmenopausal Women with Osteoporosis at High Risk; BMD = bone mineral density; FRAME = Fracture Study in Postmenopausal Women with Osteoporosis; FRAX = Fracture Risk Assessment Tool; PTH = parathyroid hormone; TBS = trabecular bone score.

Osteoporosis treatment considerations based upon fracture history, fracture risk assessment, vertebral fracture assessment, and bone density in Canada

Among 39,475 women, age 65 years and older, use of fracture history, major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) probability from FRAX®, vertebral fracture assessment (VFA), and bone mineral density (BMD) T-score stratified women into different levels of risk. The majority of women identified as being at high risk from fracture history, FRAX MOF-BMD > 20%, or vertebral fracture on VFA had a BMD T-score in the osteoporotic range.

PURPOSE

To inform criteria for pharmacologic treatment in women age 65 years and older, we examined subgroups defined from fracture history, MOF calculated with BMD (MOF-BMD), VFA, and BMD T-score using the population-based Manitoba BMD Program registry.

METHODS

The study population consisted of women age > 65 years was divided into mutually exclusive subgroups based upon fracture history, MOF-BMD ≥ 20%, vertebral fracture on VFA, and osteoporotic BMD T-score. Healthcare records were assessed for the presence of fracture diagnosis codes occurring after DXA assessment. For each subgroup, we estimated the proportion of individuals with BMD T-score in the osteoporotic range, predicted versus observed 10-year MOF probability, hazard ratio (HR) for MOF, and number needed to treat (NNT) for 3 years to prevent a fracture event.

RESULTS

The study population consisted of 39,475 women (median age 72 years). The majority of women (76.8%) selected as being at high risk based on fracture history, MOF-BMD > 20%, or vertebral fracture on VFA had a BMD T-score in the osteoporotic range. During a median follow-up of 8 years, 5169 (13.1%) sustained one or more incident MOF. Fracture rates and HRs generally paralleled the FRAX prediction, except in women with a positive VFA where predicted risk based upon clinical risk factors prior to VFA underestimated the observed risk. NNT differed by the risk subgroup, and showed a gradient of decreasing NNT (consistent with greater benefit) in individuals with the highest fracture risk.

CONCLUSIONS

Fracture history, fracture probability from FRAX, targeted vertebral fracture assessment (VFA), and BMD T-score can stratify older women into different levels of risk and treatment benefit. These results are expected to inform clinical practice guidelines in Canada.

New Developments in Fracture Risk Assessment for Current Osteoporosis Reports

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Identifying individuals at high fracture risk can be used to target those likely to derive the greatest benefit from treatment. This narrative review examines recent developments in using specific risk factors used to assess fracture risk, with a focus on publications in the last 3 years.

RECENT FINDINGS

There is expanding evidence for the recognition of individual clinical risk factors and clinical use of composite scores in the general population. Unfortunately, enthusiasm is dampened by three pragmatic randomized trials that raise questions about the effectiveness of widespread population screening using clinical fracture prediction tools given suboptimal participation and adherence. There have been refinements in risk assessment in special populations: men, patients with diabetes, and secondary causes of osteoporosis. New evidence supports the value of vertebral fracture assessment (VFA), high resolution peripheral quantitative CT (HR-pQCT), opportunistic screening using CT, skeletal strength assessment with finite element analysis (FEA), and trabecular bone score (TBS). The last 3 years have seen important developments in the area of fracture risk assessment, both in the research setting and translation to clinical practice. The next challenge will be incorporating these advances into routine work flows that can improve the identification of high risk individuals at the population level and meaningfully impact the ongoing crisis in osteoporosis management.

Clinically Meaningful Change for Physical Performance: Perspectives of the ICFSR Task Force

For clinical studies of sarcopenia and frailty, clinically meaningful outcome measures are needed to monitor disease progression, evaluate efficacy of interventions, and plan clinical trials. Physical performance measures including measures of gait speed and other aspects of mobility and strength have been used in many studies, although a definition of clinically meaningful change in performance has remained unclear. The International Conference on Frailty and Sarcopenia Research Task Force (ICFSR-TF), a group of academic and industry scientists investigating frailty and sarcopenia, met in Miami Beach, Florida, USA in February 2019 to explore approaches for establishing clinical meaningfulness in a manner aligned with regulatory authorities. They concluded that clinical meaningful change is contextually dependent, and that both anchor-based and distribution-based methods of quantifying physical function are informative and should be evaluated relative to patient-reported outcomes. In addition, they identified additional research needed to enable setting criteria for clinical meaningful change in trials.

