The Effect of a Screening and Treatment Program for the Prevention of Fractures in Older Women: A Randomized Pragmatic Trial

A novel case-finding strategy based on artificial intelligence for the systematic identification and management of individuals with osteoporosis or at varying risk of fragility fracture

An artificial intelligence-based case-finding strategy has been developed to systematically identify individuals with osteoporosis or at varying risk of fragility fracture. This strategy has the potential to close the critical care gap in osteoporosis treatment in primary care, thereby lessening the societal burden imposed by fragility fractures.

BACKGROUND

Osteoporotic fractures represent a major cause of morbidity and, in older adults, a precursor of disability, loss of independence, poor quality of life and premature death. Despite the detrimental health impact, osteoporosis remains largely underdiagnosed and undertreated worldwide. Subjects at risk for osteoporosis-related fractures are identified either via organised screening or case finding. In the absence of a population-based screening policy, subjects at high risk of fragility fractures are opportunistically identified when a fracture occurs or because of other clinical risk factors (CRFs) for osteoporotic fracture and areal bone mineral density (aBMD) measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA).

PURPOSE

This paper describes the development of a novel case-finding strategy, named Osteoporosis Diagnostic and Therapeutic Pathway (ODTP), which enables to identify subjects with osteoporosis or at varying risk of fragility fracture. This strategy is based on a specifically designed software tool, named "Bone Fragility Query" (BFQ), which analyses the electronic health record (EHR) databases of General Practitioners (GPs) to systematically identify individuals who should be prescribed DXA-BMD measurement, vertebral fracture assessment (VFA) and anti-osteoporosis medications (AOM).

CONCLUSIONS

The ODTP through BFQ tool is a feasible, convenient and time-saving osteoporosis model of care for GPs during routine clinical practice. It enables GPs to shift their focus from what to do (clinical guidelines) to how to do it in the primary health care setting. It also allows a systematic approach to primary and secondary prevention of fragility fractures, thereby overcoming clinical inertia and contributing to closing the gap between evidence and practice for the management of osteoporosis in primary care.

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.

Ten-year follow-up of fracture risk in a systematic population-based screening program: the risk-stratified osteoporosis strategy evaluation (ROSE) randomised trial

Background

Osteoporotic fractures pose a growing public health concern. Osteoporosis is underdiagnosed and undertreated, highlighting the necessity of systematic screening programs. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a two-step population-based osteoporotic screening program.

Methods

This ten-year follow-up of the Risk-stratified Osteoporosis Strategy Evaluation (ROSE) randomized trial tested the effectiveness of a screening program utilizing the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) for major osteoporotic fractures (MOF) to select women for dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scan following standard osteoporosis treatment. Women residing in the Region of Southern Denmark, aged 65-80, were randomised (single masked) into a screening or a control group by a computer program prior to inclusion and subsequently approached with a mailed questionnaire. Based on the questionnaire data, women in the screening group with a FRAX value ≥15% were invited for DXA scanning. The primary outcome was MOF derived from nationwide registers. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01388244, status: Completed.

Findings

All randomised women were included February 4, 2010-January 8, 2011, the same day as approached to participate. During follow-up, 7355 MOFs were observed. No differences in incidences of MOF were identified, comparing the 17,072 women in the screening group with the 17,157 controls in the intention-to-treat analysis (IRR 1.01, 0.95; 1.06). However, per-protocol, women DXA-scanned exhibited a 14% lower incidence of MOF (IRR 0.86, 0.78; 0.94) than controls with a FRAX value ≥15%. Similar trends were observed for hip fractures, all fractures, and mortality.

Interpretation

While the ROSE program had no overall effect on osteoporotic fracture incidence or mortality it showed a preventive effect for women at moderate to high risk who underwent DXA scans. Hence the overall effect might have been diluted by those who were not at an intervention level threshold risk or those who did not show up for DXA. Using self-administered questionnaires as screening tools may be inefficient for systematic screening due to the low and differential screening uptake.

Funding

INTERREG and the Region of Southern Denmark.

The yield of routine laboratory examination in osteoporosis evaluation in primary care

This study evaluated the yield of routine laboratory examination in a large population of older women in primary care. The prevalence of laboratory abnormalities was low and the clinical consequences in follow-up were limited. There was a weak association of laboratory abnormalities with osteoporosis but no association with vertebral fractures and recent fractures.

PURPOSE

Most osteoporosis guidelines advice routine laboratory examination. We have investigated the yield of laboratory examinations in facture risk evaluation of elderly women in primary care.

METHODS

We assessed the prevalence of laboratory abnormalities and their association with risk factors for fractures, recent fractures, low bone mineral density (BMD), and prevalent vertebral fracture in 8996 women ≥ 65 years of age participating in a primary care fracture risk screening study. In a sample of 2208 of these participants, we also evaluated the medical consequences in the medical records during a follow-up period of ≥ 1 year.

