1
|
Gifre L, Massó E, Fusaro M, Haarhaus M, Ureña P, Cozzolino M, Mazzaferro S, Calabia J, Peris P, Bover J. Vertebral fractures in patients with CKD and the general population: a call for diagnosis and action. Clin Kidney J 2024; 17:sfae191. [PMID: 39099567 PMCID: PMC11294886 DOI: 10.1093/ckj/sfae191] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/11/2023] [Indexed: 08/06/2024] Open
Abstract
Vertebral fractures (VFs) are the most common osteoporotic fractures in the general population, and they have been associated with high mortality, decreased quality of life, and high risk of subsequent fractures, especially when recent, multiple, or severe. Currently, VF diagnosis and classification determine fracture risk and the most appropriate anti-osteoporotic treatment. However, VFs are clearly underdiagnosed, especially in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), and CKD-associated osteoporosis has been disregarded until recently. VFs are associated with higher morbidity and mortality, and their prevalence and incidence differ depending on the grade of renal dysfunction (CKD G1-G5) and/or the type of renal replacement therapy (dialysis or transplantation). In addition to classical risk factors [such as higher age, female sex, reduced bone mineral density, diabetes and steroid use], various other factors have been associated with an increased risk of VFs in CKD, including CKD grade, haemodialysis vintage, time since renal transplantation, low or high intact parathyroid hormone and phosphate levels, and/or vitamin D and K1 deficiencies. Importantly, several clinical societies have recently modified their algorithms according to the fracture risk classification (including the presence of VFs) and determined the most appropriate anti-osteoporotic treatment for the general population. However, there are no specific guidelines addressing this topic in patients with CKD despite an important paradigm shift regarding the prognostic value of bone mineral density in 2017 after the publication of the CKD-Mineral and Bone Disorder Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes guidelines. A proactive attitude towards diagnosis, treatment, and research is proposed to avoid therapeutic nihilism.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Laia Gifre
- Rheumatology Department, Hospital Germans Trias i Pujol, Research Institute Germans Trias i Pujol (IGTP), Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Badalona (Barcelona), Catalonia, Spain
| | - Elisabet Massó
- Nephrology Department, University Hospital Germans Trias i Pujol, REMAR-IGTP Group, Research Institute Germans Trias i Pujol (IGTP), Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Badalona (Barcelona), Catalonia, Spain
| | - Maria Fusaro
- National Research Council (CNR), Institute of Clinical Physiology, Pisa (Italy). Department of Medicine, University of Padua, Padua, Italy
| | - Mathias Haarhaus
- Division of Renal Medicine, Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, Karolinska University Hospital, Huddinge, Stockholm, Sweden
- Diaverum AB, Hyllie Boulevard 53, Malmö, Sweden
| | - Pablo Ureña
- Department of Nephrology and Dialysis, AURA Nord Saint-Ouen, Saint-Ouen, Paris, France
- Department of Renal Physiology, Necker Hospital, University of Paris Descartes, Paris, France
| | - Mario Cozzolino
- Renal Division, Department of Health Sciences, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
| | - Sandro Mazzaferro
- Department of Translation and Precision Medicine, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy
| | - Jordi Calabia
- Nephrology Department, University Hospital Josep Trueta. IdIBGi Research Institute. Universitat de Girona, Catalonia, Spain
| | - Pilar Peris
- Rheumatology Department, Hospital Clinic de Barcelona, IDIBAPS, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain
| | - Jordi Bover
- Nephrology Department, University Hospital Germans Trias i Pujol, REMAR-IGTP Group, Research Institute Germans Trias i Pujol (IGTP), Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Badalona (Barcelona), Catalonia, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
McCloskey E, Tan ATH, Schini M. Update on fracture risk assessment in osteoporosis. Curr Opin Endocrinol Diabetes Obes 2024; 31:141-148. [PMID: 38809256 DOI: 10.1097/med.0000000000000871] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/30/2024]
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW The assessment of fracture risk is playing an ever-increasing role in osteoporosis clinical management and informing international guidelines for osteoporosis. FRAX, a fracture risk calculator that provides individualized 10-year probabilities of hip and major osteoporotic fracture, has been widely used since 2008. In this review, we recap the development and limitations of intervention thresholds and the role of absolute fracture risk. RECENT FINDINGS There is an increasing awareness of disparities and inequities in the setting of intervention thresholds in osteoporosis. The limitations of the simple use of prior fracture or the DXA-derived BMD T -score threshold are increasingly being discussed; one solution is to use fracture risk or probabilities in the setting of such thresholds. This approach also permits more objective assessment of high and very high fracture risk to enable physicians to make choices not just about the need to treat but what agents to use in individual patients. SUMMARY Like all clinical tools, FRAX has limitations that need to be considered, but the use of fracture risk in deciding who to treat, when to treat and what agent to use is a mechanism to target treatment equitably to those at an increased risk of fracture.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eugene McCloskey
- Division of Clinical Medicine, School of Medicine and Population Health
- Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Andre T H Tan
- Fast and Chronic Programmes, Alexandra Hospital, Queenstown
- Division of Endocrinology, Department of Medicine, National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Marian Schini
- Division of Clinical Medicine, School of Medicine and Population Health
- Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Schwarcz Y, Yanover C, Rouach V, Luria S, Goldshtein I. Non-osteoporotic fractures are associated with increased risk of subsequent major osteoporotic fractures. Osteoporos Int 2024:10.1007/s00198-024-07169-3. [PMID: 39001896 DOI: 10.1007/s00198-024-07169-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/30/2024] [Accepted: 06/21/2024] [Indexed: 07/15/2024]
Abstract
We studied the association between non-osteoporotic fractures and future major osteoporotic fractures, using UK health records. Non-osteoporotic fractures were found to increase the risk of major osteoporotic fractures, although to a lesser extent than osteoporotic fractures. This highlights the importance of considering all previous fractures in assessing future fracture risk. PURPOSE Previous studies demonstrated that osteoporotic fractures-minor and major-increase the risk for future major osteoporotic fractures; we test whether non-osteoporotic fractures are also associated with such increased risk. METHODS The study is a retrospective cohort study using UK primary care electronic health records. Exposure groups were defined according to fracture location prior to the year 2011 (index date): major, minor, and non-osteoporotic. The outcome of incident major osteoporotic fractures following the index date was compared between the exposure groups and the general population. RESULTS The general study population included 1,951,388 patients. The exposure groups included 39,931 patients with a prior major osteoporotic fracture, 19,397 with a prior minor osteoporotic fracture, and 50,115 patients with a prior non-osteoporotic fracture. The standardized Incidence Rate Ratio for future major osteoporotic fractures was 2.73 (95% confidence interval: 2.64-2.82), 2.43 (2.32-2.54), and 1.83 (1.74-1.92), respectively. CONCLUSION Non-osteoporotic fractures are significantly associated with increased risk for future major osteoporotic fractures relative to the general population, yet to a lesser extent compared to major and minor osteoporotic fractures.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yonatan Schwarcz
- Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Bnai Zion Medical Center, Sderot Eliyahu Golomb 47, 31048, Haifa, Israel.
- KI Research Institute, Kfar Malal, Israel.
| | | | - Vanessa Rouach
- Institute of Endocrinology, Metabolism and Hypertension, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv, Israel
| | - Shai Luria
- Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Hadassah Medical Center, Faculty of Medicine, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel
| | | |
Collapse
|
4
|
Khan AA, Slart RHJA, Ali DS, Bock O, Carey JJ, Camacho P, Engelke K, Erba PA, Harvey NC, Lems WF, Morgan S, Moseley KF, O'Brien C, Probyn L, Punda M, Richmond B, Schousboe JT, Shuhart C, Ward KA, Lewiecki EM. Osteoporotic Fractures: Diagnosis, Evaluation, and Significance From the International Working Group on DXA Best Practices. Mayo Clin Proc 2024; 99:1127-1141. [PMID: 38960497 DOI: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2024.01.011] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/23/2023] [Revised: 01/17/2024] [Accepted: 01/24/2024] [Indexed: 07/05/2024]
Abstract
Osteoporotic fractures, also known as fragility fractures, are reflective of compromised bone strength and are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Such fractures may be clinically silent, and others may present clinically with pain and deformity at the time of the injury. Unfortunately, and even at the time of detection, most individuals sustaining fragility fractures are not identified as having underlying metabolic bone disease and are not evaluated or treated to reduce the incidence of future fractures. A multidisciplinary international working group with representation from international societies dedicated to advancing the care of patients with metabolic bone disease has developed best practice recommendations for the diagnosis and evaluation of individuals with fragility fractures. A comprehensive narrative review was conducted to identify key articles on fragility fractures and their impact on the incidence of further fractures, morbidity, and mortality. This document represents consensus among the supporting societies and harmonizes best practice recommendations consistent with advances in research. A fragility fracture in an adult is an important predictor of future fractures and requires further evaluation and treatment of the underlying osteoporosis. It is important to recognize that most fragility fractures occur in patients with bone mineral density T scores higher than -2.5, and these fractures confirm the presence of skeletal fragility even in the presence of a well-maintained bone mineral density. Fragility fractures require further evaluation with exclusion of contributing factors for osteoporosis and assessment of clinical risk factors for fracture followed by appropriate pharmacological intervention designed to reduce the risk of future fracture. Because most low-trauma vertebral fractures do not present with pain, dedicated vertebral imaging and review of past imaging is useful in identifying fractures in patients at high risk for vertebral fractures. Given the importance of fractures in confirming skeletal fragility and predicting future events, it is recommended that an established classification system be used for fracture identification and reporting.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Aliya A Khan
- Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
| | - Riemer H J A Slart
- University Medical Center Groningen, Medical Imaging Centre, Department of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Dalal S Ali
- Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Oliver Bock
- Department of Osteoporosis, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, Switzerland, IG Osteoporose, Bern, Switzerland
| | - John J Carey
- Department of Rheumatology, University of Galway, Galway, Ireland
| | | | - Klaus Engelke
- Department of Medicine 3 and Institute of Medical Physics, FAU University Erlangen-Nürnberg and Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Germany
| | - Paola A Erba
- Department of Medicine and Surgery, Nuclear Medicine UnitASST, Ospedale Papa Giovanni, University of Milan-Bicocca, Piazza, Bergamo, Italy
| | - Nicholas C Harvey
- MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton General Hospital and NIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, University of Southampton and University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK
| | - Willem F Lems
- Department of Rheumatology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, The Netherlands
| | - Sarah Morgan
- Osteoporosis Prevention and Treatment Center and DXA Facility, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL
| | | | | | - Linda Probyn
- Department of Medical Imaging, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Marija Punda
- Department of Oncology and Nuclear Medicine, Sestre Milosrdnice University Hospital Center, Zagreb, Croatia
| | | | - John T Schousboe
- Division of Health Policy and Management, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN
| | | | - Kate A Ward
- MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton General Hospital and NIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, University of Southampton and University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK
| | | |
Collapse
|
5
|
Lorentzon M, Litsne H, Axelsson KF. The significance of recent fracture location for imminent risk of hip and vertebral fractures-a nationwide cohort study on older adults in Sweden. Osteoporos Int 2024; 35:1077-1087. [PMID: 38521820 PMCID: PMC11136805 DOI: 10.1007/s00198-024-07072-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/15/2024] [Accepted: 03/15/2024] [Indexed: 03/25/2024]
Abstract
The role of recent fracture site in predicting the most detrimental subsequent fractures, hip and vertebral, is unclear. This study found that most recent fracture sites were associated with an increased risk of both hip and vertebral fracture, a finding that may impact the design of secondary prevention programs. BACKGROUND Hip and vertebral fractures are the most serious in terms of associated morbidity, mortality, and societal costs. There is limited evidence as to which fracture types are associated with the highest risk for subsequent hip and vertebral fractures. This study aims to explore the dependency of imminent hip and vertebral fracture risk on the site of the recent index fracture. METHODS Conducted as a nationwide retrospective cohort study, we utilized Swedish national registers to assess the risk of hip and vertebral fractures based on the site of the recent (≤ 2 years) index fracture and an old (> 2 years) prevalent fracture. This risk was compared to that observed in individuals without any prevalent fractures. This study encompassed all Swedes aged 50 years and older between 2007 and 2010. Patients with a recent fracture were categorized into specific groups based on the type of their previous fracture and were followed until December 2017, with censoring for death and migration. The study assessed the risk of hip and vertebral fractures during the follow-up period. RESULTS The study included a total of 3,423,320 individuals, comprising 145,780 with a recent fracture, 293,051 with an old fracture, and 2,984,489 without a previous fracture. The median follow-up times for the three groups were 7.6 years (IQR 4.0-9.1), 7.9 years (5.8-9.2), and 8.5 years (7.4-9.7), respectively. Patients with a recent fracture at almost all sites exhibited a significantly increased risk of hip fracture and an elevated risk of vertebral fracture compared to controls. Patients with recent fractures had an increased risk of subsequent hip and vertebral fractures, regardless of the index fracture site. These results strengthen the notion that all patients with a recent fracture, regardless of fracture site, should be included in secondary prevention programs, to improve the prevention of the clinically most serious fractures.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mattias Lorentzon
- Sahlgrenska Osteoporosis Centre, Institute of Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
- Region Västra Götaland, Geriatric Medicine, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Mölndal, Sweden
| | - Henrik Litsne
- Sahlgrenska Osteoporosis Centre, Institute of Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - Kristian F Axelsson
- Sahlgrenska Osteoporosis Centre, Institute of Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
- Region Västra Götaland, Närhälsan Norrmalm Health Centre, Skövde, Sweden.
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Alam F, Alsaed O, Abdulla N, Abdulmomen I, Lutf A, Al Emadi S. Guidelines for fracture risk assessment and management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women and men above the age of 50 in Qatar. Arch Osteoporos 2024; 19:34. [PMID: 38698101 PMCID: PMC11065783 DOI: 10.1007/s11657-024-01389-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/03/2024] [Accepted: 04/12/2024] [Indexed: 05/05/2024]
Abstract
We present comprehensive guidelines for osteoporosis management in Qatar. Formulated by the Qatar Osteoporosis Association, the guidelines recommend the age-dependent Qatar fracture risk assessment tool for screening, emphasizing risk-based treatment strategies and discouraging routine dual-energy X-ray scans. They offer a vital resource for physicians managing osteoporosis and fragility fractures nationwide. PURPOSE Osteoporosis and related fragility fractures are a growing public health issue with an impact on individuals and the healthcare system. We aimed to present guidelines providing unified guidance to all healthcare professionals in Qatar regarding the management of osteoporosis. METHODS The Qatar Osteoporosis Association formulated guidelines for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women and men above the age of 50. A panel of six local rheumatologists who are experts in the field of osteoporosis met together and conducted an extensive review of published articles and local and international guidelines to formulate guidance for the screening and management of postmenopausal women and men older than 50 years in Qatar. RESULTS The guidelines emphasize the use of the age-dependent hybrid model of the Qatar fracture risk assessment tool for screening osteoporosis and risk categorization. The guidelines include screening, risk stratification, investigations, treatment, and monitoring of patients with osteoporosis. The use of a dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry scan without any risk factors is discouraged. Treatment options are recommended based on risk stratification. CONCLUSION Guidance is provided to all physicians across the country who are involved in the care of patients with osteoporosis and fragility fractures.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Fiaz Alam
- Rheumatology Section, Department of Medicine, Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, Qatar.
| | - Omar Alsaed
- Rheumatology Section, Department of Medicine, Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, Qatar
| | - Nabeel Abdulla
- Rheumatology Section, Department of Medicine, Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, Qatar
| | - Ibrahim Abdulmomen
- Rheumatology Section, Department of Medicine, Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, Qatar
| | - Abdo Lutf
- Rheumatology Section, Department of Medicine, Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, Qatar
| | - Samar Al Emadi
- Rheumatology Section, Department of Medicine, Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, Qatar
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Wang L, Yang M, Ge Y, Liu Y, Wang G, Su Y, Guo Z, Yin L, Huang P, Geng J, Blake GM, He B, Zhu S, Cheng X, Wu X, Aro HT, Vlug A, Engelke K. Risk prediction of second hip fracture by bone and muscle density of the hip varies with time after first hip fracture: A prospective cohort study. Bone Rep 2024; 20:101732. [PMID: 38226335 PMCID: PMC10788229 DOI: 10.1016/j.bonr.2023.101732] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/18/2023] [Revised: 12/16/2023] [Accepted: 12/20/2023] [Indexed: 01/17/2024] Open
Abstract
Purpose Predictors of 'imminent' risk of second hip fracture are unknown. The aims of the study were to explore strength of hip areal bone mineral density (aBMD), and muscle area and density for predicting second hip fracture at different time intervals. Methods Data of the Chinese Second Hip Fracture Evaluation were analyzed, a longitudinal study to evaluate the risk of second hip fracture (of the contralateral hip) by using CT images obtained immediately after first hip fracture. Muscle cross-sectional area and density were measured of the gluteus maximus (G.MaxM) and gluteus medius and minimus (G.Med/MinM) and aBMD of the proximal femur at the contralateral unfractured side. Patients were followed up for a median time of 4.5 years. Separate Cox models were used to predict second hip fracture risk at different time intervals after first event adjusted for age, sex, BMI and diabetes. Results The mean age of subjects with imminent (within 1st or 2nd year) second hip fracture was 79.80 ± 5.16 and 81.56 ± 3.64 years. In the 1st year after the first hip fracture, femoral neck (FN) aBMD predicted second hip fracture (HR 5.88; 95 % CI, 1.32-26.09). In the remaining years of follow-up after 2nd year, muscle density predicted second hip fracture (G.MaxM HR 2.13; 95 % CI, 1.25-3.65,G.Med/MinM HR 2.10; 95 % CI, 1.32-3.34). Conclusions Our results show that femoral neck aBMD is an important predictor for second hip fracture within the first year and therefore suggest supports the importance concept of early and rapid-acting bone-active drugs to increase hip BMD. In addition, the importance of muscle density predicting second hip fracture after the second year suggest post hip fracture rehabilitation and exercise programs could also be important to reduce muscle fatty infiltration.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ling Wang
- Department of Radiology, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100035, China
| | - Minghui Yang
- Departments of Traumatic Orthopedics, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China
| | - Yufeng Ge
- Departments of Traumatic Orthopedics, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China
| | - Yandong Liu
- Department of Radiology, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100035, China
| | - Gang Wang
- Department of Radiology, The First People's Hospital of Yunnan Province, Kunming, Yunnan, China
| | - Yongbin Su
- Department of Radiology, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100035, China
| | - Zhe Guo
- Department of Radiology, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100035, China
| | - Lu Yin
- Information Center, National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Fuwai Hospital, Beijing 100037, China
| | - Pengju Huang
- Department of Radiology, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100035, China
| | - Jian Geng
- Department of Radiology, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100035, China
| | - Glen M. Blake
- School of Biomedical Engineering & Imaging Sciences, King's College London, St Thomas' Hospital, London, United Kingdom
| | - Bo He
- Department of Radiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University, Kunming, Yunnan, China
| | - Shiwen Zhu
- Departments of Traumatic Orthopedics, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China
| | - Xiaoguang Cheng
- Department of Radiology, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100035, China
| | - Xinbao Wu
- Departments of Traumatic Orthopedics, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China
| | - Hannu T. Aro
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, Turku University Hospital and University of Turku, Turku, Finland
| | - Annegreet Vlug
- Center for Bone Quality, Department of Internal Medicine, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands
| | - Klaus Engelke
- Department of Medicine 3, FAU University Erlangen-Nürnberg, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany
- Institute of Medical Physics, University of Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Schini M, Johansson H, Harvey NC, Lorentzon M, Kanis JA, McCloskey EV. An overview of the use of the fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX) in osteoporosis. J Endocrinol Invest 2024; 47:501-511. [PMID: 37874461 PMCID: PMC10904566 DOI: 10.1007/s40618-023-02219-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/05/2023] [Accepted: 10/03/2023] [Indexed: 10/25/2023]
Abstract
FRAX®, a simple-to-use fracture risk calculator, was first released in 2008 and since then has been used increasingly worldwide. By calculating the 10-year probabilities of a major osteoporotic fracture and hip fracture, it assists clinicians when deciding whether further investigation, for example a bone mineral density measurement (BMD), and/or treatment is needed to prevent future fractures. In this review, we explore the literature around osteoporosis and how FRAX has changed its management. We present the characteristics of this tool and describe the use of thresholds (diagnostic and therapeutic). We also present arguments as to why screening with FRAX should be considered. FRAX has several limitations which are described in this review. This review coincides with the release of a version, FRAXplus, which addresses some of these limitations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M Schini
- Department of Oncology & Metabolism, Metabolic Bone Centre, Northern General Hospital, University of Sheffield, Herries Road, Sheffield, S5 7AU, UK.
