1
|
Schini M, Vilaca T, Lui LY, Ewing SK, Thompson A, Vittinghoff E, Bauer DC, Bouxsein ML, Black DM, Eastell R. Pre-treatment bone mineral density and the benefit of pharmacologic treatment on fracture risk and BMD change: analysis from the FNIH-ASBMR SABRE project. J Bone Miner Res 2024; 39:867-876. [PMID: 38691441 PMCID: PMC11301522 DOI: 10.1093/jbmr/zjae068] [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: 11/17/2023] [Revised: 04/04/2024] [Accepted: 04/20/2024] [Indexed: 05/03/2024]
Abstract
Some osteoporosis drug trials have suggested that treatment is more effective in those with low BMD measured by DXA. This study used data from a large set of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to determine whether the anti-fracture efficacy of treatments differs according to baseline BMD. We used individual patient data from 25 RCTs (103 086 subjects) of osteoporosis medications collected as part of the FNIH-ASBMR SABRE project. Participants were stratified into FN BMD T-score subgroups (≤-2.5, > -2.5). We used Cox proportional hazard regression to estimate treatment effect for clinical fracture outcomes and logistic regression for the radiographic vertebral fracture outcome. We also performed analyses based on BMD quintiles. Overall, 42% had a FN BMD T-score ≤ -2.5. Treatment with anti-osteoporosis drugs led to significant reductions in fractures in both T-score ≤ -2.5 and > -2.5 subgroups. Compared to those with FN BMD T-score > -2.5, the risk reduction for each fracture outcome was greater in those with T-score ≤ -2.5, but only the all-fracture outcome reached statistical significance (interaction P = .001). Results were similar when limited to bisphosphonate trials. In the quintile analysis, there was significant anti-fracture efficacy across all quintiles for vertebral fractures and with greater effects on fracture risk reduction for non-vertebral, all, and all clinical fractures in the lower BMD quintiles (all interaction P ≤ .03). In summary, anti-osteoporotic medications reduced the risk of fractures regardless of baseline BMD. Significant fracture risk reduction with treatment for 4 of the 5 fracture endpoints was seen in participants with T-scores above -2.5, though effects tended to be larger and more significant in those with baseline T-scores <-2.5.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marian Schini
- Division of Clinical Medicine, School of Medicine and Population Health, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, S10 2TN, United Kingdom
| | - Tatiane Vilaca
- Division of Clinical Medicine, School of Medicine and Population Health, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, S10 2TN, United Kingdom
| | - Li-Yung Lui
- California Pacific Medical Center, Research Institute, San Francisco, 94158, CA, United States
| | - Susan K Ewing
- Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, 94158, CA, United States
| | - Austin Thompson
- Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, 94158, CA, United States
| | - Eric Vittinghoff
- Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, 94158, CA, United States
| | - Douglas C Bauer
- Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, 94158, CA, United States
- Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, 94158, CA, United States
| | - Mary L Bouxsein
- Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Harvard Medical School, Center for Advanced Orthopedic Studies, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, 02215, MA, United States
| | - Dennis M Black
- Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, 94158, CA, United States
| | - Richard Eastell
- Division of Clinical Medicine, School of Medicine and Population Health, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, S10 2TN, United Kingdom
| |
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
|
Freitas TQ, Olalla LFG, Machado LG, Figueiredo CP, Takayama L, de Falco Caparbo V, Domiciano DS, Pereira RMR. Performance of the Brazilian Fracture Assessment Risk Tool (FRAX) model and the age-dependent intervention thresholds according to National Osteoporosis Guideline Group (NOGG) guidelines on fracture prediction in community-dwelling older adults: the São Paulo Ageing and Health (SPAH) Study. Arch Osteoporos 2024; 19:59. [PMID: 38990403 DOI: 10.1007/s11657-024-01417-z] [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: 02/01/2024] [Accepted: 06/27/2024] [Indexed: 07/12/2024]
Abstract
The SPAH study is a population-based prospective cohort of Brazilian community-dwelling elderlies with higher fracture risk than observed in the studies used to construct the Brazilian FRAX model. In this study, the FRAX tool was a good fracture predictor within this high-risk elderly cohort, especially when calculated without bone density. PURPOSE To determine the performances of FRAX and age-dependent intervention thresholds according to National Osteoporosis Guideline Group (NOGG) guidelines with and without bone mineral density (BMD) regarding fracture prediction in community-dwelling elderly Brazilians. METHODS Seven hundred and five older adults (447 women; 258 men) were followed for 4.3 ± 0.8 years. FRAX risk for hip and major osteoporotic fractures with and without BMD was calculated at baseline. The bivariate analysis investigated the associations between the absolute probability of fracture (FRAX), as well as the age-dependent intervention thresholds (NOGG), and the incidence of vertebral fracture (VF), non-vertebral fracture (NVF), and major osteoporotic fractures (MOF), segregated by sex. Age-adjusted Poisson's multiple regression and ROC curves were constructed to determine FRAX and NOGG's accuracies as fracture predictors. RESULTS Fractures occurred in 22% of women and 15% of men. FRAX with and without BMD was higher in women with all types of fractures (p < 0.001). Only NOGG risk classification without BMD was associated with NVF (p = 0.047) and MOF (p = 0.024). FRAX was associated with NVF in the multiple regression, regardless of BMD. ROC curves of FRAX with and without BMD had AUCs of 0.74, 0.64, and 0.61 for NVF, VF, and MOF, respectively. The most accurate risk cutoffs for FRAX were 8% for MOF and 3% for hip fractures. No statistically significant associations were found in men. CONCLUSION FRAX predicted NVF more accurately than VF or MOF in elderlies, regardless of BMD. These results reiterate that FRAX may be used without BMD, even considering that Brazilian elderlies have known higher fracture risk.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Thiago Quadrante Freitas
- Bone Metabolism Laboratory, Rheumatology Division, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Disciplina de Reumatologia, Av. Dr. Arnaldo, 455, 3° Andar, Sala 3105, Sao Paulo, SP, 01246-903, Brazil.
