Incidence and Predictors of Repeat Bone Mineral Densitometry: A Longitudinal Cohort Study

An injectable magnesium-loaded hydrogel releases hydrogen to promote osteoporotic bone repair via ROS scavenging and immunomodulation

Background: The repair of osteoporotic bone defects remains challenging due to excessive reactive oxygen species (ROS), persistent inflammation, and an imbalance between osteogenesis and osteoclastogenesis. Methods: Here, an injectable H2-releasing hydrogel (magnesium@polyethylene glycol-poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid), Mg@PEG-PLGA) was developed to remodel the challenging bone environment and accelerate the repair of osteoporotic bone defects. Results: This Mg@PEG-PLGA gel shows excellent injectability, shape adaptability, and phase-transition ability, can fill irregular bone defect areas via minimally invasive injection, and can transform into a porous scaffold in situ to provide mechanical support. With the appropriate release of H2 and magnesium ions, the 2Mg@PEG-PLGA gel (loaded with 2 mg of Mg) displayed significant immunomodulatory effects through reducing intracellular ROS, guiding macrophage polarization toward the M2 phenotype, and inhibiting the IκB/NF-κB signaling pathway. Moreover, in vitro experiments showed that the 2Mg@PEG-PLGA gel inhibited osteoclastogenesis while promoting osteogenesis. Most notably, in animal experiments, the 2Mg@PEG-PLGA gel significantly promoted the repair of osteoporotic bone defects in vivo by scavenging ROS and inhibiting inflammation and osteoclastogenesis. Conclusions: Overall, our study provides critical insight into the design and development of H2-releasing magnesium-based hydrogels as potential implants for repairing osteoporotic bone defects.

Follow-up Bone Mineral Density Testing: 2023 Official Positions of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry

Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is the gold standard method for measuring bone mineral density (BMD) which is most strongly associated with fracture risk. BMD is therefore the basis for the World Health Organization's densitometric definition of osteoporosis. The International Society for Clinical Densitometry (ISCD) promotes best densitometry practices and its official positions reflect critical review of current evidence by domain experts. This document reports new official positions regarding follow-up DXA examinations based on a systematic review of literature published through December 2022. Adoption of official positions requires consensus agreement from an expert panel following a modified RAND protocol. Unless explicitly altered by the new position statements, prior ISCD official positions remain in force. This update reflects increased consideration of the clinical context prompting repeat examination. Follow-up DXA should be performed with pre-defined objectives when the results would have an impact on patient management. Testing intervals should be individualized according to the patient's age, sex, fracture risk and treatment history. Incident fractures and therapeutic approach are key considerations. Appropriately ordered and interpreted follow-up DXA examinations support diagnostic and therapeutic decision making, thereby contributing to excellent clinical care. Future research should address the complementary roles of clinical findings, imaging and laboratory testing to guide management.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of CT-Based Finite Element Modeling for Osteoporosis Screening in Secondary Fracture Prevention: An Early Health Technology Assessment in the Netherlands

Objective. To conduct cost-utility analyses for Computed Tomography To Strength (CT2S), a novel osteoporosis screening service, compared with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), treat all without screening, and no screening methods for Dutch postmenopausal women referred to fracture liaison service (FLS). CT2S uses CT scans to generate femur models and simulate sideways fall scenarios for bone strength assessment. Methods. Early health technology assessment (HTA) was adopted to evaluate CT2S as a novel osteoporosis screening tool for secondary fracture prevention. We constructed a 2-dimensional simulation model considering 4 strategies (no screening, treat all without screening, DXA, CT2S) together with screening intervals (5 y, 2 y), treatments (oral alendronate, zoledronic acid), and discount rate scenarios among Dutch women in 3 age groups (60s, 70s, and 80s). Strategy comparisons were based on incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), considering an ICER below €20,000 per QALY gained as cost-effective in the Netherlands. Results. Under the base-case scenario, CT2S versus DXA had estimated ICERs of €41,200 and €14,083 per QALY gained for the 60s and 70s age groups, respectively. For the 80s age group, CT2S was more effective and less costly than DXA. Changing treatment from weekly oral alendronate to annual zoledronic acid substantially decreased CT2S versus DXA ICERs across all age groups. Setting the screening interval to 2 y increased CT2S versus DXA ICERs to €100,333, €55,571, and €15,750 per QALY gained for the 60s, 70s, and 80s age groups, respectively. In all simulated populations and scenarios, CT2S was cost-effective (in some cases dominant) compared with the treat all strategy and cost-saving (more effective and less costly) compared with no screening. Conclusion. CT2S was estimated to be potentially cost-effective in the 70s and 80s age groups considering the willingness-to-pay threshold of the Netherlands. This early HTA suggests CT2S as a potential novel osteoporosis screening tool for secondary fracture prevention.

Highlights

For postmenopausal Dutch women who have been referred to the FLS, direct access to CT2S may be cost-effective compared with DXA for age groups 70s and 80s, when considering the ICER threshold of the Netherlands. This study positions CT2S as a potential novel osteoporosis-screening tool for secondary fracture prevention in the clinical setting.A shorter screening interval of 2 y increases the effectiveness of both screening strategies, but the ICER of CT2S compared with DXA also increased substantially, which made CT2S no longer cost-effective for the 70s age group; however, it remains cost-effective for individuals in their 80s.Annual zoledronic acid treatment with better adherence may contribute to a lower cost-effectiveness ratio when comparing CT2S to DXA screening and the treat all strategies for all age groups.

