Fracture experience among participants from the FROCAT study: what thresholding is appropriate using the FRAX tool?

Evaluation, differential diagnosis and treatment of vertebral osteoporosis: How to avoid the occurrence of new fractures

Osteoporosis is a highly prevalent and multifactorial disease whose main manifestation is the appearance of fragility or low-impact fractures. The most frequent locations of osteoporotic fractures occur at the vertebrae, femoral, distal end of the radius and humerus. Osteoporotic vertebral fracture deserves special mention among them due to its prevalence, importance as it often goes unnoticed and medium-long term consequences are: pain, deformity, disability and deterioration in quality of life. In this review we will focus on the classification and initial evaluation of the patient with osteoporosis, estimation of risk factors, laboratory and imaging studies for an adequate assessment using simple radiography, dual densitometry and magnetic resonance imaging. We will also address the main aspects of the differential diagnosis, treatment and prevention of vertebral fragility fracture, briefly reviewing the main therapeutic agents currently used for its prevention and treatment.

Predictive capacity of FRAX in a spanish region with a hip fracture rate close to the national mean

BACKGROUND

It is known that standardized incidence rates of hip fracture vary among older people in Spain. So far, the results published on the validation of the FRAX® tool in Spain have suggested that the major osteoporotic fractures (MOFs) risk in our country is underestimated. These studies have practically been based on Spanish cohorts evaluated in Catalonia, a higher hip fracture rate area. The purpose of this study is to analyse the ability of the FRAX® in a Spanish mid-fracture rate population.

METHODS

Study design: Retrospective cohort study.

MEASURES

MOFs: hip, humerus, wrist, spine fractures. Risk of fracture assessed by calculating odds ratios (ORs). Predictive capacity of FRAX® according to the osteoporotic fractures observed between 2009 and 2018 (ObsFr) to predicted by FRAX® without densitometry in 2009 (PredFr) ratio.

RESULTS

285 participants (156 women, 54.7%) with a mean ± SD of 61.5 ± 14 years. Twenty-four people sustained 27 fractures (15 MOFs). Significant ORs were observed for an age ≥ 65 (2.92; 95% CI, 1.07-7.96), female sex (3.18; 95% CI, 1.24-8.16), rheumatoid arthritis (0.62; 95% CI, 2.03-55.55), proton pump (2.71; 95% CI, 1.20-6.09) and serotonin reuptake (2.51; 95% CI, 1.02-6.16) inhibitors. The ObsFr/PredFr ratio in women were 1.12 (95% CI, 0.95-1.29) for MOFs and 0.47 (95% CI, 0-0.94) for hip fractures. Men had a ratio of 0.57 (95% CI, 0.01-1.14) for MOF, no hip fractures were observed. The ratios for the overall group were 1.29 (95% CI, 1.12-1.48) for MOFs and 0.70 (95% CI, 0.22-1.17) for hip fractures.

CONCLUSIONS

FRAX® accurately predicted MOFs in women population with a hip fracture incidence rate close to the national mean compared to previous studies conducted in higher incidence regions in Spain.

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.

[Effect of different schemes of androgen deprivation therapy on bone mass density in prostate cancer patients]

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the aspects of the basal bone health status in prostate cancer patients. Furthermore, to evaluate in a real-world setting the effect of different schemes (intermittent or continuous) of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and the effect of denosumab in bone mass density (BMD).

METHODS

Observational, retrospective study of a cohort of prostate cancer patients in treatment with luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LH-RH) agonists, evaluated in the rheumatology department of a tertiary center. Demographics, FRAX score, LH-RH treatment scheme, osteoporosis treatment, laboratory data and BMD were collected. Mixed effect regression models to analyze the interaction between LH-RH treatment scheme, denosumab and BMD evolution were used.

RESULTS

Eighty-three patients (mean age 71±8years) were included. At the basal evaluation, 16% of patients presented densitometric osteoporosis and 27% of patients presented high fracture risk. Eighty percent of patients had inadequate vitaminD levels. VitaminD >30ng/mL was correlated with higher T-scores. There was no association between LH-RH treatment scheme and BMD evolution, however there was a positive association with denosumab.

