Targeted vertebral fracture assessment for optimizing fracture prevention in Canada

Analysis of the effect of mini-nutrition nursing plus Baduanjin rehabilitation exercise on fracture healing, mobility and nutritional status of elderly patients with vertebral or hip fractures

Hip fractures (VOHF) are a type of bone fracture that occurs in the hip bone, typically affecting older adults. Recovery from hip fractures in older adults can be challenging due to factors such as decreased mobility, weakened bones, and other health issues. This paper intends to determine the effect of mini-nutrition nursing plus Baduanjin rehabilitation exercise on postoperative rehabilitation of elderly patients with vertebral or hip fractures (VOHF). 106 senile VOHF patients were chosen for the study between May 2020 and May 2022. The research group (RG) consisted of 60 patients who received mini-nutrition nursing + Baduanjin rehabilitation exercise, while the control group (CG) had 46 patients who received mini-nutrition nursing + routine rehabilitation training. The study compared the fracture healing effect, MAMC, CC, and MNA-SF scores. The rehabilitation status of patients was evaluated using FMA, BI, BBS, and VAS. Adverse reactions during hospitalization and SF-36 scores were also recorded. Better fracture healing efficacy and higher MAMC, CC, and MNA-SF scores were determined in RG versus CG (P < 0.05). Elevated FMA, BI and BBS scores were observed in both groups after rehabilitation training, with more evident elevations in RG; while the VAS score reduced markedly and was lower in RG compared with CG (P < 0.05). In addition, RG was observed with fewer adverse reactions and higher SF-36 scores (P < 0.05). Mini-nutrition nursing + Baduanjin rehabilitation exercise can effectively accelerate the postoperative rehabilitation of elderly patients with VOHF, improve mobility, and enhance their quality of life.

Screening for the primary prevention of fragility fractures among adults aged 40 years and older in primary care: systematic reviews of the effects and acceptability of screening and treatment, and the accuracy of risk prediction tools

BACKGROUND

To inform recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care, we reviewed evidence on the benefits, harms, and acceptability of screening and treatment, and on the accuracy of risk prediction tools for the primary prevention of fragility fractures among adults aged 40 years and older in primary care.

METHODS

For screening effectiveness, accuracy of risk prediction tools, and treatment benefits, our search methods involved integrating studies published up to 2016 from an existing systematic review. Then, to locate more recent studies and any evidence relating to acceptability and treatment harms, we searched online databases (2016 to April 4, 2022 [screening] or to June 1, 2021 [predictive accuracy]; 1995 to June 1, 2021, for acceptability; 2016 to March 2, 2020, for treatment benefits; 2015 to June 24, 2020, for treatment harms), trial registries and gray literature, and hand-searched reviews, guidelines, and the included studies. Two reviewers selected studies, extracted results, and appraised risk of bias, with disagreements resolved by consensus or a third reviewer. The overview of reviews on treatment harms relied on one reviewer, with verification of data by another reviewer to correct errors and omissions. When appropriate, study results were pooled using random effects meta-analysis; otherwise, findings were described narratively. Evidence certainty was rated according to the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

