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

Actualisation 2023 des lignes directrices de pratique clinique pour la prise en charge de l’ostéoporose et la prévention des fractures au Canada

Contexte:

Au Canada, plus de 2 millions de personnes vivent avec l’ostéoporose, une maladie qui accroît le risque de fracture, ce qui fait augmenter la morbidité et la mortalité, et entraîne une perte de qualité de vie et d’autonomie. La présente actualisation des lignes directrices vise à accompagner les professionnelles et professionnels de la santé au Canada dans la prestation de soins visant à optimiser la santé osseuse et à prévenir les fractures chez les femmes ménopausées et les hommes de 50 ans et plus.

Méthodes:

Le présent document fournit une actualisation des lignes directrices de pratique clinique de 2010 d’Ostéoporose Canada sur le diagnostic et la prise en charge de l’ostéoporose au pays. Nous avons utilisé l’approche GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) et effectué l’assurance de la qualité conformément aux normes de qualité et de présentation des rapports de la grille AGREE II (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation). Les médecins de premier recours et les patientes et patients partenaires ont été représentés à tous les niveaux des comités et des groupes ayant participé à l’élaboration des lignes directrices, et ont participé à toutes les étapes du processus pour garantir la pertinence des informations pour les futurs utilisateurs et utilisatrices. Le processus de gestion des intérêts concurrents a été entamé avant l’élaboration des lignes directrices et s’est poursuivi sur toute sa durée, selon les principes du Réseau international en matière de lignes directrices. Dans la formulation des recommandations, nous avons tenu compte des avantages et des risques, des valeurs et préférences de la patientèle, des ressources, de l’équité, de l’acceptabilité et de la faisabilité; la force de chacune des recommandations a été déterminée en fonction du cadre GRADE.

Recommandations:

Les 25 recommandations et les 10 énoncés de bonne pratique sont répartis en sections : activité physique, alimentation, évaluation du risque de fracture, instauration du traitement, interventions pharmacologiques, durée et séquence du traitement, et monitorage. La prise en charge de l’ostéoporose devrait se fonder sur le risque de fracture, établi au moyen d’une évaluation clinique réalisée avec un outil d’évaluation du risque de fracture validé. L’activité physique, l’alimentation et la pharmacothérapie sont des éléments essentiels à la stratégie de prévention des fractures, qui devraient être personnalisés.

Interprétation:

Les présentes lignes directrices ont pour but d’outiller les professionnelles et professionnels de la santé et la patientèle afin qu’ensemble ils puissent parler de l’importance de la santé osseuse et du risque de fracture tout au long de la vie adulte avancée. La détection et la prise en charge efficace de la fragilité osseuse peuvent contribuer à réduire les fractures et à préserver la mobilité, l’autonomie et la qualité de vie.

Clinical practice guideline for management of osteoporosis and fracture prevention in Canada: 2023 update

BACKGROUND

In Canada, more than 2 million people live with osteoporosis, a disease that increases the risk for fractures, which result in excess mortality and morbidity, decreased quality of life and loss of autonomy. This guideline update is intended to assist Canadian health care professionals in the delivery of care to optimize skeletal health and prevent fractures in postmenopausal females and in males aged 50 years and older.

METHODS

This guideline is an update of the 2010 Osteoporosis Canada clinical practice guideline on the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in Canada. We followed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework and quality assurance as per Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) quality and reporting standards. Primary care physicians and patient partners were represented at all levels of the guideline committees and groups, and participated throughout the entire process to ensure relevance to target users. The process for managing competing interests was developed before and continued throughout the guideline development, informed by the Guideline International Network principles. We considered benefits and harms, patient values and preferences, resources, equity, acceptability and feasibility when developing recommendations; the strength of each recommendation was assigned according to the GRADE framework.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The 25 recommendations and 10 good practice statements are grouped under the sections of exercise, nutrition, fracture risk assessment and treatment initiation, pharmacologic interventions, duration and sequence of therapy, and monitoring. The management of osteoporosis should be guided by the patient's risk of fracture, based on clinical assessment and using a validated fracture risk assessment tool. Exercise, nutrition and pharmacotherapy are key elements of the management strategy for fracture prevention and should be individualized.

INTERPRETATION

The aim of this guideline is to empower health care professionals and patients to have meaningful discussions on the importance of skeletal health and fracture risk throughout older adulthood. Identification and appropriate management of skeletal fragility can reduce fractures, and preserve mobility, autonomy and quality of life.

A Fracture Risk Assessment Tool for High Resolution Peripheral Quantitative Computed Tomography

Most fracture risk assessment tools use clinical risk factors combined with bone mineral density (BMD) to improve assessment of osteoporosis; however, stratifying fracture risk remains challenging. This study developed a fracture risk assessment tool that uses information about volumetric bone density and three-dimensional structure, obtained using high-resolution peripheral quantitative compute tomography (HR-pQCT), to provide an alternative approach for patient-specific assessment of fracture risk. Using an international prospective cohort of older adults (n = 6802) we developed a tool to predict osteoporotic fracture risk, called μFRAC. The model was constructed using random survival forests, and input predictors included HR-pQCT parameters summarizing BMD and microarchitecture alongside clinical risk factors (sex, age, height, weight, and prior adulthood fracture) and femoral neck areal BMD (FN aBMD). The performance of μFRAC was compared to the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) and a reference model built using FN aBMD and clinical covariates. μFRAC was predictive of osteoporotic fracture (c-index = 0.673, p < 0.001), modestly outperforming FRAX and FN aBMD models (c-index = 0.617 and 0.636, respectively). Removal of FN aBMD and all clinical risk factors, except age, from μFRAC did not significantly impact its performance when estimating 5-year and 10-year fracture risk. The performance of μFRAC improved when only major osteoporotic fractures were considered (c-index = 0.733, p < 0.001). We developed a personalized fracture risk assessment tool based on HR-pQCT that may provide an alternative approach to current clinical methods by leveraging direct measures of bone density and structure. © 2023 The Authors. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).

Evolution of bone densitometry parameters and risk of fracture in coeliac disease: a 10-year perspective

BACKGROUND

Metabolic bone disease is frequently found in patients with coeliac disease (CD). Despite its high prevalence, international guidelines are partially discordant about its management due to the lack of long-term data.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated a large dataset of prospectively collected data of CD patients assessing the variation of DXA parameters and estimated fracture risk according to the FRAX® score in a 10-year follow-up. Incident fractures are reported, and the predictive ability of the FRAX® score is verified.

RESULTS

We identified 107 patients with low bone density (BMD) at the diagnosis of CD and a 10-year follow-up. After improving at the first follow-up, T-scores slowly reduced over time but with no clinically relevant differences between the first and last examination (lumbar spine: from - 2.07 to - 2.07, p = 1.000; femoral neck: from - 1.37 to - 1.55, p = 0.006). Patients with osteoporosis at the index measurement had more marked fluctuations than those with osteopenia; the latter group also showed minimal modifications of the FRAX® score over time. Six incident major fragility fractures occurred, with a good predictive ability of the FRAX® (AUC 0.826).

CONCLUSION

Adult CD patients with osteopenia and no risk factors had substantially stable DXA parameters and fracture risk during a 10-year follow-up. A dilated interval between follow-up DXA for these patients could be considered to reduce diagnosis-related time and costs, maintaining a 2-year interval for patients with osteoporosis or risk factors.

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.

Race/ethnic differences in the prevalence of osteoporosis, falls and fractures: a cross-sectional analysis of the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging

Most of the published epidemiology on osteoporosis is derived from White populations; still many countries have increasing ethno-culturally diverse populations, leading to gaps in the development of population-specific effective fracture prevention strategies. We describe differences in prevalent fracture and bone mineral density patterns in Canadians of different racial/ethnic backgrounds.

INTRODUCTION

We described prevalent fracture and bone mineral density (BMD) patterns in Canadians by their racial/ethnic backgrounds.

METHODS

For this cross-sectional analysis, we used the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging baseline data (2011-2015) of 22,091 randomly selected participants of Black, East Asian, South or Southeast Asian (SSEA) and White race/ethnic backgrounds, aged 45-85 years with available information on the presence or absence of self-reported prevalent low trauma fractures and femoral neck BMD (FNBMD) measurement. Logistic and linear regression models examined associations of race/ethnic background with fracture and FNBMD, respectively. Covariates included sex, age, height, body mass index (BMI), grip strength and physical performance score.