CONCLUSION

A high proportion of patients presented elevated fracture risk or inadequate vitaminD levels, not previously recognized. Bone health assessment and fracture risk evaluation are convenient in these patients. In a real-world setting, the effect of denosumab in BMD is detected, however the effect of intermittent LH-RH schema treatment is less evident.

Update of the fracture risk prediction tool FRAX: a systematic review of potential cohorts and analysis plan

We describe the collection of cohorts together with the analysis plan for an update of the fracture risk prediction tool FRAX with respect to current and novel risk factors. The resource comprises 2,138,428 participants with a follow-up of approximately 20 million person-years and 116,117 documented incident major osteoporotic fractures.

INTRODUCTION

The availability of the fracture risk assessment tool FRAX® has substantially enhanced the targeting of treatment to those at high risk of fracture with FRAX now incorporated into more than 100 clinical osteoporosis guidelines worldwide. The aim of this study is to determine whether the current algorithms can be further optimised with respect to current and novel risk factors.

METHODS

A computerised literature search was performed in PubMed from inception until May 17, 2019, to identify eligible cohorts for updating the FRAX coefficients. Additionally, we searched the abstracts of conference proceedings of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research, European Calcified Tissue Society and World Congress of Osteoporosis. Prospective cohort studies with data on baseline clinical risk factors and incident fractures were eligible.

RESULTS

Of the 836 records retrieved, 53 were selected for full-text assessment after screening on title and abstract. Twelve cohorts were deemed eligible and of these, 4 novel cohorts were identified. These cohorts, together with 60 previously identified cohorts, will provide the resource for constructing an updated version of FRAX comprising 2,138,428 participants with a follow-up of approximately 20 million person-years and 116,117 documented incident major osteoporotic fractures. For each known and candidate risk factor, multivariate hazard functions for hip fracture, major osteoporotic fracture and death will be tested using extended Poisson regression. Sex- and/or ethnicity-specific differences in the weights of the risk factors will be investigated. After meta-analyses of the cohort-specific beta coefficients for each risk factor, models comprising 10-year probability of hip and major osteoporotic fracture, with or without femoral neck bone mineral density, will be computed.

CONCLUSIONS

These assembled cohorts and described models will provide the framework for an updated FRAX tool enabling enhanced assessment of fracture risk (PROSPERO (CRD42021227266)).

Systematic review of major osteoporotic fracture to hip fracture incidence rate ratios worldwide: implications for Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX)-derived estimates

The Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) is the most widely used tool for fracture prediction. It provides 10-year probabilities for hip and major osteoporotic fracture (MOF). It uses country-specific hip fracture incidence and life expectancy data, and for most countries, MOF/hip fracture incidence rate ratios (IRRs) from Malmo Sweden. However, the risk of MOF varies by age, sex, and geography. The objective is to compare the MOF/hip IRRs across countries, by sex and age. This systematic review targeted observational studies of MOF and hip fractures in individuals >50 years (PROSPERO 2019 CRD42019129259). One reviewer screened potential articles. Two reviewers completed duplicate and independent data abstraction, and assessed study quality based on population representativeness, study design and duration, definition of ethnicity, and fracture characteristics. We calculated the MOF/hip IRRs (95% confidence interval) and Z-values to compare IRRs in various countries to those for Sweden. We included 27 studies, of fair to good quality in the majority, from Europe (15), US and Canada (7), Asia (3), and Australia (2). The IRRs were twofold to 10-fold higher in younger compared to older age categories, and in women compared to men, with few exceptions. Within Europe, and using Sweden as a reference, MOF/Hip IRRs in women 50-54 years from Finland, Italy, Netherlands, Denmark, and UK were significantly lower by 38% to 60%. Findings were similar in men. At older ages, MOF/Hip IRRs were consistently lower in women from European countries compared to Sweden, by 10%-40% and 11%-51%, at 75-79 years and 85-89 years, respectively. Findings were heterogenous in men and in non-European countries. In conclusion, the MOF/hip fracture IRR may vary between countries. The variability at older ages may affect FRAX prediction when country-specific fracture IRRs are not used. Further research is needed to elucidate the implication of our findings to FRAX-derived MOF estimates in various countries. © 2021 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).

