An assessment of intervention thresholds for very high fracture risk applied to the NOGG guidelines : A report for the National Osteoporosis Guideline Group (NOGG)

Pre-treatment bone mineral density and the benefit of pharmacologic treatment on fracture risk and BMD change: analysis from the FNIH-ASBMR SABRE project

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.

Update on fracture risk assessment in osteoporosis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The assessment of fracture risk is playing an ever-increasing role in osteoporosis clinical management and informing international guidelines for osteoporosis. FRAX, a fracture risk calculator that provides individualized 10-year probabilities of hip and major osteoporotic fracture, has been widely used since 2008. In this review, we recap the development and limitations of intervention thresholds and the role of absolute fracture risk.

RECENT FINDINGS

There is an increasing awareness of disparities and inequities in the setting of intervention thresholds in osteoporosis. The limitations of the simple use of prior fracture or the DXA-derived BMD T -score threshold are increasingly being discussed; one solution is to use fracture risk or probabilities in the setting of such thresholds. This approach also permits more objective assessment of high and very high fracture risk to enable physicians to make choices not just about the need to treat but what agents to use in individual patients.

SUMMARY

Like all clinical tools, FRAX has limitations that need to be considered, but the use of fracture risk in deciding who to treat, when to treat and what agent to use is a mechanism to target treatment equitably to those at an increased risk of fracture.

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

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.

Age-dependent FRAX-based assessment and intervention thresholds for therapeutic decision making in osteoporosis in the Malaysian population

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.

An overview of the use of the fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX) in osteoporosis

FRAX®, a simple-to-use fracture risk calculator, was first released in 2008 and since then has been used increasingly worldwide. By calculating the 10-year probabilities of a major osteoporotic fracture and hip fracture, it assists clinicians when deciding whether further investigation, for example a bone mineral density measurement (BMD), and/or treatment is needed to prevent future fractures. In this review, we explore the literature around osteoporosis and how FRAX has changed its management. We present the characteristics of this tool and describe the use of thresholds (diagnostic and therapeutic). We also present arguments as to why screening with FRAX should be considered. FRAX has several limitations which are described in this review. This review coincides with the release of a version, FRAXplus, which addresses some of these limitations.

Previous fracture and subsequent fracture risk: a meta-analysis to update FRAX

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.

Demystifying the Risk Factors and Preventive Measures for Osteoporosis

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.

[Osteoporosis: treatment of high-risk patients]

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.

Long-term and sequential treatment for osteoporosis

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.

Using sequential pharmacotherapy for the treatment of osteoporosis: an update of the literature

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.

A Delphi consensus on the management of Spanish patients with osteoporosis at high risk of fracture: OSARIDELPHI study

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.

Trabecular Bone Score Vertebral Exclusions Affect Risk Classification and Treatment Recommendations: The Manitoba Bmd Registry

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.

Post-Fracture Care Program: Pharmacological Treatment of Osteoporosis in Older Adults with Fragility Fractures

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.

Pharmacologic Treatment of Primary Osteoporosis or Low Bone Mass to Prevent Fractures in Adults: A Living Clinical Guideline From the American College of Physicians

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).

The need to distinguish intervention thresholds and diagnostic thresholds in the management of osteoporosis

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.

Adjusting conventional FRAX estimates of fracture probability according to the number of prior fractures

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.

Anabolic therapy for osteoporosis: update on efficacy and safety

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.

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)

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.

Osteoporosis treatment in Austria-assessment of FRAX-based intervention thresholds for high and very high fracture risk

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.

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)

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.

The role and place of the FRAX calculator in initiation osteoporosis treatment: an analysis of the osteoporosis center registry

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.

Accuracy of the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool for judging pharmacotherapy initiation for primary osteoporosis

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.

Osteoporosis in 2022: Care gaps to screening and personalised medicine

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.

Development and external validation of a 1- and 5-year fracture prediction tool based on electronic medical records data: The EPIC risk algorithm

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.

Improved fracture risk prediction by adding VFA-identified vertebral fracture data to BMD by DXA and clinical risk factors used in FRAX

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.

UK clinical guideline for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Management of patients at very high risk of osteoporotic fractures through sequential treatments

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.

Digital health interventions for osteoporosis and post-fragility fracture care

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.

Fracture risk assessment by the FRAX model

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

Postmenopausal osteoporosis: risk evaluation and treatment options

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.

The application of FRAX in Saudi Arabia

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.

Long-Term Treatment of Postmenopausal Osteoporosis

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.