Comparison of Fracture Prediction Tools in Individuals Without and With Early Chronic Kidney Disease: A Population-Based Analysis of CARTaGENE

Ten tips on how to assess bone health in patients with chronic kidney disease

Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) experience a several-fold increased risk of fracture. Despite the high incidence and the associated excess morbidity and premature mortality, bone fragility in CKD, or CKD-associated osteoporosis, remains a blind spot in nephrology with an immense treatment gap. Defining the bone phenotype is a prerequisite for the appropriate therapy of CKD-associated osteoporosis at the patient level. In the present review, we suggest 10 practical 'tips and tricks' for the assessment of bone health in patients with CKD. We describe the clinical, biochemical, and radiological evaluation of bone health, alongside the benefits and limitations of the available diagnostics. A bone biopsy, the gold standard for diagnosing renal bone disease, is invasive and not widely available; although useful in complex cases, we do not consider it an essential component of bone assessment in patients with CKD-associated osteoporosis. Furthermore, we advocate for the deployment of multidisciplinary expert teams at local, national, and potentially international level. Finally, we address the knowledge gaps in the diagnosis, particularly early detection, appropriate "real-time" monitoring of bone health in this highly vulnerable population, and emerging diagnostic tools, currently primarily used in research, that may be on the horizon of clinical practice.

Predicting Osteoporotic Fracture in Patients With Early-Stage Diabetic Kidney Disease Using a Radiomic Model: A Longitudinal Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE

There is an urgent need for effective predictive strategies to accurately evaluate the risk of fragility fractures in elderly patients in the early stages of diabetic kidney disease (DKD).

METHODS

This longitudinal cohort study included 715 older patients in the early stages of DKD diagnosed between January 2015 and August 2019. Patients were randomly allocated to a training cohort (n = 499) and a validation cohort (n = 216). The least absolute shrinkage and selection operator method was used to select key features for dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry-based radiomic analysis. A radiomic model was constructed using Cox proportional hazards regression. The performance of the radiomic model was compared with that of traditional fracture assessment tools through a receiver operating characteristic curve, calibration curve, and decision curve analysis.

RESULTS

Over a mean follow-up period of 4.72 ± 1.60 years, 65 participants (9.09%) experienced incident fragility fractures. Seventeen features were ultimately selected to create the radiomic model. The calibration plots of this model demonstrated satisfactory agreement between the observed and predicted outcomes. Moreover, the radiomic model outperformed traditional fracture assessment tools in both the training and validation cohorts according to the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve and decision curve analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

The novel radiomic model has demonstrated a more effective prediction of fragility fracture in elderly patients in the early stages of DKDcompared to traditional fracture assessment tools.

[Diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis in patients with chronic kidney disease : Joint guidelines of the Austrian Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ÖGKM), the Austrian Society of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine (ÖGPMR) and the Austrian Society of Nephrology (ÖGN)]

DEFINITION AND EPIDEMIOLOGY

Chronic kidney disease (CKD): abnormalities of kidney structure or function, present for over 3 months. Staging of CKD is based on GFR and albuminuria (not graded). Osteoporosis: compromised bone strength (low bone mass, disturbance of microarchitecture) predisposing to fracture. By definition, osteoporosis is diagnosed if the bone mineral density T‑score is ≤ -2.5. Furthermore, osteoporosis is diagnosed if a low-trauma (inadequate trauma) fracture occurs, irrespective of the measured T‑score (not graded). The prevalence of osteoporosis, osteoporotic fractures and CKD is increasing worldwide (not graded). PATHOPHYSIOLOGY, DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT OF CHRONIC KIDNEY DISEASE-MINERAL AND BONE DISORDER (CKD-MBD): Definition of CKD-MBD: a systemic disorder of mineral and bone metabolism due to CKD manifested by either one or a combination of the following: abnormalities of calcium, phosphorus, PTH, or vitamin D metabolism; renal osteodystrophy; vascular calcification (not graded). Increased, normal or decreased bone turnover can be found in renal osteodystrophy (not graded). Depending on CKD stage, routine monitoring of calcium, phosphorus, alkaline phosphatase, PTH and 25-OH-vitamin D is recommended (2C). Recommendations for treatment of CKD-MBD: Avoid hypercalcemia (1C). In cases of hyperphosphatemia, lower phosphorus towards normal range (2C). Keep PTH within or slightly above normal range (2D). Vitamin D deficiency should be avoided and treated when diagnosed (1C).

DIAGNOSIS AND RISK STRATIFICATION OF OSTEOPOROSIS IN CKD

Densitometry (using dual X‑ray absorptiometry, DXA): low T‑score correlates with increased fracture risk across all stages of CKD (not graded). A decrease of the T‑score by 1 unit approximately doubles the risk for osteoporotic fracture (not graded). A T-score ≥ -2.5 does not exclude osteoporosis (not graded). Bone mineral density of the lumbar spine measured by DXA can be increased and therefore should not be used for the diagnosis or monitoring of osteoporosis in the presence of aortic calcification, osteophytes or vertebral fracture (not graded). FRAX can be used to aid fracture risk estimation in all stages of CKD (1C). Bone turnover markers can be measured in individual cases to monitor treatment (2D). Bone biopsy may be considered in individual cases, especially in patients with CKD G5 (eGFR < 15 ml/min/1.73 m2) or CKD 5D (dialysis).