Long-Term Effects in Bone Mineral Density after Different Bariatric Procedures in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: Outcomes of a Randomized Clinical Trial

There is scant evidence of the long-term effects of bariatric surgery on bone mineral density (BMD). We compared BMD changes in patients with severe obesity and type 2 diabetes (T2D) 5 years after randomization to metabolic gastric bypass (mRYGB), sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and greater curvature plication (GCP). We studied the influence of first year gastrointestinal hormone changes on final bone outcomes. Forty-five patients, averaging 49.4 (7.8) years old and body mass index (BMI) 39.4 (1.9) kg/m², were included. BMD at lumbar spine (LS) was lower after mRYGB compared to SG and GCP: 0.89 [0.82;0.94] vs. 1.04 [0.91;1.16] vs. 0.99 [0.89;1.12], p = 0.020. A higher percentage of LS osteopenia was present after mRYGB 78.6% vs. 33.3% vs. 50.0%, respectively. BMD reduction was greater in T2D remitters vs. non-remitters. Weight at fifth year predicted BMD changes at the femoral neck (FN) (adjusted R²: 0.3218; p = 0.002), and type of surgery (mRYGB) and menopause predicted BMD changes at LS (adjusted R²: 0.2507; p < 0.015). In conclusion, mRYGB produces higher deleterious effects on bone at LS compared to SG and GCP in the long-term. Women in menopause undergoing mRYGB are at highest risk of bone deterioration. Gastrointestinal hormone changes after surgery do not play a major role in BMD outcomes.

Fracture risk assessment in the general population in Spain by FRAX® algorithm. EPISER2016 study

OBJECTIVES

To analyse the risk of fracture calculated by FRAX® and the frequency of high risk of fracture in the general population in Spain.

METHODS

EPISER2016 is a multicentre cross-sectional population-based study of the prevalence of rheumatic diseases in the adult population in Spain. 3,154 subjects aged ≥40 years (1,184 men and 1,970 women) were selected by stratified random sampling. The questions related to fracture risk factors were asked by telephone survey. The risk of major osteoporotic fracture (MOFR) and hip fracture (HFR) were calculated with the Spanish version of the FRAX® tool, without the inclusion of bone mineral density. To define high fracture risk, the MOFR≥20%, MOFR≥10%, MOFR≥7.5% and HFR≥3% thresholds were used.

RESULTS

The median (interquartile range) of the MOFR was 2.61% (1.55-6.34%) in women and 1.67% (1.15-2.87%) in men, whereas that of the HFR was 0.39% (0.14-1.86%) and 0.18% (0.07-0.77%); 3.83% of women and no men had a MOFR≥20%; 15.71% and 1.14% had a MOFR≥10%; 20.62% and 2.21%, a MOFR≥7.5%; and 19.27% and 8.05%, an HFR≥3%. In women aged 65 and over, the HFR was high in 58.09%.

CONCLUSIONS

EPISER2016 enabled us to establish the risk of fracture calculated by FRAX® and the prevalence of high risk of fracture in the general population according to the different thresholds used in Spain.

[Prevalence of osteoporosis, estimation of probability of fracture and bone metabolism study in patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer in the health area of Lugo]

OBJECTIVE

To study the prevalence of osteoporosis and fracture probability in patients diagnosed with prostate cancer.

DESIGN

Observational descriptive transversal study. SITE: Study performed from Primary Care of Lugo in collaboration with Rheumatology and Urology Services of our referral hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients diagnosed with prostate cancer without bone metastatic disease from January to December 2012.

MAIN MEASUREMENTS

Epidemiologic, clinical, laboratory and densitometric variables involved in osteoporosis were collected. The likelihood of fracture was estimated by FRAX^® Tool.

RESULTS

Eighty-three patients met the inclusion criteria. None was excluded. The average age was 67 years. The Body Mass Index was 28.28. Twenty-five patients (30.1%) had previous osteoporotic fractures. Other prevalent risk factors were alcohol (26.5%) and smoking (22.9%). Eighty-two subjects had vitamin D below normal level (98.80%). Femoral Neck densitometry showed that 8.9% had osteoporosis and 54% osteopenia. The average fracture risk in this population, estimated by FRAX^®, was 2.63% for hip fracture and 5.28% for major fracture. Cut level for FRAX^® major fracture value without DXA >5% and ≥7.5% proposed by Azagra et al. showed 24 patients (28.92%) and 8 patients (9.64%) respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of osteoporosis in this population was very high. The more frequent risk factors associated with osteoporosis were: previous osteoporotic fracture, alcohol consumption, smoking and family history of previous fracture. The probability of fracture using femoral neck FRAX^® tool was low. Vitamin D deficiency was very common (98.8%).