We included 4 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 1 controlled clinical trial (CCT) for the benefits and harms of screening, 1 RCT for comparative benefits and harms of different screening strategies, 32 validation cohort studies for the calibration of risk prediction tools (26 of these reporting on the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool without [i.e., clinical FRAX], or with the inclusion of bone mineral density (BMD) results [i.e., FRAX + BMD]), 27 RCTs for the benefits of treatment, 10 systematic reviews for the harms of treatment, and 12 studies for the acceptability of screening or initiating treatment. In females aged 65 years and older who are willing to independently complete a mailed fracture risk questionnaire (referred to as "selected population"), 2-step screening using a risk assessment tool with or without measurement of BMD probably (moderate certainty) reduces the risk of hip fractures (3 RCTs and 1 CCT, n = 43,736, absolute risk reduction [ARD] = 6.2 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 9.0-2.8 fewer, number needed to screen [NNS] = 161) and clinical fragility fractures (3 RCTs, n = 42,009, ARD = 5.9 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 10.9-0.8 fewer, NNS = 169). It probably does not reduce all-cause mortality (2 RCTs and 1 CCT, n = 26,511, ARD = no difference in 1000, 95% CI 7.1 fewer to 5.3 more) and may (low certainty) not affect health-related quality of life. Benefits for fracture outcomes were not replicated in an offer-to-screen population where the rate of response to mailed screening questionnaires was low. For females aged 68-80 years, population screening may not reduce the risk of hip fractures (1 RCT, n = 34,229, ARD = 0.3 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 4.2 fewer to 3.9 more) or clinical fragility fractures (1 RCT, n = 34,229, ARD = 1.0 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 8.0 fewer to 6.0 more) over 5 years of follow-up. The evidence for serious adverse events among all patients and for all outcomes among males and younger females (<65 years) is very uncertain. We defined overdiagnosis as the identification of high risk in individuals who, if not screened, would never have known that they were at risk and would never have experienced a fragility fracture. This was not directly reported in any of the trials. Estimates using data available in the trials suggest that among "selected" females offered screening, 12% of those meeting age-specific treatment thresholds based on clinical FRAX 10-year hip fracture risk, and 19% of those meeting thresholds based on clinical FRAX 10-year major osteoporotic fracture risk, may be overdiagnosed as being at high risk of fracture. Of those identified as being at high clinical FRAX 10-year hip fracture risk and who were referred for BMD assessment, 24% may be overdiagnosed. One RCT (n = 9268) provided evidence comparing 1-step to 2-step screening among postmenopausal females, but the evidence from this trial was very uncertain. For the calibration of risk prediction tools, evidence from three Canadian studies (n = 67,611) without serious risk of bias concerns indicates that clinical FRAX-Canada may be well calibrated for the 10-year prediction of hip fractures (observed-to-expected fracture ratio [O:E] = 1.13, 95% CI 0.74-1.72, I² = 89.2%), and is probably well calibrated for the 10-year prediction of clinical fragility fractures (O:E = 1.10, 95% CI 1.01-1.20, I² = 50.4%), both leading to some underestimation of the observed risk. Data from these same studies (n = 61,156) showed that FRAX-Canada with BMD may perform poorly to estimate 10-year hip fracture risk (O:E = 1.31, 95% CI 0.91-2.13, I² = 92.7%), but is probably well calibrated for the 10-year prediction of clinical fragility fractures, with some underestimation of the observed risk (O:E 1.16, 95% CI 1.12-1.20, I² = 0%). The Canadian Association of Radiologists and Osteoporosis Canada Risk Assessment (CAROC) tool may be well calibrated to predict a category of risk for 10-year clinical fractures (low, moderate, or high risk; 1 study, n = 34,060). The evidence for most other tools was limited, or in the case of FRAX tools calibrated for countries other than Canada, very uncertain due to serious risk of bias concerns and large inconsistency in findings across studies. Postmenopausal females in a primary prevention population defined as <50% prevalence of prior fragility fracture (median 16.9%, range 0 to 48% when reported in the trials) and at risk of fragility fracture, treatment with bisphosphonates as a class (median 2 years, range 1-6 years) probably reduces the risk of clinical fragility fractures (19 RCTs, n = 22,482, ARD = 11.1 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 15.0-6.6 fewer, [number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome] NNT = 90), and may reduce the risk of hip fractures (14 RCTs, n = 21,038, ARD = 2.9 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 4.6-0.9 fewer, NNT = 345) and clinical vertebral fractures (11 RCTs, n = 8921, ARD = 10.0 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 14.0-3.9 fewer, NNT = 100); it may not reduce all-cause mortality. There is low certainty evidence of little-to-no reduction in hip fractures with any individual bisphosphonate, but all provided evidence of decreased risk of clinical fragility fractures (moderate certainty for alendronate [NNT=68] and zoledronic acid [NNT=50], low certainty for risedronate [NNT=128]) among postmenopausal females. Evidence for an impact on risk of clinical vertebral fractures is very uncertain for alendronate and risedronate; zoledronic acid may reduce the risk of this outcome (4 RCTs, n = 2367, ARD = 18.7 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 25.6-6.6 fewer, NNT = 54) for postmenopausal females. Denosumab probably reduces the risk of clinical fragility fractures (6 RCTs, n = 9473, ARD = 9.1 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 12.1-5.6 fewer, NNT = 110) and clinical vertebral fractures (4 RCTs, n = 8639, ARD = 16.0 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 18.6-12.1 fewer, NNT=62), but may make little-to-no difference in the risk of hip fractures among postmenopausal females. Denosumab probably makes little-to-no difference in the risk of all-cause mortality or health-related quality of life among postmenopausal females. Evidence in males is limited to two trials (1 zoledronic acid, 1 denosumab); in this population, zoledronic acid may make little-to-no difference in the risk of hip or clinical fragility fractures, and evidence for all-cause mortality is very uncertain. The evidence for treatment with denosumab in males is very uncertain for all fracture outcomes (hip, clinical fragility, clinical vertebral) and all-cause mortality. There is moderate certainty evidence that treatment causes a small number of patients to experience a non-serious adverse event, notably non-serious gastrointestinal events (e.g., abdominal pain, reflux) with alendronate (50 RCTs, n = 22,549, ARD = 16.3 more in 1000, 95% CI 2.4-31.3 more, [number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome] NNH = 61) but not with risedronate; influenza-like symptoms with zoledronic acid (5 RCTs, n = 10,695, ARD = 142.5 more in 1000, 95% CI 105.5-188.5 more, NNH = 7); and non-serious gastrointestinal adverse events (3 RCTs, n = 8454, ARD = 64.5 more in 1000, 95% CI 26.4-13.3 more, NNH = 16), dermatologic adverse events (3 RCTs, n = 8454, ARD = 15.6 more in 1000, 95% CI 7.6-27.0 more, NNH = 64), and infections (any severity; 4 RCTs, n = 8691, ARD = 1.8 more in 1000, 95% CI 0.1-4.0 more, NNH = 556) with denosumab. For serious adverse events overall and specific to stroke and myocardial infarction, treatment with bisphosphonates probably makes little-to-no difference; evidence for other specific serious harms was less certain or not available. There was low certainty evidence for an increased risk for the rare occurrence of atypical femoral fractures (0.06 to 0.08 more in 1000) and osteonecrosis of the jaw (0.22 more in 1000) with bisphosphonates (most evidence for alendronate). The evidence for these rare outcomes and for rebound fractures with denosumab was very uncertain. Younger (lower risk) females have high willingness to be screened. A minority of postmenopausal females at increased risk for fracture may accept treatment. Further, there is large heterogeneity in the level of risk at which patients may be accepting of initiating treatment, and treatment effects appear to be overestimated.