| | - Leonardo Flavio Guerrón Olalla
- Bone Metabolism Laboratory, Rheumatology Division, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Disciplina de Reumatologia, Av. Dr. Arnaldo, 455, 3° Andar, Sala 3105, Sao Paulo, SP, 01246-903, Brazil
| | - Luana Gerheim Machado
- Bone Metabolism Laboratory, Rheumatology Division, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Disciplina de Reumatologia, Av. Dr. Arnaldo, 455, 3° Andar, Sala 3105, Sao Paulo, SP, 01246-903, Brazil
| | - Camille Pinto Figueiredo
- Bone Metabolism Laboratory, Rheumatology Division, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Disciplina de Reumatologia, Av. Dr. Arnaldo, 455, 3° Andar, Sala 3105, Sao Paulo, SP, 01246-903, Brazil
| | - Liliam Takayama
- Bone Metabolism Laboratory, Rheumatology Division, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Disciplina de Reumatologia, Av. Dr. Arnaldo, 455, 3° Andar, Sala 3105, Sao Paulo, SP, 01246-903, Brazil
| | - Valeria de Falco Caparbo
- Bone Metabolism Laboratory, Rheumatology Division, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Disciplina de Reumatologia, Av. Dr. Arnaldo, 455, 3° Andar, Sala 3105, Sao Paulo, SP, 01246-903, Brazil
| | - Diogo Souza Domiciano
- Bone Metabolism Laboratory, Rheumatology Division, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Disciplina de Reumatologia, Av. Dr. Arnaldo, 455, 3° Andar, Sala 3105, Sao Paulo, SP, 01246-903, Brazil
| | - Rosa Maria Rodrigues Pereira
- Bone Metabolism Laboratory, Rheumatology Division, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Disciplina de Reumatologia, Av. Dr. Arnaldo, 455, 3° Andar, Sala 3105, Sao Paulo, SP, 01246-903, Brazil
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Ratnasingam J, Niyaz M, Mariyappan S, Ong T, Chan SP, Hew FL, Yeap SS, Velaiutham S, Thambiah SC, Lekamwasam S. Age-dependent FRAX-based assessment and intervention thresholds for therapeutic decision making in osteoporosis in the Malaysian population. Arch Osteoporos 2024; 19:18. [PMID: 38503995 DOI: 10.1007/s11657-024-01371-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: 08/13/2023] [Accepted: 02/27/2024] [Indexed: 03/21/2024]
Abstract
Fracture risk stratification is crucial in countries with limited access to bone density measurement. 24.8% women were in the high-risk category while 30.4% were in the low-risk category. In the intermediate risk group, after recalculation of fracture risk with bone density, 38.3% required treatment. In more than half, treatment decisions can be made without bone density. PURPOSE We aimed to examine the role of age-dependent intervention thresholds (ITs) applied to the Fracture Risk Assessment (FRAX) tool in therapeutic decision making for osteoporosis in the Malaysian population. METHODS Data were collated from 1380 treatment-naïve postmenopausal women aged 40-85 years who underwent bone mineral density (BMD) measurements for clinical reasons. Age-dependent ITs, for both major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) and hip fracture (HF), were calculated considering a woman with a BMI of 25 kg/m2, aged between 40 and 85years, with a prior fragility fracture, sans other clinical risk factors. Those with fracture probabilities equal to or above upper assessment thresholds (UATs) were considered to have high fracture risk. Those below the lower assessment thresholds (LATs) were considered to have low fracture risk. RESULTS The ITs of MOF and HF ranged from 0.7 to 18% and 0.2 to 8%, between 40 and 85years. The LATs of MOF ranged from 0.3 to 11%, while those of HF ranged from 0.1 to 5.2%. The UATs of MOF and HF were 0.8 to 21.6% and 0.2 to 9.6%, respectively. In this study, 24.8% women were in the high-risk category while 30.4% were in the low-risk category. Of the 44.8% (n=618) in the intermediate risk group, after recalculation of fracture risk with BMD input, 38.3% (237/618) were above the ITs while the rest (n=381, 61.7%) were below the ITs. Judged by the Youden Index, 11.5% MOF probability which was associated with a sensitivity of 0.62 and specificity of 0.83 and 4.0% HF probability associated with a sensitivity of 0.63 and a specificity 0.82 were found to be the most appropriate fixed ITs in this analysis. CONCLUSION Less than half of the study population (44.8%) required BMD for osteoporosis management when age-specific assessment thresholds were applied. Therefore, in more than half, therapeutic decisions can be made without BMD based on these assessment thresholds.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Mariyam Niyaz
- Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
| | - Shanmugam Mariyappan
- Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
| | - Terence Ong
- Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
| | - Siew Pheng Chan
- Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
| | - Fen Lee Hew
- Puchong Specialist Clinic, Puchong, Malaysia
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
5
|
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
|
6
|
Kanis JA, 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, 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, Vandenput L, Harvey NC, Lorentzon M, Leslie WD. Previous fracture and subsequent fracture risk: a meta-analysis to update FRAX. Osteoporos Int 2023; 34:2027-2045. [PMID: 37566158 PMCID: PMC7615305 DOI: 10.1007/s00198-023-06870-z] [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: 03/22/2023] [Accepted: 07/22/2023] [Indexed: 08/12/2023]
Abstract
A large international meta-analysis using primary data from 64 cohorts has quantified the increased risk of fracture associated with a previous history of fracture for future use in FRAX. INTRODUCTION The aim of this study was to quantify the fracture risk associated with a prior fracture on an international basis and to explore the relationship of this risk with age, sex, time since baseline and bone mineral density (BMD). METHODS We studied 665,971 men and 1,438,535 women from 64 cohorts in 32 countries followed for a total of 19.5 million person-years. The effect of a prior history of fracture on the risk of any clinical fracture, any osteoporotic fracture, major osteoporotic fracture, and hip fracture alone was examined using an extended Poisson model in each cohort. Covariates examined were age, sex, BMD, and duration of follow-up. The results of the different studies were merged by using the weighted β-coefficients. RESULTS A previous fracture history, compared with individuals without a prior fracture, was associated with a significantly increased risk of any clinical fracture (hazard ratio, HR = 1.88; 95% CI = 1.72-2.07). The risk ratio was similar for the outcome of osteoporotic fracture (HR = 1.87; 95% CI = 1.69-2.07), major osteoporotic fracture (HR = 1.83; 95% CI = 1.63-2.06), or for hip fracture (HR = 1.82; 95% CI = 1.62-2.06). There was no significant difference in risk ratio between men and women. Subsequent fracture risk was marginally downward adjusted when account was taken of BMD. Low BMD explained a minority of the risk for any clinical fracture (14%), osteoporotic fracture (17%), and for hip fracture (33%). The risk ratio for all fracture outcomes related to prior fracture decreased significantly with adjustment for age and time since baseline examination. CONCLUSION A previous history of fracture confers an increased risk of fracture of substantial importance beyond that explained by BMD. The effect is similar in men and women. Its quantitation on an international basis permits the more accurate use of this risk factor in case finding strategies.
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, Sheffield, UK.
| | - H Johansson
- Mary McKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia
- Sahlgrenska Osteoporosis Centre, Institute of Medicine, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - 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 Centre Badia del Valles, Catalan Institute of Health, Barcelona, Spain
- PRECIOSA-Fundación para la investigación, Barberà del Vallés, 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
- Department of Health Services Research, University of Maastricht, Maastricht, the Netherlands
| | - 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, School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, USA
| | - J R Center
- Skeletal Diseases Program, Garvan Institute of Medical Research, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- St Vincent's Clinical School, School of Medicine and Health, 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, Université Claude Bernard-Lyon1, Hôpital Edouard Herriot, Lyon, France
| | | | - C Cooper
- 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
- NIHR 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, Centro Hospitalar e Universitário de 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 Senior Life, Boston, MA, USA
- Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - J A Eisman
- Skeletal Diseases Program, Garvan Institute of Medical Research, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- St Vincent's Clinical School, School of Medicine and Health, University of New South Wales Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- School of Medicine Sydney, University of Notre Dame Australia, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - P J M Elders
- Petra JM Elders Department of General Practice, Amsterdam UMC, location AMC, 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
- Center for Medical Education and Clinical Training, Kindai University Faculty of Medicine, 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
- Interdisciplinary Centre of Bone Diseases, Bone and Joint Department, Lausanne University Hospital (CHUV) & University of Lausanne, 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, Kindai University Faculty of Medicine, 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 Orthopedics, 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 Senior Life, 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, Victoria, Australia
- Barwon Health, Geelong, Victoria, 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
- HUNT Research Centre, Department of Public Health and Nursing, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, 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 AMC, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - A Nordström
- School of Sport Sciences, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway
- Department of Health Sciences, Swedish Winter Sports Research Centre, Mid Sweden University, Östersund, Sweden
- Department of Medical Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
| | - P Nordström
- Department of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, 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
- IMPACT (Institute for Mental and Physical Health and Clinical Translation), Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia
- Barwon Health, Geelong, Victoria, Australia
- Department of Medicine -Western Health, The University of Melbourne, St Albans, Victoria, Australia
- Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - F Rivadeneira
- Department of Internal Medicine, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - 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
| | - E Sornay-Rendu
- INSERM UMR 1033, University of Lyon, Hôpital Edouard Herriot, Lyon, France
| | - R Sund
- Kuopio Musculoskeletal Research Unit, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland
| | - K M A Swart