Rationale of the Spanish FRAX model in decision-making for predicting osteoporotic fractures: an update of FRIDEX cohort of Spanish women

BACKGROUND

The FRAX® tool estimates the risk of a fragility fracture among the population and many countries have been evaluating its performance among their populations since its creation in 2007. The purpose of this study is to update the first FRIDEX cohort analysis comparing FRAX with the bone mineral density (BMD) model, and its predictive abilities.

METHODS

The discriminatory ability of the FRAX was assessed using the 'area under curve' of the receiver operating characteristic (AUC-ROC). Predictive ability was assessed by comparing estimated risk fractures with incidence fractures after a 10-year follow up period.

RESULTS

One thousand three hundred eight women ≥ 40 and ≤ 90 years followed up during a 10-year period. The AUC for major osteoporotic fractures using FRAX without DXA was 0.686 (95 % CI 0.630-0.742) and using FN T-score of DXA 0.714 (95 % CI 0.661-0.767). Using only the traditional parameters of DXA (FN T-score), the AUC was 0.706 (95 % CI 0.652-0.760). The AUC for hip osteoporotic fracture was 0.883 (95 % CI 0.827-0.938), 0.857 (95 % CI 0.773-0.941), and 0.814 (95 % CI 0.712-0.916) respectively. For major osteoporotic fractures, the overall predictive value using the ratio Observed fractures/Expected fractures calculated with FRAX without T-score of DXA was 2.29 and for hip fractures 2.28 and with the inclusion of the T-score 2.01 and 1.83 respectively. However, for hip fracture in women < 65 years was 1.53 and 1.24 respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The FRAX tool has been found to show a good discriminatory capacity for detecting women at high risk of fragility fracture, and is better for hip fracture than major fracture. The test of sensibility shows that it is, at least, not inferior than when using BMD model alone. The predictive capacity of FRAX tool needs some adjustment. This capacity is better for hip fracture prediction and better for women < 65 years. Further studies in Catalonia and other regions of Spain are needed to fine tune the FRAX tool's predictive capability.

A combination of clinical balance measures and FRAX® to improve identification of high-risk fallers

Background

The FRAX® algorithm quantifies a patient’s 10-year probability of a hip or major osteoporotic fracture without taking an individual’s balance into account. Balance measures assess the functional ability of an individual and the FRAX® algorithm is a model that integrates the individual patients clinical risk factors [not balance] and bone mineral density. Thus, clinical balance measures capture aspects that the FRAX® algorithm does not, and vice versa. It is therefore possible that combining FRAX® and clinical balance measures can improve the identification of patients at high fall risk and thereby high fracture risk.

Our study aim was to explore whether there is an association between clinical balance measures and fracture prediction obtained from FRAX®.

Method

A cross-sectional study design was used where post hoc was performed on a dataset of 82 participants (54 to 89 years of age, mean age 71.4, 77 female), with a fall-related wrist-fracture between 2008 and 2012. Balance was measured by tandem stance, standing one leg, walking in the figure of eight, walking heel to toe on a line, walking as fast as possible for 30 m and five times sit to stand balance measures [tandem stance and standing one leg measured first with open and then with closed eyes] and each one analyzed for bivariate relations with the 10-year probability values for hip and major osteoporotic fractures as calculated by FRAX® using Spearman’s rank correlation test.

Results

Individuals with high FRAX® values had poor outcome in balance measures; however the significance level of the correlation differed between tests. Standing one leg eyes closed had strongest correlation to FRAX® (0.610 p = < 0.01) and Five times sit to stand was the only test that did not correlate with FRAX® (0.013).

Conclusion

This study showed that there is an association between clinical balance measures and FRAX®. Hence, the use of clinical balance measures and FRAX® in combination, might improve the identification of individuals with high risk of falls and thereby following fractures. Results enable healthcare providers to optimize treatment and prevention of fall-related fractures.

Trial registration

The study has been registered in Clinical Trials.gov, registration number NCT00988572.