CONCLUSION

An offer of 2-step screening with risk assessment and BMD measurement to selected postmenopausal females with low prevalence of prior fracture probably results in a small reduction in the risk of clinical fragility fracture and hip fracture compared to no screening. These findings were most applicable to the use of clinical FRAX for risk assessment and were not replicated in the offer-to-screen population where the rate of response to mailed screening questionnaires was low. Limited direct evidence on harms of screening were available; using study data to provide estimates, there may be a moderate degree of overdiagnosis of high risk for fracture to consider. The evidence for younger females and males is very limited. The benefits of screening and treatment need to be weighed against the potential for harm; patient views on the acceptability of treatment are highly variable.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO): CRD42019123767.

Should vertebral fracture assessment be performed in Fracture Liaison Service patients with non-vertebral fracture?

Prior non-vertebral fractures, except of the ankle, are associated with increased likelihood of vertebral fracture. As knowledge of vertebral fracture presence may alter care, vertebral fracture assessment (VFA) is indicated in patients with prior fracture.

INTRODUCTION

Vertebral fractures are often unappreciated. It was recently advocated that all Fracture Liaison Service (FLS) patients have densitometric VFA performed. We evaluated the likelihood of vertebral fracture identification with VFA in patients with prior fracture using the Manitoba Bone Density database. METHODS : VFA was performed in patients with T-scores below - 1.5 and age 70 + (or younger with height loss or glucocorticoid use) obtaining bone densitometry in Manitoba from 2010 to 2018. Those with prior clinical vertebral fracture, pathologic fracture, or uninterpretable VFA were excluded. Vertebral fractures were identified using the modified ABQ method. Health records were assessed for non-vertebral fracture (excluding head, neck, hand, foot) diagnosis codes unassociated with trauma prior to DXA. Multivariable odds ratios (ORs) for vertebral fracture were estimated without and with adjustment for age, sex, body mass index, ethnicity, area of residence, income level, comorbidity score, diabetes mellitus, falls in the last year, glucocorticoid use, and lowest BMD T-score.