| | - H Johansson
- Sahlgrenska Osteoporosis Centre, Institute of Medicine, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
- Mary McKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - N C Harvey
- MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
- NIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, University of Southampton and University Hospitals Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK
| | - M Lorentzon
- Sahlgrenska Osteoporosis Centre, Institute of Medicine, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
- Mary McKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - J A Kanis
- Mary McKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia
- Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - E V McCloskey
- Department of Oncology & Metabolism, Metabolic Bone Centre, Northern General Hospital, University of Sheffield, Herries Road, Sheffield, S5 7AU, UK
- Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Zhang YY, Xie N, Sun XD, Nice EC, Liou YC, Huang C, Zhu H, Shen Z. Insights and implications of sexual dimorphism in osteoporosis. Bone Res 2024; 12:8. [PMID: 38368422 PMCID: PMC10874461 DOI: 10.1038/s41413-023-00306-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/21/2023] [Revised: 11/04/2023] [Accepted: 11/27/2023] [Indexed: 02/19/2024] Open
Abstract
Osteoporosis, a metabolic bone disease characterized by low bone mineral density and deterioration of bone microarchitecture, has led to a high risk of fatal osteoporotic fractures worldwide. Accumulating evidence has revealed that sexual dimorphism is a notable feature of osteoporosis, with sex-specific differences in epidemiology and pathogenesis. Specifically, females are more susceptible than males to osteoporosis, while males are more prone to disability or death from the disease. To date, sex chromosome abnormalities and steroid hormones have been proven to contribute greatly to sexual dimorphism in osteoporosis by regulating the functions of bone cells. Understanding the sex-specific differences in osteoporosis and its related complications is essential for improving treatment strategies tailored to women and men. This literature review focuses on the mechanisms underlying sexual dimorphism in osteoporosis, mainly in a population of aging patients, chronic glucocorticoid administration, and diabetes. Moreover, we highlight the implications of sexual dimorphism for developing therapeutics and preventive strategies and screening approaches tailored to women and men. Additionally, the challenges in translating bench research to bedside treatments and future directions to overcome these obstacles will be discussed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yuan-Yuan Zhang
- Key Laboratory of Drug-Targeting and Drug Delivery System of the Education Ministry and Sichuan Province, Sichuan Research Center for Drug Precision Industrial Technology, West China School of Pharmacy, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, China
| | - Na Xie
- West China School of Basic Medical Sciences & Forensic Medicine, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, China
| | - Xiao-Dong Sun
- West China School of Basic Medical Sciences & Forensic Medicine, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, China
| | - Edouard C Nice
- Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, 3800, Australia
| | - Yih-Cherng Liou
- Department of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Science, National University of Singapore, Singapore, 117543, Republic of Singapore
| | - Canhua Huang
- Department of Biotherapy, Cancer Center and State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy, West China Hospital, and West China School of Basic Medical Sciences & Forensic Medicine, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, China
| | - Huili Zhu
- Key Laboratory of Birth Defects and Related Diseases of Women and Children of Ministry of Education, Department of Reproductive Medicine, West China Second University Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
| | - Zhisen Shen
- Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, The Affiliated Lihuili Hospital, Ningbo University, 315040, Ningbo, Zhejiang, China.
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Jaiswal R, Johansson H, Axelsson KF, Magnusson P, Harvey NC, Vandenput L, McCloskey E, Kanis JA, Litsne H, Johansson L, Lorentzon M. Hemoglobin Levels Improve Fracture Risk Prediction in Addition to FRAX Clinical Risk Factors and Bone Mineral Density. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2023; 108:e1479-e1488. [PMID: 37406247 PMCID: PMC10655535 DOI: 10.1210/clinem/dgad399] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/08/2023] [Revised: 06/26/2023] [Accepted: 07/03/2023] [Indexed: 07/07/2023]
Abstract
CONTEXT Anemia and decreasing levels of hemoglobin (Hb) have previously been linked to increased fracture risk, but the added value to FRAX, the most utilized fracture prediction tool worldwide, is unknown. OBJECTIVE To investigate the association between anemia, Hb levels, bone microstructure, and risk of incident fracture and to evaluate whether Hb levels improve fracture risk prediction in addition to FRAX clinical risk factors (CRFs). METHODS A total of 2778 community-dwelling women, aged 75-80 years, and part of a prospective population-based cohort study in Sweden were included. At baseline, information on anthropometrics, CRFs, and falls was gathered, blood samples were collected, and skeletal characteristics were investigated using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry and high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography. At the end of follow-up, incident fractures were retrieved from a regional x-ray archive. RESULTS The median follow-up time was 6.4 years. Low Hb was associated with worse total hip and femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD), and lower tibia cortical and total volumetric BMD, and anemia was associated with increased risk of major osteoporotic fracture (MOF; hazard ratio 2.04; 95% CI 1.58-2.64). Similar results were obtained for hip fracture and any fracture, also when adjusting for CRFs. The ratio between 10-year fracture probabilities of MOF assessed in models with Hb levels included and not included ranged from 1.2 to 0.7 at the 10th and 90th percentile of Hb, respectively. CONCLUSION Anemia and decreasing levels of Hb are associated with lower cortical BMD and incident fracture in older women. Considering Hb levels may improve the clinical evaluation of patients with osteoporosis and the assessment of fracture risk.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Raju Jaiswal
- Sahlgrenska Osteoporosis Centre, Department of Internal Medicine and Clinical Nutrition, Institute of Medicine, University of Gothenburg, 413 45 Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - Helena Johansson
- Sahlgrenska Osteoporosis Centre, Department of Internal Medicine and Clinical Nutrition, Institute of Medicine, University of Gothenburg, 413 45 Gothenburg, Sweden
- Mary MacKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, VIC, 3000, Australia
| | - Kristian F Axelsson
- Sahlgrenska Osteoporosis Centre, Department of Internal Medicine and Clinical Nutrition, Institute of Medicine, University of Gothenburg, 413 45 Gothenburg, Sweden
- Region Västra Götaland, Närhälsan Norrmalm, Health Centre, 549 40 Skövde, Sweden
| | - Per Magnusson
- Department of Clinical Chemistry, and Department of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden
| | - Nicholas C Harvey
- MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
- NIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, University of Southampton and University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK
| | - Liesbeth Vandenput
- Sahlgrenska Osteoporosis Centre, Department of Internal Medicine and Clinical Nutrition, Institute of Medicine, University of Gothenburg, 413 45 Gothenburg, Sweden
- Mary MacKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, VIC, 3000, Australia
| | - Eugene McCloskey
- Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield Medical School, Sheffield, UK
- MRC Versus Arthritis Centre for Integrated research in Musculoskeletal Ageing, Mellanby Centre for Musculoskeletal Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - John A Kanis
- Mary MacKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, VIC, 3000, Australia
- Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield Medical School, Sheffield, UK
| | - Henrik Litsne
- Sahlgrenska Osteoporosis Centre, Department of Internal Medicine and Clinical Nutrition, Institute of Medicine, University of Gothenburg, 413 45 Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - Lisa Johansson
- Sahlgrenska Osteoporosis Centre, Department of Internal Medicine and Clinical Nutrition, Institute of Medicine, University of Gothenburg, 413 45 Gothenburg, Sweden
- Region Västra Götaland, Department of Orthopedics, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Mölndal, Sweden
| | - Mattias Lorentzon
- Sahlgrenska Osteoporosis Centre, Department of Internal Medicine and Clinical Nutrition, Institute of Medicine, University of Gothenburg, 413 45 Gothenburg, Sweden
- Mary MacKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, VIC, 3000, Australia
- Region Västra Götaland, Department of Geriatric Medicine, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Mölndal, Sweden
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Rubiño FJ, Naranjo A, Molina A, Fuentes S, Santana F, Navarro R, Montesdeoca A, Fernández T, Lorenzo JA, Ojeda S. Active identification of vertebral fracture in the FLS model of care. Arch Osteoporos 2023; 18:89. [PMID: 37382649 PMCID: PMC10310566 DOI: 10.1007/s11657-023-01289-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/07/2023] [Accepted: 05/22/2023] [Indexed: 06/30/2023]
Abstract
The identification of vertebral fracture is a key point in an FLS. We have analyzed the characteristics of 570 patients according to the route of identification (referral by other doctors, emergency registry or through VFA), concluding that promoting referral by other doctors with a training campaign is effective. PURPOSE Vertebral fractures (VF) are associated with increased risk of further VFs. Our objective was to analyze the characteristics of patients with VF seen in a Fracture Liaison Service (FLS). METHODS An observational study was carried out on patients with VF referred to the outpatient metabolic clinic (OMC) after a training campaign, identified in the emergency registry, and captured by VF assessment with bone densitometry (DXA-VFA) in patients with non-VFs. Patients with traumatic VF or VF > 1 year, infiltrative or neoplastic disease were excluded. The number and severity of VFs (Genant) were analyzed. Treatment initiation in the first 6 months after baseline visit was reviewed. RESULTS Overall, 570 patients were included, mean age 73. The most common route for identifying VF was through referral to OMC (303 cases), followed by the emergency registry (198) and DXA-VFA (69). Osteoporosis by DXA was found in 312 (58%) patients and 259 (45%) had ≥ 2 VFs. The rate of grade 3 VFs was highest among patients on the emergency registry. Those identified through OMC had a higher number of VFs, a higher rate of osteoporosis, more risk factors and greater treatment initiation. Patients with VFs detected by DXA-VFA were mostly women with a single VF and had a lower rate of osteoporosis by DXA. CONCLUSIONS We present the distribution of VFs by the route of identification in an FLS. Promoting referral by other doctors with a training campaign may help in the quality improvement of the FLS-based model of care.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Francisco J Rubiño
- Department of Rheumatology, Hospital Universitario de Gran Canaria Dr. Negrín, Reumatología Barranco de La Ballena, 35011, Las Palmas, Spain
| | - Antonio Naranjo
- Department of Rheumatology, Hospital Universitario de Gran Canaria Dr. Negrín, Reumatología Barranco de La Ballena, 35011, Las Palmas, Spain.
- University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Las Palmas, Spain.
| | - Amparo Molina
- Department of Rheumatology, Hospital Universitario de Gran Canaria Dr. Negrín, Reumatología Barranco de La Ballena, 35011, Las Palmas, Spain
| | - Sonia Fuentes
- Department of Rheumatology, Hospital Universitario de Gran Canaria Dr. Negrín, Reumatología Barranco de La Ballena, 35011, Las Palmas, Spain
| | - Fabiola Santana
- Department of Rheumatology, Hospital Universitario de Gran Canaria Dr. Negrín, Reumatología Barranco de La Ballena, 35011, Las Palmas, Spain
| | - Ricardo Navarro
- Department of Orthopedics, Spine Unit, Hospital Universitario de Gran Canaria Dr. Negrín, Las Palmas, Spain
| | - Arturo Montesdeoca
- Department of Orthopedics, Spine Unit, Hospital Universitario de Gran Canaria Dr. Negrín, Las Palmas, Spain
| | - Tito Fernández
- Department of Orthopedics, Spine Unit, Hospital Universitario de Gran Canaria Dr. Negrín, Las Palmas, Spain
| | - José A Lorenzo
- Department of Orthopedics, Spine Unit, Hospital Universitario de Gran Canaria Dr. Negrín, Las Palmas, Spain
| | - Soledad Ojeda
- Department of Rheumatology, Hospital Universitario de Gran Canaria Dr. Negrín, Reumatología Barranco de La Ballena, 35011, Las Palmas, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
de Filette JMK, Charles A, Bellanger A, Iconaru L, Baleanu F, Surquin M, Body JJ, Bergmann P. Risk factors predicting the 'time to first fracture' and its association with imminent fractures: a substudy of the FRISBEE cohort. Arch Osteoporos 2023; 18:88. [PMID: 37369953 DOI: 10.1007/s11657-023-01296-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/25/2023] [Accepted: 06/05/2023] [Indexed: 06/29/2023]
Abstract
Only previous glucocorticoid use and rheumatoid arthritis were predictors of an early fracture (< 2 years after inclusion). A shorter 'time to first fracture' was not an independent clinical risk factor for imminent fractures. PURPOSE Risk factors for fragility fractures independent of BMD were assessed in several prediction models. However, predictors of a shorter 'time to first fracture' and its impact on imminent fractures are unknown. METHODS We studied the concept of 'time to first fracture' in the FRISBEE ("Fracture RIsk Brussels Epidemiological Enquiry") cohort (3560 postmenopausal women). Validated fractures were divided into 3 groups: first fracture < 2 years, 2-5 years, and > 5 years after inclusion. Factors associated with first fracture risk were evaluated with uni- and multivariate analyses using Cox modeling. We examined 'time to first fracture' as a risk factor for imminent fractures in untreated subjects and in those receiving pharmacological treatment. RESULTS Classical risk factors (age, prior fracture, fall history and low BMD) were associated with first fracture in all groups. Previous glucocorticoids and rheumatoid arthritis (RA) were predictors for fracture < 2 years. Imminent fractures were similar in subjects with or without osteoporosis treatment, despite a higher estimated 10-year risk of fragility fracture in those treated, suggesting that treatment is efficient. 'Time to first fracture' was not an independent risk factor for imminent fractures. CONCLUSION Among the risk factors considered, previous glucocorticoid use and RA were predictors for early fracture, consistent with the concept of very high risk. The 'time to first validated fracture' was not an independent risk factor for imminent fractures. Patients with a first osteoporotic fracture should thus be considered at very high risk for re-fracture, independent of the 'time to first fracture'.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jeroen M K de Filette
- Department of Endocrinology, CHU Brugmann, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Place A. Van Gehuchten 4, 1020 Laken, Brussels, Belgium.
| | - Alexia Charles
- Laboratoire de Recherche Translationnelle, CHU Brugmann, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Amélie Bellanger
- Laboratoire de Recherche Translationnelle, CHU Brugmann, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Laura Iconaru
- Department of Endocrinology, CHU Brugmann, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Place A. Van Gehuchten 4, 1020 Laken, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Felicia Baleanu
- Department of Endocrinology, CHU Brugmann, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Place A. Van Gehuchten 4, 1020 Laken, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Murielle Surquin
- Department of Internal Medicine, CHU Brugmann, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Jean-Jacques Body
- Department of Endocrinology, CHU Brugmann, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Place A. Van Gehuchten 4, 1020 Laken, Brussels, Belgium
- Laboratoire de Recherche Translationnelle, CHU Brugmann, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
- Department of Internal Medicine, CHU Brugmann, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Pierre Bergmann
- Laboratoire de Recherche Translationnelle, CHU Brugmann, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, CHU Brugmann, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Iconaru L, Charles A, Baleanu F, Moreau M, Surquin M, Benoit F, de Filette J, Karmali R, Body JJ, Bergmann P. Selection for treatment of patients at high risk of fracture by the short versus long term prediction models - data from the Belgian FRISBEE cohort. Osteoporos Int 2023; 34:1119-1125. [PMID: 37022466 DOI: 10.1007/s00198-023-06737-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/20/2022] [Accepted: 03/27/2023] [Indexed: 04/07/2023]
Abstract
Our imminent model was less sensitive but more selective than FRAX® in the choice of treatment to prevent imminent fractures. This new model decreased NNT by 30%, which could reduce the treatment costs. In the Belgian FRISBEE cohort, the effect of recency further decreased the selectivity of FRAX®. PURPOSE We analyzed the selection for treatment of patients at high risk of fracture by the Belgian FRISBEE imminent model and the FRAX® tool. METHODS We identified in the FRISBEE cohort subjects who sustained an incident MOF (mean age 76.5 ± 6.8 years). We calculated their estimated 10-year risk of fracture using FRAX® before and after adjustment for recency and the 2-year probability of fracture using the FRISBEE model. RESULTS After 6.8 years of follow-up, we validated 480 incident and 54 imminent MOFs. Of the subjects who had an imminent fracture, 94.0% had a fracture risk estimated above 20% by the FRAX® before correction for recency and 98.1% after adjustment, with a specificity of 20.2% and 5.9%, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of the FRISBEE model at 2 years were 72.2% and 55.4%, respectively, for a threshold of 10%. For these thresholds, 47.3% of the patients were identified at high risk in both models before the correction, and 17.2% of them had an imminent MOF. The adjustment for recency did not change this selection. Before the correction, 34.2% of patients were selected for treatment by FRAX® only, and 18.8% would have had an imminent MOF. This percentage increased to 47% after the adjustment for recency, but only 6% of those would suffer a MOF within 2 years. CONCLUSION In our Belgian FRISBEE cohort, the imminent model was less sensitive but more selective in the selection of subjects in whom an imminent fracture should be prevented, resulting in a lower NNT. The correction for recency in this elderly population further decreased the selectivity of FRAX®. These data should be validated in additional cohorts before using them in everyday practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- L Iconaru
- Department of Endocrinology, CHU Brugmann, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Place van Gehuchten 4, 1020 Laeken, Brussels, Belgium.