RESULTS

Vitamin D deficiency (< 30 nmol/L) was present in 13% and insufficiency (< 50 nmol/L) in 43% of the study sample. The prevalence of other laboratory abnormalities (ESR, calcium, creatinine, FT4) was 4.6% in women with risk factors for fractures, 6.1% in women with low BMD (T-score ≤  - 2.5), 6.0% after a prevalent vertebral fracture, 5.2% after a recent fracture and 2.6% in the absence of important risk factors for fractures. Laboratory abnormalities other than vitamin D were associated with low BMD (OR 1.4, 95%CI 1.1-1.8) but not with prevalent vertebral fractures nor recent fractures. Low BMD was associated with renal failure (OR 2.0, 95%CI 1.3-3.4), vitamin D insufficiency (OR 1.2, 95%CI 1.0-1.3) and deficiency (OR 1.3, 95%CI 1.1-.5). In the follow-up period, 82% of the laboratory abnormalities did not result in a new diagnosis or treatment reported in the medical records.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified a low prevalence of laboratory abnormalities in a primary care population of older women and the majority of these findings had no medical consequences.

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.

Clinical Outcomes and Cost-Effectiveness of Osteoporosis Screening With Dual-Energy X-ray Absorptiometry

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) for osteoporosis screening.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Eligible patients who had and had not undergone DXA screening were identified from among those aged 50 years or older at Kaohsiung Veterans General Hospital, Taiwan. Age, sex, screening year (index year), and Charlson comorbidity index of the DXA and non-DXA groups were matched using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) for propensity score analysis. For cost-effectiveness analysis, a societal perspective, 1-year cycle length, 20-year time horizon, and discount rate of 2% per year for both effectiveness and costs were adopted in the incremental cost-effectiveness (ICER) model.

RESULTS

The outcome analysis included 10337 patients (female:male, 63.8%:36.2%) who were screened for osteoporosis in southern Taiwan between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2021. The DXA group had significantly better outcomes than the non-DXA group in terms of fragility fractures (7.6% vs. 12.5%, P < 0.001) and mortality (0.6% vs. 4.3%, P < 0.001). The DXA screening strategy gained an ICER of US$ -2794 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) relative to the non-DXA at the willingness-to-pay threshold of US$ 33004 (Taiwan's per capita gross domestic product). The ICER after stratifying by ages of 50-59, 60-69, 70-79, and ≥ 80 years were US$ -17815, US$ -26862, US$ -28981, and US$ -34816 per QALY, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Using DXA to screen adults aged 50 years or older for osteoporosis resulted in a reduced incidence of fragility fractures, lower mortality rate, and reduced total costs. Screening for osteoporosis is a cost-saving strategy and its effectiveness increases with age. However, caution is needed when generalizing these cost-effectiveness results to all older populations because the study population consisted mainly of women.

Recommendations on screening for primary prevention of fragility fractures

BACKGROUND

Fragility fractures are a major health concern for older adults and can result in disability, admission to hospital and long-term care, and reduced quality of life. This Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (task force) guideline provides evidence-based recommendations on screening to prevent fragility fractures in community-dwelling individuals aged 40 years and older who are not currently on preventive pharmacotherapy.

METHODS

We commissioned systematic reviews on benefits and harms of screening, predictive accuracy of risk assessment tools, patient acceptability and benefits of treatment. We analyzed treatment harms via a rapid overview of reviews. We further examined patient values and preferences via focus groups and engaged stakeholders at key points throughout the project. We used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to determine the certainty of evidence for each outcome and strength of recommendations, and adhered to Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE), Guidelines International Network and Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP-2) reporting guidance.

RECOMMENDATIONS

We recommend "risk assessment-first" screening for prevention of fragility fractures in females aged 65 years and older, with initial application of the Canadian clinical Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) without bone mineral density (BMD). The FRAX result should be used to facilitate shared decision-making about the possible benefits and harms of preventive pharmacotherapy. After this discussion, if preventive pharmacotherapy is being considered, clinicians should request BMD measurement using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) of the femoral neck, and re-estimate fracture risk by adding the BMD T-score into FRAX (conditional recommendation, low-certainty evidence). We recommend against screening females aged 40-64 years and males aged 40 years and older (strong recommendation, very low-certainty evidence). These recommendations apply to community-dwelling individuals who are not currently on pharmacotherapy to prevent fragility fractures.

INTERPRETATION

Risk assessment-first screening for females aged 65 years and older facilitates shared decision-making and allows patients to consider preventive pharmacotherapy within their individual risk context (before BMD). Recommendations against screening males and younger females emphasize the importance of good clinical practice, where clinicians are alert to changes in health that may indicate the patient has experienced or is at higher risk of fragility fracture.

The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of clinical fracture-risk assessment tools in reducing future osteoporotic fractures among older adults: a structured scoping review

This scoping review described the use, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of clinical fracture-risk assessment tools to prevent future osteoporotic fractures among older adults. Results show that the screening was not superior in preventing all osteoporosis-related fractures to usual care. However, it positively influenced participants' perspectives on osteoporosis, may have reduced hip fractures, and seemed cost-effective.

PURPOSE

We aim to provide a synopsis of the evidence about the use of clinical fracture-risk assessment tools to influence health outcomes, including reducing future osteoporotic fractures and their cost-effectiveness.