Reassessment Intervals for Transition From Low to High Fracture Risk Among Adults Older Than 50 Years

IMPORTANCE

Fracture risk scores are used to identify individuals at high risk of major osteoporotic fracture or hip fracture for antiosteoporosis treatment. For those not meeting treatment thresholds at baseline, the optimal interval for reassessing fracture risk is uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

To examine reassessment intervals for transition from low to high fracture risk under guidelines-defined treatment thresholds.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This retrospective cohort study included persons aged 50 years or older with fracture risk below treatment thresholds at baseline who had fracture risk reassessed at least 1 year later. Data were obtained from a population-based bone mineral density registry (baseline assessment during 1996-2015; reassessment to 2016) in the Province of Manitoba, Canada. Primary analysis was performed from May to June 2019. Analysis for the revision was performed in October 2019.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was time to transition from low (below the treatment threshold) to high fracture risk (treatment-qualifying risk score using osteoporosis clinical practice guidelines strategies for Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom).

RESULTS

The study population consisted of 10 564 individuals (94.1% women; mean [SD] age at baseline, 63.2 [8.2] years). At the time of reassessment (a mean [SD] interval of 5.2 [2.9] years between initial and subsequent fracture risk assessment), 690 (6.6%) had reached the fixed major osteoporotic fracture treatment threshold of 20%, 1546 (16.2%) had reached the fixed hip treatment threshold of 3%, and 932 (9.4%) had reached the age-dependent major osteoporotic fracture treatment threshold. Among those below 25% of the treatment threshold at baseline for each guideline, few (0%-3.0%) reached guidelines-defined high fracture risk at follow-up. In contrast, among those at the upper end of the scale for each guideline (75%-99% of the treatment threshold at baseline), 30.6% to 74.4% reached guidelines-defined high fracture risk. An increased number of clinical risk factors was associated with increased likelihood of reaching guidelines-defined high fracture risk (range for 3 guidelines, 17.1%-28.2%) compared with unchanged or decreased clinical risk factors (range for 3 guidelines, 3.3%-12.8%) (P < .001). Estimated time for 10% of the population to reach treatment-qualifying high fracture risk ranged from fewer than 3 years to more than 15 years.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The findings suggest that baseline fracture risk (as a fraction of the treatment threshold) and change in clinical risk factors can identify individuals with low and high probability of guidelines-defined high fracture risk during follow-up, thereby potentially helping to inform the reassessment interval.

Repeating Measurement of Bone Mineral Density when Monitoring with Dual-energy X-ray Absorptiometry: 2019 ISCD Official Position

Bone mineral density (BMD) can be measured at multiple skeletal sites using various technologies to aid clinical decision-making in bone and mineral disorders. BMD by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) has a critical role in predicting risk of fracture, diagnosis of osteoporosis, and monitoring patients. In clinical practice, DXA remains the most available and best validated tool for monitoring patients. A quality baseline DXA scan is essential for comparison with all subsequent scans. Monitoring patients with serial measurements requires technical expertise and knowledge of the least significant change in order to determine when follow-up scans should be repeated. Prior ISCD Official Positions have clarified how and when repeat DXA is useful as well as the interpretation of results. The 2019 ISCD Official Positions considered new evidence and clarifies if and when BMD should be repeated. There is good evidence showing that repeat BMD measurement can identify people who experience bone loss, which is an independent predictor of fracture risk. There is good evidence showing that the reduction in spine and hip fractures with osteoporosis medication is proportional to the change in BMD with treatment. There is evidence that measuring BMD is useful following discontinuation of osteoporosis treatment. There is less documentation addressing the effectiveness of monitoring BMD to improve medication adherence, whether monitoring of BMD reduces the risk of fracture, or effectively discriminates patients who should and should not recommence treatment following an interruption of medication. Further research is needed in all of these areas.

Intervals between bone mineral density testing with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry scans in clinical practice

Intervals between dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans were evaluated in a large cohort of typical clinical practice. Intensive DXA scanning (intervals < 23 months) decreased substantially, from 16.7% in 2006 to 6.7% in 2015.

INTRODUCTION

Serial dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) measurements are suggested for patients at high risk of fractures. However, little is known about how often DXA testing occurs in clinical practice.

METHODS

We examined time intervals between DXA testing for monitoring purpose at two academic medical centers in the US between 2004 and 2017. The primary outcome was the presence of testing intervals < 23 months (termed "intensive DXA testing"). A generalized linear mixed model was used to evaluate the association between selected patient-level clinical factors and intensive DXA testing.

RESULTS

Forty-nine thousand four hundred ninety-four DXA tests from 20,200 patients were analyzed. The mean time interval between scans was 36 ± 21 months. Only 11.1% of the repeated DXA testing met the criterion for intensive testing. The percentage of intensive DXA testing dropped from 16.7% in 2006 to 6.7% in 2015 (p for trend < 0.001). After adjusting for age, gender, number of outpatient visits, and calendar year, correlates of intensive DXA testing included a baseline T-score < -2.5 at any anatomic site (OR, 4.8; 95%CI, 4.0-5.7), active use of drugs for osteoporosis (OR, 1.6; 95%CI, 1.3-1.9), and active use of glucocorticoids (OR, 1.3; 95%CI, 1.2-1.4).

CONCLUSIONS

The predictors of intensive DXA testing suggest that this practice is used preferentially in patients with multiple risk factors and to monitor the response to pharmacotherapy. However, intensive DXA testing has become less common in real-world clinical practice over the last decade. Further studies are required to better define the optimal use of bone mineral density testing in this vulnerable population.