SPECIFIC TREATMENT OF OSTEOPOROSIS IN PATIENTS WITH CKD

Hypocalcemia should be treated and serum calcium normalized before initiating osteoporosis therapy (1C). CKD G1-G2 (eGFR ≥ 60 ml/min/1.73 m2): treat osteoporosis as recommended for the general population (1A). CKD G3-G5D (eGFR < 60 ml/min/1.73 m2 to dialysis): treat CKD-MBD first before initiating osteoporosis treatment (2C). CKD G3 (eGFR 30-59 ml/min/1.73 m2) with PTH within normal limits and osteoporotic fracture and/or high fracture risk according to FRAX: treat osteoporosis as recommended for the general population (2B). CKD G4-5 (eGFR < 30 ml/min/1.73 m2) with osteoporotic fracture (secondary prevention): Individualized treatment of osteoporosis is recommended (2C). CKD G4-5 (eGFR < 30 ml/min/1.73 m2) and high fracture risk (e.g. FRAX score > 20% for a major osteoporotic fracture or > 5% for hip fracture) but without prevalent osteoporotic fracture (primary prevention): treatment of osteoporosis may be considered and initiated individually (2D). CKD G4-5D (eGFR < 30 ml/min/1.73 m2 to dialysis): Calcium should be measured 1-2 weeks after initiation of antiresorptive therapy (1C).

PHYSICAL MEDICINE AND REHABILITATION

Resistance training prioritizing major muscle groups thrice weekly (1B). Aerobic exercise training for 40 min four times per week (1B). Coordination and balance exercises thrice weekly (1B). Flexibility exercise 3-7 times per week (1B).

Bone and Chronic Kidney Disease

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) induces mineral and bone disorders (CKD-MBD) that affect calcium and phosphate metabolism. This review links pathophysiology, histologic aspects, and radiologic signs. CKD leads to bone lesions, namely renal osteodystrophy, which may combine low or high bone remodeling, impaired mineralization, and bone loss. CKD-MBD also comprises vascular calcifications, which, together with bone disease, lead to a high risk of cardiovascular events and osteoporotic fractures that increase both morbidity and mortality. Osteoporosis assessment is based on screening for classic risk factors and CKD-related factors (disease duration/severity, transplantation history, dialysis vintage). Treatment of mineral disorders may combine serum phosphate lowering drugs, natural vitamin D or its 1-α derivatives, or calcium-sensing receptor agonists. Treatment of osteoporosis is conventional in mild to moderate stages but more complex in severe CKD because evidence about the efficacy and safety of anti-osteoporosis drugs is scant.

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.

Comparison of fracture risk calculators in elderly fallers: a hospital-based cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVE

Elderly patients presenting with falls are known to carry an extremely high risk of future fragility fractures. Current osteoporosis guidelines recommend using fracture risk calculators such as FRAX, QFracture or Garvan to guide management. However, they differ considerably in their inputs and may therefore provide contrasting risk estimations in certain individuals. In this study, we compare these risk calculators in a high-risk cohort of elderly patients admitted to hospital with falls.

DESIGN

Hospital-based cross-sectional study.

SETTING

Secondary care, London, UK.

PARTICIPANTS

Data from 120 consecutive elderly patients who had falls presenting to a single hospital over 4 months were collected. 10-year major and hip fracture risks were calculated using FRAX, QFracture and Garvan. 1-year major and hip fracture risks from QFracture were assessed against prospective incidence of fracture.

RESULTS

Median 10-year major fracture risk was: FRAX 19.5%, QFracture 26.0%, Garvan 32.5%. Median 10-year hip fracture risk was: FRAX 9.6%, QFracture 21.1%, Garvan 6.5%. Correlation between FRAX and QFracture was r=0.672 for major, r=0.676 for hip fracture (both p<0.0001); FRAX and Garvan r=0.778 (p<0.0001) for major, r=0.128 (p=0.206) for hip fracture; QFracture and Garvan r=0.658 (p<0.0001) for major, r=0.318 (p<0.001) for hip fracture. QFracture 1-year predicted major and hip fracture rates were 1.8% and 1.2%, respectively, compared with actual rates of 2.1% and 0%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Although strong correlations between calculators were observed in the study cohort, there were differences of up to 13% between estimated risks. QFracture captured several elderly-specific inputs not considered by other calculators and so projected higher fracture risk than the other calculators. QFracture provided 1-year fracture risks that were comparable with the prospective observed fracture incidence in the cohort. This study has important clinical implications for the use of fracture risk calculators to guide treatment decisions, particularly in the high-risk cohort of elderly patients admitted to hospital following falls.

Secondary Osteoporosis

Osteoporosis is a global public health problem, with fractures contributing to significant morbidity and mortality. Although postmenopausal osteoporosis is most common, up to 30% of postmenopausal women, > 50% of premenopausal women, and between 50% and 80% of men have secondary osteoporosis. Exclusion of secondary causes is important, as treatment of such patients often commences by treating the underlying condition. These are varied but often neglected, ranging from endocrine to chronic inflammatory and genetic conditions. General screening is recommended for all patients with osteoporosis, with advanced investigations reserved for premenopausal women and men aged < 50 years, for older patients in whom classical risk factors for osteoporosis are absent, and for all patients with the lowest bone mass (Z-score ≤ -2). The response of secondary osteoporosis to conventional anti-osteoporosis therapy may be inadequate if the underlying condition is unrecognized and untreated. Bone densitometry, using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry, may underestimate fracture risk in some chronic diseases, including glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis, type 2 diabetes, and obesity, and may overestimate fracture risk in others (eg, Turner syndrome). FRAX and trabecular bone score may provide additional information regarding fracture risk in secondary osteoporosis, but their use is limited to adults aged ≥ 40 years and ≥ 50 years, respectively. In addition, FRAX requires adjustment in some chronic conditions, such as glucocorticoid use, type 2 diabetes, and HIV. In most conditions, evidence for antiresorptive or anabolic therapy is limited to increases in bone mass. Current osteoporosis management guidelines also neglect secondary osteoporosis and these existing evidence gaps are discussed.