- Petra JM Elders Department of General Practice, Amsterdam UMC, location AMC, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- PHARMO Institute for Drug Outcomes Research, Utrecht, 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
- PRECIOSA-Fundación para la investigación, Barberà del Vallés, Barcelona, Spain
- Health Center Can Gibert del Plà, Catalan Institute of Health, Girona, Spain
- Department of Medical Sciences, University of Girona, Girona, Spain
- GROIMAP/GROICAP (research groups), Unitat de Suport a la Recerca Girona, Institut Universitari d'Investigació en Atenció Primària Jordi Gol, Girona, Spain
| | - 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
| | - 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
- Mary McKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia
- Sahlgrenska Osteoporosis Centre, Institute of Medicine, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - W D Leslie
- Department of Medicine, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Vaishya R, Iyengar KP, Jain VK, Vaish A. Demystifying the Risk Factors and Preventive Measures for Osteoporosis. Indian J Orthop 2023; 57:94-104. [PMID: 38107819 PMCID: PMC10721752 DOI: 10.1007/s43465-023-00998-0] [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: 08/23/2023] [Accepted: 09/03/2023] [Indexed: 12/19/2023]
Abstract
Background Osteoporosis is a major health problem, globally. It is characterized by structural bone weakness leading to an increased risk of fragility fractures. These fractures commonly affect the spine, hip and wrist bones. Consequently, Osteoporosis related proximal femur and vertebral fractures represent a substantial, growing social and economic burden on healthcare systems worldwide. Indentification of the risk factors, clinical risk assessment, utilization of risk assessment tools and appropriate management that play a crucial role in reducing the burden of Osteoporosis by tackling modifiable risk factors. Methods This chapter explores various risk factors that are associated with Osteoporosis and provides an overview of various clinical and diagnostic risk assessment tools with a particular emphasis on evidence-based strategies for their prevention. Conclusion The role of emerging technologies such as Artificial Intelligence (AI) and perspectives such as newer diagnostic modalities, monitoring and surveillance approaches in prevention of risk factors in the pathogenesis of Osteoporosis is highlighted.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Raju Vaishya
- Department of Orthopaedics, Indraprastha Apollo Hospitals, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi, 110076 India
| | | | - Vijay Kumar Jain
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Atal Bihari Vajpayee Institute of Medical Sciences, Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi, 110001 India
| | - Abhishek Vaish
- Department of Orthopaedics, Indraprastha Apollo Hospitals, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi, 110076 India
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Schmidmaier R. [Osteoporosis: treatment of high-risk patients]. ORTHOPADIE (HEIDELBERG, GERMANY) 2023; 52:799-807. [PMID: 37656201 DOI: 10.1007/s00132-023-04430-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 07/31/2023] [Indexed: 09/02/2023]
Abstract
Nowadays, different drugs are available for specific treatment of osteoporosis. On the one hand, antiresorptives (raloxifene, bisphosphonates, denosumab) and, on the other hand, bone anabolic drugs (teriparatide and romosozumab) can be used. For both bone anabolic agents, superiority over oral bisphosphonates in high-risk patients was shown in randomized comparative studies. High-risk patients represent a subgroup of osteoporosis patients requiring treatment with a particularly high fracture risk. The very high risk can be recognized by the clinical manifestation (hip or vertebral fracture), the very low T‑score and/or the clinical risk factors (exceeding the bone anabolic threshold of the DVO risk calculator). High-risk patients should be treated with bone anabolic drugs in the first line of treatment. Patients treated with antiresorptives, who develop a very high risk in the course of the disease should be escalated to bone anabolic compounds. Every bone anabolic treatment requires an antiresorptive follow-up treatment. Drug holidays are only possible in exceptional cases for high-risk patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ralf Schmidmaier
- LMU Klinikum, Osteologisches Schwerpunktzentrum der LMU - Bayerisches Osteoporosezentrum, Medizinische Klinik und Poliklinik IV, Ziemssenstr. 5, 80336, München, Deutschland.
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Foessl I, Dimai HP, Obermayer-Pietsch B. Long-term and sequential treatment for osteoporosis. Nat Rev Endocrinol 2023; 19:520-533. [PMID: 37464088 DOI: 10.1038/s41574-023-00866-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 20.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 06/21/2023] [Indexed: 07/20/2023]
Abstract
Osteoporosis is a skeletal disorder that causes impairment of bone structure and strength, leading to a progressively increased risk of fragility fractures. The global prevalence of osteoporosis is increasing in the ageing population. Owing to the chronic character of osteoporosis, years or even decades of preventive measures or therapy are required. The long-term use of bone-specific pharmacological treatment options, including antiresorptive and/or osteoanabolic approaches, has raised concerns around adverse effects or potential rebound phenomena after treatment discontinuation. Imaging options, risk scores and the assessment of bone turnover during initiation and monitoring of such therapies could help to inform individualized treatment strategies. Combination therapies are currently used less often than 'sequential' treatments. However, all patients with osteoporosis, including those with secondary and rare causes of osteoporosis, as well as specific patient populations (for example, young adults, men and pregnant women) require new approaches for long-term therapy and disease monitoring. New pathophysiological aspects of bone metabolism might therefore help to inform and revolutionize the diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ines Foessl
- Division of Endocrinology and Diabetology, Department of Internal Medicine, Medical University Graz, Graz, Austria
| | - Hans P Dimai
- Division of Endocrinology and Diabetology, Department of Internal Medicine, Medical University Graz, Graz, Austria
| | - Barbara Obermayer-Pietsch
- Division of Endocrinology and Diabetology, Department of Internal Medicine, Medical University Graz, Graz, Austria.
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Mondo I, Hannou S, D'Amelio P. Using sequential pharmacotherapy for the treatment of osteoporosis: an update of the literature. Expert Opin Pharmacother 2023; 24:2175-2186. [PMID: 38100542 DOI: 10.1080/14656566.2023.2296543] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/13/2023] [Accepted: 12/14/2023] [Indexed: 12/17/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Osteoporosis, which is characterized by compromised bone density and heightened susceptibility to fractures, is a substantial public health concern, especially among the aging population. Underdiagnosis, undertreatment, and therapy non-adherence contribute to its impact. Anabolic and dual-action agents like teriparatide, abaloparatide, and romosozumab have emerged as effective treatments, allowing rapid gains in bone mineral density (BMD) and reducing fracture risk. However, administering treatments in the correct order is paramount, with an 'anabolic first' approach gaining traction for patients at high risk of fractures. This strategy involves starting anabolic therapies, followed by antiresorptive agents as maintenance therapy. It is important to note that the effectiveness of anabolic agents differs between treatment-naive and previously treated patients: tailored treatment approaches are therefore necessary. This comprehensive strategy adheres to clinical guidelines, emphasizing individualized care, early intervention, and patient-centered management to mitigate the burden of osteoporosis and enhance patients' quality of life. AREA COVERED The aim of this review is to summarize recent evidence on the sequential treatment of osteoporosis and to provide recommendations on the best treatment strategies. EXPERT OPINION Effective treatments, such as anabolic agents, are key in high-risk patients, who require an 'anabolic first' approach. Sequential therapy, specifically tailored to a patient's history, can help to optimize prevention and management of fractures.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ilaria Mondo
- Department of Geriatrics and Geriatric Rehabilitation, Lausanne University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Sophia Hannou
- Department of Geriatrics and Geriatric Rehabilitation, Lausanne University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Patrizia D'Amelio
- Department of Geriatrics and Geriatric Rehabilitation, Lausanne University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Arboleya L, Cancio-Trujillo JM, Chaves C, Duaso-Magaña E, Mesa-Ramos M, Olmos JM. A Delphi consensus on the management of Spanish patients with osteoporosis at high risk of fracture: OSARIDELPHI study. Arch Osteoporos 2023; 18:110. [PMID: 37610481 PMCID: PMC10447260 DOI: 10.1007/s11657-023-01318-7] [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: 02/10/2023] [Accepted: 08/07/2023] [Indexed: 08/24/2023]
Abstract
The OSARIDELPHI study evaluated the level of agreement between specialists in osteoporosis regarding the management of patients with high-risk fractures in Spain. The results provide expert-based recommendations for prevention, diagnosis, and treatment related to fracture risk. Therefore, the study facilitates clinical decision-making for managing this patient's profile. PURPOSE To evaluate the level of agreement between specialists in osteoporosis regarding the management of patients with high-risk fractures in Spain. METHODS A two-round Delphi study was performed using an online survey. In round 1, panel members rated their level of agreement with assessments on a 9-point Likert scale. Item selection was based on acceptance by ≥ 66.6% of panel experts and the agreement of the scientific committee. In round 2, the same panelists evaluated non-consensus items in round 1. RESULTS A total of 80 panelists participated in round 1; of these, 78 completed the round 2 survey. In round 1, 122 items from 4 dimensions (definition of fracture risk: 11 items, prevention and diagnosis: 38 items, choice of treatment: 24 items, and treatment-associated quality of life: 49 items) were evaluated. The consensus was reached for 90 items (73.8%). Panelists agreed that categorizing high risk, very high risk, or imminent risk determines secondary prevention actions (97.5%). Experts agreed that treatment with bone-forming drugs should be considered in case of a very high risk of fracture, and a sequential change to antiresorptive drugs should be made after 1-2 years (97.5%). Panelists also recommended corrective action plans for non-adherent patients to improve adherence (97.5%). A total of 131 items were finally accepted after round 2. CONCLUSION This Delphi study provides expert-based recommendations on clinical decision-making for managing patients with osteoporosis at high risk of fracture.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Luis Arboleya
- Rheumatology Service, Hospital Universitario Central de Asturias, Oviedo, Asturias, Spain.