RESULTS

We identified 11,166 women and 10,925 men. Self-reported race/ethnic backgrounds were: 139 Black, 205 East Asian, 269 SSEA and 21,478 White. White participants were older (mean 62.5 years) than the other groups (60.5 years) and had a higher BMI (28.0 kg/m²) than both Asian groups, but lower than the Black group. The population-weighted prevalence of falls was 10.0%, and that of low trauma fracture was 12.0% ranging from 3.3% (Black) to 12.3% (White), with Black and SSEA Canadians having lower adjusted odds ratios (aOR) of low trauma fractures than White Canadians (Black, aOR = 0.3 [95% confidence interval: 0.1-0.7]; SSEA, aOR = 0.5 [0.3-0.8]). The mean (SD) FNBMD varied between groups: Black, 0.907 g/cm² (0.154); East Asian, 0.748 g/cm² (0.119); SSEA, 0.769 g/cm² (0.134); and White, 0.773 g/cm² (0.128). Adjusted linear regressions suggested that Black and both Asian groups had higher FNBMD compared to White.

CONCLUSION

Our results support the importance of characterizing bone health predictors in Canadians of different race/ethnic backgrounds to tailor the development of population-specific fracture prevention strategies.

Fracture risk in Asian-Canadian women is significantly over-estimated by the Canadian Association of Radiologists-Osteoporosis Canada risk prediction tool: retrospective cohort study

Fracture risk calculators may not be accurate for all ethnicity groups. The Manitoba bone density registry was used to test the Canadian CAROC tool for predicting fracture risk in Asian-Canadian women. The tool significantly over-estimated fracture risk, suggesting that it may not be ideal for Asian-Canadian patients.

PURPOSE

Health risk prediction tools based on largely White populations may lead to treatment inequity when applied to non-White populations where outcome rates differ. We examined the calibration of the Canadian Association of Radiologists-Osteoporosis Canada (CAROC) fracture risk prediction tool in self-identified Asian-Canadian women.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study of women over age 50 using the Manitoba BMD Registry. At first BMD, the intake questionnaire collected self-identification of ethnicity and fracture risk factors. 10-year fracture risk was estimated using CAROC and categorized into low, medium, or high fracture risk. Linked administrative databases identified incident osteoporotic fractures. Observed fracture rates were compared between White and Asian-Canadians and compared to the original CAROC risk stratification.

RESULTS

There were 63,632 and 1703 women who self-identified as White-Canadian or Asian-Canadian, respectively, covering approximately 600,000 patient-years follow-up. There were 6588 incident fractures; a similar percentage of patients were assigned to each risk stratum at baseline by CAROC. A progressive rise in 10-year observed fracture rates occurred for each CAROC stratum in the White-Canadian population but much lower fracture rates than predicted in Asian-Canadian patients (p &lt; 0.001). Fracture incidence rate ratios were 1.9-2.6 fold higher in White- vs Asian-Canadian patients for all strata (p &lt; 0.001). In the CAROC moderate and high-risk categories, observed fracture rates in Asian-Canadian patients were typically lower than predicted, indicating poor model calibration.

CONCLUSION

In Asian-Canadian women, observed osteoporosis fracture rates are lower than predicted when using the CAROC tool. Over-estimation of fracture risk may influence shared decision-making discussions.

Prediction of imminent fracture risk in Canadian women and men aged 45 years or older: external validation of the Fracture Risk Evaluation Model (FREM)

The Fracture Risk Evaluation Model (FREM) identifies individuals at high imminent risk of major osteoporotic fractures. We validated FREM on 74,828 individuals from Manitoba, Canada, and found significant fracture risk stratification for all FREM scores. FREM performed better than age alone but not as well as FRAX® with BMD.

INTRODUCTION

The FREM is a tool developed from Danish public health registers (hospital diagnoses) to identify individuals over age 45 years at high imminent risk of major osteoporotic fractures (MOF) and hip fracture (HF). In this study, our aim was to examine the ability of FREM to identify individuals at high imminent fracture risk in women and men from Manitoba, Canada.

METHODS

We used the population-based Manitoba Bone Mineral Density (BMD) Program registry, and identified women and men aged 45 years or older undergoing baseline BMD assessment with 2 years of follow-up data. From linked population-based data sources, we constructed FREM scores using up to 10 years of prior healthcare information.

RESULTS

The study population comprised 74,828 subjects, and during the 2 years of observation, 1612 incident MOF and 299 incident HF occurred. We found significant fracture risk stratification for all FREM scores, with AUC estimates of 0.63-0.66 for MOF for both sexes and 0.84 for women and 0.65-0.67 for men for HF. FREM performed better than age alone but not as well as FRAX® with BMD. The inclusion of physician claims data gave slightly better performance than hospitalization data alone. Overall calibration for 1-year MOF prediction was reasonable, but HF prediction was overestimated.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the FREM algorithm shows significant fracture risk stratification when applied to an independent clinical population from Manitoba, Canada. Overall calibration for MOF prediction was good, but hip fracture risk was systematically overestimated indicating the need for recalibration.

Management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women: the 2021 position statement of The North American Menopause Society

OBJECTIVE

To review evidence regarding osteoporosis screening, prevention, diagnosis, and management in the past decade and update the position statement published by The North American Menopause Society (NAMS) in 2010 regarding the management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women as new therapies and paradigms have become available.

DESIGN

NAMS enlisted a panel of clinician experts in the field of metabolic bone diseases and/or women's health to review and update the 2010 NAMS position statement and recommendations on the basis of new evidence and clinical judgement. The panel's recommendations were reviewed and approved by the NAMS Board of Trustees.

RESULTS

Osteoporosis, especially prevalent in older postmenopausal women, increases the risk of fractures that can be associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Postmenopausal bone loss, related to estrogen deficiency, is the primary contributor to osteoporosis. Other important risk factors for postmenopausal osteoporosis include advanced age, genetics, smoking, thinness, and many diseases and drugs that impair bone health. An evaluation of these risk factors to identify candidates for osteoporosis screening and recommending nonpharmacologic measures such as good nutrition (especially adequate intake of protein, calcium, and vitamin D), regular physical activity, and avoiding smoking and excessive alcohol consumption are appropriate for all postmenopausal women. For women at high risk for osteoporosis, especially perimenopausal women with low bone density and other risk factors, estrogen or other therapies are available to prevent bone loss. For women with osteoporosis and/or other risk factors for fracture, including advanced age and previous fractures, the primary goal of therapy is to prevent new fractures. This is accomplished by combining nonpharmacologic measures, drugs to increase bone density and to improve bone strength, and strategies to reduce fall risk. If pharmacologic therapy is indicated, government-approved options include estrogen agonists/antagonists, bisphosphonates, RANK ligand inhibitors, parathyroid hormone-receptor agonists, and inhibitors of sclerostin.

CONCLUSIONS

Osteoporosis is a common disorder in postmenopausal women. Management of skeletal health in postmenopausal women involves assessing risk factors for fracture, reducing modifiable risk factors through dietary and lifestyle changes, and the use of pharmacologic therapy for patients at significant risk of osteoporosis or fracture. For women with osteoporosis, lifelong management is necessary. Treatment decisions occur continuously over the lifespan of a postmenopausal woman. Decisions must be individualized and should include the patient in the process of shared decision-making.

Strategies for the implementation of an electronic fracture risk assessment tool in long term care: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Older adults in long-term care (LTC) homes experience high rates of fractures, which are detrimental to their quality of life. The purpose of this study is to identify and make recommendations on strategies to implementing an evidence-based Fracture Risk Clinical Assessment Protocol (CAP) in LTC.

METHODS

Following the Behaviour Change Wheel framework, we conducted six focus group interviews with a total of 32 LTC stakeholders (e.g. LTC physicians) to identify barriers and facilitators, suggest implementation strategies, and discuss whether the identified strategies were affordable, practicable, effective, acceptable, safe, and if they promote equity (APEASE). The interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using thematic content analysis.

RESULTS

Themes of implementation strategies that met the APEASE criteria were minimizing any increase in workload, training on CAP usage, education for residents and families, and persuasion through stories. Other strategy themes identified were culture change, resident-centred care, physical restructuring, software features, modeling in training, education for staff, social rewards, material rewards, public benchmarking, and regulations.

CONCLUSIONS

To implement the Fracture Risk CAP in LTC, we recommend using implementation strategies centred around minimizing any increase in workload, training on CAP usage, providing education for residents and families, and persuading through stories. Through improving implementation of the fracture risk CAP, results from this work will improve identification and management of LTC residents at high fracture risk and could inform the implementation of guidelines for other conditions in LTC homes.

Evaluation of care delivery by a novel multidisciplinary bone health clinic for patients at risk of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis

Glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIOP) is a common condition associated with increased risk for fracture. Many patients receive suboptimal care. We created a novel GIOP clinic model which successfully fills a gap in osteoporosis care by providing multidisciplinary intervention in key components of GIOP preventive care to an underserved patient population.

INTRODUCTION

This study characterizes the patient population referred to our novel glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIOP) clinic and evaluates how well the clinic performed in addressing key components of GIOP preventive care.

