Population screening for fracture risk in postmenopausal women - a logical step in reducing the osteoporotic fracture burden?

Real-world effectiveness of osteoporosis screening in older Swedish women (SUPERB)

Older women diagnosed with osteoporosis and referred to their general practitioners (GPs) exhibited significantly higher osteoporosis treatment rates and a reduced fracture risk compared to non-osteoporotic women who were not referred to their GPs.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to investigate treatment rates and fracture outcomes in older women, from a population-based study, 1) diagnosed with osteoporosis, with subsequent referral to their general practitioner (GP), 2) women without osteoporosis, without referral to their GP.

METHODS

In total, 3028 women, 75-80 years old were included in the SUPERB cohort. At inclusion, 443 women were diagnosed with osteoporosis (bone mineral density (BMD) T-score ≤ -2.5) at the lumbar spine or hip, did not have current or recent osteoporosis treatment, and were referred to their GP for evaluation (referral group). The remaining 2585 women without osteoporosis composed the control group. Sensitivity analysis was performed on subsets of the original groups. Adjusted Cox regression (hazard ratios (HR) and 95 % confidence intervals (CI)) analyses were performed to investigate the risk of incident fractures and the incidence of osteoporosis treatment.

RESULTS

Cox regression models, adjusted for age, sex, body mass index (BMI), smoking, alcohol, glucocorticoid use, previous fracture, parent hip fracture, secondary osteoporosis, rheumatoid arthritis, and BMD at the femoral neck, revealed that the risk of major osteoporotic fracture was significantly lower (HR = 0.81, 95 % CI [0.67-0.99]) in the referral group than in the controls. Similarly, the risk of hip fracture (HR = 0.69, [0.48-0.98]) and any fracture (HR = 0.84, [0.70-1.00]) were lower in the referral group. During follow-up, there was a 5-fold increase (HR = 5.00, [4.39-5.74]) in the prescription of osteoporosis medication in the referral group compared to the control group.

CONCLUSION

Screening older women for osteoporosis and referring those with osteoporosis diagnosis was associated with substantially increased treatment rates and reduced risk of any fracture, MOF, and hip fracture, compared to non-osteoporotic women.

Prediction of Osteoporotic Hip Fracture Outcome: Comparative Accuracy of 27 Immune-Inflammatory-Metabolic Markers and Related Conceptual Issues

Objectives: This study, based on the concept of immuno-inflammatory-metabolic (IIM) dysregulation, investigated and compared the prognostic impact of 27 indices at admission for prediction of postoperative myocardial injury (PMI) and/or hospital death in hip fracture (HF) patients. Methods: In consecutive HF patient (n = 1273, mean age 82.9 ± 8.7 years, 73.5% females) demographics, medical history, laboratory parameters, and outcomes were recorded prospectively. Multiple logistic regression and receiver-operating characteristic analyses (the area under the curve, AUC) were used to establish the predictive role for each biomarker. Results: Among 27 IIM biomarkers, 10 indices were significantly associated with development of PMI and 16 were indicative of a fatal outcome; in the subset of patients aged >80 years with ischaemic heart disease (IHD, the highest risk group: 90.2% of all deaths), the corresponding figures were 26 and 20. In the latter group, the five strongest preoperative predictors for PMI were anaemia (AUC 0.7879), monocyte/eosinophil ratio > 13.0 (AUC 0.7814), neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio > 7.5 (AUC 0.7784), eosinophil count < 1.1 × 109/L (AUC 0.7780), and neutrophil/albumin × 10 > 2.4 (AUC 0.7732); additionally, sensitivity was 83.1-75.4% and specificity was 82.1-75.0%. The highest predictors of in-hospital death were platelet/lymphocyte ratio > 280.0 (AUC 0.8390), lymphocyte/monocyte ratio < 1.1 (AUC 0.8375), albumin < 33 g/L (AUC 0.7889), red cell distribution width > 14.5% (AUC 0.7739), and anaemia (AUC 0.7604), sensitivity 88.2% and above, and specificity 85.1-79.3%. Internal validation confirmed the predictive value of the models. Conclusions: Comparison of 27 IIM indices in HF patients identified several simple, widely available, and inexpensive parameters highly predictive for PMI and/or in-hospital death. The applicability of IIM biomarkers to diagnose and predict risks for chronic diseases, including OP/OF, in the preclinical stages is discussed.