Screening for high hip fracture risk does not impact on falls risk: a post hoc analysis from the SCOOP study

A reduction in hip fracture incidence following population screening might reflect the effectiveness of anti-osteoporosis therapy, behaviour change to reduce falls, or both. This post hoc analysis demonstrates that identifying high hip fracture risk by FRAX was not associated with any alteration in falls risk.

INTRODUCTION

To investigate whether effectiveness of an osteoporosis screening programme to reduce hip fractures was mediated by modification of falls risk in the screening arm.

METHODS

The SCOOP study recruited 12,483 women aged 70-85 years, individually randomised to a control (n = 6250) or screening (n = 6233) arm; in the latter, osteoporosis treatment was recommended to women at high risk of hip fracture, while the control arm received usual care. Falls were captured by self-reported questionnaire. We determined the influence of baseline risk factors on future falls, and then examined for differences in falls risk between the randomisation groups, particularly in those at high fracture risk.

RESULTS

Women sustaining one or more falls were slightly older at baseline than those remaining falls free during follow-up (mean difference 0.70 years, 95%CI 0.55-0.85, p < 0.001). A higher FRAX 10-year probability of hip fracture was associated with increased likelihood of falling, with fall risk increasing by 1-2% for every 1% increase in hip fracture probability. However, falls risk factors were well balanced between the study arms and, importantly, there was no evidence of a difference in falls occurrence. In particular, there was no evidence of interaction (p = 0.18) between baseline FRAX hip fracture probabilities and falls risk in the two arms, consistent with no impact of screening on falls in women informed to be at high risk of hip fracture.

CONCLUSION

Effectiveness of screening for high FRAX hip fracture probability to reduce hip fracture risk was not mediated by a reduction in falls.

A decade of FRAX: how has it changed the management of osteoporosis?

The fracture risk assessment tool, FRAX^®, was released in 2008 and provides country-specific algorithms for estimating individualized 10-year probability of hip and major osteoporotic fracture (hip, clinical spine, distal forearm, and proximal humerus). Since its release, 71 models have been made available for 66 countries covering more than 80% of the world population. The website receives approximately 3 million visits annually. Following independent validation, FRAX has been incorporated into more than 80 guidelines worldwide. The application of FRAX in assessment guidelines has been heterogeneous with the adoption of several different approaches in setting intervention thresholds. Whereas most guidelines adopt a case-finding strategy, the case for FRAX-based community screening in the elderly is increasing. The relationship between FRAX and efficacy of intervention has been explored and is expected to influence treatment guidelines in the future.

General and Specific Considerations as to why Osteoporosis-Related Care Is Often Suboptimal

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The assessment of fracture risk and use of antiosteoporosis medications have increased greatly over the last 20-30 years. However, despite this, osteoporosis care remains suboptimal worldwide. Even in patients who have sustained a fragility fracture, fewer than 20% actually receive appropriate antiosteoporosis therapy in the year following the fracture. There is also evidence that treatment rates have declined substantially in the last 5-10 years, in many countries. The goal of this article is to consider the causes for this decline and consider how this situation could be remedied.

RECENT FINDINGS

A number of possible reasons, including the lack of prioritisation of osteoporosis therapy in ageing populations with multimorbidity, disproportionate concerns regarding the rare side effects of anti-resorptives and adverse changes in reimbursement in the USA, have been identified as contributing factors in poor osteoporosis care. Improved secondary prevention strategies; screening measures (primary prevention) and appropriate, cost-effective guideline and treatment threshold development could support the optimisation of osteoporosis care and prevention of future fractures.

Systematic screening using FRAX® leads to increased use of, and adherence to, anti-osteoporosis medications: an analysis of the UK SCOOP trial

In the large community-based SCOOP trial, systematic fracture risk screening using FRAX^® led to greater use of AOM and greater adherence, in women at high fracture risk, compared with usual care.

INTRODUCTION

In the SCreening of Older wOmen for Prevention of fracture (SCOOP) trial, we investigated the effect of the screening intervention on subsequent long-term self-reported adherence to anti-osteoporosis medications (AOM).