METHODS

We followed the guidelines of Arksey and O'Malley and their modifications. A comprehensive search strategy was created to search CINAHL, Medline, and Embase databases until June 29, 2021, with no restrictions. We critically appraised the quality of all included studies.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies were included in the review after screening 2484 titles and 68 full-text articles. Four randomized controlled trials investigated the effectiveness of clinical fracture-risk assessment tools in reducing all fractures among older women. Using those assessment tools did not show a statistically significant reduction in osteoporotic fracture risk compared to usual care; however, additional analyses of two of these trials showed a trend toward reducing hip fractures, and the results might be clinically significant. Four studies tested the impact of screening programs on other health outcomes, and participants reported positive results. Eight simulation studies estimated the cost-effectiveness of using these tools to screen for fractures, with the majority showing significant potential savings.

CONCLUSION

According to the available evidence to date, using clinical fracture-risk assessment screening tools was not more effective than usual care in preventing all osteoporosis-related fractures. However, using those screening tools positively influenced women's perspectives on osteoporosis, may have reduced hip fracture risk, and could potentially be cost-effective. This is a relatively new research area where additional studies are needed.

Romosozumab for the treatment of postmenopausal women at high risk of fracture

INTRODUCTION

Romosozumab is a monoclonal antibody that binds to sclerostin (an inhibitor of the Wingless-related integration site (Wnt) signaling pathway). It is a new osteoanabolic drug that simultaneously increases bone formation and decreases bone resorption. It has recently been approved by the US and EU authorities in postmenopausal women with at high risk of fractures.

AREAS COVERED

The literature on romosozumab in preclinical and in phase II and III clinical studies has been reviewed about the effect on bone, bone markers, and fracture reduction and its safety.

EXPERT OPINION

Compared to antiresorptive agents, its unique mechanism of action results in a quicker and greater increase in bone mineral density, it repairs and restores trabecular and cortical bone microarchitecture, and reduces fracture risk more rapidly and more effectively than alendronate, with persisting effects for at least two years after transition to antiresorptive agents. This finding has introduced the concept that, in patients at very high risk of fractures, the optimal sequence of treatment is to start with an osteoanabolic agent, followed by a potent AR drug. Recent national and international guidelines recommend the use of romosozumab as an initial treatment in patients at very high fracture risk without a history of stroke or myocardial infarction.

Update of the fracture risk prediction tool FRAX: a systematic review of potential cohorts and analysis plan

We describe the collection of cohorts together with the analysis plan for an update of the fracture risk prediction tool FRAX with respect to current and novel risk factors. The resource comprises 2,138,428 participants with a follow-up of approximately 20 million person-years and 116,117 documented incident major osteoporotic fractures.

INTRODUCTION

The availability of the fracture risk assessment tool FRAX® has substantially enhanced the targeting of treatment to those at high risk of fracture with FRAX now incorporated into more than 100 clinical osteoporosis guidelines worldwide. The aim of this study is to determine whether the current algorithms can be further optimised with respect to current and novel risk factors.

METHODS

A computerised literature search was performed in PubMed from inception until May 17, 2019, to identify eligible cohorts for updating the FRAX coefficients. Additionally, we searched the abstracts of conference proceedings of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research, European Calcified Tissue Society and World Congress of Osteoporosis. Prospective cohort studies with data on baseline clinical risk factors and incident fractures were eligible.

RESULTS

Of the 836 records retrieved, 53 were selected for full-text assessment after screening on title and abstract. Twelve cohorts were deemed eligible and of these, 4 novel cohorts were identified. These cohorts, together with 60 previously identified cohorts, will provide the resource for constructing an updated version of FRAX comprising 2,138,428 participants with a follow-up of approximately 20 million person-years and 116,117 documented incident major osteoporotic fractures. For each known and candidate risk factor, multivariate hazard functions for hip fracture, major osteoporotic fracture and death will be tested using extended Poisson regression. Sex- and/or ethnicity-specific differences in the weights of the risk factors will be investigated. After meta-analyses of the cohort-specific beta coefficients for each risk factor, models comprising 10-year probability of hip and major osteoporotic fracture, with or without femoral neck bone mineral density, will be computed.

CONCLUSIONS

These assembled cohorts and described models will provide the framework for an updated FRAX tool enabling enhanced assessment of fracture risk (PROSPERO (CRD42021227266)).

How to implement guidelines and models of care

In subjects older than 50 years, the presence of clinical risk factors (CRFs) for fractures or a recent fracture is the cornerstone for case finding. In patients who are clinically at high short- and long-term risk of fractures (those with a recent clinical fracture or with multiple CRFs), further assessment with bone mineral density (BMD) measurement using dual-energy absorptiometry (DXA), imaging of the spine, fall risk evaluation and laboratory examination contributes to treatment decisions according to the height and modifiability of fracture risk. Treatment is available with anti-resorptive and anabolic drugs, and from the start of treatment a lifelong strategy is needed to decide about continuous, intermittent, and sequential therapy. Implementation of guidelines requires further initiatives for improving case finding, public awareness about osteoporosis and national policies on reimbursement of assessment and therapy.