Acquisition of peak bone mass in a Norwegian youth cohort: longitudinal findings from the Fit Futures study 2010-2022

In a Norwegian youth cohort followed from adolescence to young adulthood, bone mineral density (BMD) levels declined at the femoral neck and total hip from 16 to 27 years but continued to increase at the total body indicating a site-specific attainment of peak bone mass.

PURPOSE

To examine longitudinal trends in bone mineral density (BMD) levels in Norwegian adolescents into young adulthood.

METHOD

In a prospective cohort design, we followed 980 adolescents (473 (48%) females) aged 16-19 years into adulthood (age of 26-29) on three occasions: 2010-2011 (Fit Futures 1 (FF1)), 2012-2013 (FF2), and 2021-2022 (FF3), measuring BMD (g/cm2) at the femoral neck, total hip, and total body with dual x-ray absorptiometry (DXA). We used linear mixed models to examine longitudinal BMD changes from FF1 to FF3.

RESULTS

From the median age of 16 years (FF1), femoral neck BMD (mean g/cm2 (95% CI)) slightly increased in females from 1.070 (1.059-1.082) to 1.076 (1.065-1.088, p = 0.015) at the median age of 18 years (FF2) but declined to 1.041 (1.029-1.053, p < 0.001) at the median age of 27 years (FF3). Similar patterns were observed in males: 16 years, 1.104 (1.091-1.116); 27 years, 1.063 (1.050-1.077, p < 0.001); and for the total hip in both sexes (both p < 0.001). Total body BMD increased from age 16 to 27 years in both sexes (females: 16 years, 1.141 (1.133-1.148); 27 years, 1.204 (1.196-1.212), p < 0.001; males: 16 years, 1.179 (1.170-1.188); 27 years, 1.310 (1.296-1.315), p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

BMD levels increased from 16 to 18 years at the femoral and total hip sites in young Norwegian females and males, and a small decline was observed at the femoral sites when the participants were followed up to 27 years. Total body BMD continued to increase from adolescence to young adulthood.

The yield of routine laboratory examination in osteoporosis evaluation in primary care

This study evaluated the yield of routine laboratory examination in a large population of older women in primary care. The prevalence of laboratory abnormalities was low and the clinical consequences in follow-up were limited. There was a weak association of laboratory abnormalities with osteoporosis but no association with vertebral fractures and recent fractures.

PURPOSE

Most osteoporosis guidelines advice routine laboratory examination. We have investigated the yield of laboratory examinations in facture risk evaluation of elderly women in primary care.

METHODS

We assessed the prevalence of laboratory abnormalities and their association with risk factors for fractures, recent fractures, low bone mineral density (BMD), and prevalent vertebral fracture in 8996 women ≥ 65 years of age participating in a primary care fracture risk screening study. In a sample of 2208 of these participants, we also evaluated the medical consequences in the medical records during a follow-up period of ≥ 1 year.

RESULTS

Vitamin D deficiency (< 30 nmol/L) was present in 13% and insufficiency (< 50 nmol/L) in 43% of the study sample. The prevalence of other laboratory abnormalities (ESR, calcium, creatinine, FT4) was 4.6% in women with risk factors for fractures, 6.1% in women with low BMD (T-score ≤  - 2.5), 6.0% after a prevalent vertebral fracture, 5.2% after a recent fracture and 2.6% in the absence of important risk factors for fractures. Laboratory abnormalities other than vitamin D were associated with low BMD (OR 1.4, 95%CI 1.1-1.8) but not with prevalent vertebral fractures nor recent fractures. Low BMD was associated with renal failure (OR 2.0, 95%CI 1.3-3.4), vitamin D insufficiency (OR 1.2, 95%CI 1.0-1.3) and deficiency (OR 1.3, 95%CI 1.1-.5). In the follow-up period, 82% of the laboratory abnormalities did not result in a new diagnosis or treatment reported in the medical records.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified a low prevalence of laboratory abnormalities in a primary care population of older women and the majority of these findings had no medical consequences.

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.