METHODS

SCOOP was a primary care-based UK multicentre trial of screening for fracture risk. A total of 12,483 women (70-85 years) were randomised to either usual NHS care, or assessment using the FRAX^® tool ± dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), with medication recommended for those found to be at high risk of hip fracture. Self-reported AOM use was obtained by postal questionnaires at 6, 12, 24, 36, 48 and 60 months. Analysis was limited to those who initiated AOM during follow-up. Logistic regression was used to explore baseline determinants of adherence (good ≥ 80%; poor < 80%).

RESULTS

The mean (SD) age of participants was 75.6 (4.2) years, with 6233 randomised to screening and 6250 to the control group. Of those participants identified at high fracture risk in the screening group, 38.2% of those on treatment at 6 months were still treated at 60 months, whereas the corresponding figure for the control group was 21.6%. Older age was associated with poorer adherence (OR per year increase in age 0.96 [95% CI 0.93, 0.99], p = 0.01), whereas history of parental hip fracture was associated with greater rate adherence (OR 1.67 [95% CI 1.23, 2.26], p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Systematic fracture risk screening using FRAX^® leads to greater use of AOM and greater adherence, in women at high fracture risk, compared with usual care.

Comparison of treatment strategies and thresholds for optimizing fracture prevention in Canada: a simulation analysis

This comparison of osteoporosis treatment strategies and intervention thresholds highlights tradeoffs in terms of number of individuals qualifying for treatment and estimated fractures prevented.

PURPOSE

The current analysis was performed to inform the following key question as part of the Osteoporosis Canada's Osteoporosis Guidelines Update: "What is the best strategy to identify those at high fracture risk for pharmacotherapy in order to prevent the most fractures, considering both population and patient perspectives?"

METHODS

The study population consisted of 66,878 women age 50 years and older (mean age 66.0 ± 9.7 years) with documented fracture probability assessment (FRAX) and fracture outcomes. Fractures over the next 5 years were identified through linked administrative healthcare data. We estimated the fraction of the population that would warrant treatment and the number of fractures avoided per 1000 person-years according to multiple strategies and thresholds. Strategies were then rank ordered using 19 metrics.

RESULTS

During mean 4.4 years, 863 (3.5%) sustained one or more major osteoporotic fractures (MOF), 212 (0.8%) sustained a hip fracture, and 1210 (4.9%) sustained any incident fracture. For woman age 50-64 years, the highest ranked strategy was treatment based upon total hip T score ≤ -2.5, but several other strategies fell within 0.5 overall ranking. For women age 65 years and older, MOF > 20% was the highest ranked strategy with no closely ranked strategies. Pooling both age subgroups gave MOF > 20% as the highest ranked strategy, with several other strategies within 0.5 overall ranking.

CONCLUSIONS

Choice of treatment strategy and threshold for osteoporosis management strongly influences the number of individuals for whom pharmacologic treatment would be recommended and on estimated fracture rates in the population. This evidence-based approach to comparing these strategies will help to inform guidelines development in Canada and may be on interest elsewhere.

Population-Based Osteoporosis Primary Prevention and Screening for Quality of Care in Osteoporosis, Current Osteoporosis Reports

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Despite the high prevalence and impact of osteoporosis, screening and treatment rates remain low, with few women age 65 years and older utilizing osteoporosis screening for primary prevention.

RECENT FINDINGS

This review examines opportunities and challenges related to primary prevention and screening for osteoporosis at the population level. Strategies on how to identify individuals at high fracture risk and target them for treatment have lagged far behind other developments in the osteoporosis field. Most osteoporosis quality improvement strategies have focused on patients with recent or prior fracture (secondary prevention), with limited attention to individuals without prior fracture. For populations without prior fracture, the only quality improvement strategy for which meta-analysis demonstrated significant improvement in osteoporosis care was patient self-scheduling of DXA plus education Much more work is needed to develop and validate effective primary screening and prevention strategies and translate these into high-quality guidelines.

State of the art in osteoporosis risk assessment and treatment

BACKGROUND

Osteoporosis constitutes a major public health problem, through its association with age-related fractures, particularly of the hip, vertebrae, distal forearm, and humerus. Over recent decades, it has evolved from being viewed as an inevitable consequence of ageing, to being recognised as a serious and eminently treatable disease.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this article, we review the literature pertaining to the epidemiology of osteoporosis, associated health burden, approaches to risk assessment and treatment.