METHODS

This population-based prospective cohort study derives data from patients reviewed at the University of Alberta Multidisciplinary Bone Health Clinic from January 2017 to September 2019. To create our clinic model, key components of GIOP preventive care were summarized based on current guidelines, and clear responsibilities were delegated to each multidisciplinary team member. A REDCap database was constructed, and each patient's multidisciplinary assessment was entered at each visit. Demographic and treatment data was extracted from our database.

RESULTS

The clinic was able to achieve optimal GIOP preventive care in 60.1% of patients and in 78.7% of patients when excluding wait time. Of the 245 GIOP patients assessed, over half were females (56.7%) and the mean age was 56.7 years (range 16-95 years). Referrals were primarily made by specialists. Low-trauma fractures were reported in 24.9% of patients and 95.5% of patients had a baseline dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). The mean current daily prednisone-equivalent dose was 14.1 mg. All patients received a recommendation for pharmacotherapy (100%) and the majority received counseling on vitamin D (98.8%), calcium (97.8%), smoking cessation (98.8%), alcohol reduction (98.4%), falls prevention (88.6%), and exercise (85.3%).

CONCLUSION

Our novel GIOP clinic model successfully fills a gap in osteoporosis care by providing multidisciplinary intervention in key components of GIOP preventive care to an underserved patient population. Further studies are required to assess the real-world long-term outcomes of our model.

Simulated effects of early menopausal bone mineral density preservation on long-term fracture risk: a feasibility study

Prevention of early menopausal bone loss may reduce the future burden of osteoporosis. In this modelling exercise, an osteoporosis prevention strategy involving 5-year infusions of zoledronic acid, beginning early in menopause, reduced long-term fracture risk and the proportion of aging women with femoral neck densitometric osteoporosis. This strategy warrants further evaluation.

INTRODUCTION

Preventing early menopausal bone loss may substantially reduce the future burden of osteoporosis. We modelled the effects of infrequent zoledronic acid infusions on long-term fracture risk.

METHODS

Data from the Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study (CaMos) were used to determine the expected natural history of femoral neck areal bone mineral density (BMD) and fracture risk (using FRAX®) from ages 50-80 for women with no antiresorptive drug exposures. We modelled the effects of three infusions of zoledronic acid (at ages 50, 55, 60) on long-term fracture risk, assuming this intervention would preserve BMD until age 65 years, followed by losses mirroring early menopausal BMD loss.

RESULTS

At age 65, untreated women and zoledronic acid recipients had expected mean (SD) femoral neck T-scores of - 1.5(1.0) and - 0.8(1.0), 10-year major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) risks of 9.8%(5.0) and 8.0%(3.7) and hip fracture risks of 1.7%(2.4) and 0.8%(1.2), respectively. At age 80, untreated women and zoledronic acid recipients had expected femoral neck T-scores of - 1.9(0.9) and - 1.4(0.9), MOF risks of 17.9%(8.2) and 14.9%(6.4) and hip fracture risks of 6.3%(6.2) and 4.4%(4.5), respectively. The expected proportion of women with femoral neck T-score ≤ - 2.5 was 14.9% for untreated women and 3.8% for zoledronic acid recipients at age 65, increasing to 28.1% and 12.0%, respectively, at age 80. Numbers-needed-to-treat to prevent one case of densitometric osteoporosis were 9 at age 65 and 5 at age 80.

CONCLUSION

Infrequent infusions of zoledronic acid, initiated early in menopause, are expected to reduce long-term fracture risk and result in a substantial reduction in the proportion of women with densitometric osteoporosis after age 65.

Canadian Urological Association guideline on androgen deprivation therapy: Adverse events and management strategies

NA

Comparison of 2 fracture risk estimation processes in Alberta: a cross-sectional chart review

BACKGROUND

In Canada, decisions regarding osteoporosis pharmacotherapy are based on estimated 10-year risk of osteoporotic fracture. We aimed to determine how frequently 2 common approaches (Canadian Association of Radiologists and Osteoporosis Canada [CAROC] tool and Fracture Risk Assessment Tool [FRAX]) produced different estimates and to seek possible explanations for differences.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional chart review at a tertiary osteoporosis centre (Dr. David Hanley Osteoporosis Centre in Calgary). Included patients were women referred for consideration of osteoporosis pharmacotherapy who attended a consultation between 2016 and 2019 and whose charts contained 10-year osteoporotic fracture risk estimates using both the CAROC tool (based on bone mineral density [BMD] results) and FRAX (based on BMD results and clinically assessed fracture risk factors). Risk estimates provided on BMD reports (calculated with CAROC) and generated through osteoporosis clinic consultation (calculated with FRAX, including BMD) were categorized as low (< 10.0%), moderate (10.0%-19.9%) or high (≥ 20.0%). Estimates were considered discordant when they placed the patient in different risk categories.

RESULTS

Of 190 patients evaluated, 99 (52.1%) had discordant risk estimates. Although a similar proportion were considered high risk by BMD reports using the CAROC tool (17.9%) and clinic charts using FRAX (19.5%), the 2 methods identified different patients as being high risk. Around the crucial high-risk (20.0%) treatment threshold, discordance was present in 37 patients (19.5%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 14.5%-25.7%); discordance around the moderate-risk (10.0%) threshold was present in 69 (36.3%, 95% CI 29.5%-43.2%) patients. Disagreement regarding fracture history between BMD reports and clinic charts was observed in 19.8% of patients.

INTERPRETATION

Fracture risk estimates on BMD reports (using the CAROC tool) and those calculated in the clinical setting (using FRAX) frequently result in different risk classification. Osteoporosis treatment decisions may differ in up to half of patients depending on which estimate is used, highlighting the need for a consistent and accurate assessment process for fracture risk.

Duration of Bisphosphonate Drug Holidays in Osteoporosis Patients: A Narrative Review of the Evidence and Considerations for Decision-Making

Bisphosphonates are first-line therapy for osteoporosis, with alendronate, risedronate, and zoledronate as the main treatments used globally. After one year of therapy, bisphosphonates are retained in bone for extended periods with extended anti-fracture effects after discontinuation. Due to this continued fracture protection and the potential for rare adverse events associated with long-term use (atypical femoral fractures and osteonecrosis of the jaw), a drug holiday of two to three years is recommended for most patients after long-term bisphosphonate therapy. The recommendation for a drug holiday up to three years is derived primarily from extensions of pivotal trials with alendronate and zoledronate and select surrogate marker studies. However, certain factors may modify the duration of bisphosphonate effects on a drug holiday and warrant consideration when determining an appropriate time off-therapy. In this narrative review, we recall what is currently known about drug holidays and discuss what we believe to be the primary considerations and areas for future research regarding drug holiday duration: total bisphosphonate exposure, type of bisphosphonate used, bone mineral density and falls risk, and patient sex and body weight.

Core principles for fracture prevention: North American Consensus from the National Osteoporosis Foundation, Osteoporosis Canada, and Academia Nacional de Medicina de Mexico

Core principles for fracture prevention address fundamental concepts for the evaluation and management of patients at risk for fracture. These are intended to form the foundation of clinical practice guidelines and represent a first step toward guideline harmonization.

INTRODUCTION

The large number of clinical practice guidelines for osteoporosis and discordance of recommendations has led to confusion among clinicians and patients, and likely contributes to the large osteoporosis treatment gap. We propose that stakeholder organizations reach agreement on fundamental principles in the management of osteoporosis and prevention of fracture as a first step toward a goal of guideline harmonization.

METHODS

The best available evidence, as interpreted by an ad hoc working group of expert representatives from major osteoporosis societies in North America, was considered in the development of core principles for skeletal healthcare. These principles were subsequently endorsed by the USA National Osteoporosis Foundation, Osteoporosis Canada, and Academia Nacional de Medicina de Mexico (National Academy of Medicine of Mexico).

RESULTS

Core principles are summarized here in bullet format. Categories include evaluation, lifestyle and nutrition, pharmacological therapy, and monitoring. A pathway forward to achieve guideline harmonization, at least in part, is proposed.

CONCLUSION

Greater concordance of recommendations for the care of patients at risk for fracture are expected to lead to improved patient care across jurisdictions, with a narrowing of the osteoporosis treatment gap and reduced burden of fractures.

Comparison of screening tools for optimizing fracture prevention in Canada

The best screening strategy to identify treatment qualification based upon indicators of high fracture risk (low-trauma fractures of the hip, spine, or multiple fracture episodes at other sites; high fracture probability with the Canadian fracture risk assessment [FRAX®] tool major osteoporotic fracture [MOF] computed with bone mineral density [BMD] > 20%; or vertebral fracture on vertebral fracture assessment [VFA]) was FRAX-MOF without BMD using a cutoff of ≥ 10%.