| | | | - Celia Chaves
- Medical Affairs Department, STADA, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Enric Duaso-Magaña
- Acute Geriatric Unit, Geriatric Service, Hospital de Igualada, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Manuel Mesa-Ramos
- Orthopedic Service. Hospital Valle de los Pedroches, Pozoblanco, Córdoba, Spain
| | - Jose Manuel Olmos
- Internal Medicine Service, Hospital Universitario Marqués de Valdecilla-IDIVAL, Universidad de Cantabria, Santander, Cantabria, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Leslie WD, Binkley N, Goel H, Hans D, McCloskey EV. Trabecular Bone Score Vertebral Exclusions Affect Risk Classification and Treatment Recommendations: The Manitoba Bmd Registry. J Clin Densitom 2023; 26:101415. [PMID: 37246031 DOI: 10.1016/j.jocd.2023.101415] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [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: 02/19/2023] [Accepted: 05/15/2023] [Indexed: 05/30/2023]
Abstract
Lumbar spine trabecular bone score (TBS), a texture measure derived from spine dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) images, is a bone mineral density (BMD)-independent risk factor for fracture. Lumbar vertebral levels that show structural artifact are excluded from BMD measurement. TBS is relatively unaffected by degenerative artifact, and it is uncertain whether the same exclusions should be applied to TBS reporting. To gain insight into the clinical impact of vertebral exclusion on TBS, we examined the effect of lumbar vertebral exclusions in routine clinical practice on tertile-based TBS categorization and TBS adjusted FRAX-based treatment recommendations. The study population consisted of 71,209 individuals aged 40 years and older with narrow fan-beam spine DXA examinations and retrospectively-derived TBS. During BMD reporting, 34.3% of the scans had one or more vertebral exclusions for structural artifact. When TBS was derived from the same vertebral levels used for BMD reporting, using fixed L1-L4 tertile cutoffs (1.23 and 1.31 from the McCloskey meta-analysis) reclassified 17.9% to a lower and 6.5% to a higher TBS category, with 75.6% unchanged. Reclassification was reduced from 24.4% overall to 17.2% when level-specific tertile cutoffs from the software manufacturer were used. Treatment reclassification based upon FRAX major osteoporotic fracture probability occurred in 2.9% overall, but in 9.6% of those with baseline risk ≥15%. For treatment based upon FRAX hip fracture probability, reclassification occurred in 3.4% overall, but in 10.4% in those with baseline risk ≥2%. In summary, lumbar spine TBS measurements based upon vertebral levels other than L1-L4 can alter the tertile category and treatment recommendations based upon TBS-adjusted FRAX calculation, especially for those close to or exceeding the treatment cut-off. Manufacturer level-specific tertile cut-offs should be used if vertebral exclusions are applied.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- William D Leslie
- Department of Internal Medicine, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
| | - Neil Binkley
- University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA
| | | | - Didier Hans
- Bone and Joint Department, Lausanne University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Eugene V McCloskey
- Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield Medical School, Sheffield, UK
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
El Miedany Y, Toth M, Elwakil W, Saber S. Post-Fracture Care Program: Pharmacological Treatment of Osteoporosis in Older Adults with Fragility Fractures. Curr Osteoporos Rep 2023:10.1007/s11914-023-00791-w. [PMID: 37300602 DOI: 10.1007/s11914-023-00791-w] [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] [Accepted: 05/22/2023] [Indexed: 06/12/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW To present and discuss the recently published scientific evidence on the approach, mode of action, and timing of osteoporosis therapy initiation after fragility fractures. RECENT FINDINGS A comprehensive management approach is required to reduce mortality and morbidity associated with fragility fractures. This will help to reduce the risk of missing the diagnosis of osteoporosis as the underlying disorder while at the same time promoting the timely treatment of osteoporosis. The target is to minimize the incidence of post-traumatic disability and to reduce the imminent fracture risk. This article will present a Bone-Care algorithm for the diagnosis and management of fragility fractures in patients presenting for trauma surgery. This algorithm has been developed based on recently published national as well as international guidelines for implementation in standard clinical practice. International figures revealed that only a small proportion of those patients at high risk of sustaining a fragility fracture receive osteoporosis therapy. Based on the best currently available evidence, it is safe to start osteoporosis therapy in the acute post-fracture period (the optimal therapeutic window of romosozumab is the late endochondral phase/throughout bone remodeling). The right Bone-Care pathway ensures the delivery of a comprehensive management approach that meets the global call to action. All parameters including risk, benefit, compliance, and cost should be considered on an individual base for all kinds of therapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yasser El Miedany
- Institute of Medical Sciences, Canterbury Christ Church University, Canterbury, UK.
| | - Mathias Toth
- King's College, London, UK
- Darent Valley Hospital, Kent, UK
| | - Walaa Elwakil
- Rheumatology, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt
| | - Sally Saber
- Rheumatology and Rehabilitation, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Qaseem A, Hicks LA, Etxeandia-Ikobaltzeta I, Shamliyan T, Cooney TG, Cross JT, Fitterman N, Lin JS, Maroto M, Obley AJ, Tice JA, Tufte JE. Pharmacologic Treatment of Primary Osteoporosis or Low Bone Mass to Prevent Fractures in Adults: A Living Clinical Guideline From the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med 2023; 176:224-238. [PMID: 36592456 PMCID: PMC10885682 DOI: 10.7326/m22-1034] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 17.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/04/2023] Open
Abstract
DESCRIPTION This guideline updates the 2017 American College of Physicians (ACP) recommendations on pharmacologic treatment of primary osteoporosis or low bone mass to prevent fractures in adults. METHODS The ACP Clinical Guidelines Committee based these recommendations on an updated systematic review of evidence and graded them using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system. AUDIENCE AND PATIENT POPULATION The audience for this guideline includes all clinicians. The patient population includes adults with primary osteoporosis or low bone mass. RECOMMENDATION 1A ACP recommends that clinicians use bisphosphonates for initial pharmacologic treatment to reduce the risk of fractures in postmenopausal females diagnosed with primary osteoporosis (strong recommendation; high-certainty evidence). RECOMMENDATION 1B ACP suggests that clinicians use bisphosphonates for initial pharmacologic treatment to reduce the risk of fractures in males diagnosed with primary osteoporosis (conditional recommendation; low-certainty evidence). RECOMMENDATION 2A ACP suggests that clinicians use the RANK ligand inhibitor (denosumab) as a second-line pharmacologic treatment to reduce the risk of fractures in postmenopausal females diagnosed with primary osteoporosis who have contraindications to or experience adverse effects of bisphosphonates (conditional recommendation; moderate-certainty evidence). RECOMMENDATION 2B ACP suggests that clinicians use the RANK ligand inhibitor (denosumab) as a second-line pharmacologic treatment to reduce the risk of fractures in males diagnosed with primary osteoporosis who have contraindications to or experience adverse effects of bisphosphonates (conditional recommendation; low-certainty evidence). RECOMMENDATION 3 ACP suggests that clinicians use the sclerostin inhibitor (romosozumab, moderate-certainty evidence) or recombinant PTH (teriparatide, low-certainty evidence), followed by a bisphosphonate, to reduce the risk of fractures only in females with primary osteoporosis with very high risk of fracture (conditional recommendation). RECOMMENDATION 4 ACP suggests that clinicians take an individualized approach regarding whether to start pharmacologic treatment with a bisphosphonate in females over the age of 65 with low bone mass (osteopenia) to reduce the risk of fractures (conditional recommendation; low-certainty evidence).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Amir Qaseem
- American College of Physicians, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (A.Q., I.E., T.S.)