RESULTS

Although there is some evidence that fracture incidence has reached a plateau, or even started to decline, in the developed world, an ageing population and adoption of westernised lifestyles in transitioning populations is leading to an increasing burden of osteoporosis across the world. Whilst the clinical definition of osteoporosis has been based solely on bone mineral density, the prediction of fracture at the individual level has been improved by consideration of clinical risk factors in tools such as FRAX®, derived from a greater understanding of the epidemiology of osteoporosis. Such advances in approaches to primary and secondary prevention of fractures, coupled with elucidation of the underlying biology, and the development of a range of highly effective antiosteoporosis medications, have enabled a step change in our ability to prevent osteoporosis-related fractures. However, there remains a substantial disparity between the number of individuals at high fracture risk and number treated globally.

CONCLUSION

Urgent work is needed at the level of health care systems, national and international policy, and in communication with patients and public, to ensure that all patients who should receive treatment for osteoporosis actually do so.

Fracture prediction, imaging and screening in osteoporosis

Osteoporosis is associated with increased fragility of bone and a subsequent increased risk of fracture. The diagnosis of osteoporosis is intimately linked with the imaging and quantification of bone and BMD. Scanning modalities, such as dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry or quantitative CT, have been developed and honed over the past half century to provide measures of BMD and bone microarchitecture for the purposes of clinical practice and research. Combined with fracture prediction tools such as Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) (which use a combination of clinical risk factors for fracture to provide a measure of risk), these elements have led to a paradigm shift in the ability to diagnose osteoporosis and predict individuals who are at risk of fragility fracture. Despite these developments, a treatment gap exists between individuals who are at risk of osteoporotic fracture and those who are receiving therapy. In this Review, we summarize the epidemiology of osteoporosis, the history of scanning modalities, fracture prediction tools and future directions, including the most recent developments in prediction of fractures.

Cost-Effectiveness of Osteoporosis Screening Using Biomechanical Computed Tomography for Patients With a Previous Abdominal CT

Osteoporosis screening rates by DXA are low (9.5% women, 1.7% men) in the US Medicare population aged 65 years and older. Addressing this care gap, we estimated the benefits of a validated osteoporosis diagnostic test suitable for patients age 65 years and older with an abdominal computed tomography (CT) scan taken for any indication but without a recent DXA. Our analysis assessed a hypothetical cohort of 1000 such patients in a given year, and followed them for 5 years. Separately for each sex, we used Markov modeling to compare two mutually exclusive scenarios: (i) utilizing the CT scans, perform one-time "biomechanical computed tomography" (BCT) analysis to identify high-risk patients on the basis of both femoral strength and hip BMD T-scores; (ii) ignore the CT scan, and rely instead on usual care, consisting of future annual DXA screening at typical Medicare rates. For patients with findings indicative of osteoporosis, 50% underwent 2 years of treatment with alendronate. We found that BCT provided greater clinical benefit at lower cost for both sexes than usual care. In our base case, compared to usual care, BCT prevented hip fractures over a 5-year window (3.1 per 1000 women; 1.9 per 1000 men) and increased quality-adjusted life years (2.95 per 1000 women; 1.48 per 1000 men). Efficacy and savings increased further for higher-risk patient pools, greater treatment adherence, and longer treatment duration. When the sensitivity and specificity of BCT were set to those for DXA, the prevented hip fractures versus usual care remained high (2.7 per 1000 women; 1.5 per 1000 men), indicating the importance of high screening rates on clinical efficacy. Therefore, for patients with a previously taken abdominal CT and without a recent DXA, osteoporosis screening using biomechanical computed tomography may be a cost-effective alternative to current usual care. © 2019 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Temporal changes in access to FRAX® in Thailand between 2010 and 2018

The usage of FRAX® tool in Thailand and other countries was explored using Google Analytics data. Over the period 2010-2018, Thailand ranked 35th in the world for FRAX usage (the US is ranked first). Incorporation of FRAX into a national osteoporosis guideline in Thailand appears to have increased its usage.

PURPOSE

To document access to the web-based FRAX® tool and specifically its access in Thailand between 2010 and 2018.

METHODS

A descriptive retrospective study using data from Google Analytics that provides numerical and geographical information on internet access to the FRAX tool website worldwide.