PURPOSE

To inform clinical practice guidelines in Canada, we compared multiple screening tools using the population-based Manitoba BMD Program registry.

METHODS

The study populations consisted of (a) 28,906 individuals > 50 years or older, and (b) 15,429 women age > 65 years undergoing baseline BMD assessment (2010-2018). We considered two treatment qualifications: Treatment Approach 1: prior high-risk fracture, high fracture probability (FRAX-MOF with BMD > 20%), or vertebral fracture on VFA; Treatment Approach 2: Approach 1 or an osteoporotic BMD T score. Candidate screening tools were FRAX-MOF without BMD, age alone, weight alone, SCORE, ORAI, SOFSURF, OSIRIS, ABONE, and OST. Healthcare records were assessed for the presence of incident fracture diagnoses.

RESULTS

Among all individuals, FRAX-MOF without BMD demonstrated the best ability to identify those satisfying Treatment Approach 1 (area under the curve [AUC 0.863]) and was significantly better than all other screening tools (P < 0.001). For identification of individuals satisfying Treatment Approach 2, FRAX-MOF without BMD showed moderate stratification (AUC 0.735), slightly lower than OSIRIS (AUC 0.752, P < 0.05), similar to SCORE (AUC 0.739, P > 0.05) and significantly better than all other screening tools (P < 0.05). For prediction of incident MOF, FRAX-MOF without BMD achieved the highest performance (AUC 0.652), and was significantly better than all other screening tools except OSIRIS. AUCs among women age > 65 years tended to be greater with a similar ranking, and no tool outperformed FRAX-MOF without BMD. Based upon a summary score, the highest ranked strategy was FRAX-MOF without BMD using a cutoff of 10%.

CONCLUSIONS

All screening tools show some ability to identify individuals qualifying for treatment and stratify risk for incident fracture. For treatment based upon indicators of high fracture risk, the best performing strategy was FRAX-MOF without BMD using a cutoff of ≥ 10%.

Deep Learning With Electronic Health Records for Short-Term Fracture Risk Identification: Crystal Bone Algorithm Development and Validation

Background

Fractures as a result of osteoporosis and low bone mass are common and give rise to significant clinical, personal, and economic burden. Even after a fracture occurs, high fracture risk remains widely underdiagnosed and undertreated. Common fracture risk assessment tools utilize a subset of clinical risk factors for prediction, and often require manual data entry. Furthermore, these tools predict risk over the long term and do not explicitly provide short-term risk estimates necessary to identify patients likely to experience a fracture in the next 1-2 years.

Objective

The goal of this study was to develop and evaluate an algorithm for the identification of patients at risk of fracture in a subsequent 1- to 2-year period. In order to address the aforementioned limitations of current prediction tools, this approach focused on a short-term timeframe, automated data entry, and the use of longitudinal data to inform the predictions.

Methods

Using retrospective electronic health record data from over 1,000,000 patients, we developed Crystal Bone, an algorithm that applies machine learning techniques from natural language processing to the temporal nature of patient histories to generate short-term fracture risk predictions. Similar to how language models predict the next word in a given sentence or the topic of a document, Crystal Bone predicts whether a patient’s future trajectory might contain a fracture event, or whether the signature of the patient’s journey is similar to that of a typical future fracture patient. A holdout set with 192,590 patients was used to validate accuracy. Experimental baseline models and human-level performance were used for comparison.

Results

The model accurately predicted 1- to 2-year fracture risk for patients aged over 50 years (area under the receiver operating characteristics curve [AUROC] 0.81). These algorithms outperformed the experimental baselines (AUROC 0.67) and showed meaningful improvements when compared to retrospective approximation of human-level performance by correctly identifying 9649 of 13,765 (70%) at-risk patients who did not receive any preventative bone-health-related medical interventions from their physicians.

Conclusions

These findings indicate that it is possible to use a patient’s unique medical history as it changes over time to predict the risk of short-term fracture. Validating and applying such a tool within the health care system could enable automated and widespread prediction of this risk and may help with identification of patients at very high risk of fracture.

Change in Quantitative Ultrasound-assessed Speed of Sound as a Function of Age in Women and Men and Association With the Use of Antiresorptive Agents: The Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study

INTRODUCTION

Five-year changes in multisite quantitative ultrasound-assessed speed of sound (SOS in m/s) were studied in a cohort of women and men. The impacts of antiresorptive therapies and menopausal status on SOS were also assessed.

METHODOLOGY

Two SOS assessments, clinical assessments, and comprehensive questionnaires were completed 5 years apart on 509 women and 211 men. Age at first assessment was grouped into: <40 yr, 40-49 yr, 50-59 yr, 60-69 yr, 70-79 yr and 80+ yr. Mean rate of change in SOS at the distal radius and tibia were calculated for each age grouping by sex. SOS changes were stratified by antiresorptive use (yes, no) or menopausal status (premenopausal, postmenopausal, or bilateral oophorectomy).

RESULTS

Mean losses in SOS occurred over the 5 years in almost all age groupings. In women, mean losses in SOS for the <40 yr, 40-49 yr, 50-59 yr, 60-69 yr, 70-79 yr, and 80+ yr age groupings were -59, -83, -107, -92, -80 and -66 (p = 0.30; differences among age groupings) at the radius and -18, -16, -54, -1, -9 and 31 at the tibia (p < 0.05), respectively. In men, mean SOS losses were -101, -56, -69, -67, -83 and -127 at the radius (p = 0.61) and -46, -61, 0, -35, -29, and -26 at the tibia (p = 0.23). At the tibia, women prescribed antiresorptives had a mean increase in SOS (8.6 m/s) whereas untreated participants had a mean loss (-23.0; p < 0.001); there was no significant impact at the distal radius. There were no significant differences in change in SOS among menopausal groups (p > 0.26).

CONCLUSIONS

Mean SOS generally declined over 5 years in all age groupings of both sexes. The consistent mean losses in SOS over the age spans investigated are coincident with increasing fracture risk. Women on antiresorptive therapy had increased mean SOS over the 5-year assessment period at the tibia, whereas untreated women had mean losses in SOS.

Differences in fracture prevalence and in bone mineral density between Chinese and White Canadians: the Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study (CaMos)

Fracture determinants differ between Canadians of Chinese and White descent, the former constituting the second largest visible minority group in Canada. The results of this study support the importance of characterizing bone health predictors in Canadians of different ethnicity to improve population-specific fracture prevention and treatment strategies.

PURPOSE

We aimed to compare clinical risk factors, bone mineral density, prevalence of osteoporosis, and fractures between Chinese and White Canadians to identify ethnicity-specific risks.

METHODS

We studied 236 Chinese and 8945 White Canadians aged 25+ years from the Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study (CaMos). The prevalence of osteoporosis using ethnicity-specific peak bone mass (PBM), and of prior and incident low trauma fractures were assessed and compared between groups. Linear regressions, adjusting for age and anthropometric measures, were used to examine the association between baseline and 5-year changes in BMD and ethnicity.

RESULTS

Chinese participants had shorter stature, lower BMI, and lower rate of falls than White participants. Adjusted models showed no significant differences in baseline BMD between ethnic groups except in younger men where total hip BMD was 0.059 g/cm² (0.009; 0.108) lower in Chinese. Adjusted 5-year BMD change at lumbar spine was higher in older Chinese women and men compared with Whites. When using Chinese-specific PBM, the prevalence of osteoporosis in Chinese women was 2-fold lower than when using that of White women The prevalence of fractures was higher in White women compared with Chinese with differences up to 14.5% (95% CI 9.2; 19.7) and 10.5% (95% CI 4.5-16.4) in older White men. Incident fractures were rare in young Chinese compared with White participants and not different in the older groups.

CONCLUSION

Our results support the importance of characterizing bone strength predictors in Chinese Canadians and the development of ethnicity-specific fracture prediction and prevention strategies.

Controversies Surrounding the BMD Reporting Standard for the Determination of 10-Year Absolute Fracture Risk: A Canadian Perspective

The Canadian Association of Radiologists and Osteoporosis Canada currently endorse a fracture risk prediction tool called CAROC. It has been used in Canada since 2005 with an update in 2010. It is an integral part of bone mineral densitometry reporting across the country. New osteoporosis guidelines from Osteoporosis Canada (OC) are expected in the near future. There has been pressure on radiologists to report fracture risk using an alternative fracture risk prediction platform called FRAX. In addition, OC collaborated in the development of the Canadian FRAX model and has been copromoting both FRAX and CAROC, raising the prospect that new guidelines may seek to replace CAROC with FRAX for fracture risk determination. A number of concerns have been raised about FRAX, including: (1) FRAX has not released its algorithms to the public domain with the consequence that it is impossible to verify results for an individual patient; (2) FRAX has incorrectly claimed that it was developed by the World Health Organization (WHO) and has used this affiliation to promote itself until recently ordered by the WHO to desist; (3) FRAX requires collection of additional clinical information beyond that needed for CAROC, and this patient-reported medical data is prone to substantial error; and (4) despite claims to the contrary, there are no valid studies comparing FRAX to CAROC. We believe it is important that radiologists be aware of these issues in order to provide input into future Technical Standards for Bone Mineral Densitometry Reporting of the Canadian Association of Radiologists.