Risk assessment tools for osteoporosis and fractures in 2022

Osteoporosis is one of the frequently encountered non-communicable diseases in the world today. Several hundred million people have osteoporosis, with many more at risk. The clinical feature is a fragility fracture (FF), which results in major reductions in the quality and quantity of life, coupled with a huge financial burden. In recognition of the growing importance, the World Health Organisation established a working group 30 years ago tasked with providing a comprehensive report to understand and assess the risk of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women. Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is the most widely endorsed technology for assessing the risk of fracture or diagnosing osteoporosis before a fracture occurs, but others are available. In clinical practice, important distinctions are essential to optimise the use of risk assessments. Traditional tools lack specificity and were designed for populations to identify groups at higher risk using a 'one-size-fits-all' approach. Much has changed, though the purpose of risk assessment tools remains the same. In 2022, many tools are available to aid the identification of those most at risk, either likely to have osteoporosis or suffer the clinical consequence. Modern technology, enhanced imaging, proteomics, machine learning, artificial intelligence, and big data science will greatly advance a more personalised risk assessment into the future. Clinicians today need to understand not only which tool is most effective and efficient for use in their practice, but also which tool to use for which patient and for what purpose. A greater understanding of the process of risk assessment, deciding who should be screened, and how to assess fracture risk and prognosis in older men and women more comprehensively will greatly reduce the burden of osteoporosis for patients, society, and healthcare systems worldwide. In this paper, we review the current status of risk assessment, screening and best practice for osteoporosis, summarise areas of uncertainty, and make some suggestions for future developments, including a more personalised approach for individuals.

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.

Long-term persistence of treatment after hip fracture in a fracture liaison service

Long-term adherence to antiosteoporosis medication (AOM) in the setting of a fracture liaison service (FLS) are not well known. Patients ≥ 50 with hip fracture seen in an FLS and recommended for treatment to prevent new fractures were analyzed. Baseline data included demographics, identification mode, previous treatment and FRAX items. Patient records were reviewed 3-8 years later, and these data were collected: (1) survival; (2) major refracture; (3) initiation of treatment, proportion of days covered (PDC) and persistence with AOM. 372 patients (mean age, 79 years; 76% women) were included. Mean follow-up was 47 months, 52 patients (14%) had a refracture (22 hip) and 129 (34.5%) died. AOM was started in 283 patients (76.0%). Factors associated with initiation of AOM were previous use of bisphosphonate (OR 9.94; 95% CI 1.29-76.32) and a lower T-score lumbar (OR 0.80; 95% CI 0.65-0.99). Persistence decreased to 72.6%, 60% and 47% at 12, 36 and 60 months. A PDC > 80% was confirmed in 208 patients (55.7%) and associated with previous use of bisphosphonate (OR 3.38; 95% CI 1.34-8.53), treatment with denosumab (OR 2.69; 95% CI:1.37-5.27), and inpatient identification (OR 2.26; 95% CI 1.18-4.34). Long-term persistence with AOM was optimal in patients with hip fracture seen at an FLS. A PDC > 80% was associated with inpatient identification and prescription of denosumab.

Guideline No. 422g: Menopause and Osteoporosis

OBJECTIVE

Provide strategies for improving the care of perimenopausal and postmenopausal women based on the most recent published evidence.

TARGET POPULATION

Perimenopausal and postmenopausal women.

BENEFITS, HARMS, AND COSTS

Target population will benefit from the most recent published scientific evidence provided via the information from their health care provider. No harms or costs are involved with this information since women will have the opportunity to choose among the different therapeutic options for the management of the symptoms and morbidities associated with menopause, including the option to choose no treatment.

EVIDENCE

Databases consulted were PubMed, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library for the years 2002-2020, and MeSH search terms were specific for each topic developed through the 7 chapters.

VALIDATION METHODS

The authors rated the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. See online Appendix A (Tables A1 for definitions and A2 for interpretations of strong and weak recommendations). INTENDED AUDIENCE: physicians, including gynaecologists, obstetricians, family physicians, internists, emergency medicine specialists; nurses, including registered nurses and nurse practitioners; pharmacists; medical trainees, including medical students, residents, fellows; and other providers of health care for the target population.

SUMMARY STATEMENTS

RECOMMENDATIONS.

UK clinical guideline for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis

The National Osteoporosis Guideline Group (NOGG) has revised the UK guideline for the assessment and management of osteoporosis and the prevention of fragility fractures in postmenopausal women, and men age 50 years and older. Accredited by NICE, this guideline is relevant for all healthcare professionals involved in osteoporosis management.

INTRODUCTION

The UK National Osteoporosis Guideline Group (NOGG) first produced a guideline on the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis in 2008, with updates in 2013 and 2017. This paper presents a major update of the guideline, the scope of which is to review the assessment and management of osteoporosis and the prevention of fragility fractures in postmenopausal women, and men age 50 years and older.

METHODS

Where available, systematic reviews, meta-analyses and randomised controlled trials were used to provide the evidence base. Conclusions and recommendations were systematically graded according to the strength of the available evidence.

RESULTS

Review of the evidence and recommendations are provided for the diagnosis of osteoporosis, fracture-risk assessment and intervention thresholds, management of vertebral fractures, non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatments, including duration and monitoring of anti-resorptive therapy, glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis, and models of care for fracture prevention. Recommendations are made for training; service leads and commissioners of healthcare; and for review criteria for audit and quality improvement.