RESULTS

The study cohort consisted of 12,756 patients (94.4% women) with mean (SD) age 75.9 (6.8) years. Vertebral fractures were identified in 1925 (15.1%) overall. Vertebral fractures were significantly more likely (descending order) in those with prior pelvis, hip, humerus, other sites, and forearm, but not ankle fracture. There was modest attenuation with covariate adjustment but statistical significance was maintained.

CONCLUSIONS

Prior hip, humerus, pelvis, forearm, and other fractures are associated with an increased likelihood of previously undiagnosed vertebral fracture, information useful for risk stratification and monitoring. These data support recommending VFA in FLS patients who are age 70 + with low BMD.

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.

Proceedings of the 2021 Santa Fe Bone Symposium: Advances in the Management of Osteoporosis and Metabolic Bone Diseases

The 2021 Virtual Santa Fe Bone Symposium was held August 5-8, with over 300 registered attendees from throughout the USA, and at least 18 other countries. This annual meeting focuses on applying advances in basic science and clinical research to the care of patients with osteoporosis and those with inherited and acquired disorders of bone metabolism. Participants represented a broad range of medical disciplines with an interest in skeletal diseases. These included physicians of many specialties and practice settings, fellows, advanced practice providers, fracture liaison service (FLS) coordinators, clinical researchers, and bone density technologists. There were lectures, case presentations, and panel discussions, all followed by interactive discussions. Breakout sessions included an FLS workshop, Bone Health TeleECHO workshop, special interest groups, meet-and-greet the faculty, and satellite symposia. The agenda covered topics of interest such as strategies for the use of osteoanabolic therapy, prevention of periprosthetic fractures, management of atypical femur fractures, what we know and don't know about vitamin D, advances in the use of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry in the assessment of skeletal health, controversies and conundrums in osteoporosis care, skeletal health in transgender patients, management of patients with hypophosphatasia and hypophosphatemia, and treat-to-target approaches for managing patients with osteoporosis. The Proceedings of the 2021 Virtual Santa Fe Bone Symposium consists of highlights of each presentation with current strategies for optimizing the care of patients with skeletal disorders.

Comparison of screening tools for optimizing fracture prevention in Canada

The best screening strategy to identify treatment qualification based upon indicators of high fracture risk (low-trauma fractures of the hip, spine, or multiple fracture episodes at other sites; high fracture probability with the Canadian fracture risk assessment [FRAX®] tool major osteoporotic fracture [MOF] computed with bone mineral density [BMD] > 20%; or vertebral fracture on vertebral fracture assessment [VFA]) was FRAX-MOF without BMD using a cutoff of ≥ 10%.

PURPOSE

To inform clinical practice guidelines in Canada, we compared multiple screening tools using the population-based Manitoba BMD Program registry.

METHODS

The study populations consisted of (a) 28,906 individuals > 50 years or older, and (b) 15,429 women age > 65 years undergoing baseline BMD assessment (2010-2018). We considered two treatment qualifications: Treatment Approach 1: prior high-risk fracture, high fracture probability (FRAX-MOF with BMD > 20%), or vertebral fracture on VFA; Treatment Approach 2: Approach 1 or an osteoporotic BMD T score. Candidate screening tools were FRAX-MOF without BMD, age alone, weight alone, SCORE, ORAI, SOFSURF, OSIRIS, ABONE, and OST. Healthcare records were assessed for the presence of incident fracture diagnoses.

RESULTS

Among all individuals, FRAX-MOF without BMD demonstrated the best ability to identify those satisfying Treatment Approach 1 (area under the curve [AUC 0.863]) and was significantly better than all other screening tools (P < 0.001). For identification of individuals satisfying Treatment Approach 2, FRAX-MOF without BMD showed moderate stratification (AUC 0.735), slightly lower than OSIRIS (AUC 0.752, P < 0.05), similar to SCORE (AUC 0.739, P > 0.05) and significantly better than all other screening tools (P < 0.05). For prediction of incident MOF, FRAX-MOF without BMD achieved the highest performance (AUC 0.652), and was significantly better than all other screening tools except OSIRIS. AUCs among women age > 65 years tended to be greater with a similar ranking, and no tool outperformed FRAX-MOF without BMD. Based upon a summary score, the highest ranked strategy was FRAX-MOF without BMD using a cutoff of 10%.