| | - Lauri A Hicks
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia (L.A.H.)
| | | | - Tatyana Shamliyan
- American College of Physicians, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (A.Q., I.E., T.S.)
| | - Thomas G Cooney
- Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon (T.G.C.)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
15
|
Kanis JA, McCloskey EV, Harvey NC, Cooper C, Rizzoli R, Dawson-Hughes B, Maggi S, Reginster JY. The need to distinguish intervention thresholds and diagnostic thresholds in the management of osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int 2023; 34:1-9. [PMID: 36282342 DOI: 10.1007/s00198-022-06567-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 14.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/03/2022] [Accepted: 09/30/2022] [Indexed: 01/07/2023]
Abstract
This position paper of the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) and the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO) addresses the rationale for separate diagnostic and intervention thresholds in osteoporosis. We conclude that the current BMD-based diagnostic criteria for osteoporosis be retained whilst clarity is brought to bear on the distinction between diagnostic and intervention thresholds.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- John A Kanis
- Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield Medical School, Beech Hill Road, Sheffield, S10 2RX, UK.
- Mary McKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia.
| | - Eugene V McCloskey
- Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield Medical School, Beech Hill Road, Sheffield, S10 2RX, UK
- Centre for Integrated Research in Musculoskeletal Ageing (CIMA), Mellanby Centre for Musculoskeletal Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Nicholas C Harvey
- MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton, SO16 6YD, UK
- NIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, University of Southampton and University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Tremona Road, Southampton, UK
| | - Cyrus Cooper
- MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton, SO16 6YD, UK
- NIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, University of Southampton and University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Tremona Road, Southampton, UK
- NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Rene Rizzoli
- Service of Bone Diseases, Geneva University Hospitals and Faculty of Medicine, 1211, Geneva 14, Switzerland
| | - Bess Dawson-Hughes
- Jean Mayer USDA Human Nutrition Research Center On Aging, Tufts University, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Stefania Maggi
- Institute of Neuroscience, Aging Branch, CNR, Padua, Italy
| | - Jean-Yves Reginster
- WHO Collaborating Center for Epidemiology of Musculoskeletal Health and Aging, Liege, Belgium
- Division of Public Health, Epidemiology and Health Economics, University of Liège, CHU Sart Tilman B23, 4000, Liege, Belgium
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Kanis JA, McCloskey EV, Harvey NC, Cooper C, Rizzoli R, Dawson-Hughes B, Maggi S, Reginster JY. Intervention thresholds and diagnostic thresholds in the management of osteoporosis. Aging Clin Exp Res 2022; 34:3155-3157. [PMID: 36344804 PMCID: PMC9719445 DOI: 10.1007/s40520-022-02216-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/11/2022] [Accepted: 07/29/2022] [Indexed: 11/09/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- John A Kanis
- Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield Medical School, Beech Hill Road, Sheffield, S10 2RX, UK. .,Mary McKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia.
| | - Eugene V McCloskey
- Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield Medical School, Beech Hill Road, Sheffield, S10 2RX, UK.,Centre for Integrated Research in Musculoskeletal Ageing (CIMA), Mellanby Centre for Musculoskeletal Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Nicholas C Harvey
- MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton, SO16 6YD, UK.,NIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, University of Southampton and University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Tremona Road, Southampton, UK
| | - Cyrus Cooper
- MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton, SO16 6YD, UK.,NIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, University of Southampton and University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Tremona Road, Southampton, UK.,NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Rene Rizzoli
- Service of Bone Diseases, Geneva University Hospitals and Faculty of Medicine, 1211, Geneva 14, Switzerland
| | - Bess Dawson-Hughes
- Jean Mayer USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging, Tufts University, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Stefania Maggi
- Institute of Neuroscience, Aging Branch, CNR, Padua, Italy
| | - Jean-Yves Reginster
- WHO Collaborating Center for Epidemiology of Musculoskeletal Health and Aging, Liège, Belgium.,Division of Public Health, Epidemiology and Health Economics, University of Liège, CHU Sart Tilman B23, 4000, Liège, Belgium
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
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
|
18
|
Bandeira L, Lewiecki EM. Anabolic therapy for osteoporosis: update on efficacy and safety. ARCHIVES OF ENDOCRINOLOGY AND METABOLISM 2022; 66:707-716. [PMID: 36382760 PMCID: PMC10118815 DOI: 10.20945/2359-3997000000566] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/18/2022]
Abstract
Anabolic agents for the treatment of osteoporosis increase bone density, improve bone strength, and reduce fracture risk. They are distinguished from antiresorptive drugs by their property of increasing osteoblastic bone formation. Teriparatide and abaloparatide are parathyroid hormone receptor agonists that increase bone remodeling with bone formation increasing more than bone resorption. Romosozumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody to sclerostin that has a "dual effect" of increasing bone formation while decreasing bone resorption. The bone forming effects of anabolic therapy appear to be self-limited, making it imperative that it be followed by antiresorptive therapy to enhance or consolidate the beneficial effects achieved. Teriparatide, abaloparatide, and romosozumab each have unique pharmacological properties that must be appreciated when using them to treat patients at high risk for fracture. Clinical trials have shown a favorable balance of expected benefits and possible risks. Anabolic therapy is superior to bisphosphonates for high-risk patients, with greater benefit when initial treatment is with an anabolic agent followed by an antiresorptive drug, rather than the reverse sequence of therapy. Recent clinical practice guidelines have included recommendations with examples of patients who are candidates with anabolic therapy.