CONCLUSION

The guideline, which has received accreditation from the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE), provides a comprehensive overview of the assessment and management of osteoporosis for all healthcare professionals involved in its management. This position paper has been endorsed by the International Osteoporosis Foundation and by the European Society for the Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases.

Fracture risk assessment by the FRAX model

The introduction of the FRAX algorithms has facilitated the assessment of fracture risk on the basis of fracture probability. FRAX integrates the influence of several well-validated risk factors for fracture with or without the use of bone mineral density. Since age-specific rates of fracture and death differ across the world, FRAX models are calibrated with regard to the epidemiology of hip fracture (preferably from national sources) and mortality (usually United Nations sources). Models are currently available for 73 nations or territories covering more than 80% of the world population. FRAX has been incorporated into more than 80 guidelines worldwide, although the nature of this application has been heterogeneous. The limitations of FRAX have been extensively reviewed. Arithmetic procedures have been proposed in order to address some of these limitations, which can be applied to conventional FRAX estimates to accommodate knowledge of dose exposure to glucocorticoids, concurrent data on lumbar spine bone mineral density, information on trabecular bone score, hip axis length, falls history, type 2 diabetes, immigration status and recency of prior fracture.

Osteoporosis and fractures in women: the burden of disease

Osteoporosis is a disease characterized by impaired bone microarchitecture and reduced bone mineral density (BMD) resulting in bone fragility and increased risk of fracture. In western societies, one in three women and one in five men will sustain an osteoporotic fracture in their remaining lifetime from the age of 50 years. Fragility fractures, especially of the spine and hip, commonly give rise to increased morbidity and mortality. In the five largest European countries and Sweden, fragility fractures were the cause of 2.6 million disability-adjusted life years in 2016 and the fracture-related costs increased from €29.6 billion in 2010 to €37.5 billion in 2017. In the European Union and the USA, only a small proportion of women eligible for pharmacological treatment are being prescribed osteoporosis medication. Secondary fracture prevention, using Fracture Liaison Services, can be used to increase the rates of fracture risk assessment, BMD testing and use of osteoporosis medication in order to reduce fracture numbers. Additionally, established primary prevention strategies, based on case-finding methods utilizing fracture prediction tools, such as FRAX, to identify women without fracture but with elevated risk, are recommended in order to further reduce fracture numbers.

Fully automated opportunistic screening of vertebral fractures and osteoporosis on more than 150,000 routine computed tomography scans

OBJECTIVE

Osteoporosis is underdiagnosed and undertreated, although severe complications of osteoporotic fractures, including vertebral fractures, are well known. This study sought to assess the feasibility and results of an opportunistic screening of vertebral fractures and osteoporosis in a large database of lumbar or abdominal CT scans.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Data were analyzed from CT scans obtained in 35 hospitals from patients aged 60 years and more and stored in a Picture Archiving and Communication System in Assistance-Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, from 2007 to 2013. Dedicated software analyzed the presence of at least 1 vertebral fracture (VF), and measured Hounsfield Units (HU) in lumbar vertebrae. A simulated T-score was calculated.

RESULTS

Data were analyzed from 152 268 patients (73.2 ± 9.07 years). Success rates for VF assessment and HU measurements were 82 and 87% respectively. Prevalence of VF was 24.5% and increased with age. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves for the detection of VF were 0.61 and 0.62 for mean HU of lumbar vertebrae and L1 HU, respectively. In patients without VF, HU decreased with age, similarly in males and females. The prevalence of osteoporosis (sT-score ≤ - 2.5) was 23.8% and 36.5% in patients without and with VFs respectively.

CONCLUSION

Opportunistic screening in patients 60 years and older having lumbar or abdominal CT scans is feasible at large scale to screen vertebral fractures and osteoporosis.

Evaluation of FRAX Performance Without Bone Mineral Density Calibrated for Mexico to Recognize Women at Risk of Fragility Fractures in Routine Clinical Care

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate FRAX clinical performance without bone mineral density (BMD) to approach people with fracture risk.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was carried out from July 2012 to February 2020 at outpatient clinic of rheumatology in 2 public hospitals. Postmenopausal women between 40 and 90 years of age were chosen if no previous osteoporosis treatment was received and had femoral neck BMD determination. Clinical performance of FRAX without BMD was evaluated using agreement and diagnostic test statistics.

RESULTS

Four hundred seventy-seven women with a mean age of 62.85 years were included. FRAX without BMD classified 46.03% of them at low risk, 45.82% intermediate risk, and 8.16% high risk. When BMD was included, 17.19% of them revealed high risk. Not incorporating BMD value in the risk assessed a higher percentage of error in the fracture risk classification in high-risk patients; otherwise, including BMD reclassified it as risk below treatment threshold in 20.51% of the patients. The percentage of agreement between the recommendations based on FRAX with and without BMD was 94.98%. Agreement between FRAX score with or without BMD was good to very good (κ = 0.79, Gwet = 0.93). FRAX without BMD presented a positive predictive value of 79.5% and negative predictive value of 97.7%.