| | - A Charles
- Laboratoire de Recherche Translationnelle, CHU Brugmann, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
| | - F Baleanu
- Department of Endocrinology, CHU Brugmann, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Place van Gehuchten 4, 1020 Laeken, Brussels, Belgium
| | - M Moreau
- Data Centre, Inst. J. Bordet, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
| | - M Surquin
- Department of Internal Medicine, CHU Brugmann, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
| | - F Benoit
- Department of Internal Medicine, CHU Brugmann, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
| | - J de Filette
- Department of Endocrinology, CHU Brugmann, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Place van Gehuchten 4, 1020 Laeken, Brussels, Belgium
| | - R Karmali
- Department of Endocrinology, CHU Brugmann, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Place van Gehuchten 4, 1020 Laeken, Brussels, Belgium
- Department of Internal Medicine, CHU Brugmann, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
| | - J J Body
- Department of Endocrinology, CHU Brugmann, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Place van Gehuchten 4, 1020 Laeken, Brussels, Belgium
- Laboratoire de Recherche Translationnelle, CHU Brugmann, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
- Department of Internal Medicine, CHU Brugmann, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
| | - P Bergmann
- Laboratoire de Recherche Translationnelle, CHU Brugmann, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, CHU Brugmann, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Axelsson KF, Litsne H, Lorentzon M. The Importance of Recent Prevalent Fracture Site for Imminent Risk of Fracture - A Retrospective, Nationwide Cohort Study of Older Swedish Men and Women. J Bone Miner Res 2023. [PMID: 36970835 DOI: 10.1002/jbmr.4806] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/07/2022] [Revised: 03/08/2023] [Accepted: 03/21/2023] [Indexed: 04/26/2023]
Abstract
There is limited evidence regarding which fracture types carry the highest risk for subsequent fracture. The aim of this study was to investigate how the risk of imminent fracture depends on index fracture site. This nationwide retrospective cohort study utilized national registers in Sweden to determine the risk of fracture according to recent (≤2 years) index fracture site and according to an old (>2 years) prevalent fracture compared with the risk observed in controls without a fracture. All Swedes 50 years or older between 2007 and 2010 were included in the study. Patients with a recent fracture were designated a specific fracture group depending on the type of previous fracture. Recent fractures were classified as major osteoporotic fracture (MOF), including fractured hip, vertebra, proximal humerus, and wrist, or non-MOF. Patients were followed until December 31, 2017, censored for death and emigration, and the risk of any fracture and hip fracture was assessed. A total of 3,423,320 persons were included in the study, 70,254 with a recent MOF, 75,526 with a recent non-MOF, 293,051 with an old fracture, and 2,984,489 persons with no previous fracture. The median time of follow-up for the four groups was 6.1 (interquartile range [IQR] 3.0-8.8), 7.2 (5.6-9.4), 7.1 (5.8-9.2), and 8.1 years (7.4-9.7), respectively. Patients with a recent MOF, recent non-MOF, and old fracture had a substantially increased risk of any fracture (hazard ratio [HR] adjusted for age and sex 2.11, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.08-2.14; HR 2.24, 95% CI 2.21-2.27; and HR 1.77, 95% CI 1.76-1.78, respectively) compared with controls. All recent fractures, MOFs, and non-MOFs, as well as older fractures, increase the risk of subsequent fracture, suggesting that all recent fractures should be included in fracture liaison services and that case-finding strategies for those with older fractures may be warranted to prevent subsequent fractures. © 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).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kristian F Axelsson
- Sahlgrenska Osteoporosis Centre, Institute of Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
- Region Västra Götaland, Närhälsan Norrmalm Health Centre, Skövde, Sweden
| | - Henrik Litsne
- Sahlgrenska Osteoporosis Centre, Institute of Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - Mattias Lorentzon
- Sahlgrenska Osteoporosis Centre, Institute of Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
- Mary McKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia
- Region Västra Götaland, Geriatric Medicine, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Mölndal, Sweden
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Dimai HP. New Horizons: Artificial Intelligence Tools for Managing Osteoporosis. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2023; 108:775-783. [PMID: 36477337 PMCID: PMC9999362 DOI: 10.1210/clinem/dgac702] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/25/2022] [Revised: 11/29/2022] [Accepted: 11/30/2022] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
Osteoporosis is a disease characterized by low bone mass and microarchitectural deterioration leading to increased bone fragility and fracture risk. Typically, osteoporotic fractures occur at the spine, hip, distal forearm, and proximal humerus, but other skeletal sites may be affected as well. One of the major challenges in the management of osteoporosis lies in the fact that although the operational diagnosis is based on bone mineral density (BMD) as measured by dual x-ray absorptiometry, the majority of fractures occur at nonosteoporotic BMD values. Furthermore, osteoporosis often remains undiagnosed regardless of the low severity of the underlying trauma. Also, there is only weak consensus among the major guidelines worldwide, when to treat, whom to treat, and which drug to use. Against this background, increasing efforts have been undertaken in the past few years by artificial intelligence (AI) developers to support and improve the management of this disease. The performance of many of these newly developed AI algorithms have been shown to be at least comparable to that of physician experts, or even superior. However, even if study results appear promising at a first glance, they should always be interpreted with caution. Use of inadequate reference standards or selection of variables that are of little or no value in clinical practice are limitations not infrequently found. Consequently, there is a clear need for high-quality clinical research in this field of AI. This could, eg, be achieved by establishing an internationally consented "best practice framework" that considers all relevant stakeholders.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hans Peter Dimai
- Correspondence: Hans Peter Dimai, MD, Division of Endocrinology and Diabetology, Department of Internal Medicine, Medical University of Graz, Auenbruggerplatz 15, A-8036 Graz, Austria.
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Huang CF, Chen JF, Reid IR, Chan WP, Ebeling PR, Langdahl B, Tu ST, Matsumoto T, Chan DC, Chung YS, Chen FP, Lewiecki EM, Tsai KS, Yang RS, Ang SB, Huang KE, Chang YF, Chen CH, Lee JK, Ma HI, Xia W, Mithal A, Kendler DL, Cooper C, Hwang JS, Wu CH. Asia-pacific consensus on osteoporotic fracture prevention in postmenopausal women with low bone mass or osteoporosis but no fragility fractures. J Formos Med Assoc 2023; 122 Suppl 1:S14-S20. [PMID: 36775679 DOI: 10.1016/j.jfma.2023.01.013] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/25/2022] [Revised: 01/17/2023] [Accepted: 01/29/2023] [Indexed: 02/12/2023] Open
Abstract
Postmenopausal women are at significant risk for osteoporotic fractures due to their rapid bone loss. Half of all postmenopausal women will get an osteoporosis-related fracture over their lifetime, with 25% developing a spine deformity and 15% developing a hip fracture. By 2050, more than half of all osteoporotic fractures will occur in Asia, with postmenopausal women being the most susceptible. Early management can halt or even reverse the progression of osteoporosis. Consequently, on October 31, 2020, the Taiwanese Osteoporosis Association hosted the Asia-Pacific (AP) Postmenopausal Osteoporotic Fracture Prevention (POFP) consensus meeting, which was supported by the Asian Federation of Osteoporosis Societies (AFOS) and the Asia Pacific Osteoporosis Foundation (APOF). International and domestic experts developed ten applicable statements for the prevention of osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women with low bone mass or osteoporosis but no fragility fractures in the AP region. The experts advocated, for example, that postmenopausal women with a high fracture risk be reimbursed for pharmaceutical therapy to prevent osteoporotic fractures. More clinical experience and data are required to modify intervention tactics.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chun-Feng Huang
- Division of Family Medicine, En Chu Kong Hospital, New Taipei City, Taiwan; Faculty of Medicine, School of Medicine, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan; Department of Leisure Services Management, Chaoyang University of Technology, Taichung, Taiwan
| | - Jung-Fu Chen
- Division of Metabolism and Endocrinology, Department of Internal Medicine, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Kaohsiung, Taiwan
| | - Ian R Reid
- Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - Wing P Chan
- Department of Radiology, School of Medicine, College of Medicine, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan; Department of Radiology, Wan Fang Hospital, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan
| | - Peter Robert Ebeling
- Department of Medicine, School of Clinical Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia
| | - Bente Langdahl
- Department of Endocrinology and Internal Medicine, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
| | - Shih-Te Tu
- Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Department of Internal Medicine, Changhua Christian Hospital, Changhua, Taiwan
| | - Toshio Matsumoto
- Fujii Memorial Institute of Medical Sciences, Tokushima University, Tokushima, Japan
| | - Ding-Cheng Chan
- Department of Geriatrics and Gerontology, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan; Department of Internal Medicine, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan
| | - Yoon-Sok Chung
- Department of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Ajou University School of Medicine, Suwon, South Korea
| | - Fang-Ping Chen
- Keelung Osteoporosis Prevention and Treatment Center, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Keelung, Taiwan
| | - E Michael Lewiecki
- New Mexico Clinical Research & Osteoporosis Center, Albuquerque, NM, USA
| | - Keh-Sung Tsai
- Superintendent Office, Far Eastern Polyclinic of Far Eastern Medical Foundation, Taipei, Taiwan
| | - Rong-Sen Yang
- Department of Orthopaedics, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan
| | - Seng Bin Ang
- Menopause Unit and Family Medicine Service, KK Women's and Children's Hospital, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Ko-En Huang
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Taoyuan, Taiwan
| | - Yin-Fan Chang
- Department of Family Medicine, National Cheng Kung University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan
| | - Chung-Hwan Chen
- Orthopaedic Research Center and Department of Orthopedics, College of Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan; Regeneration Medicine and Cell Therapy Research Center and Musculoskeletal Regeneration Research Center, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan; Department of Orthopedics, Kaohsiung Municipal Ta-Tung Hospital and Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung, Taiwan
| | | | - Hsin-I Ma
- Department of Neurological Surgery, Tri-Service General Hospital, National Defense Medical Center, Taipei, Taiwan
| | - Weibo Xia
- Department of Endocrinology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China
| | - Ambrish Mithal
- Division of Endocrinology and Diabetes, Medanta the Medicity, Gurgaon, Haryana, India
| | - David L Kendler
- Department of Medicine (Endocrinology), University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
| | - Cyrus Cooper
- Oxford National Institute for Health Biomedical Research Centre, University of Oxford, Windmill Road, Oxford, United Kingdom
| | - Jawl-Shan Hwang
- Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Department of Internal Medicine, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taoyuan, Taiwan
| | - Chih-Hsing Wu
- Department of Family Medicine, National Cheng Kung University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan; Department of Family Medicine, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan; Institute of Gerontology, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan.
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Iconaru L, Charles A, Baleanu F, Moreau M, Surquin M, Benoit F, Body J, Bergmann P. The effect of fracture recency on observed 5-year fracture probability: A study based on the FRISBEE cohort. Bone Rep 2023; 18:101660. [PMID: 36824480 PMCID: PMC9941353 DOI: 10.1016/j.bonr.2023.101660] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/16/2022] [Revised: 01/18/2023] [Accepted: 02/04/2023] [Indexed: 02/09/2023] Open
Abstract
Introduction Prediction models, especially the FRAX®, are largely used to estimate the fracture risk at ten years, but the current algorithm does not take into account the time elapsed after a fracture. Kanis et al. recently proposed correction factors allowing to adjust the FRAX® score for fracture recency. The objective of this work was to analyze the effect of fracture recency in the FRISBEE cohort. Methods We identified in the FRISBEE cohort subjects who sustained a validated fracture during the first 5 years following an incident MOF. We calculated their estimated 5-year risk of fracture using FRAX® uncorrected, adjusted for recency and further adjusted for the MOF/hip ratios calibration factors previously derived for the Belgian FRAX®. We compared the fracture risk estimated by FRAX® before and after these corrections to the observed incidence of validated fractures in our cohort. Results In our ongoing cohort, 376 subjects had a first non-traumatic incident validated MOF after inclusion; 81 had a secondary fracture during the 5 years follow-up period after this index fracture. The FRAX® score significantly under-evaluated the observed incidence of fractures in our cohort by 54.7 % (fracture rate of 9.7 %; 95 % CI, 6.8-12.9 %) if uncorrected (p < 0.001) and by 32.6 % after correction for recency (14.5 %; 95 % CI, 11.1-18.2 %) (p = 0.01). The calibration for MOF/hip ratios improved the prediction (17.5 %; 95 % CI: 13.7-21.4 %) (p = 0.2). After correcting for recency and for calibration, the predicted value was over-evaluated by 22 % (fracture rate of 26.1 %; 95 % CI, 21.6-30.5 %) but this over-evaluation was not significant (p = 0.1). Conclusion Our data indicate that the correction of the FRAX® score for fracture recency improves fracture prediction. However, correction for calibration and recency tends to overestimate fracture risk in this population of elderly women.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- L. Iconaru
- Department of Endocrinology, CHU Brugmann, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium,Corresponding author at: Department of Endocrinology, CHU Brugmann, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Place van Gehuchten 4, 1020 Laeken, Brussels, Belgium.
| | - A. Charles
- Laboratoire de Recherche Translationnelle, CHU Brugmann, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
| | - F. Baleanu
- Department of Endocrinology, CHU Brugmann, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
| | - M. Moreau
- Data Centre, Institut J. Bordet, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
| | - M. Surquin
- Department of Internal Medicine, CHU Brugmann, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
| | - F. Benoit
- Department of Internal Medicine, CHU Brugmann, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
| | - J.J. Body
- Department of Endocrinology, CHU Brugmann, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium,Laboratoire de Recherche Translationnelle, CHU Brugmann, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium,Department of Internal Medicine, CHU Brugmann, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
| | - P. Bergmann
- Laboratoire de Recherche Translationnelle, CHU Brugmann, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium,Department of Nuclear Medicine, CHU Brugmann, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Zikán V. Osteoporosis in adults in clinical practice (1): diagnosis and differential diagnosis. VNITRNI LEKARSTVI 2023; 69:4-15. [PMID: 37468317 DOI: 10.36290/vnl.2023.052] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 07/21/2023]
Abstract
Osteoporosis is a systemic metabolic disease of the skeleton characterized by low bone strength that results in an increased risk of fracture. Fractures are associated with serious clinical consequences, including pain, disability, loss of independence, and death, as well as high healthcare costs. Early identification and intervention with patients at high risk for fracture is needed to reduce the burden of osteoporotic fractures. The identification of a patient at high risk of fracture should be followed by evaluation for factors contributing to low bone mineral density (BMD) and/or low bone quality, falls, and fractures. Components of the osteological evaluation include an assessment of BMD by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, osteoporosis-directed medical history and physical exam, laboratory studies, and possibly skeletal imaging. Disorders other than osteoporosis, requiring other types of treatment, may be found. This overview summarizes the basic procedures for the diagnosis and differential diagnosis of osteoporosis, which are necessary before starting treatment.
Collapse
|
19
|
Binkley N, Schousboe JT, Lix LM, Morin SN, Leslie WD. Should vertebral fracture assessment be performed in Fracture Liaison Service patients with non-vertebral fracture? Osteoporos Int 2023; 34:129-135. [PMID: 36380162 DOI: 10.1007/s00198-022-06586-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/15/2022] [Accepted: 10/21/2022] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
Abstract
UNLABELLED Prior non-vertebral fractures, except of the ankle, are associated with increased likelihood of vertebral fracture. As knowledge of vertebral fracture presence may alter care, vertebral fracture assessment (VFA) is indicated in patients with prior fracture. INTRODUCTION Vertebral fractures are often unappreciated. It was recently advocated that all Fracture Liaison Service (FLS) patients have densitometric VFA performed. We evaluated the likelihood of vertebral fracture identification with VFA in patients with prior fracture using the Manitoba Bone Density database. METHODS : VFA was performed in patients with T-scores below - 1.5 and age 70 + (or younger with height loss or glucocorticoid use) obtaining bone densitometry in Manitoba from 2010 to 2018. Those with prior clinical vertebral fracture, pathologic fracture, or uninterpretable VFA were excluded. Vertebral fractures were identified using the modified ABQ method. Health records were assessed for non-vertebral fracture (excluding head, neck, hand, foot) diagnosis codes unassociated with trauma prior to DXA. Multivariable odds ratios (ORs) for vertebral fracture were estimated without and with adjustment for age, sex, body mass index, ethnicity, area of residence, income level, comorbidity score, diabetes mellitus, falls in the last year, glucocorticoid use, and lowest BMD T-score. RESULTS The study cohort consisted of 12,756 patients (94.4% women) with mean (SD) age 75.9 (6.8) years. Vertebral fractures were identified in 1925 (15.1%) overall. Vertebral fractures were significantly more likely (descending order) in those with prior pelvis, hip, humerus, other sites, and forearm, but not ankle fracture. There was modest attenuation with covariate adjustment but statistical significance was maintained. CONCLUSIONS Prior hip, humerus, pelvis, forearm, and other fractures are associated with an increased likelihood of previously undiagnosed vertebral fracture, information useful for risk stratification and monitoring. These data support recommending VFA in FLS patients who are age 70 + with low BMD.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- N Binkley
- University of Wisconsin, 2870 University Avenue, Suite 100, Madison, WI, 53705, USA.
| | - J T Schousboe
- Park Nicollet Clinic & HealthPartners Institute, Minneapolis, MN, USA
| | - L M Lix
- University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
| | | | - W D Leslie
- University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Kanis JA, Johansson H, Harvey NC, Gudnason V, Sigurdsson G, Siggeirsdottir K, Lorentzon M, Liu E, Vandenput L, McCloskey EV. Adjusting conventional FRAX estimates of fracture probability according to the number of prior fractures. Osteoporos Int 2022; 33:2507-2515. [PMID: 36161339 DOI: 10.1007/s00198-022-06550-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/19/2022] [Accepted: 09/02/2022] [Indexed: 01/13/2023]
Abstract
The risk of a recurrent fragility fracture is high following a first fracture and higher still with more than one prior fracture. This study provides adjustments to FRAX-based fracture probabilities accounting for the number of prior fractures. INTRODUCTION Prior fractures increase subsequent fracture risk. The aim of this study was to quantify the effect of the number of prior fractures on the 10-year probability of fracture determined with FRAX®. METHODS The study used data from the Reykjavik Study fracture register that documented prospectively all fractures at all skeletal sites in a large sample of the population of Iceland. Ten-year probabilities of hip fracture and major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) were determined according to the number of prior osteoporotic fractures over a 20-year interval from the hazards of death and fracture. Fracture probabilities were also computed for a prior osteoporotic fracture irrespective of the number of previous fractures. The probability ratios provided adjustments to conventional FRAX estimates of fracture probability according to the number of prior fractures. RESULTS Probability ratios to adjust 10-year FRAX probabilities of a hip fracture and MOF increased with the number of prior fractures but decreased with age in both men and women. Probability ratios were similar in men and women and for hip fracture and MOF. Mean probability ratios according to the number of prior fractures for all scenarios were 0.95, 1.08, 1.21 and 1.35, for 1,2, 3 and 4 or more prior fractures, respectively. Thus, a simple rule of thumb is to downward adjust FRAX-based fracture probabilities by 5% in the presence of a single prior fracture and to uplift probabilities by 10, 20 and 30% with a history of 2, 3 and 4 or more prior fractures, respectively. CONCLUSION The probability ratios provide adjustments to conventional FRAX estimates of fracture probability according to the number of prior fractures.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- John A Kanis
- Mary McKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia.
- Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
- Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield Medical School, Beech Hill Road, Sheffield, S10 2RX, UK.
| | - Helena Johansson
- Mary McKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia
- Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Nicholas C Harvey
- MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
- NIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, University of Southampton and University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK
| | - Vilmundur Gudnason
- Icelandic Heart Association Research Institute, Kopavogur, Iceland
- University of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland
| | | | | | - Mattias Lorentzon
- Mary McKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia
- Geriatric Medicine, Institute of Medicine, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - Enwu Liu
- Mary McKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Liesbeth Vandenput
- Mary McKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia
- Sahlgrenska Osteoporosis Centre, Institute of Medicine and Clinical Nutrition, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - Eugene V McCloskey
- Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
- Department of Oncology and Metabolism, Mellanby Centre for Musculoskeletal Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Gladkova EN, Lesnyak OM, Zakroeva AG, Gaydukova IZ, Grigorieva AL, Safonova YA. The role and place of the FRAX calculator in initiation osteoporosis treatment: an analysis of the osteoporosis center registry. OSTEOPOROSIS AND BONE DISEASES 2022. [DOI: 10.14341/osteo12945] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Abstract
Background: The growing frequency of fractures associated with osteoporosis, the significant costs of their treatment, disability and increased mortality make it an important and urgent task to optimize the diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis in the Russian Federation.Aim: The aim of this study was analyzed of using modern diagnostic criteria for osteoporosis by specialists when they making a clinical decision to initiate treatment for osteoporosis, including an estimate of the 10-year probability of fractures according to FRAX.Materials and methods: The study was conducted in the city consultative and diagnostic center for the prevention of osteoporosis, St. Petersburg. The register of the osteoporosis center for 2018–2021 was used to select patients for the study. Based on the analysis of registry data, a sample of 362 patients with newly diagnosed osteoporosis was obtained. In the resulting sample, the existing FRAX value was assessed on the therapeutic intervention threshold graph, all of them analyzed the primary medical documentation, as well as the available DXA densitometry data.Results: In this study, we assessed the place of FRAX 10-year risk of major osteoporotic fractures in the clinical decision of an osteoporosis specialist to start anti-osteoporosis therapy, in this case taken as the «gold standard». The study found that a positive FRAX score had a high predictive value of 100%. In contrast, the negative predictive value was very low (19.5%): a FRAX value below the intervention threshold did not guarantee a truly low fracture risk and no need to start osteoporosis treatment.Conclusion: Despite the fact that both densitometry and FRAX have significant limitations in use, and cannot identify all patients with a high risk of fractures, their combined use increases the prognostic value of the methods. FRAX technology in routine practice allows, in addition to clinical and instrumental methods for diagnosing high-risk fractures, to identify candidates for the treatment of osteoporosis, and should be used in accordance with clinical recommendations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- E. N. Gladkova
- North West State Medical University named after I.I. Mechnikov; City Clinical Rheumatological Hospital N 25, St. Petersburg
| | - O. M. Lesnyak
- North West State Medical University named after I.I. Mechnikov; City Clinical Rheumatological Hospital N 25, St. Petersburg
| | | | - I. Z. Gaydukova
- North West State Medical University named after I.I. Mechnikov; City Clinical Rheumatological Hospital N 25, St. Petersburg
| | | | - Yu. A. Safonova
- North West State Medical University named after I.I. Mechnikov; City Clinical Rheumatological Hospital N 25
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Vandenput L, Johansson H, McCloskey EV, Liu E, Åkesson KE, Anderson FA, Azagra R, Bager CL, Beaudart C, Bischoff-Ferrari HA, Biver E, Bruyère O, Cauley JA, Center JR, Chapurlat R, Christiansen C, Cooper C, Crandall CJ, Cummings SR, da Silva JAP, Dawson-Hughes B, Diez-Perez A, Dufour AB, Eisman JA, Elders PJM, Ferrari S, Fujita Y, Fujiwara S, Glüer CC, Goldshtein I, Goltzman D, Gudnason V, Hall J, Hans D, Hoff M, Hollick RJ, Huisman M, Iki M, Ish-Shalom S, Jones G, Karlsson MK, Khosla S, Kiel DP, Koh WP, Koromani F, Kotowicz MA, Kröger H, Kwok T, Lamy O, Langhammer A, Larijani B, Lippuner K, Mellström D, Merlijn T, Nordström A, Nordström P, O'Neill TW, Obermayer-Pietsch B, Ohlsson C, Orwoll ES, Pasco JA, Rivadeneira F, Schei B, Schott AM, Shiroma EJ, Siggeirsdottir K, Simonsick EM, Sornay-Rendu E, Sund R, Swart KMA, Szulc P, Tamaki J, Torgerson DJ, van Schoor NM, van Staa TP, Vila J, Wareham NJ, Wright NC, Yoshimura N, Zillikens MC, Zwart M, Harvey NC, Lorentzon M, Leslie WD, Kanis JA. Update of the fracture risk prediction tool FRAX: a systematic review of potential cohorts and analysis plan. Osteoporos Int 2022; 33:2103-2136. [PMID: 35639106 DOI: 10.1007/s00198-022-06435-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 41] [Impact Index Per Article: 20.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/10/2022] [Accepted: 05/18/2022] [Indexed: 12/15/2022]
Abstract
We describe the collection of cohorts together with the analysis plan for an update of the fracture risk prediction tool FRAX with respect to current and novel risk factors. The resource comprises 2,138,428 participants with a follow-up of approximately 20 million person-years and 116,117 documented incident major osteoporotic fractures. INTRODUCTION The availability of the fracture risk assessment tool FRAX® has substantially enhanced the targeting of treatment to those at high risk of fracture with FRAX now incorporated into more than 100 clinical osteoporosis guidelines worldwide. The aim of this study is to determine whether the current algorithms can be further optimised with respect to current and novel risk factors. METHODS A computerised literature search was performed in PubMed from inception until May 17, 2019, to identify eligible cohorts for updating the FRAX coefficients. Additionally, we searched the abstracts of conference proceedings of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research, European Calcified Tissue Society and World Congress of Osteoporosis. Prospective cohort studies with data on baseline clinical risk factors and incident fractures were eligible. RESULTS Of the 836 records retrieved, 53 were selected for full-text assessment after screening on title and abstract. Twelve cohorts were deemed eligible and of these, 4 novel cohorts were identified. These cohorts, together with 60 previously identified cohorts, will provide the resource for constructing an updated version of FRAX comprising 2,138,428 participants with a follow-up of approximately 20 million person-years and 116,117 documented incident major osteoporotic fractures. For each known and candidate risk factor, multivariate hazard functions for hip fracture, major osteoporotic fracture and death will be tested using extended Poisson regression. Sex- and/or ethnicity-specific differences in the weights of the risk factors will be investigated. After meta-analyses of the cohort-specific beta coefficients for each risk factor, models comprising 10-year probability of hip and major osteoporotic fracture, with or without femoral neck bone mineral density, will be computed. CONCLUSIONS These assembled cohorts and described models will provide the framework for an updated FRAX tool enabling enhanced assessment of fracture risk (PROSPERO (CRD42021227266)).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- L Vandenput
- Mary McKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia
- Sahlgrenska Osteoporosis Centre, Department of Internal Medicine and Clinical Nutrition, Institute of Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - H Johansson
- Mary McKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia
- Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - E V McCloskey
- Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
- MRC Versus Arthritis Centre for Integrated Research in Musculoskeletal Ageing, Mellanby Centre for Musculoskeletal Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - E Liu
- Mary McKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - K E Åkesson
- Clinical and Molecular Osteoporosis Research Unit, Department of Clinical Sciences, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
- Department of Orthopedics, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden
| | - F A Anderson
- GLOW Coordinating Center, Center for Outcomes Research, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA, USA
| | - R Azagra
- Department of Medicine, Autonomous University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
- Health Center Badia del Valles, Catalan Institute of Health, Barcelona, Spain
- GROIMAP (Research Group), Unitat de Suport a La Recerca Metropolitana Nord, Institut Universitari d'Investigació en Atenció Primària Jordi Gol, Santa Coloma de Gramenet, Barcelona, Spain
| | - C L Bager
- Nordic Bioscience A/S, Herlev, Denmark
| | - C Beaudart
- WHO Collaborating Centre for Public Health Aspects of Musculoskeletal Health and Aging, Division of Public Health, Epidemiology and Health Economics, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium
| | - H A Bischoff-Ferrari
- Department of Aging Medicine and Aging Research, University Hospital, Zurich, and University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
- Centre On Aging and Mobility, University of Zurich and City Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - E Biver
- Division of Bone Diseases, Department of Medicine, Geneva University Hospitals and Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - O Bruyère
- WHO Collaborating Centre for Public Health Aspects of Musculoskeletal Health and Aging, Division of Public Health, Epidemiology and Health Economics, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium
| | - J A Cauley
- Department of Epidemiology, Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, USA
| | - J R Center
- Bone Biology, Healthy Ageing Theme, Garvan Institute of Medical Research, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- St Vincent's Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- School of Medicine Sydney, University of Notre Dame Australia, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - R Chapurlat
- INSERM UMR 1033, University of Lyon, Hôpital Edouard Herriot, Lyon, France
| | | | - C Cooper
- MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
- National Institute for Health Research Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, University of Southampton and University Hospitals Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK
- National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Unit, , University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - C J Crandall
- Division of General Internal Medicine and Health Services Research, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - S R Cummings
- San Francisco Coordinating Center, California Pacific Medical Center Research Institute, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | - J A P da Silva
- Coimbra Institute for Clinical and Biomedical Research, Faculty of Medicine, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal
- Rheumatology Department, University Hospital and University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal
| | - B Dawson-Hughes
- Bone Metabolism Laboratory, Jean Mayer US Department of Agriculture Human Nutrition Research Center On Aging, Tufts University, Boston, MA, USA
| | - A Diez-Perez
- Department of Internal Medicine, Hospital del Mar and CIBERFES, Autonomous University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
| | - A B Dufour
- Marcus Institute for Aging Research, Hebrew SeniorLife, Boston, MA, USA
- Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - J A Eisman
- St Vincent's Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- School of Medicine Sydney, University of Notre Dame Australia, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- Osteoporosis and Bone Biology Division, Garvan Institute of Medical Research, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - P J M Elders
- Department of General Practice, Amsterdam UMC, Location VUmc, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - S Ferrari
- Division of Bone Diseases, Department of Medicine, Geneva University Hospitals and Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Y Fujita
- Department of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Kindai University, Osaka, Japan
| | - S Fujiwara
- Department of Pharmacy, Yasuda Women's University, Hiroshima, Japan
| | - C-C Glüer
- Section Biomedical Imaging, Molecular Imaging North Competence Center, Department of Radiology and Neuroradiology, University Medical Center Schleswig-Holstein Kiel, Kiel University, Kiel, Germany
| | - I Goldshtein
- Maccabitech Institute of Research and Innovation, Maccabi Healthcare Services, Tel Aviv, Israel
- Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
| | - D Goltzman
- Department of Medicine, McGill University and McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Canada
| | - V Gudnason
- Icelandic Heart Association, Kopavogur, Iceland
- University of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland
| | - J Hall
- MRC Centre for Reproductive Health, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - D Hans
- Centre of Bone Diseases, Bone and Joint Department, Lausanne University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - M Hoff
- Department of Neuromedicine and Movement Science, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway
- Department of Rheumatology, St Olavs Hospital, Trondheim, Norway
| | - R J Hollick
- Aberdeen Centre for Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Health, Epidemiology Group, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
| | - M Huisman
- Department of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Sociology, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - M Iki
- Department of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Kindai University, Osaka, Japan
| | - S Ish-Shalom
- Endocrine Clinic, Elisha Hospital, Haifa, Israel
| | - G Jones
- Menzies Institute for Medical Research, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia
| | - M K Karlsson
- Clinical and Molecular Osteoporosis Research Unit, Department of Clinical Sciences, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
- Department of Orthopaedics, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden
| | - S Khosla
- Robert and Arlene Kogod Center On Aging and Division of Endocrinology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - D P Kiel
- Marcus Institute for Aging Research, Hebrew SeniorLife, Boston, MA, USA
- Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - W-P Koh
- Healthy Longevity Translational Research Programme, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
- Singapore Institute for Clinical Sciences, Agency for Science Technology and Research (A*STAR), Singapore, Singapore
| | - F Koromani
- Department of Internal Medicine, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - M A Kotowicz
- IMPACT (Institute for Mental and Physical Health and Clinical Translation), Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia
- Barwon Health, Geelong, VIC, Australia
- Department of Medicine - Western Health, The University of Melbourne, St Albans, Victoria, Australia
| | - H Kröger
- Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Kuopio University Hospital, Kuopio, Finland
- Kuopio Musculoskeletal Research Unit, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland
| | - T Kwok
- Department of Medicine and Therapeutics, Faculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong
- Jockey Club Centre for Osteoporosis Care and Control, Faculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong
| | - O Lamy
- Centre of Bone Diseases, Lausanne University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland
- Service of Internal Medicine, Lausanne University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - A Langhammer
- Department of Public Health and Nursing, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, HUNT Research Centre, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway
| | - B Larijani
- Endocrinology and Metabolism Research Center, Endocrinology and Metabolism Clinical Sciences Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
| | - K Lippuner
- Department of Osteoporosis, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - D Mellström
- Geriatric Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine and Clinical Nutrition, Institute of Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
- Geriatric Medicine, Sahlgrenska University Hospital Mölndal, Mölndal, Sweden
| | - T Merlijn
- Department of General Practice, Amsterdam UMC, Location VUmc, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - A Nordström
- Division of Sustainable Health, Department of Public Health and Clinical Medicine, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden
- School of Sport Sciences, Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway
| | - P Nordström
- Unit of Geriatric Medicine, Department of Community Medicine and Rehabilitation, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden
| | - T W O'Neill
- National Institute for Health Research Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
- Centre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - B Obermayer-Pietsch
- Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Endocrinology and Diabetology, Medical University Graz, Graz, Austria
- Center for Biomarker Research in Medicine, Graz, Austria
| | - C Ohlsson
- Sahlgrenska Osteoporosis Centre, Department of Internal Medicine and Clinical Nutrition, Institute of Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
- Department of Drug Treatment, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Region Västra Götaland, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - E S Orwoll
- Department of Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, USA
| | - J A Pasco
- Institute for Physical and Mental Health and Clinical Translation (IMPACT), Deakin University, Geelong, Australia
- Department of Medicine-Western Health, The University of Melbourne, St Albans, Australia
- Barwon Health, Geelong, Australia
- Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - F Rivadeneira
- Department of Internal Medicine, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - B Schei
- Department of Public Health and Nursing, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway
- Department of Gynecology, St Olavs Hospital, Trondheim, Norway
| | - A-M Schott
- Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, U INSERM 1290 RESHAPE, Lyon, France
| | - E J Shiroma
- Laboratory of Epidemiology and Population Sciences, National Institute On Aging, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - K Siggeirsdottir
- Icelandic Heart Association, Kopavogur, Iceland
- Janus Rehabilitation, Reykjavik, Iceland
| | - E M Simonsick
- Translational Gerontology Branch, National Institute On Aging Intramural Research Program, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | | | - R Sund
- Kuopio Musculoskeletal Research Unit, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland
| | - K M A Swart
- Department of General Practice, Amsterdam UMC, Location VUmc, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - P Szulc
- INSERM UMR 1033, University of Lyon, Hôpital Edouard Herriot, Lyon, France
| | - J Tamaki
- Department of Hygiene and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Educational Foundation of Osaka Medical and Pharmaceutical University, Osaka, Japan
| | - D J Torgerson
- York Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK
| | - N M van Schoor
- Department of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - T P van Staa
- Centre for Health Informatics, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - J Vila
- Statistics Support Unit, Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute, CIBER Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBERESP), Barcelona, Spain
| | - N J Wareham
- MRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - N C Wright
- Department of Epidemiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA
| | - N Yoshimura
- Department of Preventive Medicine for Locomotive Organ Disorders, The University of Tokyo Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
| | - M C Zillikens
- Department of Internal Medicine, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - M Zwart
- Health Center Can Gibert del Plà, Catalan Institute of Health, Girona, Spain
- Department of Medical Sciences, University of Girona, Girona, Spain
- GROIMAP (Research Group), Institut Universitari d'Investigació en Atenció Primària Jordi Gol, Barcelona, Spain
| | - N C Harvey
- MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
- NIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, University of Southampton and University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK
| | - M Lorentzon
- Mary McKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia
- Sahlgrenska Osteoporosis Centre, Institute of Medicine, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
- Geriatric Medicine, Region Västra Götaland, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Mölndal, Sweden
| | - W D Leslie
- Department of Medicine, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada
| | - J A Kanis
- Mary McKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia.
- Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
- Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield Medical School, Sheffield, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Curtis EM, Dennison EM, Cooper C, Harvey NC. Osteoporosis in 2022: Care gaps to screening and personalised medicine. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 2022; 36:101754. [PMID: 35691824 PMCID: PMC7614114 DOI: 10.1016/j.berh.2022.101754] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/30/2023]
Abstract
Osteoporosis care has evolved markedly over the last 50 years, such that there are now an established clinical definition, validated methods of fracture risk assessment, and a range of effective pharmacological agents. However, it is apparent that both in the context of primary and secondary fracture prevention, there is a considerable gap between the population at high fracture risk and those actually receiving appropriate antiosteoporosis treatment. In this narrative review article, we document recent work describing the burden of disease, approaches to management, and service provision across Europe, emerging data on gaps in care, and existing/new ways in which these gaps may be addressed at the level of healthcare systems and policy. We conclude that although the field has come a long way in recent decades, there is still a long way to go, and a concerted, integrated effort is now required from all of us involved in this field to address these urgent issues to ensure the best possible outcomes for our patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Elizabeth M Curtis
- MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton General Hospital, Southampton, UK
| | - Elaine M Dennison
- MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton General Hospital, Southampton, UK
| | - Cyrus Cooper
- MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton General Hospital, Southampton, UK; NIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, University of Southampton and University Hospitals Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK; NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Nicholas C Harvey
- MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton General Hospital, Southampton, UK; NIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, University of Southampton and University Hospitals Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
24
|
Implications of FRAX® adjusted for recent fracture on the indication of treatment in an FLS. Arch Osteoporos 2022; 17:114. [PMID: 35965277 DOI: 10.1007/s11657-022-01157-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/19/2022] [Accepted: 08/09/2022] [Indexed: 02/03/2023]
Abstract
We analyzed the practical consequences of applying an adjusted FRAX® for recent fractures in a FLS. After analyzing 2777 patients, we concluded that the adjusted FRAX® is irrelevant when calculating FRAX® with DXA and is only useful for fractures of the humerus when DXA is not available. PURPOSE A FRAX® adjusted to fractures less than 2 years old has been proposed. The objective of this work was to analyze the clinical implications of applying the adjusted FRAX® instead of the classic FRAX® in a fracture liaison service (FLS) unit. METHODS Adults aged 50 years or older with fragility fractures (hip, spine, humerus, and forearm) that occurred in the 12 months prior to the baseline visit were included. We recorded demographic data, type of fracture, DXA, classic FRAX®, and FRAX® adjusted for recent fractures and indications for anti-osteoporotic medication (AOM) following the guidelines of the Spanish Society of Rheumatology. RESULTS A total of 2777 patients were included, mean age 73 years, 84% women. The type of fracture was as follows: forearm (n = 958; 34.5%), hip (n = 781; 28.1%), humerus (n = 642; 23.1%), and spine (n = 397, 14.3%). DXA was performed in 2134 cases (76.8%). A total of 2522 patients (90.8%) were candidates for AOM (100% involving the hip and spine, 83% forearm, and 85% humerus). FRAX®-hip ≥ 3% increased from 1601 to 1775 cases (57.6 to 64%). The average FRAX®-hip (SD) increased from 5.7 (6) to 7.5 (9) (4.6 to 8.8 in males and 5.9 to 7.3 in females). The percentage of forearm fracture candidates for AOM, with or without DXA, did not change after FRAX®-hip adjustment, while the number of patients with humerus fractures increased from 59 to 80% in those who did not have DXA. In the entire sample, FRAX®-adjusted led to an indication of AOM for 15 additional patients (0.5% of major fractures): 14 with a humerus fracture and 1 with a forearm fracture. CONCLUSIONS The adjusted FRAX® for recent fractures in an FLS unit in an adjusted FRAX® is irrelevant when calculating FRAX® with DXA; in fact, it is only useful for fractures of the humerus when DXA is not available.
Collapse
|
25
|
Johansson L, Johansson H, Axelsson KF, Litsne H, Harvey NC, Liu E, Leslie WD, Vandenput L, McCloskey E, Kanis JA, Lorentzon M. Improved fracture risk prediction by adding VFA-identified vertebral fracture data to BMD by DXA and clinical risk factors used in FRAX. Osteoporos Int 2022; 33:1725-1738. [PMID: 35451623 PMCID: PMC9499899 DOI: 10.1007/s00198-022-06387-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/01/2022] [Accepted: 03/22/2022] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
Abstract
Vertebral fracture (VF) is a strong predictor of subsequent fracture. In this study of older women, VF, identified by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) vertebral fracture assessment (VFA), were associated with an increased risk of incident fractures and had a substantial impact on fracture probability, supporting the utility of VFA in clinical practice. PURPOSE Clinical and occult VF can be identified using VFA with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). The aim of this study was to investigate to what extent VFA-identified VF improve fracture risk prediction, independently of bone mineral density (BMD) and clinical risk factors used in FRAX. METHODS A total of 2852 women, 75-80 years old, from the prospective population-based study SUPERB cohort, were included in this study. At baseline, BMD was measured by DXA, VF diagnosed by VFA, and questionnaires used to collect data on risk factors for fractures. Incident fractures were captured by X-ray records or by diagnosis codes. An extension of Poisson regression was used to estimate the association between VFA-identified VF and the risk of fracture and the 5- and 10-year probability of major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) was calculated from the hazard functions for fracture and death. RESULTS During a median follow-up of 5.15 years (IQR 4.3-5.9 years), the number of women who died or suffered a MOF, clinical VF, or hip fracture was 229, 422, 160, and 124, respectively. A VFA-identified VF was associated with an increased risk of incident MOF (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.78; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.46-2.18), clinical VF (HR = 2.88; 95% [CI] 2.11-3.93), and hip fracture (HR = 1.67; 95% [CI] 1.15-2.42), adjusted for age, height, and weight. For women at age 75 years, a VFA-identified VF was associated with 1.2-1.4-fold greater 10-year MOF probability compared with not taking VFA into account, depending on BMD. CONCLUSION Identifying an occult VF using VFA has a substantial impact on fracture probability, indicating that VFA is an efficient method to improve fracture prediction in older women.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- L Johansson
- Department of Internal Medicine and Clinical Nutrition, Institute of Medicine, Sahlgrenska Osteoporosis Centre, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
- Department of Orthopaedics, Region Västra Götaland, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Mölndal, Sweden
| | - H Johansson
- Department of Internal Medicine and Clinical Nutrition, Institute of Medicine, Sahlgrenska Osteoporosis Centre, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
- Mary MacKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - K F Axelsson
- Department of Internal Medicine and Clinical Nutrition, Institute of Medicine, Sahlgrenska Osteoporosis Centre, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
- Region Västra Götaland, Närhälsan Norrmalm Health Centre, Skövde, Sweden
| | - H Litsne
- Department of Internal Medicine and Clinical Nutrition, Institute of Medicine, Sahlgrenska Osteoporosis Centre, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - N C Harvey
- MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
- NIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, University of Southampton and University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Tremona Road, Southampton, UK
| | - E Liu
- Mary MacKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - W D Leslie
- Department of Medicine, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada
| | - L Vandenput
- Department of Internal Medicine and Clinical Nutrition, Institute of Medicine, Sahlgrenska Osteoporosis Centre, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
- Mary MacKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - E McCloskey
- Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield Medical School, Sheffield, UK
- MRC Versus Arthritis Centre for Integrated Research in Musculoskeletal Ageing, Mellanby Centre for Musculoskeletal Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - J A Kanis
- Mary MacKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
- Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield Medical School, Sheffield, UK
| | - M Lorentzon
- Department of Internal Medicine and Clinical Nutrition, Institute of Medicine, Sahlgrenska Osteoporosis Centre, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
- Mary MacKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
- Department of Geriatric Medicine, Institute of Medicine, Region Västra Götaland, University of Gothenburg, Sahlgrenska University Hospital Mölndal, 43180, Mölndal, Sweden.
| |
Collapse
|
26
|
McCloskey E, Harvey NC, Lorentzon M, Johansson H, Hans D, Kanis JA. Trabecular Bone Score Adjustment for the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX®). Calcif Tissue Int 2022; 111:226-227. [PMID: 35595918 DOI: 10.1007/s00223-022-00994-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/10/2022] [Accepted: 05/15/2022] [Indexed: 11/02/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Eugene McCloskey
- Mellanby Centre for Musculoskeletal Research, MRC Versus Arthritis Centre for Integrated Research in Musculoskeletal Ageing, Department of Oncology & Metabolism, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
- Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
- Metabolic Bone Centre, Northern General Hospital, Herries Road, Sheffield, S5 7AU, UK.
| | - Nicholas C Harvey
- MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - Mattias Lorentzon
- University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
- Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Helena Johansson
- University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
- Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Didier Hans
- Interdisciplinary Center of Bone Diseases, Lausanne University Hospital and Lausanne University, Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - John A Kanis
- Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
- Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
27
|
Javaid MK, Harvey NC, McCloskey EV, Kanis JA, Cooper C. Assessment and management of imminent fracture risk in the setting of the fracture liaison service. Osteoporos Int 2022; 33:1185-1189. [PMID: 35286437 DOI: 10.1007/s00198-021-06284-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/28/2021] [Accepted: 12/21/2021] [Indexed: 10/18/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- M K Javaid
- Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
| | - N C Harvey
- MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
- NIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, University of Southampton and University Hospital, Southampton, UK
| | - E V McCloskey
- Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
- MRC Versus Arthritis Centre for Integrated Research in Musculoskeletal Ageing, Mellanby Centre for Musculoskeletal Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - J A Kanis
- Mary McKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia
- Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield Medical School, Sheffield, UK
| | - C Cooper
- Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
- MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| |
Collapse
|
28
|
Wang L, Yin L, Yang M, Ge Y, Liu Y, Su Y, Guo Z, Yan D, Xu Z, Huang P, Geng J, Liu X, Wang G, Blake GM, Cao W, He B, Lyu L, Cheng X, Wu X, Jiang L, Vlug A, Engelke K. Muscle density is an independent risk factor of second hip fracture: a prospective cohort study. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle 2022; 13:1927-1937. [PMID: 35429146 PMCID: PMC9178374 DOI: 10.1002/jcsm.12996] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/05/2021] [Revised: 03/17/2022] [Accepted: 03/30/2022] [Indexed: 01/07/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Patients with a first hip fracture are at high risk of fracturing their other hip. Despite this, preventive therapy is often not given. Because little is known about specific risk factors of a second hip fracture, we investigated the association with areal bone mineral density (aBMD), muscle size, and density. We also investigated whether muscle parameters predict the risk of a contralateral fracture independently of aBMD. METHODS Three groups were included, one without hip fracture (a subcohort of the China Action on Spine and Hip Status study), one with a first, and one with a second hip fracture. Subjects with fractures were recruited from the longitudinal Chinese Second Hip Fracture Evaluation (CSHFE). Computed tomography scans of CSHFE patients, which were obtained immediately following their first fracture, were used to measure cross-sectional area and density of the gluteus maximus (G.MaxM) and gluteus medius and minimus (G.Med/MinM) muscles. Computed tomography X-ray absorptiometry was used to measure aBMD of the contralateral femur. Median follow-up time to second fracture was 4.5 years. Cox proportional hazards models were used to compute hazard ratios (HR) of second hip fracture risk in subjects with a first hip fracture. Multivariate logistic regressions were used to compare odds ratios (OR) for the risk of a first and second hip fracture. RESULTS Three hundred and one participants (68.4 ± 6.1 years, 64% female) without and 302 participants (74.6 ± 9.9 years, 71% female) with a first hip fracture were included in the analysis. Among the latter, 45 (79.2 ± 7.1 years) sustained a second hip fracture. ORs for first hip fracture were significant for aBMD and muscle size and density. ORs for a second fracture were smaller by a factor of 3 to 4 and no longer significant for femoral neck (FN) aBMD. HRs for predicting second hip fracture confirmed the results. G.Med/MinM density (HR, 1.68; CI, 1.20-2.35) and intertrochanter aBMD (HR, 1.62; CI, 1.13-2.31) were the most significant. FN aBMD was not significant. G.Med/MinM density remained significant for predicting second hip fracture after adjustment for FN (HR, 1.66; Cl, 1.18-2.30) or total hip aBMD (HR, 1.50; 95% Cl, 1.04-2.15). CONCLUSIONS Density of the G.Med/MinM muscle is an aBMD independent predictor of the risk of second hip fracture. Intertrochanteric aBMD is a better predictor of second hip fracture than FN and total hip aBMD. These results may trigger a paradigm shift in the assessment of second hip fracture risk and prevention strategies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ling Wang
- Department of Radiology, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, Beijing, China.,Department of Radiology, The First People's Hospital of Yunnan Province, Kunming, China
| | - Lu Yin
- Medical Research & Biometrics Center, National Center for Cardiovascular Disease, Beijing, China
| | - Minghui Yang
- Departments of Traumatic Orthopedics, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Yufeng Ge
- Departments of Traumatic Orthopedics, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Yandong Liu
- Department of Radiology, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Yongbin Su
- Department of Radiology, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Zhe Guo
- Department of Radiology, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Dong Yan
- Department of Radiology, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Zhengyang Xu
- Department of Radiology, the First Medical Center of Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Pengju Huang
- Department of Radiology, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Jian Geng
- Department of Radiology, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Xingli Liu
- Department of Radiology, The First People's Hospital of Yunnan Province, Kunming, China
| | - Gang Wang
- Department of Radiology, The First People's Hospital of Yunnan Province, Kunming, China
| | - Glen M Blake
- School of Biomedical Engineering & Imaging Sciences, King's College London, St Thomas' Hospital, London, UK
| | - Weiming Cao
- Health Commission of Yunnan Province, Kunming, China
| | - Bo He
- Department of Radiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University, Kunming, China
| | - Liang Lyu
- Department of Radiology, The First People's Hospital of Yunnan Province, Kunming, China
| | - Xiaoguang Cheng
- Department of Radiology, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Xinbao Wu
- Departments of Traumatic Orthopedics, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Lihong Jiang
- The First People's Hospital of Yunnan Province, Kunming, China
| | - Annegreet Vlug
- Center for Bone Quality, Department of Internal Medicine, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Klaus Engelke
- Department of Medicine 3, FAU University Erlangen-Nürnberg and Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany.,Institute of Medical Physics, University of Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
29
|
Leslie WD, Morin SN, Lix LM, McCloskey EV, Johansson H, Harvey NC, Kanis JA. The Effect of Fracture Recency on Observed 10-Year Fracture Probability: A Registry-Based Cohort Study. J Bone Miner Res 2022; 37:848-855. [PMID: 35147245 DOI: 10.1002/jbmr.4526] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/16/2021] [Revised: 01/26/2022] [Accepted: 02/04/2022] [Indexed: 11/06/2022]
Abstract
FRAX estimates 10-year fracture major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) and hip fracture probability from multiple risk factors. FRAX does not consider prior fracture site or time since fracture. Fracture risk is greater in the initial 2-year post-fracture period (imminent risk), implying that FRAX may underestimate risk in this setting. We used the population-based Manitoba Bone Mineral Density (BMD) Program registry to examine the effect of fracture recency and site on incident fracture risk predictions using FRAX. We identified women aged 40 years or older with baseline BMD and FRAX scores. Observed fracture outcomes to 10 years were compared with predicted 10-year fracture probability stratified by prior fracture status: none, recent (<2 years [median 0.3 years]), and remote (≥2 years [median 10.6 years]). For women with recent fractures, we also examined proposed multipliers to adjust FRAX for the effect of fracture recency and site. The cohort comprised 33,465 women aged 40 to 64 years (1897 recent fracture, 2120 remote fracture) and 33,806 women aged ≥65 years (2365 fracture, 4135 remote fracture). Observed fracture probability was consistent with predicted probability in most analyses. In women aged 40 to 64 years, there was a significant effect of recent vertebral and humerus fracture on MOF (observed to predicted 1.61 and 1.48, respectively), but these effects were still lower than the proposed multipliers (2.32 and 1.67, respectively). No significant effect of fracture recency was found after hip or forearm fracture in either age group. Our findings contribute to accumulating evidence of the importance of recent fracture. The effect of fracture recency was not consistent across fracture sites and with a lower magnitude than previously reported. Further quantification of effect size and specificity in additional independent cohorts is warranted to validate and refine recent-fracture multipliers in fracture risk assessment. © 2022 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Lisa M Lix
- University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
| | - Eugene V McCloskey
- Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield Medical School, Sheffield, UK
| | - Helena Johansson
- Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield Medical School, Sheffield, UK
- Mary McKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Nicholas C Harvey
- MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
- NIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, University of Southampton and University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK
| | - John A Kanis
- Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield Medical School, Sheffield, UK
- Mary McKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
30
|
Gregson CL, Armstrong DJ, Bowden J, Cooper C, Edwards J, Gittoes NJL, Harvey N, Kanis J, Leyland S, Low R, McCloskey E, Moss K, Parker J, Paskins Z, Poole K, Reid DM, Stone M, Thomson J, Vine N, Compston J. UK clinical guideline for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis. Arch Osteoporos 2022; 17:58. [PMID: 35378630 PMCID: PMC8979902 DOI: 10.1007/s11657-022-01061-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 163] [Impact Index Per Article: 81.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/20/2021] [Accepted: 01/03/2022] [Indexed: 02/03/2023]
Abstract
The National Osteoporosis Guideline Group (NOGG) has revised the UK guideline for the assessment and management of osteoporosis and the prevention of fragility fractures in postmenopausal women, and men age 50 years and older. Accredited by NICE, this guideline is relevant for all healthcare professionals involved in osteoporosis management. INTRODUCTION The UK National Osteoporosis Guideline Group (NOGG) first produced a guideline on the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis in 2008, with updates in 2013 and 2017. This paper presents a major update of the guideline, the scope of which is to review the assessment and management of osteoporosis and the prevention of fragility fractures in postmenopausal women, and men age 50 years and older. METHODS Where available, systematic reviews, meta-analyses and randomised controlled trials were used to provide the evidence base. Conclusions and recommendations were systematically graded according to the strength of the available evidence. RESULTS Review of the evidence and recommendations are provided for the diagnosis of osteoporosis, fracture-risk assessment and intervention thresholds, management of vertebral fractures, non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatments, including duration and monitoring of anti-resorptive therapy, glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis, and models of care for fracture prevention. Recommendations are made for training; service leads and commissioners of healthcare; and for review criteria for audit and quality improvement. CONCLUSION The guideline, which has received accreditation from the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE), provides a comprehensive overview of the assessment and management of osteoporosis for all healthcare professionals involved in its management. This position paper has been endorsed by the International Osteoporosis Foundation and by the European Society for the Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Celia L Gregson
- Musculoskeletal Research Unit, Bristol Medical School, Learning and Research Building, University of Bristol, Southmead Hospital, Bristol, BS10 5NB, UK.