RESULT

In Thailand, Bangkok is the highest ranked site for FRAX access with more than 20,000 usage sessions since 2010 (3.6 usage session per 1000 population) followed by Khon Kaen and Chiang Mai. It has been accessed from within 76 out of 77 provinces (98.7%). There was a steady increase in access to FRAX from within Thailand of approximately 1000 usage sessions per year between 2010 and 2016. After the FRAX fracture risk calculation was included in the national guideline for osteoporosis management published in late 2016, the rate of increase in access was four-fold higher compared with the previous period. In world ranking, the USA is the country with the most frequent access to the FRAX tool, whereas Thailand was ranked 35th in the world. There were weak but significant correlations between the absolute number of FRAX sessions and population size (r = 0.165, p = 0.011) and land area (r = 0.375, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Access to the FRAX tool website is increasing in Thailand. The incorporation of FRAX into national guidelines, in parallel to the adoption of osteoporosis fracture prevention into national policy, has had a rapid and significant impact on its use.

European guidance for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women

Guidance is provided in a European setting on the assessment and treatment of postmenopausal women at risk from fractures due to osteoporosis.

INTRODUCTION

The International Osteoporosis Foundation and European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis published guidance for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in 2013. This manuscript updates these in a European setting.

METHODS

Systematic reviews were updated.

RESULTS

The following areas are reviewed: the role of bone mineral density measurement for the diagnosis of osteoporosis and assessment of fracture risk; general and pharmacological management of osteoporosis; monitoring of treatment; assessment of fracture risk; case-finding strategies; investigation of patients; health economics of treatment. The update includes new information on the evaluation of bone microstructure evaluation in facture risk assessment, the role of FRAX® and Fracture Liaison Services in secondary fracture prevention, long-term effects on fracture risk of dietary intakes, and increased fracture risk on stopping drug treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

A platform is provided on which specific guidelines can be developed for national use.

A brief history of FRAX

This paper reviews the research programme that went into the development of FRAX® and its impact in the 10 years since its release in 2008.

INTRODUCTION

Osteoporosis is defined on the measurement of bone mineral density though the clinical consequence is fracture. The sensitivity of bone mineral density measurements for fracture prediction is low, leading to the development of FRAX to better calculate the likelihood of fracture and target anti-osteoporosis treatments.

METHODS

The method used in this paper is literature review.

RESULTS

FRAX, developed over an 8-year period, was launched in 2008. Since the launch of FRAX, models have been made available for 64 countries and in 31 languages covering more than 80% of the world population.

CONCLUSION

FRAX provides an advance in fracture risk assessment and a reference technology platform for future improvements in performance characteristics.

Association of Plasma Irisin with Bone Mineral Density in a Large Chinese Population Using an Extreme Sampling Design

Irisin, a myokine produced by skeletal muscle in response to physical exercise, promotes trans-differentiation of white adipose tissue into brown adipose tissue. Recent evidences suggested that irisin also plays an important role in the control of bone metabolism. This study aimed to ascertain the relationship between plasma irisin and bone mineral density (BMD) in Chinese population by adoption of an extreme sampling method. Based on a large and screened Chinese elderly population (N = 6308), two subgroups with extremely high and low hip BMD were selected for discovery (N = 80, high vs. low BMD = 44:36) and validation (N = 60, high vs. low BMD = 30:30), respectively. Plasma irisin, P1NP, and β-CTx were measured using commercially available ELISA kits. Other metabolic parameters (e.g., blood glucose, total cholesterol and triglycerides) were collected. Student's t test and Spearman correlation analyses were conducted in SPSS. Significant difference was discovered for plasma irisin between females and age-matched males (N = 80, male vs. female = 42:38, P = 0.002). The plasma irisin levels were significantly higher in high BMD subjects than in low BMD subjects, which was observed in both discovery (P = 0.012) and validation samples (P = 0.022). However, such observation was limited to males only. Further correlation analyses in males showed that plasma irisin was correlated with BMD (r = 0.362, P = 0.025) and triglyceride (r = - 0.354, P = 0.032). Plasma irisin levels were associated with hip BMD in Chinese elderly men. This study represented the first effort of investigating the relationship of plasma irisin and BMD in elderly population. The positive correlation between plasma irisin and BMD hints intrinsic communication between muscle and bone.