Collapse
|
19
|
Silva BC, Madeira M, d'Alva CB, Maeda SS, de Holanda NCP, Ohe MN, Szejnfeld V, Zerbini CAF, de Paula FJA, Bandeira F. Definition and management of very high fracture risk in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis: a position statement from the Brazilian Society of Endocrinology and Metabolism (SBEM) and the Brazilian Association of Bone Assessment and Metabolism (ABRASSO). ARCHIVES OF ENDOCRINOLOGY AND METABOLISM 2022; 66:591-603. [PMID: 36191263 PMCID: PMC10118822 DOI: 10.20945/2359-3997000000522] [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: 04/22/2023]
Abstract
Several drugs are available for the treatment of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women. Over the last decades, most patients requiring pharmacological intervention were offered antiresorptive drugs as first-line therapy, while anabolic agents were considered a last resource for those with therapeutic failure. However, recent randomized trials in patients with severe osteoporosis have shown that anabolic agents reduce fractures to a greater extent than antiresorptive medications. Additionally, evidence indicates that increases in bone mineral density (BMD) are maximized when patients are treated with anabolic agents first, followed by antiresorptive therapy. This evidence is key, considering that greater increases in BMD during osteoporosis treatment are associated with a more pronounced reduction in fracture risk. Thus, international guidelines have recently proposed an individualized approach to osteoporosis treatment based on fracture risk stratification, in which the stratification risk has been refined to include a category of patients at very high risk of fracture who should be managed with anabolic agents as first-line therapy. In this document, the Brazilian Society of Endocrinology and Metabolism and the Brazilian Association of Bone Assessment and Metabolism propose the definition of very high risk of osteoporotic fracture in postmenopausal women, for whom anabolic agents should be considered as first-line therapy. This document also reviews the factors associated with increased fracture risk, trials comparing anabolic versus antiresorptive agents, efficacy of anabolic agents in patients who are treatment naïve versus those previously treated with antiresorptive agents, and safety of anabolic agents.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Barbara C Silva
- Unidade de Endocrinologia, Santa Casa de Belo Horizonte, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brasil
- Unidade de Endocrinologia, Hospital Felício Rocho, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brasil
- Departamento de Medicina, Centro Universitário de Belo Horizonte (UNI-BH), Belo Horizonte, MG, Brasil,
- Member of the Sociedade Brasileira de Endocrinologia e Metabolismo (SBEM)
| | - Miguel Madeira
- Divisão de Endocrinologia e Metabolismo, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil
- Member of the Sociedade Brasileira de Endocrinologia e Metabolismo (SBEM)
| | - Catarina Brasil d'Alva
- Departamento de Medicina Clínica, Universidade Federal do Ceará (UFC), Fortaleza, CE, Brasil
- Member of the Sociedade Brasileira de Endocrinologia e Metabolismo (SBEM)
| | - Sergio Setsuo Maeda
- Unidade de Endocrinologia, Escola Paulista de Medicina, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brasil
- Member of the Associação Brasileira de Avaliação Óssea e Osteometabolismo (ABRASSO)
| | - Narriane Chaves Pereira de Holanda
- Divisão de Endocrinologia e Metabolismo, Universidade Federal da Paraíba, João Pessoa, PB, Brasil
- Member of the Sociedade Brasileira de Endocrinologia e Metabolismo (SBEM)
| | - Monique Nakayama Ohe
- Unidade de Endocrinologia, Escola Paulista de Medicina, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brasil
- Member of the Sociedade Brasileira de Endocrinologia e Metabolismo (SBEM)
| | - Vera Szejnfeld
- Divisão de Reumatologia, Escola Paulista de Medicina, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brasil
- Member of the Associação Brasileira de Avaliação Óssea e Osteometabolismo (ABRASSO)
| | - Cristiano A F Zerbini
- Centro Paulista de Investigação Clínica, São Paulo, SP, Brasil
- Member of the Associação Brasileira de Avaliação Óssea e Osteometabolismo (ABRASSO)
| | - Francisco José Albuquerque de Paula
- Departamento de Clínica Médica, Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto, Universidade de São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brasil
- Member of the Sociedade Brasileira de Endocrinologia e Metabolismo (SBEM)
- Member of the Associação Brasileira de Avaliação Óssea e Osteometabolismo (ABRASSO)
| | - Francisco Bandeira
- Divisão de Endocrinologia e Metabolismo, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Pernambuco, Recife, PE, Brasil
- Member of the Sociedade Brasileira de Endocrinologia e Metabolismo (SBEM)
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Osteoporosis treatment in Austria-assessment of FRAX-based intervention thresholds for high and very high fracture risk. Arch Osteoporos 2022; 17:141. [PMID: 36357621 PMCID: PMC9649455 DOI: 10.1007/s11657-022-01175-w] [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: 07/27/2022] [Accepted: 10/04/2022] [Indexed: 11/12/2022]
Abstract
The adoption of the management pathway proposed by the National Osteoporosis Guideline Group (NOGG), UK applied using the Austrian FRAX® tool in a referral population of Austrian women categorises 22-29% of women age 40 years or more eligible for treatment of whom 28-34% are classified at very high risk. PURPOSE The aim of this study is to provide a reference document for the further development of existing guidelines for the management of osteoporosis in Austria, considering FRAX-based intervention thresholds for high and very high fracture risk. METHODS The model development was based on two Austrian hospital referral cohorts. Baseline information was collected to compute the 10-year probability (using the Austrian FRAX model) of a major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) and hip fracture both with and without the inclusion of femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD). Assessment thresholds for BMD testing were defined, as well as intervention thresholds. In addition, thresholds that characterise men and women at high and very high fracture risk were established. The management pathway followed that currently recommended by the UK National Osteoporosis Guideline Group (NOGG). RESULTS The two cohorts comprised a total of 1306 women and men with a mean age of 66.7 years. Slightly more than 50% were eligible for treatment by virtue of a prior fragility fracture. In those women without a prior fracture, 22% (n = 120) were eligible for treatment based on MOF probabilities. Of these, 28% (n = 33) were found to be at very high risk. When both MOF and hip fracture probabilities were used to characterise risk, 164 women without a prior fracture were eligible for treatment (29%). Of these, 34% (n = 56) were found to be at very high risk. Fewer men without prior fracture were eligible for treatment compared with women. CONCLUSION The management pathway as currently outlined is expected to reduce inequalities in patient management. The characterisation of very high risk may aid in the identification of patients suitable for treatment with osteoanabolic agents.
Collapse
|
21
|
Evidence based Latin American Guidelines of clinical practice on prevention, diagnosis, management and treatment of glucocorticoid induced osteoporosis. A 2022 update : This manuscript has been produced under the auspices of the Committee of National Societies (CNS) and the Committee of Scientific Advisors (CSA) of the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF). Aging Clin Exp Res 2022; 34:2591-2602. [PMID: 36348222 DOI: 10.1007/s40520-022-02261-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/17/2022] [Accepted: 09/16/2022] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
Abstract
Guidelines and recommendations developed and endorsed by the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) are intended to provide guidance for particular pattern of practice for physicians who usually prescribe glucocorticoid (GC) therapy, and not to dictate the care of a particular patient. Adherence to the recommendations within this guideline is voluntary and the ultimate determination regarding their application should be made by the physician in light of each patient's circumstances. Guidelines and recommendations are intended to promote a desirable outcome but cannot guarantee any specific outcome. This guideline and its recommendations are not intended to dictate payment, reimbursement or insurance decisions. Guidelines and recommendations are subjected to periodic revisions as a consequence of the evolution of medicine, technology and clinical practice. A panel of Latin American (LATAM) experts specialized in osteoporosis with recognized clinical experience in managing patients with glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIO) met to produce evidence-based LATAM recommendations for the diagnosis and management of GIO. These guidelines are particularly intended to general practitioners and primary care physicians who prescribe GC treatments in LATAM to guide their daily clinical practice in terms of evaluation, prevention and treatment of GIO. These recommendations were based on systematic literature review using MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS and COCHRANE Library database during the period from 2012 to 2021. Randomized clinical trials (RCT), systematic reviews of RCT, controlled observational studies, guidelines and consensus were considered. Based on the review and expert opinion the panel members voted recommendations during two successive rounds of voting by panel members. Agreements for each statement were considered if a concordance of at least 70% was achieved following Delphi methodology. Grading of recommendations was made according to the Oxford Centre for the Evidence-based Medicine (EBM) criteria. Among five GIO guidelines and consensus initially identified, two of them (American College of Rheumatology 2017 and the Brazilian Guidelines 2021) were selected for comparison considering the latter as the most current guides in the LATAM region. Based on this methodology fifty statements were issued. All of them but four (1.20, 1.21, 1.23 and 4.2) attained agreement.