Bone Marrow and Muscle Fat Infiltration Are Correlated among Postmenopausal Women With Osteoporosis: The AMBERS Cohort Study

Bone and muscle have shown to interact, but little is known about fat within bone and muscle. Clinical studies have isolated fat within bone and muscle using MRI. In this cross-sectional study, we hypothesized that bone marrow adiposity and muscle adiposity are related and that this relationship is associated with osteoporosis. Postmenopausal women aged 60 to 85 years were recruited as part of the Appendicular Muscle and Bone Extension Research Study (AMBERS). Participants completed dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) of the hip and spine to diagnose osteoporosis. Muscle adiposity was measured with MRI at the 66% site of the leg. Fat segmentation was achieved using a semi-automated iterative threshold-optimizing algorithm (error < 5%). Peripheral quantitative computed tomography measured marrow density of the 4% distal tibia (surrogate for marrow fat) by threshold-based, edge-detection segmentations and by examining residuals from trabecular bone density regressed on trabecular tissue mineral density. Muscle adiposity from MRI was regressed on marrow density using linear regression. Models were further examined with an interaction with osteoporosis status. Among 312 women (aged 75.4 ± 5.9 years, body mass index [BMI] 29.5 ± 5.7 kg/m² ), a larger amount of muscle fat was associated with lower marrow density at the 66% mid-tibia (B = 84.08 [27.56], p = 0.002) and at the 4% distal tibia (B = 129.17 [55.96], p = 0.022) after accounting for age, height, weight, average daily energy expenditure, hypertension, and diabetes. Interactions of this relationship with osteoporosis status were also significant. Upon probing these interactions, the relationships were significant only in women with osteoporosis but not in those without osteoporosis. Fat from bone marrow and muscle may be related to one another through the same phenomenon, which is likely also responsible for osteoporosis, but independent of hypertension and diabetes. More research should focus on the potential abnormalities in muscle and bone fat metabolism and mesenchymal cell commitment to fat within patients with osteoporosis. © 2019 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Screening to prevent fragility fractures among adults 40 years and older in primary care: protocol for a systematic review

PURPOSE

To inform recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care by systematically reviewing direct evidence on the effectiveness and acceptability of screening adults 40 years and older in primary care to reduce fragility fractures and related mortality and morbidity, and indirect evidence on the accuracy of fracture risk prediction tools. Evidence on the benefits and harms of pharmacological treatment will be reviewed, if needed to meaningfully influence the Task Force's decision-making.

METHODS

A modified update of an existing systematic review will evaluate screening effectiveness, the accuracy of screening tools, and treatment benefits. For treatment harms, we will integrate studies from existing systematic reviews. A de novo review on acceptability will be conducted. Peer-reviewed searches (Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO [acceptability only]), grey literature, and hand searches of reviews and included studies will update the literature. Based on pre-specified criteria, we will screen studies for inclusion following a liberal-accelerated approach. Final inclusion will be based on consensus. Data extraction for study results will be performed independently by two reviewers while other data will be verified by a second reviewer; there may be some reliance on extracted data from the existing reviews. The risk of bias assessments reported in the existing reviews will be verified and for new studies will be performed independently. When appropriate, results will be pooled using either pairwise random effects meta-analysis (screening and treatment) or restricted maximum likelihood estimation with Hartun-Knapp-Sidnick-Jonkman correction (risk prediction model calibration). Subgroups of interest to explain heterogeneity are age, sex, and menopausal status. Two independent reviewers will rate the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach, with consensus reached for each outcome rated as critical or important by the Task Force.

DISCUSSION

Since the publication of other guidance in Canada, new trials have been published that are likely to improve understanding of screening in primary care settings to prevent fragility fractures. A systematic review is required to inform updated recommendations that align with the current evidence base.

Combining population-based administrative health records and electronic medical records for disease surveillance

BACKGROUND

Administrative health records (AHRs) and electronic medical records (EMRs) are two key sources of population-based data for disease surveillance, but misclassification errors in the data can bias disease estimates. Methods that combine information from error-prone data sources can build on the strengths of AHRs and EMRs. We compared bias and error for four data-combining methods and applied them to estimate hypertension prevalence.

METHODS

Our study included rule-based OR and AND methods that identify disease cases from either or both data sources, respectively, rule-based sensitivity-specificity adjusted (RSSA) method that corrects for inaccuracies using a deterministic rule, and probabilistic-based sensitivity-specificity adjusted (PSSA) method that corrects for error using a statistical model. Computer simulation was used to estimate relative bias (RB) and mean square error (MSE) under varying conditions of population disease prevalence, correlation amongst data sources, and amount of misclassification error. AHRs and EMRs for Manitoba, Canada were used to estimate hypertension prevalence using validated case definitions and multiple disease markers.

RESULTS

The OR method had the lowest RB and MSE when population disease prevalence was 10%, and the RSSA method had the lowest RB and MSE when population prevalence increased to 20%. As the correlation between data sources increased, the OR method resulted in the lowest RB and MSE. Estimates of hypertension prevalence for AHRs and EMRs alone were 30.9% (95% CI: 30.6-31.2) and 24.9% (95% CI: 24.6-25.2), respectively. The estimates were 21.4% (95% CI: 21.1-21.7), for the AND method, 34.4% (95% CI: 34.1-34.8) for the OR method, 32.2% (95% CI: 31.8-32.6) for the RSSA method, and ranged from 34.3% (95% CI: 34.1-34.5) to 35.9% (95% CI, 35.7-36.1) for the PSSA method, depending on the statistical model.

CONCLUSIONS

The OR and AND methods are influenced by correlation amongst the data sources, while the RSSA method is dependent on the accuracy of prior sensitivity and specificity estimates. The PSSA method performed well when population prevalence was high and average correlations amongst disease markers was low. This study will guide researchers to select a data-combining method that best suits their data characteristics.

A Comparison of US and Canadian Osteoporosis Screening and Treatment Strategies in Postmenopausal Women

The optimal approach to osteoporosis screening and treatment in postmenopausal women is unclear. We compared (i) the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) and Osteoporosis Canada osteoporosis screening strategies; and (ii) the National Osteoporosis Foundation (NOF) and Canadian treatment strategies. We used data from the prospective Women's Health Initiative Observational Study and Clinical Trials of women aged 50 to 79 years at baseline (n = 117,707 followed for self-reported fractures; n = 8134 in bone mineral density [BMD] subset). We determined the yield of the screening and treatment strategies in identifying women who experienced major osteoporotic fractures (MOFs) during a 10-year follow-up. Among women aged 50 to 64 years, 23.1% of women were identified for BMD testing under the USPSTF strategy and 52.3% under the Canadian strategy. For women ≥65 years, 100% were identified for testing under the USPSTF and Canadian strategies, 35% to 74% were identified for treatment under NOF, and 16% to 37% were identified for treatment under CAROC (range among 5-year age subgroups). Among women who experienced MOF during follow-up, the USPSTF strategy identified 6.7% of women 50 to 54 years-old and 49.5% of women 60 to 64 years-old for BMD testing (versus 54.4% and 60.6% for the Canadian strategy, respectively). However, the specificity of the USPSTF strategy was higher than that of the Canadian strategy among women 50 to 64 years-old. Among women who experienced MOF during follow-up, sensitivity for identifying women as treatment candidates was lowest for both strategies in women aged 50 to 64 (NOF 10% to 38%; CAROC 1% to 15%) and maximal in 75-year-old to 79-year-old women (NOF 82.8%; 51.6% CAROC); specificity declined with advancing age and was lower with the NOF compared to the CAROC strategy. Among women aged 50 to 64 years, the screening and treatment strategies examined had low sensitivity for identifying those who subsequently experience MOF; sensitivity was higher among women ≥65 years than among younger women. New screening and treatment algorithms are needed. © 2018 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Build better bones with exercise (B3E pilot trial): results of a feasibility study of a multicenter randomized controlled trial of 12 months of home exercise in older women with vertebral fracture

We pilot-tested a trial of home exercise on individuals with osteoporosis and spine fracture. Our target enrollment was met, though it took longer than expected. Participants stayed in the study and completed the exercise program with no safety concerns. Future trials should expand the inclusion criteria and consider other changes.