CONCLUSIONS

All screening tools show some ability to identify individuals qualifying for treatment and stratify risk for incident fracture. For treatment based upon indicators of high fracture risk, the best performing strategy was FRAX-MOF without BMD using a cutoff of ≥ 10%.

Osteoporosis treatment considerations based upon fracture history, fracture risk assessment, vertebral fracture assessment, and bone density in Canada

Among 39,475 women, age 65 years and older, use of fracture history, major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) probability from FRAX®, vertebral fracture assessment (VFA), and bone mineral density (BMD) T-score stratified women into different levels of risk. The majority of women identified as being at high risk from fracture history, FRAX MOF-BMD > 20%, or vertebral fracture on VFA had a BMD T-score in the osteoporotic range.

PURPOSE

To inform criteria for pharmacologic treatment in women age 65 years and older, we examined subgroups defined from fracture history, MOF calculated with BMD (MOF-BMD), VFA, and BMD T-score using the population-based Manitoba BMD Program registry.

METHODS

The study population consisted of women age > 65 years was divided into mutually exclusive subgroups based upon fracture history, MOF-BMD ≥ 20%, vertebral fracture on VFA, and osteoporotic BMD T-score. Healthcare records were assessed for the presence of fracture diagnosis codes occurring after DXA assessment. For each subgroup, we estimated the proportion of individuals with BMD T-score in the osteoporotic range, predicted versus observed 10-year MOF probability, hazard ratio (HR) for MOF, and number needed to treat (NNT) for 3 years to prevent a fracture event.

RESULTS

The study population consisted of 39,475 women (median age 72 years). The majority of women (76.8%) selected as being at high risk based on fracture history, MOF-BMD > 20%, or vertebral fracture on VFA had a BMD T-score in the osteoporotic range. During a median follow-up of 8 years, 5169 (13.1%) sustained one or more incident MOF. Fracture rates and HRs generally paralleled the FRAX prediction, except in women with a positive VFA where predicted risk based upon clinical risk factors prior to VFA underestimated the observed risk. NNT differed by the risk subgroup, and showed a gradient of decreasing NNT (consistent with greater benefit) in individuals with the highest fracture risk.

CONCLUSIONS

Fracture history, fracture probability from FRAX, targeted vertebral fracture assessment (VFA), and BMD T-score can stratify older women into different levels of risk and treatment benefit. These results are expected to inform clinical practice guidelines in Canada.

Targeted vertebral fracture assessment for optimizing fracture prevention in Canada

Vertebral fracture assessment (VFA) provides incremental information in identifying women and men aged 70 years and older qualifying for anti-osteoporosis treatment compared with FRAX^® major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) probability computed with bone mineral density (BMD).

PURPOSE

This analysis was performed to inform appropriate use of VFA testing as part of Osteoporosis Canada's Guidelines Update, assuming vertebral fracture is an indication for pharmacotherapy in women and men.

METHODS

Women and men aged 70 years and older without previous high-risk fracture (i.e., hip, spine, or multiple fractures) were identified in a BMD registry for the province of Manitoba, Canada. MOF probability with BMD was computed using the Canadian FRAX^® tool. VFA was performed in those with a minimum BMD T-score of -1.5 or lower.

RESULTS

The study population consisted of 7289 women (mean age 76.7 ± 5.6 years) and 1323 men (77.9 ± 5.8 years). More women than men qualified for VFA testing (48.7% vs 25.4%, respectively, p < 0.001). Among those undergoing VFA, a vertebral fracture was more commonly detected among men than women (22.9% vs 13.3%, p < 0.001), and vertebral fracture prevalence increased with lower BMD T-score (both p trend <0.001). The number needed to screen with VFA to detect a vertebral fracture was 8 for women and 4 for men. MOF probability was substantially lower in men than in women, and fewer men than women (3.3% vs 20.2%, p < 0.001) met a treatment threshold of MOF 20% or greater. In those with MOF probability <20%, VFA identified an incremental 5.4% of men and 3.4% of women for treatment based upon vertebral fracture.

CONCLUSIONS

The number needed to screen to identify a previously unappreciated vertebral fracture is low and further improves with lower BMD T-score. VFA identified more men as qualifying for treatment than MOF probability. In women, treatment qualification was predominantly from MOF probability.