CONCLUSIONS

FRAX without BMD correctly classified most women evaluated, primarily low-risk women. In order to identify accurately women at high fracture risk, it would be advisable to determine the BMD in women with moderate to high risk of FRAX without BMD.

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.

Fracture liaison service model: treatment persistence 5 years later

We analyzed the long-term persistence of treatment in a FLS. During follow-up, 15.2% of patients had a refracture and 23.8% died. At the 5-year checkup, 74% had started treatment (associated with female sex, previous use of bisphosphonate, and referral to an osteoporosis clinic). Persistence at 1 and 5 years was 70.6% and 46.5%, respectively.

INTRODUCTION

To analyze the long-term persistence of treatment in a fracture liaison service (FLS).

METHODS

Patients ≥ 50 years with a fragility fracture attended between 2012 and 2016 who were recommended for treatment to prevent new fractures were included. Baseline data included demographics, type of fracture, previous treatment, and FRAX® items. Five years later, patient records were reviewed and the following data were collected: [1] survival; [2] refracture; [3] initiation of treatment, persistence, and medication possession ratio (MPR) > 80%.

RESULTS

We included 888 patients, mean age 75 years, 83% women, and mean follow-up 56 months. During follow-up, 135 patients (15.2%) had a refracture (109 major fractures, 50 hip refractures) and 212 patients died (23.8%); at the 5-year checkup, 657 patients (74%) had started some type of treatment. Factors associated with the start of treatment were female sex (OR 2.10; 95% CI: 1.42-3.11), previous use of bisphosphonate (OR 3.91; 95% CI: 2.23-6.86), and referral to an osteoporosis clinic (OR 1.46; 95% CI: 1.02-2.07). Persistence decreased from 70.6% at 12 months to 46.5% at 60 months. An MPR > 80% was confirmed in 449 patients, 68.3% of whom were under treatment. A total of 521 and 447 patients received treatment for at least 24 and 36 months, respectively (79.3% and 68.0% of those who started treatment).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with fragility fractures attended at an FLS showed optimal long-term persistence of treatment. These data can help healthcare managers better calculate the cost-effectiveness of implementing the FLS model.

The osteoporosis treatment gap in patients at risk of fracture in European primary care: a multi-country cross-sectional observational study

This study in 8 countries across Europe found that about 75% of elderly women seen in primary care who were at high risk of osteoporosis-related fractures were not receiving appropriate medication. Lack of osteoporosis diagnosis appeared to be an important contributing factor.

INTRODUCTION

Treatment rates in osteoporosis are documented to be low. We wished to assess the osteoporosis treatment gap in women ≥ 70 years in routine primary care across Europe.

METHODS

This cross-sectional observational study in 8 European countries collected data from women 70 years or older visiting their general practitioner. The primary outcome was treatment gap: the proportion who were not receiving any osteoporosis medication among those at increased risk of fragility fracture (using history of fracture, 10-year probability of fracture above country-specific Fracture Risk Assessment Tool [FRAX] thresholds, T-score ≤ - 2.5).

RESULTS

Median 10-year probability of fracture (without bone mineral density [BMD]) for the 3798 enrolled patients was 7.2% (hip) and 16.6% (major osteoporotic). Overall, 2077 women (55%) met one or more definitions for increased risk of fragility fracture: 1200 had a prior fracture, 1814 exceeded the FRAX threshold, and 318 had a T-score ≤ - 2.5 (only 944 received a dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry [DXA] scan). In those at increased fracture risk, the median 10-year probability of hip and major osteoporotic fracture was 11.2% and 22.8%, vs 4.1% and 11.5% in those deemed not at risk. An osteoporosis diagnosis was recorded in 804 patients (21.2%); most (79.7%) of these were at increased fracture risk. The treatment gap was 74.6%, varying from 53% in Ireland to 91% in Germany. Patients with an osteoporosis diagnosis were found to have a lower treatment gap than those without a diagnosis, with an absolute reduction of 63%.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a large treatment gap in women aged ≥ 70 years at increased risk of fragility fracture in routine primary care across Europe. The gap appears to be related to a low rate of osteoporosis diagnosis.

Cost-effectiveness of Screening for Osteoporosis in Older Men With a History of Falls

Importance

Falls and osteoporosis share the potential clinical end point of fractures among older patients. To date, few fall prevention guidelines incorporate screening for osteoporosis to reduce fall-related fractures.

Objective

To assess the cost-effectiveness of screening for osteoporosis using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) followed by osteoporosis treatment in older men with a history of falls.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this economic evaluation, a Markov model was developed to simulate the incidence of major osteoporotic fractures in a hypothetical cohort of community-dwelling men aged 65 years who had fallen at least once in the past year. Data sources included literature published from January 1, 1946, to July 31, 2020. The model adopted a societal perspective, a lifetime horizon, a 1-year cycle length, and a discount rate of 3% per year for both health benefits and costs. The analysis was designed and conducted from October 1, 2019, to September 30, 2020.

Interventions

Screening with DXA followed by treatment for men diagnosed with osteoporosis compared with usual care.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), measured by cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained.