PURPOSE

Osteoporotic fragility fractures create a substantial human and economic burden. There have been calls for a large randomized controlled trial examining the effect of exercise on fracture incidence. The B3E pilot trial was designed to evaluate the feasibility of a large trial examining the effects of home exercise on individuals at high risk of fracture.

METHODS

Community-dwelling women ≥ 65 years with radiographically confirmed vertebral compression fractures were recruited at seven sites in Canada and Australia. We randomized participants in a 1:1 ratio to a 12-month home exercise program or equal attention control group, both delivered by a physiotherapist (PT). Participants received six PT home visits in addition to monthly phone calls from the PT and a blinded research assistant. The primary feasibility outcomes of the study were recruitment rate (20 per site in 1 year), retention rate (75% completion), and intervention adherence rate (60% of weeks meeting exercise goals). Secondary outcomes included falls, fractures and adverse events.

RESULTS

One hundred forty-one participants were recruited; an average of 20 per site, though most sites took longer than anticipated. Retention and adherence met the criteria for success: 92% of participants completed the study; average adherence was 66%. The intervention group did not differ significantly in the number of falls (IRR 0.97, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.63) or fragility fractures (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.05) compared to the control group. There were 18 serious adverse events in the intervention group and 12 in the control group.

CONCLUSION

An RCT of home exercise in women with vertebral fractures is feasible but recruitment was a challenge. Suggestions are made for the conduct of future trials.

Treatment recommendations based on fracture risk status are not consistently provided in osteoporosis guidelines

We examined international osteoporosis guidelines to determine the tools used to assess fracture risk, the classification of fracture risk presented, and the recommendations based on fracture risk status. We conducted a document analysis of guidelines from the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) website retrieved as of May 10, 2018, focusing on guidelines written in English only. Two reviewers independently reviewed each document and the following data were extracted: (1) fracture risk tool(s) endorsed; (2) classification system used to describe fracture risk status (e.g., low, moderate, high); and (3) recommendations based on risk status (e.g., pharmacological treatment). Two additional reviewers verified all data extraction. A total of 112 guidelines were listed on the IOF website, of which 94 were located either through the provided link or through a PubMed search. Of 70 guidelines written in English, 63 guidelines discussed the concept of fracture risk of which, 39 endorsed FRAX. Twenty-eight guidelines defined fracture risk categories or thresholds which determined recommendations. In total, 26 provided a risk category or threshold which constituted an indication for pharmacotherapy. Twelve guidelines reported a moderate, medium, or intermediate risk category which was associated with variable recommendations for testing and treatment. Despite the generally accepted international shift to fracture risk as a basis for treatment decisions, the majority of guidelines in English did not provide treatment recommendations based on fracture risk status. In guidelines with recommendations based on fracture risk status, thresholds and recommendations varied making international comparisons of treatment difficult.

Measuring improvement in fracture risk prediction for a new risk factor: a simulation

Objective

Improvements in clinical risk prediction models for osteoporosis-related fracture can be evaluated using area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve and calibration, as well as reclassification statistics such as the net reclassification improvement (NRI) and integrated discrimination improvement (IDI) statistics. Our objective was to compare the performance of these measures for assessing improvements to an existing fracture risk prediction model. We simulated the effect of a new, randomly-generated risk factor on prediction of major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) for the internationally-validated FRAX^® model in a cohort from the Manitoba Bone Mineral Density (BMD) Registry.

Results

The study cohort was comprised of 31,999 women 50+ years of age; 9.9% sustained at least one MOF in a mean follow-up of 8.4 years. The original prediction model had good discriminative performance, with AUROC = 0.706 and calibration (ratio of observed to predicted risk) of 0.990. The addition of the simulated risk factor resulted in improvements in NRI and IDI for most investigated conditions, while AUROC decreased and changes in calibration were negative. Reclassification measures may give different information than discrimination and calibration about the performance of new clinical risk factors.

Competing Risks of Fracture and Death in Older Adults with Chronic Kidney Disease

OBJECTIVES

To examine whether chronic kidney disease (CKD) at any stage is associated with fracture risk after adjusting for competing mortality and to determine whether age or race modify the relationship between CKD and fracture risk.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

SETTING

Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) national healthcare system.

PARTICIPANTS

Men receiving VA primary care aged 65 and older with no history of fracture or osteoporosis therapy (N = 712, 918).

MEASUREMENTS

We determined CKD stage from baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). Participants were followed for up to 10 years for occurrence of any fracture or death. We ascertained fractures and covariates from VA medical records and Medicare claims.

RESULTS

Of the 356,459 older veterans with CKD (defined as eGFR <60 mL/min per 1.73 m² ), 15.7% (n = 56,032) experienced a fracture, and 43.0% (n = 153,438) died over a median time at risk of 5.2 years. Veterans with CKD Stages 3 to 5 had a greater risk of death than those without CKD, which biased estimates from traditional survival models. Competing risk models showed that Stage 3 CKD was associated with greater hazard (adjusted subdistribution hazard ratio (sdHR) = 1.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.02-1.11) of fracture (than those without CKD) and a trend toward greater hazard for Stage 4 (sdHR = 1.07, 95% CI = 0.94-1.22) and Stage 5 (sdHR = 1.31, 95% CI = 0.97-1.77) CKD. Age, race, and bone mineral density did not modify the relationship between CKD and fracture risk.

CONCLUSIONS

In older male veterans, CKD, including Stage 3, is associated with a moderately greater fracture risk irrespective of age, race, or bone mineral density.

Diet and exercise changes following bone densitometry in the Patient Activation After DXA Result Notification (PAADRN) study

Calcium and vitamin D intake and exercise are suboptimal among older adults. Following bone densitometry, a letter communicating individualized fracture risk accompanied by an educational brochure improved participants' lifestyle-but no more than existing communication strategies-over 52 weeks. Simple communication strategies are insufficient for achieving optimal levels of bone health behaviors.

PURPOSE

The Patient Activation After DXA Result Notification (PAADRN) study was designed to evaluate whether a letter with individualized fracture risk and an educational brochure mailed to patients soon after their DXA might improve bone health behaviors (daily calcium intake, vitamin D supplementation, and weekly exercise sessions) compared to slower, less individualized communication characterizing usual care.

METHODS

Participants ≥ 50 years were recruited, at three sites, following their DXA and randomized with 1:1 allocation to intervention and control (usual care only) groups. Data were collected at enrollment interview and by phone survey at 12 and 52 weeks thereafter. Intention-to-treat analyses were conducted on 7749 of the 20,397 eligible participants who enrolled. Changes in bone health behaviors were compared within and between study groups. Average treatment effects and heterogeneity of treatment effects were estimated with multivariable linear and logistic regression models.

RESULTS

In unadjusted analyses, calcium intake, vitamin D supplementation, and weekly exercise sessions increased significantly over 52 weeks within both the intervention and control groups (all p < 0.001). In unadjusted analyses and multivariable models, increases in each behavior did not significantly differ between the intervention and control groups. Intervention group participants with a > 20% 10-year fracture risk at enrollment did, however, have a significantly greater increase in calcium intake compared to other study participants (p = 0.031).

CONCLUSIONS

Bone health behaviors improved, on average, over 52 weeks among all participants following a DXA. Receipt of the PAADRN letter and educational brochure did not directly improve bone health behaviors compared to usual care.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The Patient Activation after DXA Result Notification (PAADRN) Study is registered at ClinicalTrials.Gov: NCT01507662, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01507662.

Equal treatment: no evidence of gender inequity in osteoporosis management in a coordinator-based fragility fracture screening program

We evaluated gender imbalance in osteoporosis management in a provincial coordinator-based fracture prevention program and found no difference by gender in treatment of high-risk fragility fracture patients. This establishes that a systemic approach with interventions for all fragility fracture patients can eliminate the gender inequity that is often observed.

INRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to evaluate an Ontario-based fracture prevention program for its ability to address the well-documented gender imbalance in osteoporosis (OP) management, by incorporating its integrated fracture risk assessments within a needs-based evaluation of equity.

METHODS

Fragility fracture patients (≥ 50 years) who were treatment naïve at screening and completed follow-up within 6 months of screening were studied. Patients who underwent bone mineral density (BMD) testing done in the year prior to their current fracture were excluded. All participants had BMD testing conducted through the Ontario OP Strategy Fracture Screening and Prevention program, thus providing us with fracture risk assessment data. Our primary study outcome was treatment initiation at follow-up within 6 months of screening. Gender differences were compared using Fisher's exact test, at p < 0.05.

RESULTS

After adjusting for subsequent fracture risk, study participants did not show a statistically significant gender difference in pharmacotherapy initiation at follow-up (p > 0.05). 68.4% of women and 66.2% of men at high risk were treated within 6 months of screening.