Collapse
|
22
|
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
|
23
|
Fujimaki H, Tomioka M, Kanoshima Y, Morita A, Yamori T, Inaba Y. Accuracy of the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool for judging pharmacotherapy initiation for primary osteoporosis. J Bone Miner Metab 2022; 40:860-868. [PMID: 35945295 DOI: 10.1007/s00774-022-01356-0] [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: 04/30/2022] [Accepted: 06/27/2022] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION This study aimed to determine whether the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX®) is useful in assessing the criteria for the initiation of pharmacotherapy for primary osteoporosis based on the current diagnostic criteria in Japan. MATERIALS AND METHODS We enrolled 614 patients aged ≥ 40 years (average, 77.0 years) who were eligible for primary osteoporosis evaluation. Bone mineral density measurements of the lumbar spine, total hip, and femoral neck using ALPHYS LF (FUJIFILM, Tokyo, Japan) and imaging studies involving the lumbar spine were obtained and the FRAX® scores of each patient were calculated with and without the T-score of the femoral neck. The receiver operating characteristic curve analysis method was used to calculate the cut-off FRAX® scores with reference to the criteria for initiating pharmacotherapy for osteoporosis; the accuracies of both FRAX® scores were compared. RESULTS The FRAX® score calculated with the T-score was more accurate for hip fracture risk assessment [cut-off value 5.5%; the area under the curve (AUC) 0.946] than for major osteoporotic fracture risk assessment (cut-off value 17.0%; AUC 0.924) in judging the criteria (p = 0.001). Conversely, the FRAX® score calculated without the T-score was equally accurate for hip fracture risk assessment (AUC 0.796) and major osteoporotic fracture risk assessment (AUC 0.806) (p = 0.23). CONCLUSION The FRAX® score can accurately assess the criteria for initiating pharmacotherapy for primary osteoporosis based on the current Japanese diagnostic criteria, especially when the T-score is used.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hiroshi Fujimaki
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Yokohama Ekisaikai Hospital, 1-2 Yamada-cho, Naka-ku, Yokohama City, 231-0036, Japan.
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Yokohama City University, 3-9, Fukuura, Kanazawa-ku, Yokohama City, 236-0004, Japan.
| | - Masamitsu Tomioka
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Yokohama Ekisaikai Hospital, 1-2 Yamada-cho, Naka-ku, Yokohama City, 231-0036, Japan
| | - Yuko Kanoshima
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Yokohama Ekisaikai Hospital, 1-2 Yamada-cho, Naka-ku, Yokohama City, 231-0036, Japan
| | - Akira Morita
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Yokohama Ekisaikai Hospital, 1-2 Yamada-cho, Naka-ku, Yokohama City, 231-0036, Japan
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Yokohama City University, 3-9, Fukuura, Kanazawa-ku, Yokohama City, 236-0004, Japan
| | - Tetsuya Yamori
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Yokohama Ekisaikai Hospital, 1-2 Yamada-cho, Naka-ku, Yokohama City, 231-0036, Japan
| | - Yutaka Inaba
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Yokohama City University, 3-9, Fukuura, Kanazawa-ku, Yokohama City, 236-0004, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
24
|
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
|
25
|
Tebé C, Pallarès N, Reyes C, Carbonell-Abella C, Montero-Corominas D, Martín-Merino E, Nogués X, Diez-Perez A, Prieto-Alhambra D, Martínez-Laguna D. Development and external validation of a 1- and 5-year fracture prediction tool based on electronic medical records data: The EPIC risk algorithm. Bone 2022; 162:116469. [PMID: 35691583 DOI: 10.1016/j.bone.2022.116469] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/09/2022] [Revised: 06/06/2022] [Accepted: 06/07/2022] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES We aimed to develop and validate a fracture risk algorithm for the automatic identification of subjects at high risk of imminent and long-term fracture risk. RESEARCH, DESIGN, AND METHODS A cohort of subjects aged 50-85, between 2007 and 2017, was extracted from the Catalan information system for the development of research in primary care database (SIDIAP). Participants were followed until the earliest of death, transfer out, fracture, or 12/31/2017. Potential risk factors were obtained based on the existing literature. Cox regression was used to model 1 and 5-year risk of hip and major fracture. The original cohort was randomly split in 80:20 for development and internal validation purposes respectively. External validation was explored in a cohort extracted from the Spanish database for pharmaco-epidemiological research in primary care. RESULTS A total of 1.76 million people were included from SIDIAP (50.7 % women with mean age of 65.4 years). Hip and major fracture incidence rates were 3.57 [95%CI 3.53 to 3.60] and 11.61 [95%CI 11.54 to 11.68] per 1000 person-years, respectively. The derived model included 19 risk factors. Internal validity showed good results on calibration and discrimination. The 1-year C-statistic for hip and major fracture were 0.851 (95%CI 0.853 to 0.864), and 0.717 (95%CI 0.742 to 0.749) respectively. The 5-year C-statistic for hip and major fracture were 0.849 (95%CI 0.847 to 0.852) and 0.724 (95%CI 0.721 to 0.727) respectively. External validation showed good performance for hip and major fracture risk prediction. CONCLUSIONS We have developed and validated a clinical prediction tool for 1- and 5-year hip and major osteoporotic fracture risks using electronic primary care data. The proposed algorithm can be automatically estimated at the population level using the available primary care records. Future work is needed on the cost-effectiveness of its use for population-based screening and targeted prevention of osteoporotic fractures.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Cristian Tebé
- Biostatistics Unit, Institut d'Investigació Biomèdica de Bellvitge, L'Hospitalet de Llobregat, Spain; Department of Clinical Sciences, Universitat de Barcelona
| | - Natalia Pallarès
- Biostatistics Unit, Institut d'Investigació Biomèdica de Bellvitge, L'Hospitalet de Llobregat, Spain; Department of Clinical Sciences, Universitat de Barcelona
| | - Carlen Reyes
- IDIAP Jordi Gol Primary Care Research Institute; Ambit Barcelona, Primary Care Department, Institut Catala de la Salut; GREMPAL Research Group
| | | | - Dolores Montero-Corominas
- Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance, Spanish Agency of Medicines and Medical Devices (AEMPS)
| | - Elisa Martín-Merino
- Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance, Spanish Agency of Medicines and Medical Devices (AEMPS)
| | - Xavier Nogués
- GREMPAL Research Group; Musculoskeletal Research Unit, IMIM-Hospital del Mar, Barcelona, Spain; CIBER of Healthy Ageing and Frailty Research (CIBERFes), Instituto de Salud Carlos III
| | - Adolfo Diez-Perez
- GREMPAL Research Group; Musculoskeletal Research Unit, IMIM-Hospital del Mar, Barcelona, Spain; CIBER of Healthy Ageing and Frailty Research (CIBERFes), Instituto de Salud Carlos III
| | - Daniel Prieto-Alhambra
- GREMPAL Research Group; CIBER of Healthy Ageing and Frailty Research (CIBERFes), Instituto de Salud Carlos III; Centre for Statistics in Medicine (CSM), Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology, and Musculoskeletal Sciences (NDORMS), University of Oxford.