- Royal United Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Bath, UK.
| | - David J Armstrong
- Western Health and Social Care Trust (NI), Nutrition Innovation Centre for Food and Health, Ulster University, and Visiting Professor, Belfast, Northern Ireland
| | - Jean Bowden
- Musculoskeletal Research Unit, Bristol Medical School, Learning and Research Building, University of Bristol, Southmead Hospital, Bristol, BS10 5NB, UK
| | - Cyrus Cooper
- MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
- NIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, University of Southampton and University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK
- NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - John Edwards
- Primary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, School of Medicine, Keele University, Staffordshire, and Wolstanton Medical Centre, Newcastle under Lyme, UK
| | - Neil J L Gittoes
- Centre for Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, University Hospitals Birmingham & University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Nicholas Harvey
- MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
- NIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, University of Southampton and University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK
| | - John Kanis
- Mary McKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia and Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | | | - Rebecca Low
- Abingdon and Specialty Doctor in Metabolic Bone Disease, Marcham Road Health Centre, Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre, Oxford, UK
| | - Eugene McCloskey
- Department of Oncology & Metabolism, MRC Versus Arthritis Centre for Integrated Research in Musculoskeletal Ageing (CIMA), Mellanby Centre for Musculoskeletal Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Katie Moss
- St George's University Hospital, London, UK
| | - Jane Parker
- Musculoskeletal Research Unit, Bristol Medical School, Learning and Research Building, University of Bristol, Southmead Hospital, Bristol, BS10 5NB, UK
| | - Zoe Paskins
- School of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, Haywood Academic Rheumatology Centre, Haywood Hospital, Midlands Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Stoke-on-Trent, UK
| | - Kenneth Poole
- Department of Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
- NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge, UK
| | | | - Mike Stone
- University Hospital Llandough, Cardiff and Vale University Health Board, Llandough, UK
| | | | - Nic Vine
- Musculoskeletal Research Unit, Bristol Medical School, Learning and Research Building, University of Bristol, Southmead Hospital, Bristol, BS10 5NB, UK
| | - Juliet Compston
- University of Cambridge, School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge, UK
| |
Collapse
|
31
|
Curtis EM, Reginster JY, Al-Daghri N, Biver E, Brandi ML, Cavalier E, Hadji P, Halbout P, Harvey NC, Hiligsmann M, Javaid MK, Kanis JA, Kaufman JM, Lamy O, Matijevic R, Perez AD, Radermecker RP, Rosa MM, Thomas T, Thomasius F, Vlaskovska M, Rizzoli R, Cooper C. Management of patients at very high risk of osteoporotic fractures through sequential treatments. Aging Clin Exp Res 2022; 34:695-714. [PMID: 35332506 PMCID: PMC9076733 DOI: 10.1007/s40520-022-02100-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 44] [Impact Index Per Article: 22.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/11/2022] [Accepted: 02/18/2022] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
Osteoporosis care has evolved markedly over the last 50 years, such that there are now an established clinical definition, validated methods of fracture risk assessment and a range of effective pharmacological agents. Currently, bone-forming (anabolic) agents, in many countries, are used in those patients who have continued to lose bone mineral density (BMD), patients with multiple subsequent fractures or those who have fractured despite treatment with antiresorptive agents. However, head-to-head data suggest that anabolic agents have greater rapidity and efficacy for fracture risk reduction than do antiresorptive therapies. The European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO) convened an expert working group to discuss the tools available to identify patients at high risk of fracture, review the evidence for the use of anabolic agents as the initial intervention in patients at highest risk of fracture and consider the sequence of therapy following their use. This position paper sets out the findings of the group and the consequent recommendations. The key conclusion is that the current evidence base supports an "anabolic first" approach in patients found to be at very high risk of fracture, followed by maintenance therapy using an antiresorptive agent, and with the subsequent need for antiosteoporosis therapy addressed over a lifetime horizon.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Elizabeth M Curtis
- MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - Jean-Yves Reginster
- WHO Collaborating Centre for Public Health Aspects of Musculoskeletal Health and Aging, Liège, Belgium
- Department of Public Health, Epidemiology and Health Economics, University of Liège, CHU Sart Tilman B23, 4000, Liège, Belgium
| | - Nasser Al-Daghri
- Biochemistry Department, College of Science, King Saud University, 11451, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
| | - Emmanuel Biver
- Division of Bone Diseases, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Geneva University Hospitals, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Maria Luisa Brandi
- F.I.R.M.O, Italian Foundation for the Research on Bone Diseases, Florence, Italy
| | - Etienne Cavalier
- Department of Clinical Chemistry, University of Liege, CHU de Liège, Liège, Belgium
| | - Peyman Hadji
- Center of Bone Health, Frankfurt, Germany
- Philipps-University of Marburg, Marburg, Germany
| | | | - Nicholas C Harvey
- MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
- NIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, University of Southampton and University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK
| | - Mickaël Hiligsmann
- Department of Health Services Research, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | | | - John A Kanis
- Mary McKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia
- Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield Medical School, Beech Hill Road, Sheffield, UK
| | - Jean-Marc Kaufman
- Department of Endocrinology, Ghent University Hospital, Gent, Belgium
| | - Olivier Lamy
- University of Lausanne, UNIL, CHUV, Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Radmila Matijevic
- Faculty of Medicine, University of Novi Sad, Novi Sad, Serbia
- Clinical Center of Vojvodina, Clinic for Orthopedic Surgery, Novi Sad, Serbia
| | - Adolfo Diez Perez
- Department of Internal Medicine, Hospital del Mar-IMIM, Autonomous University of Barcelona and CIBERFES, Instituto Carlos III, Madrid, Spain
| | - Régis Pierre Radermecker
- Department of Diabetes, Nutrition and Metabolic Disorders, Clinical Pharmacology, University of Liege, CHU de Liège, Liège, Belgium
| | | | - Thierry Thomas
- Department of Rheumatology, Hôpital Nord, CHU Saint-Etienne, Saint-Etienne, France
- INSERM U1059, Université de Lyon, Université Jean Monnet, Saint-Etienne, France
| | | | - Mila Vlaskovska
- Medical Faculty, Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Medical University Sofia, Sofia, Bulgaria
| | - René Rizzoli
- Division of Bone Diseases, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Geneva University Hospitals, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Cyrus Cooper
- MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
- NIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, University of Southampton and University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK.
- NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
32
|
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW This review provides suggestions for the evaluation of patients with osteoporosis in order to assure that the diagnosis is correct, to identify potentially correctable conditions contributing to skeletal fragility and fracture risk, and to assist in individualizing management decisions. RECENT FINDINGS Some patients who appear to have osteoporosis have another skeletal disease, such as osteomalacia, that requires further evaluation and treatment that is different than for osteoporosis. Many patients with osteoporosis have contributing factors (e.g., vitamin D deficiency, high fall risk) that should be addressed before and after starting treatment to assure that treatment is effective and safe. Evaluation includes a focused medical history, skeletal-related physical examination, assessment of falls risk, appropriate laboratory tests, and rarely transiliac double-tetracycline labeled bone biopsy. Evaluation of patients with osteoporosis before starting treatment is essential for optimizing clinical outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- E Michael Lewiecki
- New Mexico Clinical Research & Osteoporosis Center, 300 Oak St. NE, Albuquerque, NM, 87106, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
33
|
McCloskey EV, Harvey NC, Johansson H, Lorentzon M, Liu E, Vandenput L, Leslie WD, Kanis JA. Fracture risk assessment by the FRAX model. Climacteric 2022; 25:22-28. [PMID: 34319212 DOI: 10.1080/13697137.2021.1945027] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/01/2021] [Accepted: 06/07/2021] [Indexed: 10/20/2022]
Abstract
The introduction of the FRAX algorithms has facilitated the assessment of fracture risk on the basis of fracture probability. FRAX integrates the influence of several well-validated risk factors for fracture with or without the use of bone mineral density. Since age-specific rates of fracture and death differ across the world, FRAX models are calibrated with regard to the epidemiology of hip fracture (preferably from national sources) and mortality (usually United Nations sources). Models are currently available for 73 nations or territories covering more than 80% of the world population. FRAX has been incorporated into more than 80 guidelines worldwide, although the nature of this application has been heterogeneous. The limitations of FRAX have been extensively reviewed. Arithmetic procedures have been proposed in order to address some of these limitations, which can be applied to conventional FRAX estimates to accommodate knowledge of dose exposure to glucocorticoids, concurrent data on lumbar spine bone mineral density, information on trabecular bone score, hip axis length, falls history, type 2 diabetes, immigration status and recency of prior fracture.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- E V McCloskey
- Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield Medical School, Sheffield, UK
- Centre for Integrated research in Musculoskeletal Ageing (CIMA), Mellanby Centre for Musculoskeletal Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - N C Harvey
- MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
- NIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, University of Southampton and University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK
| | - H Johansson
- Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield Medical School, Sheffield, UK
- Mary McKillop Health Institute, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - M Lorentzon
- Centre for Bone and Arthritis Research (CBAR), Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
- Geriatric Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine and Clinical Nutrition, Institute of Medicine, University of Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - E Liu
- Mary McKillop Health Institute, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - L Vandenput
- Mary McKillop Health Institute, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
- Geriatric Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine and Clinical Nutrition, Institute of Medicine, University of Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - W D Leslie
- Department of Internal Medicine, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada
| | - J A Kanis
- Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield Medical School, Sheffield, UK
- Mary McKillop Health Institute, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
34
|
Iconaru L, Charles A, Baleanu F, Surquin M, Benoit F, Mugisha A, Moreau M, Paesmans M, Karmali R, Rubinstein M, Rozenberg S, Body JJ, Bergmann P. Prediction of an Imminent Fracture After an Index Fracture - Models Derived From the Frisbee Cohort. J Bone Miner Res 2022; 37:59-67. [PMID: 34490908 DOI: 10.1002/jbmr.4432] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/29/2021] [Revised: 08/12/2021] [Accepted: 08/29/2021] [Indexed: 11/06/2022]
Abstract
Patients who sustain a fracture are at greatest risk of recurrent fracture during the next 2 years. We propose three models to identify subjects most at risk of an imminent fracture, according to fracture site (any fracture, major osteoporotic fracture [MOF] or central). They were constructed using data of the prospective Frisbee cohort, which includes 3560 postmenopausal women aged 60 to 85 years who were followed for at least 5 years. A total of 881 subjects had a first incident validated fragility fracture before December 2018. Among these, we validated 130 imminent fractures occurring within the next 2 years; 79 were MOFs, and 88 were central fractures. Clinical risk factors were re-evaluated at the time of the index fracture. Fine and Gray proportional hazard models were derived separately for each group of fractures. The following risk factors were significantly associated with the risk of any imminent fracture: total hip bone mineral density (BMD) (p < 0.001), a fall history (p < 0.001), and comorbidities (p = 0.03). Age (p = 0.05 and p = 0.03, respectively) and a central fracture as the index fracture (p = 0.04 and p = 0.005, respectively) were additional predictors of MOFs and central fractures. The three prediction models are presented as nomograms. The calibration curves and the Brier scores based on bootstrap resampling showed calibration scores of 0.089 for MOF, 0.094 for central fractures, and 0.132 for any fractures. The predictive accuracy of the models expressed as area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve (AUC) were 0.74 for central fractures, 0.72 for MOFs, and 0.66 for all fractures, respectively. These AUCs compare well with those of FRAX and Garvan to predict the 5- or 10-year fracture probability. In summary, five predictors (BMD, age, comorbidities, falls, and central fracture as the incident fracture) allow the calculation with a reasonable accuracy of the imminent risk of fracture at different sites (MOF, central fracture, and any fracture) after a recent sentinel fracture. © 2021 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Laura Iconaru
- Department of Endocrinology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire (CHU) Brugmann, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Alexia Charles
- Laboratoire de Recherche Translationnelle, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire (CHU) Brugmann, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Felicia Baleanu
- Department of Endocrinology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire (CHU) Brugmann, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Murielle Surquin
- Department of Internal Medicine, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire (CHU) Brugmann, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Florence Benoit
- Department of Internal Medicine, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire (CHU) Brugmann, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Aude Mugisha
- Department of Internal Medicine, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire (CHU) Brugmann, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Michel Moreau
- Data Centre, Institut Jules Bordet, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Mairanne Paesmans
- Data Centre, Institut Jules Bordet, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Rafix Karmali
- Department of Endocrinology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire (CHU) Brugmann, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Michel Rubinstein
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Ixelles Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Brussels, Belgium
| | - Serge Rozenberg
- Department of Gynecology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire (CHU) St Pierre, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Brussels, Belgium
| | - Jean-Jacques Body
- Department of Endocrinology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire (CHU) Brugmann, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.,Laboratoire de Recherche Translationnelle, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire (CHU) Brugmann, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.,Department of Internal Medicine, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire (CHU) Brugmann, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Pierre Bergmann
- Laboratoire de Recherche Translationnelle, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire (CHU) Brugmann, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.,Department of Nuclear Medicine, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire (CHU) Brugmann, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
| |
Collapse
|
35
|
Möller S, Skjødt MK, Yan L, Abrahamsen B, Lix LM, McCloskey EV, Johansson H, Harvey NC, Kanis JA, Rubin KH, Leslie WD. Prediction of imminent fracture risk in Canadian women and men aged 45 years or older: external validation of the Fracture Risk Evaluation Model (FREM). Osteoporos Int 2022; 33:57-66. [PMID: 34596704 DOI: 10.1007/s00198-021-06165-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/11/2021] [Accepted: 09/17/2021] [Indexed: 12/27/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sören Möller
- Open Patient data Explorative Network, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.
- Research unit OPEN, Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
| | - Michael K Skjødt
- Research unit OPEN, Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
- Department of Medicine, Holbæk Hospital, Holbæk, Denmark
| | - Lin Yan
- University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
| | - Bo Abrahamsen
- Research unit OPEN, Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
- Department of Medicine, Holbæk Hospital, Holbæk, Denmark
| | - Lisa M Lix
- University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
| | - Eugene V McCloskey
- Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield Medical School, Sheffield, UK
- Centre for Integrated Research in Musculoskeletal Ageing (CIMA), Mellanby Centre for Bone Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Helena Johansson
- Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield Medical School, Sheffield, UK
- Mary MacKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Nicholas C Harvey
- MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
- NIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, University of Southampton and University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK
| | - John A Kanis
- Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield Medical School, Sheffield, UK
- Mary MacKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Katrine Hass Rubin
- Open Patient data Explorative Network, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
- Research unit OPEN, Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
| | | |
Collapse
|
36
|
Leslie WD, Yan L, Lix LM, Morin SN. Time dependency in early major osteoporotic and hip re-fractures in women and men aged 50 years and older: a population-based observational study. Osteoporos Int 2022; 33:39-46. [PMID: 34562147 DOI: 10.1007/s00198-021-06166-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/04/2021] [Accepted: 09/18/2021] [Indexed: 10/20/2022]
Abstract
UNLABELLED We analyzed patterns in recurrent major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) following a first major osteoporotic fracture in a large population-based cohort. Re-fracture risk remained elevated over 10 years, with only modest and inconsistent attenuation in risk over time. INTRODUCTION Recurrent fracture risk remains elevated for up to 25 years, and is reportedly highest in the initial 2 years (imminent risk). Our aim was to characterize early time dependency in re-fracture rates up to 10 years after a first fracture in a population-based cohort. METHODS Using Province of Manitoba (Canada) healthcare databases, we performed a matched cohort study in 22,105 women (mean age 74.1 ± 10.6 years) and 7589 men (mean age 71.8 ± 11.2 years) after a first MOF (age ≥ 50 years) during 1989-2006 and matched fracture-free controls (3 for each case). Incident fractures were ascertained over the next 10 years. Fracture rate ratios (RRs, cases versus controls) stratified by sex and age were computed, and tested for linear trend using linear regression. Joinpoint regression was performed to determine non-linear change in fracture rates over time, with particular attention to the first 2-year post-fracture. RESULTS RRs for incident MOF and hip fracture exceeded unity for the primary analyses in all subgroups and follow-up intervals. There was a tendency of RRs to decline over time, but this was inconsistent. Absolute rates per 100,000 person-years for fracture cases were consistently greater than for controls in all subgroups and observation times. Among fracture cases, there was a tendency for rates to decline gradually in all subgroups except younger women, but these temporal trends appeared monotonic without an inflection at 2 years. Joinpoint regression analyses did not detect an inflection in risk between the first 2 years and subsequent years. No significant time dependency was seen for incident hip fracture. CONCLUSIONS MOF and hip re-fracture risk was elevated in all age and sex subgroups over 10 years. There was inconsistent and only modest time dependency in early MOF risk, most evident in women after age 65 years. No strong transition in risk was seen between the first 2-year post-fracture and subsequent years.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- W D Leslie
- Department of Medicine (C5121), University of Manitoba, 409 Tache Avenue, Winnipeg, Manitoba, R2H 2A6, Canada.