CONCLUSION

Needs-based analyses show no difference by gender in treatment of high-risk fragility fracture patients. An intensive coordinator-based fracture prevention model adopted in Ontario, Canada was not associated with gender inequity in OP treatment of fragility fracture patients after fracture risk adjustment.

Does regional loss of bone density explain low trauma distal forearm fractures in men (the Mr F study)?

The pathogenesis of low trauma wrist fractures in men is not fully understood. This study found that these men have lower bone mineral density at the forearm itself, as well as the hip and spine, and has shown that forearm bone mineral density is the best predictor of wrist fracture.

INTRODUCTION

Men with distal forearm fractures have reduced bone density at the lumbar spine and hip sites, an increased risk of osteoporosis and a higher incidence of further fractures. The aim of this case-control study was to investigate whether or not there is a regional loss of bone mineral density (BMD) at the forearm between men with and without distal forearm fractures.

METHODS

Sixty-one men with low trauma distal forearm fracture and 59 age-matched bone healthy control subjects were recruited. All subjects underwent a DXA scan of forearm, hip and spine, biochemical investigations, health questionnaires, SF-36v2 and Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX). The non-fractured arm was investigated in subjects with fracture and both forearms in control subjects.

RESULTS

BMD was significantly lower at the ultradistal forearm in men with fracture compared to control subjects, in both the dominant (mean (SD) 0.386 g/cm² (0.049) versus 0.436 g/cm² (0.054), p < 0.001) and non-dominant arm (mean (SD) 0.387 g/cm² (0.060) versus 0.432 g/cm² (0.061), p = 0.001). Fracture subjects also had a significantly lower BMD at hip and spine sites compared with control subjects. Logistic regression analysis showed that the best predictor of forearm fracture was ultradistal forearm BMD (OR = 0.871 (0.805-0.943), p = 0.001), with the likelihood of fracture decreasing by 12.9% for every 0.01 g/cm² increase in ultradistal forearm BMD.

CONCLUSIONS

Men with low trauma distal forearm fracture have significantly lower regional BMD at the ultradistal forearm, which contributes to an increased forearm fracture risk. They also have generalised reduction in BMD, so that low trauma forearm fractures in men should be considered as indicator fractures for osteoporosis.

Osteoporosis Risk Calculators

Osteoporosis is a silent disease until fractures occur, patient recognition is the greatest clinical challenge. Although more than 20 million women in the US are estimated to have established osteoporosis the majority are not appropriately identified. Bone densitometry is the current gold standard for diagnosis of osteoporosis; but may not be feasible or cost-effective to recommend for all postmenopausal women. Therefore, questionnaires incorporating risk factors have been developed to aid the clinician in identifying women with osteoporosis. We will review Qfracture, CAnadian Risk for Osteoporosis Calculator (CAROC), the Simple Calculated Osteoporosis Risk Index (SCORE), the Osteoporosis Risk Assessment Index (ORAI), the Osteoporotic Self-assessment Tool (OST), ABONE, and the United States Preventive Services Task Force recommendations.

Worldwide Fracture Prediction

The substantial increase in the burden of non-communicable diseases in general and osteoporosis in particular, necessitates the establishment of efficient and targeted diagnosis and treatment strategies. This chapter reviews and compares different tools for osteoporosis screening and diagnosis; it also provides an overview of different treatment guidelines adopted by countries worldwide. While access to dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry to measure bone mineral density (BMD) is limited in most areas in the world, the introduction of risk calculators that combine risk factors, with or without BMD, have resulted in a paradigm shift in osteoporosis screening and management. To-date, forty eight risk assessment tools that allow risk stratification of patients are available, however only few are externally validated and tested in a population-based setting. These include Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool; Osteoporosis Risk Assessment Instrument; Simple Calculated Osteoporosis Risk Estimation; Canadian Association of Radiologists and Osteoporosis Canada calculator; Fracture Risk Assessment Calculator (FRAX); Garvan; and QFracture. These tools vary in the number of risk factors incorporated. We present a detailed analysis of the development, characteristics, validation, performance, advantages and limitations of these tools. The World Health Organization proposes a dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry-BMD T-score ≤ -2.5 as an operational diagnostic threshold for osteoporosis, and many countries have also adopted this cut-off as an intervention threshold in their treatment guidelines. With the introduction of the new fracture assessment calculators, many countries chose to include fracture risk as one of the major criteria to initiate osteoporosis treatment. Of the 52 national guidelines identified in 36 countries, 30 included FRAX derived risk in their intervention threshold and 22 were non-FRAX based.  No universal tool or guideline approach will address the needs of all countries worldwide.  Osteoporosis screening and management guidelines are best tailored according to the needs and resources of individual counties. While few countries have succeeded in generating valuable epidemiological data on osteoporotic fractures, to validate their risk calculators and base their guidelines, many have yet to find the resources to assess variations and secular trends in fractures, the performance of various calculators, and ultimately adopt the most convenient care pathway algorithms.

Agreement between fragility fracture risk assessment algorithms as applied to adults with chronic spinal cord injury

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of the study was to determine and report agreement in fracture risk stratification of adults with spinal cord injury (SCI) using (1) Canadian Association of Radiologists and Osteoporosis Canada (CAROC) and Canadian Fracture Risk Assessment (FRAX) tools with and without areal bone mineral density (aBMD) and (2) SCI-specific fracture thresholds.

SETTING

Tertiary rehabilitation center, Ontario, Canada.

METHODS

Community-dwelling adults with chronic SCI (n=90, C2-T12, AIS A-D) consented to participation. Femoral neck aBMD values determined 10-year fracture risk (CAROC and FRAX). Knee-region aBMD and distal tibia volumetric BMD values were compared to SCI-specific fracture thresholds. Agreements between CAROC and FRAX risk stratifications, and between fracture threshold risk stratification, were assessed using prevalence- and bias-adjusted Kappa statistics (PABAK).

RESULTS

CAROC and FRAX assessment tools showed moderate agreement for post-menopausal women (PABAK=0.56, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.27, 0.84) and men aged ⩾50 years (PABAK=0.51, 95% CI: 0.34, 0.67), with poor agreement for young men and pre-menopausal women (PABAK⩽0). Excellent agreement was evident between FRAX with and without aBMD in young adults and in those with motor incomplete injury (PABAK=0.86-0.92). In other subgroups, agreement ranged from moderate to substantial (PABAK=0.41-0.73). SCI-specific fracture thresholds (Eser versus Garland) showed poor agreement (PABAK⩽0).

CONCLUSION

Fracture risk estimates among individuals with SCI vary substantially with the risk assessment tool. Use of SCI-specific risk factors to identify patients with high fracture risk is recommended until a validated SCI-specific tool for predicting fracture risk is developed.

A systematic review of intervention thresholds based on FRAX : A report prepared for the National Osteoporosis Guideline Group and the International Osteoporosis Foundation

This systematic review identified assessment guidelines for osteoporosis that incorporate FRAX. The rationale for intervention thresholds is given in a minority of papers. Intervention thresholds (fixed or age-dependent) need to be country-specific.

INTRODUCTION

In most assessment guidelines, treatment for osteoporosis is recommended in individuals with prior fragility fractures, especially fractures at spine and hip. However, for those without prior fractures, the intervention thresholds can be derived using different methods. The aim of this report was to undertake a systematic review of the available information on the use of FRAX® in assessment guidelines, in particular the setting of thresholds and their validation.

METHODS

We identified 120 guidelines or academic papers that incorporated FRAX of which 38 provided no clear statement on how the fracture probabilities derived are to be used in decision-making in clinical practice. The remainder recommended a fixed intervention threshold (n = 58), most commonly as a component of more complex guidance (e.g. bone mineral density (BMD) thresholds) or an age-dependent threshold (n = 22). Two guidelines have adopted both age-dependent and fixed thresholds.

RESULTS

Fixed probability thresholds have ranged from 4 to 20 % for a major fracture and 1.3-5 % for hip fracture. More than one half (39) of the 58 publications identified utilised a threshold probability of 20 % for a major osteoporotic fracture, many of which also mention a hip fracture probability of 3 % as an alternative intervention threshold. In nearly all instances, no rationale is provided other than that this was the threshold used by the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA. Where undertaken, fixed probability thresholds have been determined from tests of discrimination (Hong Kong), health economic assessment (USA, Switzerland), to match the prevalence of osteoporosis (China) or to align with pre-existing guidelines or reimbursement criteria (Japan, Poland). Age-dependent intervention thresholds, first developed by the National Osteoporosis Guideline Group (NOGG), are based on the rationale that if a woman with a prior fragility fracture is eligible for treatment, then, at any given age, a man or woman with the same fracture probability but in the absence of a previous fracture (i.e. at the 'fracture threshold') should also be eligible. Under current NOGG guidelines, based on age-dependent probability thresholds, inequalities in access to therapy arise especially at older ages (≥70 years) depending on the presence or absence of a prior fracture. An alternative threshold using a hybrid model reduces this disparity.