| | - Daniel Martínez-Laguna
- IDIAP Jordi Gol Primary Care Research Institute; Ambit Barcelona, Primary Care Department, Institut Catala de la Salut; GREMPAL Research Group; CIBER of Healthy Ageing and Frailty Research (CIBERFes), Instituto de Salud Carlos III
| |
Collapse
|
26
|
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
|
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
|
McClung MR, Rothman MS, Lewiecki EM, Hanley DA, Harris ST, Miller PD, Kendler DL. The role of osteoanabolic agents in the management of patients with osteoporosis. Postgrad Med 2022; 134:541-551. [DOI: 10.1080/00325481.2022.2069582] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/18/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Michael R. McClung
- Oregon Osteoporosis Center, Portland, OR; Mary MacKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Micol S. Rothman
- Department of Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA
| | | | - David A. Hanley
- Departments of Medicine, Community Health Sciences, and Oncology, Cumming School of Medicine and McCaig Institute for Bone and Joint Health, the University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
| | - Steven T. Harris
- Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | | | - David L. Kendler
- Department of Medicine (Endocrinology), University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
29
|
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
|
30
|
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
|
31
|
Gupta A, Maslen C, Vindlacheruvu M, Abel RL, Bhattacharya P, Bromiley PA, Clark EM, Compston JE, Crabtree N, Gregory JS, Kariki EP, Harvey NC, McCloskey E, Ward KA, Poole KE. Digital health interventions for osteoporosis and post-fragility fracture care. Ther Adv Musculoskelet Dis 2022; 14:1759720X221083523. [PMID: 35368375 PMCID: PMC8966117 DOI: 10.1177/1759720x221083523] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/18/2022] Open
Abstract
The growing burden from osteoporosis and fragility fractures highlights a need to improve osteoporosis management across healthcare systems. Sub-optimal management of osteoporosis is an area suitable for digital health interventions. While fracture liaison services (FLSs) are proven to greatly improve care for people with osteoporosis, such services might benefit from technologies that enhance automation. The term 'Digital Health' covers a variety of different tools including clinical decision support systems, electronic medical record tools, patient decision aids, patient apps, education tools, and novel artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms. Within the scope of this review are AI solutions that use algorithms within health system registries to target interventions. Clinician-targeted, patient-targeted, or system-targeted digital health interventions could be used to improve management and prevent fragility fractures. This review was commissioned by The Royal Osteoporosis Society and Bone Research Academy during the production of the 2020 Research Roadmap (https://theros.org.uk), with the intention of identifying gaps where targeted research funding could lead to improved patient health. We explore potential uses of digital technology in the general management of osteoporosis. Evidence suggests that digital technologies can support multidisciplinary teams to provide the best possible patient care based on current evidence and to support patients in self-management. However, robust randomised controlled studies are still needed to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of these technologies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Amit Gupta
- Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Nicola Crabtree
- Birmingham Women’s and Children’s NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Kenneth E.S. Poole
- University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, CB2 0QQ Cambridge, UK
| |
Collapse
|
32
|
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
|
33
|
Bonaccorsi G, Rizzati M, Salani L, Giganti M. Postmenopausal osteoporosis: risk evaluation and treatment options. Minerva Obstet Gynecol 2021; 73:714-729. [PMID: 34905877 DOI: 10.23736/s2724-606x.21.04896-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/02/2023]
Abstract
Postmenopausal osteoporosis is a chronic progressive condition characterized by reduced bone mass and impaired bone quality, leading to an increased risk of fragility fractures. Osteoporotic fractures reduce quality of life and are associated with high morbidity, mortality and economic burden. Primary and secondary prevention interventions are always recommended starting from the premenopausal age, in women after menopause, however, it is essential to develop a long-term intervention strategy that allows to identify patients at high risk of fracture and the choice of therapy based on the estimated risk. This narrative review described the tools for layering the management approach in relation to low, high and very high fracture risk. Several medications are now available for the treatment of osteoporosis and the prevention of fractures; the knowledge of the efficacy, safety and additional benefits profile of the individual preparations allows an appropriate choice between the different drugs available and the possibility of adapting the prescription to the lifetime fracture risk spectrum. From the literature it emerges that menopausal hormone therapy (MHT), TSEC combination and SERMs can be drugs of choice to counteract postmenopausal bone loss in younger women or at low risk of fracture, while bisphosphonates and denosumab are appropriate for women with high risk or at an older age. Therapy with denosumab and anabolic agents such as teriparatide and romosozumab is particularly indicated for subjects with very high risk of fracture.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gloria Bonaccorsi
- Department of Translational Medicine, Menopause and Osteoporosis Center, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy - .,University Center for Studies on Gender Medicine, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy -
| | - Monica Rizzati
- Department of Translational Medicine, Menopause and Osteoporosis Center, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy
| | - Lara Salani
- Department of Translational Medicine, Menopause and Osteoporosis Center, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy
| | - Melchiore Giganti
- Department of Translational Medicine and for Romagna, Faculty of Medicine, Pharmacy and Prevention, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
34
|
Bonaccorsi G. Management of women's bone health in the gynecological setting: when and how? Minerva Obstet Gynecol 2021; 73:659-661. [PMID: 34905873 DOI: 10.23736/s2724-606x.21.04924-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/08/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Gloria Bonaccorsi
- Department of Translational Medicine, Menopause and Osteoporosis Center, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy - .,University Center for Studies on Gender Medicine, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy -
| |
Collapse
|
35
|
Al-Daghri NM, Sabico S, Al-Saleh Y, Sulimani R, Aljohani NJ, Sheshah E, Alodhayani A, Harvey NC, Liu E, Lorentzon M, McCloskey EV, Vandenput L, Johansson H, Kanis JA. The application of FRAX in Saudi Arabia. Arch Osteoporos 2021; 16:166. [PMID: 34739604 DOI: 10.1007/s11657-021-01024-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/09/2021] [Accepted: 10/06/2021] [Indexed: 02/03/2023]
Abstract
UNLABELLED Assessment and treatment pathways based on age-specific intervention thresholds in Saudi Arabi can be used to identify patients at high risk of fracture and avoid unnecessary treatment in those at low fracture risk. PURPOSE Intervention thresholds for the treatment of osteoporosis have historically been based on the measurement of bone mineral density. The aim of the present study was to explore treatment paths and characteristics of women eligible for treatment in Saudi Arabia based on fracture probabilities derived from FRAX®. METHODS The approach to the setting of intervention and assessment thresholds used the methodology adopted by the National Osteoporosis Guideline Group for FRAX-based guidelines in the UK but based on the epidemiology of fracture and death in Saudi Arabia. The methodology was applied to women age 40 years or more drawn from a tertiary referral population for skeletal assessment. Missing data for the calculation of FRAX was simulated using data from the referral and FRAX derivation cohorts. RESULTS Intervention thresholds expressed as a 10-year probability of a major osteoporotic fracture ranged from 2.0% at the age of 50 years increasing to 7.6% at the age of 70 years. A total of 163 of 1365 women (11.9%) had a prior fragility fracture and would be eligible for treatment for this reason. An additional 5 women were eligible for treatment in that MOF probabilities lay above the upper assessment threshold. A BMD test would be recommended for 593 women (43.4%) so that FRAX could be recalculated with the inclusion of femoral neck BMD. Of these, 220 individuals would be eligible for treatment after a BMD test and 373 women categorised at low risk after a BMD test. CONCLUSION Probability-based assessment of fracture risk using age-specific intervention thresholds was developed for Saudi Arabia to help guide decisions about treatment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nasser M Al-Daghri
- Biochemistry Department, College of Science, King Saud University, 11451, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
| | - Shaun Sabico
- Biochemistry Department, College of Science, King Saud University, 11451, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
| | - Yousef Al-Saleh
- Biochemistry Department, College of Science, King Saud University, 11451, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.,College of Medicine, King Saud Bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.,King Abdullah International Medical Research Center, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.,Department of Medicine, King Abdulaziz Medical City, Riyadh, Ministry of National Guard-Health Affairs, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
| | - Riad Sulimani
- Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
| | - Naji J Aljohani
- Biochemistry Department, College of Science, King Saud University, 11451, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.,Obesity, Endocrine and Metabolism Center, King Fahad Medical City, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
| | - Eman Sheshah
- Diabetes Care Center, King Salman Bin Abdulaziz Hospital, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
| | - Abdulaziz Alodhayani
- Department of Family Medicine and Community, College of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
| | - Nicholas C Harvey
- MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - Enwu Liu
- Mary McKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Mattias Lorentzon
- Mary McKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia.,Sahlgrenska Osteoporosis Centre, Institute of Medicine, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - Eugene V McCloskey
- Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield Medical School, Beech Hill Road, Sheffield, S10 2RX, UK.,MRC and Arthritis Research UK Centre for Integrated Research in Musculoskeletal Ageing, Mellanby Centre for Bone Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Liesbeth 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
| | - Helena Johansson
- Mary McKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia.,Sahlgrenska Osteoporosis Centre, Institute of Medicine, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.,Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield Medical School, Beech Hill Road, Sheffield, S10 2RX, UK
| | - 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, S10 2RX, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
36
|
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
|