Results

Among the hypothetical cohort of men aged 65 years, the screening strategy had an ICER of $33 169/QALY gained and was preferred over usual care at the willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000/QALY gained. The number needed to screen to prevent 1 hip fracture was 1876; to prevent 1 major osteoporotic fracture, 746. The screening strategy would become more effective and less costly than usual care for men 77 years and older. The ICER for the screening strategy did not substantially change across a wide range of assumptions tested in all other deterministic sensitivity analyses. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50 000/QALY gained, screening was cost-effective in 56.0% of simulations; at $100 000/QALY gained, 90.8% of simulations; and at $200 000/QALY gained, 99.6% of simulations.

Conclusions and Relevance

These findings suggest that for older men who have fallen at least once in the past year, screening with DXA followed by treatment for those diagnosed with osteoporosis is a cost-effective use of resources. Fall history could be a useful cue to trigger assessment for osteoporosis in men.

Distribution of free 25OHD in elderly population based on LC-MS/MS

Vitamin D deficiency is a global health problem in all age groups, especially in the elderly population. Serum 25(OH)D is the biomarker to assess vitamin D nutrition status. However, the free hormone hypothesis proposes that free vitamin D might be a more reliable marker of vitamin D nutrition status. Thus, the aims of this study were to (1) evaluate the distribution of free 25OHD in elderly individuals, and (2) to assess the association between free 25OHD and total 25(OH)D, 1,25(OH)₂D, 24,25(OH)₂D, calcium (Ca), alkaline phosphatase (ALP), and phosphorus (P) in elderly population. A total of 312 healthy elderly individuals were enrolled in this study and residual serum samples were collected. Free 25OHD, total 25(OH)D, 24,25(OH)₂D, and 1,25(OH)₂D were measured using LC-MS/MS. Other biochemical analytes were measured using automatic analyzers. Our results showed that with an increase in the levels of total 25(OH)D, the levels of 25(OH)D₃, 1,25(OH)₂D, 24,25(OH)D, and free 25OHD increased, whereas the levels of 25(OH)D/24,25(OH)2D decreased. Further, we observed that the level of free 25OHD was significantly positively correlated with the total 25(OH)D (r = 0.226, P < 0.001), 25(OH)D (r = 0.221, P < 0.001), and 24,25(OH)₂D (r = 0.231, P < 0.001) but was negatively correlated with 25(OH)D/24,25(OH)₂D (r = -0.185, P < 0.01). Moreover, the total 25(OH)D, 25(OH)D₃, 24,25(OH)₂D, and 25(OH)D/24,25(OH)₂D were correlated with 1,25(OH)₂D. Furthermore, free 25OHD was positively correlated with creatinine (Cr) (r = 0.227, P <0.001). Our results showed a narrower distribution for free 25OHD than that reported by direct measurement techniques and confirmed the correlation between free 25OHD and total 25(OH)D.

A broader strategy for osteoporosis interventions

Approximately 50% of women experience at least one bone fracture postmenopause. Current screening approaches target anti-fracture interventions to women aged >60 years who satisfy clinical risk and bone mineral density criteria for osteoporosis. Intervention is only recommended in 7-25% of those women screened currently, well short of the 50% who experience fractures. Large screening trials have not shown clinically significant decreases in the total fracture numbers. By contrast, six large clinical trials of anti-resorptive therapies (for example, bisphosphonates) have demonstrated substantial decreases in the number of fractures in women not identified as being at high risk of fracture. This finding suggests that broader use of generic bisphosphonates in women selected by age or fracture risk would result in a reduction in total fracture numbers, a strategy likely to be cost-effective. The utility of the current bone density definition of osteoporosis, which neither corresponds with who suffers fractures nor defines who should be treated, requires reappraisal.

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.

The Belgian Bone Club 2020 guidelines for the management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women

PURPOSE

To provide updated evidence-based guidelines for the management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women in Belgium.

METHODS

The Belgian Bone Club (BBC) gathered a guideline developer group. Nine "Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome" (PICO) questions covering screening, diagnosis, non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatments, and monitoring were formulated. A systematic search of MEDLINE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus was performed to find network meta-analyses, meta-analyses, systematic reviews, guidelines, and recommendations from scientific societies published in the last 10 years. Manual searches were also performed. Summaries of evidence were provided, and recommendations were further validated by the BBC board members and other national scientific societies' experts.

RESULTS

Of the 3840 references in the search, 333 full texts were assessed for eligibility, and 129 met the inclusion criteria. Osteoporosis screening using clinical risk factors should be considered. Patients with a recent (<2 years) major osteoporotic fracture were considered at very high and imminent risk of future fracture. The combination of bone mineral density measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry and 10-year fracture risk was used to categorize patients as low or high risk. Patient education, the combination of weight-bearing and resistance training, and optimal calcium intake and vitamin D status were recommended. Antiresorptive and anabolic osteoporosis treatment should be considered for patients at high and very high fracture risk, respectively. Follow-up should focus on compliance, and patient-tailored monitoring should be considered.

CONCLUSION

BBC guidelines and 25 guideline recommendations bridge the gap between research and clinical practice for the screening, diagnosis, and management of osteoporosis.