| | - L Yan
- Department of Medicine (C5121), University of Manitoba, 409 Tache Avenue, Winnipeg, Manitoba, R2H 2A6, Canada
| | - L M Lix
- Department of Medicine (C5121), University of Manitoba, 409 Tache Avenue, Winnipeg, Manitoba, R2H 2A6, Canada
| | | |
Collapse
|
37
|
Wang X, Jiang J, Guan W, Yu W, Xu T, Li M, Zhang J. The risk factors for developing clustered vertebral compression fractures: a single center study. Endocr Pract 2021; 28:243-249. [PMID: 34952220 DOI: 10.1016/j.eprac.2021.12.011] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/12/2021] [Revised: 11/14/2021] [Accepted: 12/15/2021] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Vertebral compression fractures (VCFs) are common among elderly individuals, but clustered VCFs (C-VCFs) are rare and more severe. The risk factors for C-VCFs remain unclear. Thus, we investigated the clinical characteristics of C-VCFs to identify the imminent fracture risk and to improve the treatment for such patients. METHODS We reviewed records of VCF patients at a single medical center between January 2011 and September 2020. Patients who had four or more VCFs within one year were categorized into the C-VCF group, and the remaining patients were paired into the control group at a ratio of 2:1. We collected demographic, clinical, laboratory, and radiological information regarding these patients. Univariate analyses, stratified analyses, and multivariate logistic regression were performed to identify the risk factors for C-VCFs. RESULTS A total of 156 patients were enrolled, of whom 52 were C-VCF patients. C-VCF patients had more severe fractures and pain, with fractures occurring at uncommon sites of the spine. The independent risk factors for C-VCFs included glucocorticoid treatment (P<0.001, HR: 12.7), recent fracture history (P=0.021, HR: 5.5), and lower trabecular bone score (TBS, P=0.044, HR: 1.6). TBS and bone mineral density had greater predictive values in patients without glucocorticoid treatment (P<0.001). Sex, age, and bone turnover biomarkers were not independent risk factors for C-VCFs. CONCLUSION C-VCFs are rare adverse consequences of severe osteoporosis, for which glucocorticoid treatment, recent fracture history, and lower TBS are unique risk factors that are valuable for the early identification and prevention of C-VCFs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Xianze Wang
- Department of Surgery, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Science & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China
| | - Jialin Jiang
- Department of General Surgery, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Science & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China
| | - Wenmin Guan
- Department of Radiology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China
| | - Wei Yu
- Department of Radiology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China
| | - Tao Xu
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Institute of Basic Medical Sciences, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & School of Basic Medicine, Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China
| | - Mei Li
- Department of Endocrinology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
| | - Jia Zhang
- Department of Orthopedics, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
| |
Collapse
|
38
|
The current situation in the approach to osteoporosis in older adults in Turkey: areas in need of improvement with a model for other populations. Arch Osteoporos 2021; 16:179. [PMID: 34846612 DOI: 10.1007/s11657-021-01038-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/23/2021] [Accepted: 11/08/2021] [Indexed: 02/03/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE The total number of older adults in Turkey is striking, amounting to around 8 million, and this translates into considerably higher numbers of cases of osteoporosis (OP) and fractures in older adults. In this article, we outlined the current situation of OP in older adults in Turkey and investigated the differences between Turkey and a representative developed European country (Belgium), in terms of the screening, diagnosis, and treatment of OP. Our intention in this regard was to identify areas in need of improvement and subsequently to make a clear call for action to address these issues. METHODS Herein, considering the steps related to the OP approach, we made a complete review of the studies conducted in Turkey and compared with the literature recommendations. RESULTS There is a need for a national osteoporotic fracture registry; measures should be taken to improve the screening and treatment of OP in older males, such as educational activities; technicians involved in dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scanning should undergo routine periodic training; all DXA centers should identify center-specific least significant change values; all older adults should be considered for routine lateral dorsolumbar X-ray imaging for the screening of vertebral fractures while ordering DXA scans; the inclusion of vertebral fracture assessment (VFA) software in DXA assessments should be considered; screening using a fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX) algorithm that is specific to Turkey should be integrated; the fortification of foods with vitamin D is required; the high fracture risk by country-specific FRAX algorithm and the presence of falls/high fall risk should be integrated in reimbursement terms; and finally, more "fracture liaison services" should be established. CONCLUSION We suggest that the practical consideration of our suggestions will provide considerable support to the efforts for combating with the adverse consequences of OP in society. This approach can be subsequently modeled for other populations to improve the management of OP globally.
Collapse
|
39
|
Khalid S, Pineda-Moncusí M, El-Hussein L, Delmestri A, Ernst M, Smith C, Libanati C, Toth E, Javaid MK, Cooper C, Abrahamsen B, Prieto-Alhambra D. Predicting Imminent Fractures in Patients With a Recent Fracture or Starting Oral Bisphosphonate Therapy: Development and International Validation of Prognostic Models. J Bone Miner Res 2021; 36:2162-2176. [PMID: 34342378 DOI: 10.1002/jbmr.4414] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/30/2020] [Revised: 06/04/2021] [Accepted: 07/14/2021] [Indexed: 12/29/2022]
Abstract
The availability of anti-osteoporosis medications with rapid onset and high potency requires tools to identify patients at high imminent fracture risk (IFR). There are few tools that predict a patient's IFR. We aimed to develop and validate tools for patients with a recent fracture and for patients initiating oral bisphosphonate therapy. Models for two separate cohorts, those with incident fragility fracture (IFx) and with incident oral bisphosphonate prescription (OBP), were developed in primary care records from Spain (SIDIAP database), UK (Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD), and Denmark (Danish Health Registries). Separate models were developed for hip, major, and any fracture outcomes. Only variables present in all databases were included in Lasso regression models for the development and logistic regression models for external validation. Discrimination was tested using area under curve (AUC) and calibration was assessed using observed versus predicted risk plots stratified by age, sex, and previous fracture history. The development analyses included 35,526 individuals in the IFx and 41,401 in the OBP cohorts, with 671,094 in IFx and 330,256 in OBP for the validation analyses. Both the IFx and OBP models demonstrated similarly good performance for hip fracture at 1 year (with AUCs of 0.79 [95% CI 0.75 to 0.82] and 0.87 [0.83 to 0.91] in Spain, 0.71 [0.71 to 0.72] and 0.73 [0.72 to 0.74] in the UK, and 0.70 [0.70 to 0.70] and 0.69 [0.68 to 0.70] in Denmark), and lower discrimination for major osteoporotic and any fracture sites. Calibration was good across all three countries. Discrimination and calibration for the 2-year models was similar. The proposed IFR prediction models could be used to identify more precisely patients at high imminent risk of fracture and inform anti-osteoporosis treatment selection. The freely available model parameters permit local validation and implementation. © 2021 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sara Khalid
- Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology, and Musculoskeletal Sciences, Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Marta Pineda-Moncusí
- IMIM (Hospital del Mar Research Institute), Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Fragilidad y Envejecimiento Saludable (CIBERFES), Barcelona, Spain
| | - Leena El-Hussein
- Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology, and Musculoskeletal Sciences, Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Antonella Delmestri
- Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology, and Musculoskeletal Sciences, Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Martin Ernst
- Department of Public Health, Clinical Pharmacology, and Pharmacy, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
| | - Christopher Smith
- Department of Public Health, Clinical Pharmacology, and Pharmacy, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
| | | | | | - Muhammad K Javaid
- Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology, and Musculoskeletal Sciences, Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Cyrus Cooper
- Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology, and Musculoskeletal Sciences, Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
- MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton General Hospital, Southampton, UK
| | - Bo Abrahamsen
- Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology, and Musculoskeletal Sciences, Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
- Department of Public Health, Clinical Pharmacology, and Pharmacy, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
- Open Patient Data Explorative Network, University of Southern Denmark and Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
- Department of Medicine, Holbaek Hospital, Holbaek, Denmark
| | - Daniel Prieto-Alhambra
- Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology, and Musculoskeletal Sciences, Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
- MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton General Hospital, Southampton, UK
- Fundació Institut Universitari per a la Recerca a l'Atenció Primària de Salut Jordi Gol i Gorina (IDIAPJ Gol), CIBERFES, Barcelona, Spain
- Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
40
|
Improving bone health: addressing the burden through an integrated approach. Aging Clin Exp Res 2021; 33:2777-2786. [PMID: 34613608 DOI: 10.1007/s40520-021-01971-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/16/2021] [Accepted: 08/20/2021] [Indexed: 12/16/2022]
Abstract
As people age, maintaining mobility becomes increasingly imperative, therefore addressing bone health is the most important way to preserve mobility. Poor bone health encompasses a broad spectrum of diseases, but it is most often quantified as the cumulative burden of osteoporosis and osteoporotic fractures. Rates of these fractures have been increasing and are expected to continue rising globally, attributed to increasing life expectancy worldwide. No single strategy will be sufficient to address this global public health issue. Co-ordination across a wide array of stakeholders is vital to decrease the health and socioeconomic burden of poor bone health. Stakeholders include an assortment of specialists ranging from health professionals (primary and secondary care clinicians, nurses, physical therapists, and social care workers), policy-makers, government bodies (including departments of health and social services), employers, civil society, as well as patients and their caregivers. We need to ensure that there is a better understanding of the socioeconomic and health consequences of poor bone health to promote better policies to address needs. Building a more resilient health system approach to bone health based on the evidence and sound decision-making will not only improve population health, but will provide cost savings to health systems by preventing poor bone health in the first place. Health systems around the world must prioritise bone health to preserve mobility and wellbeing in advance of the impending surge in demand from ageing populations. Poor bone health is not an inevitable part of ageing. Working across the lifespan, we can all benefit from improved bone health throughout our lives.
Collapse
|
41
|
Kanis JA, Johansson H, Harvey NC, Lorentzon M, Liu E, Vandenput L, McCloskey EV. An assessment of intervention thresholds for very high fracture risk applied to the NOGG guidelines : A report for the National Osteoporosis Guideline Group (NOGG). Osteoporos Int 2021; 32:1951-1960. [PMID: 33813622 DOI: 10.1007/s00198-021-05942-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 32] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/22/2021] [Accepted: 03/26/2021] [Indexed: 10/21/2022]
Abstract
UNLABELLED The National Osteoporosis Guideline Group (NOGG) has developed intervention thresholds based on FRAX® to characterise patients at high and very high risk of fracture. INTRODUCTION Guidelines for the assessment of fracture risk have begun to categorise patients eligible for treatment into high and very high risk of fracture to inform choice of therapeutic approach. The aim of the present study was to develop intervention thresholds based on the hybrid assessment model of NOGG. METHODS We examined the impact of intervention thresholds in a simulated cross-sectional cohort of women age 50 years or more from the UK with the distribution of baseline characteristics based on that in the FRAX cohorts. The prevalence of very high risk using the hybrid model was compared with age-dependent thresholds used by the International Osteoporosis Foundation and the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis (IOF/ESCEO). The appropriateness of thresholds was tested based on the populations treated with anabolic agents. RESULTS With an upper intervention threshold using the IOF/ESCEO criteria, 56% of women age 50 years or more would be characterised at very high risk. This compares with 36% using the IOF/ESCEO criteria and an age-specific intervention threshold over all ages. With an upper intervention threshold of 1.6 times the pre-existing intervention threshold, 10% of women age 50 years or more would be characterised at very high risk. The data from phase 3 studies indicate that most trial participants exposed to romosozumab or teriparatide would fall into the very high-risk category. CONCLUSIONS Proposals for FRAX-based criteria for very high risk for the NOGG hybrid model categorise a small proportion of women age 50 years or more (10%) in this highest risk stratum. The level of risk identified was comparable to that of women enrolled in trials of anabolic agents.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J A Kanis
- Mary McKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia.
- Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield, Beech Hill Road, Sheffield, S10 2RX, UK.
| | - H Johansson
- Mary McKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia
- Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield, Beech Hill Road, Sheffield, S10 2RX, UK
| | - N C Harvey
- MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
- NIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, University of Southampton and University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK
| | - M Lorentzon
- Mary McKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia
- Sahlgrenska Osteoporosis Centre, Institute of Medicine, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - E Liu
- Mary McKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - L Vandenput
- Mary McKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia
- Department of Internal Medicine and Clinical Nutrition, Institute of Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - E V McCloskey
- Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield, Beech Hill Road, Sheffield, S10 2RX, UK
- Mellanby Centre for Bone Research, Department of Oncology and Metabolism, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| |
Collapse
|
42
|
Baleanu F, Iconaru L, Charles A, Kinnard V, Fils JF, Moreau M, Karmali R, Surquin M, Benoit F, Mugisha A, Paesmans M, Laurent MR, Bergmann P, Body JJ. Independent External Validation of FRAX and Garvan Fracture Risk Calculators: A Sub-Study of the FRISBEE Cohort. JBMR Plus 2021; 5:e10532. [PMID: 34532617 PMCID: PMC8441269 DOI: 10.1002/jbm4.10532] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/27/2021] [Revised: 06/04/2021] [Accepted: 06/30/2021] [Indexed: 01/24/2023] Open
Abstract
Probabilistic models including clinical risk factors with or without bone mineral density (BMD) have been developed to estimate the 5‐ or 10‐year absolute fracture risk. We investigated the performance of the FRAX and Garvan tools in a well‐characterized population‐based cohort of 3560 postmenopausal, volunteer women, aged 60 to 85 years at baseline, included in the Fracture Risk Brussels Epidemiological Enquiry (FRISBEE) cohort, during 5 years of follow‐up. Baseline data were used to calculate the estimated 10‐year risk of hip and major osteoporotic fractures (MOFs) for each participant using FRAX (Belgium). We computed the 5‐year risk according to the Garvan model with BMD. For calibration, the predicted risk of fracture was compared with fracture incidence across a large range of estimated fracture risks. The accuracy of the calculators to predict fractures was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC). The FRAX tool was well calibrated for hip fractures (slope 1.09, p < 0.001; intercept −0.001, p = 0.46), but it consistently underestimated the incidence of major osteoporotic fractures (MOFs) (slope 2.12, p < 0.001; intercept −0.02, p = 0.06). The Garvan tool was well calibrated for “any Garvan” fractures (slope 1.05, p < 0.001; intercept 0.01, p = 0.37) but largely overestimated the observed hip fracture rate (slope 0.32, p < 0.001; intercept 0.006, p = 0.05). The predictive value for hip fractures was better for FRAX (AUC: 0.841, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.795–0.887) than for Garvan (AUC: 0.769, 95% CI 0.702–0.836, p = 0.01). The Garvan AUC for “any Garvan” fractures was 0.721 (95% CI 0.693–0.749) and FRAX AUC for MOFs was 0.708 (95% CI 0.675–0.741). In conclusion, in our Belgian cohort, FRAX estimated quite well hip fractures but underestimated MOFs, while Garvan overestimated hip fracture risk but showed a good estimation of “any Garvan” fractures. Both models had a good discriminatory value for hip fractures but only a moderate discriminatory ability for MOFs or “any Garvan” fractures. © 2021 The Authors. JBMR Plus published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Felicia Baleanu
- Department of Endocrinology, CHU Brugmann Université Libre de Bruxelles Brussels Belgium
| | - Laura Iconaru
- Department of Endocrinology, CHU Brugmann Université Libre de Bruxelles Brussels Belgium
| | - Alexia Charles
- Department of Clinical Research, CHU Brugmann Université Libre de Bruxelles Brussels Belgium
| | - Virginie Kinnard
- Department of Geriatrics, CHU Brugmann Université Libre de Bruxelles Brussels Belgium
| | | | - Michel Moreau
- Data Centre, Institute Jules Bordet Université Libre de Bruxelles Brussels Belgium
| | - Rafik Karmali
- Department of Endocrinology, CHU Brugmann Université Libre de Bruxelles Brussels Belgium
| | - Murielle Surquin
- Department of Geriatrics, CHU Brugmann Université Libre de Bruxelles Brussels Belgium
| | - Florence Benoit
- Department of Geriatrics, CHU Brugmann Université Libre de Bruxelles Brussels Belgium
| | - Aude Mugisha
- Department of Geriatrics, CHU Brugmann Université Libre de Bruxelles Brussels Belgium
| | - Marianne Paesmans
- Data Centre, Institute Jules Bordet Université Libre de Bruxelles Brussels Belgium
| | - Michaël R Laurent
- Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases University Hospitals Leuven Leuven Belgium.,Imelda Hospital Bonheiden Belgium
| | - Pierre Bergmann
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, CHU Brugmann Université Libre de Bruxelles Brussels Belgium
| | - Jean-Jacques Body
- Department of Endocrinology, CHU Brugmann Université Libre de Bruxelles Brussels Belgium
| |
Collapse
|
43
|
Kanis JA, Johansson H, Harvey NC, Gudnason V, Sigurdsson G, Siggeirsdottir K, Lorentzon M, Liu E, Vandenput L, McCloskey EV. The effect on subsequent fracture risk of age, sex, and prior fracture site by recency of prior fracture. Osteoporos Int 2021; 32:1547-1555. [PMID: 33537845 DOI: 10.1007/s00198-020-05803-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/27/2020] [Accepted: 12/16/2020] [Indexed: 10/22/2022]
Abstract
UNLABELLED The risk of a recurrent fragility fracture varies by age and sex, as by site and recency of sentinel fracture. INTRODUCTION The recency of prior fractures affects subsequent fracture risk. Variable recency may obscure other factors that affect subsequent fracture risk. The aim of this study was to quantify the effect of a sentinel fracture by site, age, and sex where the recency was held constant. METHODS The study used data from the Reykjavik Study fracture register that documented prospectively all fractures at all skeletal sites in a large sample of the population of Iceland. Fracture incidence was compared to that of the general population determined at fixed times after a sentinel fracture (humeral, clinical vertebral, forearm, hip, and minor fractures). Outcome fractures comprised a major osteoporotic fracture and hip fracture. RESULTS Sentinel osteoporotic fractures were identified in 9504 men and women. Of these, 3616 individuals sustained a major osteoporotic fracture as the first subsequent fracture, of whom 1799 sustained a hip fracture. Hazard ratios for prior fracture were consistently higher in men than in women and decreased progressively with age. Hazard ratios varied according to the site of sentinel fracture with higher ratios for hip and vertebral fracture than for humerus, forearm, or minor osteoporotic fracture. CONCLUSION The risk of a recurrent fragility fracture varies by age, sex, and site of sentinel fracture when recency is held constant.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J A Kanis
- Mary McKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia.
- Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield Medical School, Beech Hill Road, Sheffield, S10 2RX, UK.
| | - H Johansson
- Mary McKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia
- Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield Medical School, Beech Hill Road, Sheffield, S10 2RX, UK
| | - N C Harvey
- MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
- NIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, University of Southampton and University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK
| | - V Gudnason
- Icelandic Heart Association Research Institute, Kopavogur, Iceland
- University of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland
| | - G Sigurdsson
- Icelandic Heart Association Research Institute, Kopavogur, Iceland
| | - K Siggeirsdottir
- Icelandic Heart Association Research Institute, Kopavogur, Iceland
| | - M Lorentzon
- Mary McKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia
- Geriatric Medicine, Institute of Medicine, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - E Liu
- Mary McKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - L Vandenput
- Mary McKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia
- Department of Internal Medicine and Clinical Nutrition, Institute of Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - E V McCloskey
- Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield Medical School, Beech Hill Road, Sheffield, S10 2RX, UK
- Mellanby Centre for Bone Research, Department of Oncology and Metabolism, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| |
Collapse
|
44
|
Chandran M, Mitchell PJ, Amphansap T, Bhadada SK, Chadha M, Chan DC, Chung YS, Ebeling P, Gilchrist N, Habib Khan A, Halbout P, Hew FL, Lan HPT, Lau TC, Lee JK, Lekamwasam S, Lyubomirsky G, Mercado-Asis LB, Mithal A, Nguyen TV, Pandey D, Reid IR, Suzuki A, Chit TT, Tiu KL, Valleenukul T, Yung CK, Zhao YL. Development of the Asia Pacific Consortium on Osteoporosis (APCO) Framework: clinical standards of care for the screening, diagnosis, and management of osteoporosis in the Asia-Pacific region. Osteoporos Int 2021; 32:1249-1275. [PMID: 33502559 PMCID: PMC8192320 DOI: 10.1007/s00198-020-05742-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/02/2020] [Accepted: 11/11/2020] [Indexed: 01/07/2023]
Abstract
UNLABELLED Guidelines for doctors managing osteoporosis in the Asia-Pacific region vary widely. We compared 18 guidelines for similarities and differences in five key areas. We then used a structured consensus process to develop clinical standards of care for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis and for improving the quality of care. PURPOSE Minimum clinical standards for assessment and management of osteoporosis are needed in the Asia-Pacific (AP) region to inform clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and to improve osteoporosis care. We present the framework of these clinical standards and describe its development. METHODS We conducted a structured comparative analysis of existing CPGs in the AP region using a "5IQ" model (identification, investigation, information, intervention, integration, and quality). One-hundred data elements were extracted from each guideline. We then employed a four-round Delphi consensus process to structure the framework, identify key components of guidance, and develop clinical care standards. RESULTS Eighteen guidelines were included. The 5IQ analysis demonstrated marked heterogeneity, notably in guidance on risk factors, the use of biochemical markers, self-care information for patients, indications for osteoporosis treatment, use of fracture risk assessment tools, and protocols for monitoring treatment. There was minimal guidance on long-term management plans or on strategies and systems for clinical quality improvement. Twenty-nine APCO members participated in the Delphi process, resulting in consensus on 16 clinical standards, with levels of attainment defined for those on identification and investigation of fragility fractures, vertebral fracture assessment, and inclusion of quality metrics in guidelines. CONCLUSION The 5IQ analysis confirmed previous anecdotal observations of marked heterogeneity of osteoporosis clinical guidelines in the AP region. The Framework provides practical, clear, and feasible recommendations for osteoporosis care and can be adapted for use in other such vastly diverse regions. Implementation of the standards is expected to significantly lessen the global burden of osteoporosis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M Chandran
- Department of Endocrinology, Osteoporosis and Bone Metabolism Unit, Singapore General Hospital, 20, College Road, Academia, Singapore, 169856, Singapore.
| | - P J Mitchell
- Synthesis Medical NZ Limited, Pukekohe, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - T Amphansap
- Department of Orthopedics, Police General Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand
| | - S K Bhadada
- Department of Endocrinology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India
| | - M Chadha
- Department of Endocrinology, Hinduja Hospital and Research Centre, Mumbai, India
| | - D-C Chan
- Internal Medicine, National University Hospital Chu-Tung Branch, Chinese Taipei, Taiwan
| | - Y-S Chung
- Department of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Ajou University School of Medicine, Suwon, South Korea
| | - P Ebeling
- Department of Medicine in the School of Clinical Sciences, Monash Health, Melbourne, Australia
| | - N Gilchrist
- Canterbury District Health Board, Christchurch, New Zealand
| | - A Habib Khan
- Section of Chemical Pathology, Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Aga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan
| | - P Halbout
- International Osteoporosis Foundation, Nyon, Switzerland
| | - F L Hew
- Department of Medicine, Subang Jaya Medical Centre, Subang Jaya, Malaysia
| | - H-P T Lan
- Musculoskeletal and Metabolic Unit, Biomedical Research Center, Pham Ngoc Thach University of Medicine, Bone and Muscle Research Group, Ton Duc Thang University, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
| | - T C Lau
- Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, National University Hospital, Singapore, Singapore
| | - J K Lee
- Department of Orthopedics, Beacon International Specialist Centre, Petaling Jaya, Malaysia
| | - S Lekamwasam
- Faculty of Medicine, University of Ruhuna, Galle, Sri Lanka
| | | | - L B Mercado-Asis
- Faculty of Medicine and Surgery, University of Santo Tomas, Manila, Philippines
| | - A Mithal
- Endocrinology, Diabetes Division, Mithal, M. Max Healthcare - Pan-Max, Gurgaon, India
| | - T V Nguyen
- Genetics and Epidemiology of Osteoporosis Laboratory, Bone Biology Division, Garvan Institute of Medical Reseach, Sydney, Australia
| | - D Pandey
- Department of Orthopaedics, National Trauma Centre, Kathmandu, Nepal
| | - I R Reid
- Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - A Suzuki
- Department of Endocrinology, School of Medicine, Fujita Health University, Toyoake, Japan
| | - T T Chit
- East Yangon General Hospital, Yangon, Myanmar
| | - K L Tiu
- Polytrauma and Fragility Fracture team, Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Hong Kong, SAR, China
| | - T Valleenukul
- Department of Orthopedics, Bhumibol Adulyadej Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand
| | - C K Yung
- Department of Endocrinology and Patient Safety Unit, Raja Isteri Pengiran Anak Saleha Hospital, Bandar Seri Begawan, Brunei Darussalam
| | - Y L Zhao
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Beijing United Family Hospital, Beijing, China
| | | |
Collapse
|
45
|
Abstract
Osteoporosis is an incurable chronic condition, like heart disease, diabetes, or hypertension. A large gap currently exists in the primary prevention of fractures, and studies show that an estimated 80% to 90% of adults do not receive appropriate osteoporosis management even in the secondary prevention setting. Case finding strategies have been developed and effective pharmacological interventions are available. This publication addresses how best to use the pharmacological options available for postmenopausal osteoporosis to provide lifelong fracture protection in patients at high and very high risk of fracture. The benefit of osteoporosis therapies far outweighs the rare risks.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jacques P Brown
- Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, Laval University, Quebec City, QC, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
46
|
Iconaru L, Moreau M, Baleanu F, Kinnard V, Charles A, Mugisha A, Surquin M, Benoit F, Karmali R, Paesmans M, Body JJ, Bergmann P. Risk factors for imminent fractures: a substudy of the FRISBEE cohort. Osteoporos Int 2021; 32:1093-1101. [PMID: 33411010 DOI: 10.1007/s00198-020-05772-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/13/2020] [Accepted: 12/01/2020] [Indexed: 10/22/2022]
Abstract
UNLABELLED Multiple factors increase the risk of an imminent fracture, including a recent fracture, older age, osteoporosis, comorbidities, and the fracture site. These findings could be a first step in the development of a model to predict an imminent fracture and select patients most at need of immediate treatment. INTRODUCTION The risk of a recurrent fragility fracture is maximal during the first 2 years following an incident fracture. In this prospective cohort study, we looked at the incidence of recurrent fractures within 2 years after a first incident fracture and we assessed independent clinical risk factors (CRFs) increasing this imminent fracture risk. METHODS A total of 3560 postmenopausal women recruited from 2007 to 2013 were surveyed yearly for the occurrence of fragility fractures. We identified patients who sustained a fracture during the first 2 years following a first incident fragility fracture. We quantified the risk of a new fracture and assessed independent CRFs, associated with an imminent fracture at various sites. RESULTS A recent fracture was a significant CRF for an imminent fracture (OR (95% CI): 3.7 (2.4-5.7) [p < 0.0001]). The incidence of an imminent fracture was higher in subjects above 80 years (p < 0.001). Other CRFs highly predictive in a multivariate analysis were osteoporosis diagnosis (p < 0.01), a central fracture as the index fracture (p < 0.01), and the presence of comorbidities (p < 0.05), with likelihood ratios of 1.9, 1.9, and 2.2, respectively. An imminent fracture was better predicted by a central fracture (p < 0.01) than by a major osteoporotic fracture. The hazard ratio was the highest for a central fracture. CONCLUSION In patients with a recent fracture, older age, osteoporosis, comorbidities, and fracture site were associated with an imminent fracture risk. These findings could be a first step in the development of a model to predict an imminent fracture and select patients most at need of immediate and most appropriate treatment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- L Iconaru
- Department of Endocrinology, CHU Brugmann, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Place van Gehuchten 4, Laeken, 1020, Brussels, Belgium.
| | - M Moreau
- Data Centre, Inst. J. Bordet, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
| | - F Baleanu
- Department of Endocrinology, CHU Brugmann, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Place van Gehuchten 4, Laeken, 1020, Brussels, Belgium
| | - V Kinnard
- Department of Internal Medicine, CHU Brugmann, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
| | - A Charles
- Laboratoire de Recherche Translationnelle, CHU Brugmann, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
| | - A Mugisha
- Department of Internal Medicine, CHU Brugmann, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
| | - M Surquin
- Department of Internal Medicine, CHU Brugmann, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
| | - F Benoit
- Department of Internal Medicine, CHU Brugmann, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
| | - R Karmali
- Department of Endocrinology, CHU Brugmann, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Place van Gehuchten 4, Laeken, 1020, Brussels, Belgium
| | - M Paesmans
- Data Centre, Inst. J. Bordet, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
| | - J J Body
- Department of Endocrinology, CHU Brugmann, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Place van Gehuchten 4, Laeken, 1020, Brussels, Belgium
- Laboratoire de Recherche Translationnelle, CHU Brugmann, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
| | - P Bergmann
- Laboratoire de Recherche Translationnelle, CHU Brugmann, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, CHU Brugmann, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
| |
Collapse
|
47
|
McCloskey EV, Borgstrom F, Cooper C, Harvey NC, Javaid MK, Lorentzon M, Kanis JA. Short time horizons for fracture prediction tools: time for a rethink. Osteoporos Int 2021; 32:1019-1025. [PMID: 33914103 PMCID: PMC7611752 DOI: 10.1007/s00198-021-05962-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/09/2021] [Accepted: 04/13/2021] [Indexed: 12/16/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Eugene V McCloskey
- Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK; MRC Versus Arthritis Centre for Integrated research in Musculoskeletal Ageing, Mellanby Centre for Musculoskeletal Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Fredrik Borgstrom
- Quantify Research, Stockholm, Sweden; Department of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics (LIME), Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Cyrus Cooper
- MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK; NIHR Musculoskeletal Biomedical Research Unit, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Nicholas C Harvey
- MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK; NIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, University of Southampton and University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK
| | - Mohamed K Javaid
- Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Mattias Lorentzon
- Mary McKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia; Geriatric Medicine, Institute of Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - John A Kanis
- Mary McKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia; Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield Medical School, Sheffield, UK
| |
Collapse
|
48
|
Abstract
Antiresorptive agents are generally recommended as first-line treatment for osteoporosis in postmenopausal women. These drugs suppress bone resorption but do not rebuild bone, limiting their efficacy. Antiresorptive use is further hampered by concerns over rare side effects, including atypical femoral fractures and osteonecrosis of the jaw. Anabolic treatments overcome limitations of antiresorptive treatment by stimulating new bone formation, reducing the risk of fracture with greater efficacy. This review summarises the latest trial data for the three anabolic agents currently available for the treatment of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women: teriparatide, abaloparatide, and romosozumab. Data from head-to-head studies comparing anabolic and antiresorptive treatments are reviewed. At present, anabolic treatments are generally reserved for use in patients with severe osteoporosis at very high fracture risk; the factors limiting their more widespread use are discussed together with how this may change in the future.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Neelam Hassan
- Translational Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Musculoskeletal Research Unit, Southmead Hospital, Bristol, UK
| | - Celia L Gregson
- Translational Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Musculoskeletal Research Unit, Southmead Hospital, Bristol, UK
| | - Jon H Tobias
- Translational Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Musculoskeletal Research Unit, Southmead Hospital, Bristol, UK
| |
Collapse
|
49
|
Söreskog E, Lindberg I, Kanis JA, Åkesson KE, Willems D, Lorentzon M, Ström O, Berling P, Borgström F. Cost-effectiveness of romosozumab for the treatment of postmenopausal women with severe osteoporosis at high risk of fracture in Sweden. Osteoporos Int 2021; 32:585-594. [PMID: 33409591 PMCID: PMC7929944 DOI: 10.1007/s00198-020-05780-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/27/2020] [Accepted: 12/04/2020] [Indexed: 11/21/2022]
Abstract
UNLABELLED Romosozumab is a novel bone-building drug that reduces fracture risk. This health economic analysis indicates that sequential romosozumab-to-alendronate can be a cost-effective treatment option for postmenopausal women with severe osteoporosis at high risk of fracture. PURPOSE To estimate the cost-effectiveness of sequential treatment with romosozumab followed by alendronate ("romosozumab-to-alendronate") compared with alendronate alone in patients with severe osteoporosis at high risk of fracture in Sweden. METHODS A microsimulation model with a Markov structure was used to simulate fractures, costs, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), for women treated with romosozumab-to-alendronate or alendronate alone. Patients aged 74 years with a recent major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) were followed from the start of treatment until the age of 100 years or death. Treatment with romosozumab for 12 months was followed by alendronate for up to 48 months or alendronate alone with a maximum treatment duration of 60 months. The analysis had a societal perspective. Efficacy of romosozumab and alendronate were derived from phase III randomized controlled trials. Resource use and unit costs were collected from the literature. Cost-effectiveness was estimated using incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) with QALYs as effectiveness measures. RESULTS The base case analysis showed that sequential romosozumab-to-alendronate treatment was associated with 0.089 additional QALYs at an additional cost of €3002 compared to alendronate alone, resulting in an ICER of €33,732. At a Swedish reference willingness-to-pay per QALY of €60,000, romosozumab-to-alendronate had a 97.9% probability of being cost-effective against alendronate alone. The results were most sensitive to time horizon, persistence assumptions, patient age, and treatment efficacy. CONCLUSION The results of this study indicate that sequential romosozumab-to-alendronate can be a cost-effective treatment option for postmenopausal women with severe osteoporosis at high risk of fracture.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - J A Kanis
- University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
- Mary MacKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - K E Åkesson
- Lund University, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden
| | | | - M Lorentzon
- Mary MacKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia
- Geriatric Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine and Clinical Nutrition, Institute of Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
- Geriatric Medicine Clinic, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Mölndal, Sweden
| | - O Ström
- Quantify Research, Stockholm, Sweden
- Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| | | | - F Borgström
- Quantify Research, Stockholm, Sweden
- Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| |
Collapse
|
50
|
Lems WF, Paccou J, Zhang J, Fuggle NR, Chandran M, Harvey NC, Cooper C, Javaid K, Ferrari S, Akesson KE. Vertebral fracture: epidemiology, impact and use of DXA vertebral fracture assessment in fracture liaison services. Osteoporos Int 2021; 32:399-411. [PMID: 33475820 PMCID: PMC7929949 DOI: 10.1007/s00198-020-05804-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 52] [Impact Index Per Article: 17.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/21/2020] [Accepted: 12/16/2020] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
Vertebral fractures are independent risk factors for vertebral and nonvertebral fractures. Since vertebral fractures are often missed, the relatively new introduction of vertebral fracture assessment (VFA) for imaging of the lateral spine during DXA-measurement of the spine and hips may contribute to detect vertebral fractures. We advocate performing a VFA in all patients with a recent fracture visiting a fracture liaison service (FLS). Fracture liaison services (FLS) are important service models for delivering secondary fracture prevention for older adults presenting with a fragility fracture. While commonly age, clinical risk factors (including fracture site and number of prior fracture) and BMD play a crucial role in determining fracture risk and indications for treatment with antiosteoporosis medications, prevalent vertebral fractures usually remain undetected. However, vertebral fractures are important independent risk factors for future vertebral and nonvertebral fractures. A development of the DXA technology, vertebral fracture assessment (VFA), allows for assessment of the lateral spine during the regular DXA bone mineral density measurement of the lumbar spine and hips. Recent approaches to the stratification of antiosteoporosis medication type according to baseline fracture risk, and differences by age in the indication for treatment by prior fracture mean that additional information from VFA may influence initiation and type of treatment. Furthermore, knowledge of baseline vertebral fractures allows reliable definition of incident vertebral fracture events during treatment, which may modify the approach to therapy. In this manuscript, we will discuss the epidemiology and clinical significance of vertebral fractures, the different methods of detecting vertebral fractures, and the rationale for, and implications of, use of VFA routinely in FLS. • Vertebral fracture assessment is a tool available on modern DXA instruments and has proven ability to detect vertebral fractures, the majority of which occur without a fall and without the signs and symptoms of an acute fracture. • Most osteoporosis guidelines internationally suggest that treatment with antiosteoporosis medications should be considered for older individuals (e.g., 65 years +) with a recent low trauma fracture without the need for DXA. • Younger individuals postfracture may be risk-assessed on the basis of FRAX® probability including DXA and associated treatment thresholds. • Future fracture risk is markedly influenced by both site, number, severity, and recency of prior fracture; awareness of baseline vertebral fractures facilitates definition of true incident vertebral fracture events occurring during antiosteoporosis treatment. • Detection of previously clinically silent vertebral fractures, defining site of prior fracture, might alter treatment decisions in younger or older FLS patients, consistent with recent IOF-ESCEO guidance on baseline-risk-stratified therapy, and provides a reliable baseline from which to define new, potentially therapy-altering, vertebral fracture events.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- W F Lems
- Amsterdam UMC, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
| | - J Paccou
- Department of Rheumatology, Univ. Lille, CHU Lille, MABLab ULR 4490, 59000, Lille, France
| | - J Zhang
- MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - N R Fuggle
- MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - M Chandran
- Osteoporosis and Bone Metabolism Unit, Department of Endocrinology, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore
| | - N C Harvey
- MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - C Cooper
- MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
- Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Orthopaedic Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - K Javaid
- Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Orthopaedic Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - S Ferrari
- Clinical Service and Research Laboratory of Bone Diseases, Hôpitaux Universitaires de Genève, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - K E Akesson
- Department of Clinical Sciences and Department of Orthopaedics, Skane University Hospital, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden
| | | |
Collapse
|