CONCLUSION

The use of FRAX (fixed or age-dependent thresholds) as the gateway to assessment identifies individuals at high risk more effectively than the use of BMD. However, the setting of intervention thresholds needs to be country-specific.

Direct comparison of FRAX(R) and a simplified fracture risk assessment tool in routine clinical practice: a registry-based cohort study

FRAX(R) incrementally improved prediction of incident major osteoporotic fractures compared with the simplified Canadian Association of Radiologists and Osteoporosis Canada (CAROC) tool.

INTRODUCTION

There is debate over the value of seemingly more complex fracture prediction tools over simpler fracture prediction tools. FRAX(R) and the simplified CAROC tool are both widely used in Canada for estimating 10-year probability of major osteoporotic fractures. We compared the performance of these tools for predicting fracture outcomes.

METHODS

Using a bone densitometry registry for Manitoba, Canada, we identified 34,060 individuals age ≥50 years not receiving anti-osteoporosis therapy. Fracture Risk Assessment (FRAX) and CAROC were used to classify 10-year fracture risk as low (<10 %), moderate (10-20 %) and high (>20 %). Net reclassification improvement (NRI) was used to quantify the performance of FRAX versus CAROC.

RESULTS

During mean 9.8 years of follow-up, 3905 individuals sustained fractures. There were 10 (of 35 total) situations where observed fracture risk fell outside of the predicted range, and all 10 discordances favoured FRAX. NRI among incident fracture cases was not significantly changed, but there was a significant improvement in risk categorization for those who remained fracture-free (+1.7 %, P < 0.001) resulting in overall improvement (NRI overall +0.028, P < 0.001). Within nine pre-specified subgroups, there was no case of significant worsening in NRI when using FRAX instead of CAROC. In absolute terms, only 36 individuals would need to be assessed using FRAX instead of CAROC to yield an improvement in prediction (8 among individuals with prior fracture and 4 among those with prolonged glucocorticoid use).

CONCLUSIONS

FRAX provides improvement in fracture risk prediction compared with the simplified CAROC tool in individuals referred for osteoporosis screening, supporting the use of FRAX as the international reference tool for fracture risk assessment.

Evaluation of Automated Fracture Risk Assessment Based on the Canadian Association of Radiologists and Osteoporosis Canada Assessment Tool

Fracture risk assessments are not always clearly communicated on bone mineral density (BMD) reports; evidence suggests that structured reporting (SR) tools may improve report clarity. The aim of this study is to compare fracture risk assessments automatically assigned by SR software in accordance with Canadian Association of Radiologists and Osteoporosis Canada (CAROC) recommendations to assessments from experts on narrative BMD reports. Charts for 500 adult patients who recently received a BMD exam were sampled from across University of Toronto's Joint Department of Medical Imaging. BMD measures and clinical details were manually abstracted from charts and were used to create structured reports with assessments generated by a software implementation of CAROC recommendations. CAROC calculations were statistically compared to experts' original assessments using percentage agreement (PA) and Krippendorff's alpha. Canadian FRAX calculations were also compared to experts', where possible. A total of 25 (5.0%) reported assessments did not conform to categorizations recommended by Canadian guidelines. Across the remainder, the Krippendorff's alpha relating software assigned assessments to physicians was high at 0.918; PA was 94.3%. Lower agreement was associated with reports for patients with documented modifying factors (alpha = 0.860, PA = 90.2%). Similar patterns of agreement related expert assessments to FRAX calculations, although statistics of agreement were lower. Categories of disagreement were defined by (1) gray areas in current guidelines, (2) margins of assessment categorizations, (3) dictation/transcription errors, (4) patients on low doses of steroids, and (5) ambiguous documentation of modifying factors. Results suggest that SR software can produce fracture risk assessments that agree with experts on most routine, adult BMD exams. Results also highlight situations where experts tend to diverge from guidelines and illustrate the potential for SR software to (1) reduce variability in, (2) ameliorate errors in, and (3) improve clarity of routine adult BMD exam reports.

Comparison of CAROC and FRAX in Fragility Fracture Patients: Agreement, Clinical Utility, and Implications for Clinical Practice

Objective.

To examine the level of agreement between 2 fracture risk assessment tools [Canadian Association of Radiologists and Osteoporosis Canada (CAROC) and Canadian Fracture Risk Assessment (FRAX)] when applied within the context of the Canadian guidelines, in a population of fragility fracture patients.

Methods.

The sample consisted of 135 treatment-naive fragility fracture patients aged 50+ years and screened as part of an osteoporosis (OP) program at an urban hospital. Ten-year probabilities of future major osteoporotic fractures were calculated using the FRAX and CAROC. We also integrated additional qualifiers from the 2010 Canadian guidelines that place hip, spine, and multiple fractures at high risk regardless. A quadratic weighted κ (Kw) and 95% CI were calculated to estimate the chance corrected agreement between the risk assessment tools. Logistic regression was used to evaluate the factors associated with concordance.

Results.

Among patients with fragility fractures, the agreement between CAROC and FRAX was Kw = 0.64 (95% CI 0.58–0.71), with 45 of 135 cases in the cells reflecting disagreement. Younger persons and males were more likely to be found in discordant cells.

Conclusion.

The level of agreement between 2 commonly used fracture risk assessment tools was not as high in the patients with fragility fractures as it was in general community-based samples. Our results suggest discordance is found in less-typical patients with OP who need more consistency in messaging and direction. Users of these fracture risk tools should be aware of the potential for discordance and note differences in risk classifications that may affect treatment decisions.

Comparison of Speed of Sound Measures Assessed by Multisite Quantitative Ultrasound to Bone Mineral Density Measures Assessed by Dual-Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry in a Large Canadian Cohort: the Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study (CaMos)

Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is an important tool for the estimate of fracture risk through the measurement of bone mineral density (BMD). Similarly, multisite quantitate ultrasound can prospectively predict future fracture through the measurement of speed of sound (SOS). This investigation compared BMD (at the femoral neck, total hip, and lumbar spine) and SOS measures (at the distal radius, tibia, and phalanx sites) in a large sample of randomly-selected and community-based individuals from the Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study. Furthermore, mass, height, and age were also compared with both measures. There were 4123 patients included with an age range of 30-96.8 yr. Pearson product moment correlations between BMD and SOS measures were low (0.21-0.29; all p<0.001), irrespective of site. Mass was moderately correlated with BMD measures (0.40-0.58; p<0.001), but lowly correlated with SOS measures (0.03-0.13; p<0.05). BMD and SOS were negatively correlated to age (-0.17 to -0.44; p<0.001). When regression analyses were performed to predict SOS measures at the 3 sites, the models predicted 20%-23% of the variance, leaving 77%-80% unaccounted for. The SOS measures in this study were found to be largely independent from BMD measures. In areas with no or limited access to DXA, the multisite quantitative ultrasound may act as a valuable tool to assess fracture risk. In locales with liberal access to DXA, the addition of SOS to BMD and other clinical risk factors may improve the identification of those patients at high risk for future fracture.

Patients do not have a consistent understanding of high risk for future fracture: a qualitative study of patients from a post-fracture secondary prevention program

We examined fracture patients' understanding of "high" fracture risk after they were screened through a post-fracture secondary prevention program and educated about their risk verbally, numerically, and graphically. Our findings suggest that messages about fracture risk are confusing to patients and need to be modified to better suit patients' needs.

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to examine fracture patients' understanding of high risk for future fracture.

METHODS

We conducted an in-depth qualitative study in patients who were high risk for future fracture. Patients were screened through the Osteoporosis Exemplary Care Program where they were educated about fracture risk: verbally told they were "high risk" for future fracture, given a numerical prompt that they had a >20 % chance of future fracture over the next 10 years, and given a visual graph highlighting the "high risk" segment. This information about fracture risk was also relayed to patients' primary care physicians (PCPs) and specialists. Participants were interviewed at baseline (within six months of fracture) and follow-up (after visit with a PCP and/or specialist) and asked to recall their understanding of risk and whether it applied to them.

RESULTS

We recruited 27 patients (20 females, 7 males) aged 51-87 years old. Fractures were sustained at the wrist (n = 7), hip (n = 7), vertebrae (n = 2), and multiple or other locations (n = 11). While most participants recalled they had been labeled as "high risk" (verbal cue), most were unable to correctly recall the other elements of risk (numerical, graphical). Further, approximately half of the patients who recalled they were high risk did not believe that high risk applied, or had meaning, to them. Participants also had difficulty explaining what they were at risk for.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that health care providers' messages about fracture risk are confusing to patients and that these messages need to be modified to better suit patients' needs.