Alarm Services as a Useful Tool for Diagnosis and Management of Osteoporosis in Patients with Hip Fractures: A Prospective Observational Multicenter Study

Background

Alarm services in the Order Communication System improve awareness for related physicians including orthopaedic surgeons, internal medicine doctors, and other relevent doctors. This prospective observational multicenter study was to compare the diagnostic and treatment rates of osteoporosis between an alarm service group and a no alarm service group.

Methods

From January 2017 to december 2017, The subjects included patients aged 50 years or older with hip fractures from 16 hospital-based multicenter cohorts. Among the 16 hospitals, 5 university hospitals established an alarm service for osteoporosis management (i.e., Alarm group) and 11 university hospitals did not set-up alarm services (i.e., Control group). The rate of dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) test and the initiation rate of antiosteoporosis medications between the 2 groups were compared at enrollment and at 6 months follow-up.

Results

During the study period, 1,405 patients were enrolled. The DXA examination rate and initiation rate of osteoporosis treatment between the Alarm group and the Control group were 484 patients (89.8%) vs. 642 patients (74.1%) (P<0.001) and 355 patients (65.9%) versus 294 patients (33.9%) (P<0.001), respectively. At 6 months follow-up, the rate of anti-osteoporosis management between the 2 groups decreased (57.8% vs. 29.4%).

Conclusions

This prospective multicenter study demonstrates that alarm services can improve awareness of physicians, and it resulted in a significantly higher rate of examination of DXA and initiation of anti-osteoporosis medication in the Alram group. Therefore, alarm service is a simple and effective tool to increase anti-osteoporosis management as part of the fractuure liaison service in South Korea.

The crisis of inadequate treatment in osteoporosis

The number of fractures related to osteoporosis is expected to increase dramatically in the next few decades because of an increase in the number of elderly patients at high risk of falls and fractures. Developments in the diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis might change our strategies for management of patients with osteoporosis: the imminent risk of fracture concept, the issue of how to correctly sequence treatment, the potential effectiveness of screening, and goal-directed treatment strategies. Despite advances, few patients receive appropriate treatment for osteoporosis, even after a fracture. The crisis in the treatment of osteoporosis is related to several factors, including the fears and beliefs that patients and physicians have about the adverse effects of treatments. Strategies to address this crisis pose a considerable challenge; nonetheless, prevention of fragility fractures is within our reach. To that end, careful selection of patients at high risk of fracture, selection of the best therapeutic strategy, and accurate communication about fracture risk and bone fragility must be improved.

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.

Fracture prevention by screening for high fracture risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis

This systematic review and meta-analysis showed a significant reduction of (major) osteoporotic fractures and hip fractures after screening using fracture risk assessment and bone densitometry compared with usual care. The results indicate that screening is effective for fracture risk reduction, especially hip fractures. To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of population screening for high fracture risk on fracture prevention compared with usual care. MEDLINE and Embase were searched for studies published until June 20th 2019. Randomized studies were selected that screened for high fracture risk using at least bone densitometry, screened in a general population, provided subsequent treatment with anti-osteoporosis medication, had a usual care group as comparator, and had at least one fracture-related outcome (all fractures, (major) osteoporotic fractures, or hip fractures). The primary assessment was the hazard ratio (HR) for fracture-related outcomes. All-cause mortality was a secondary outcome. Random-effects models were used to estimate pooled HRs. We identified 1186 potentially eligible articles and included three randomized studies: the ROSE study, the SCOOP study, and the SOS with a total number of N = 42,009 participants. Respectively, 11%, 15%, and 18% of the participants in the intervention group started medication. Meta-analysis showed a statistically significant and clinically relevant reduction of osteoporotic fractures (HR = 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.89-1.00), major osteoporotic fractures (HR = 0.91; 95%CI = 0.84-0.98), and hip fractures (HR = 0.80; 95%CI = 0.71-0.91), but no reduction of all fractures (HR = 0.95; 95%CI = 0.89-1.02). The pooled HR for the secondary outcome all-cause mortality was 1.04 (95% CI = 0.95-1.14). Numbers needed to screen to prevent one fracture were 247 and 272 for osteoporotic fractures and hip fractures, respectively (corresponding to 113 and 124 performed bone densitometry examinations, and 25 and 28 persons being treated). This meta-analysis showed that population screening is effective to reduce osteoporotic fractures and hip fractures. Implementation of screening in older women should be considered as serious option to prevent osteoporotic fractures, especially hip fractures.

FRAX: re-adjust or re-think

Since its development in 2008, FRAX has booked its place in the standard day to day management of osteoporosis. The FRAX tool has been appreciated for its simplicity and applicability for use in primary care, but criticised for the same reason, as it does not take into account exposure response. To address some of these limitations, relatively simple arithmetic procedures have been proposed to be applied to the conventional FRAX estimates of hip and major fracture probabilities aiming at adjustment of the probability assessment. However, as the list of these adjustments got longer, this has reflected on its implementation in the standard practice and gave FRAX a patchy look. Consequently, raises the need to re-think of the current FRAX and whether a second generation of the tool is required to address the perceived limitations of the original FRAX. This article will discuss both point of views of re-adjustment and re-thinking.