Fracture Risk Assessment With FRAX Using Real-World Data in a Population-Based Cohort From Israel

Race-specific FRAX models are evidence-based and support equitable care: a response to the ASBMR Task Force report on Clinical Algorithms for Fracture Risk

Task Force on 'Clinical Algorithms for Fracture Risk' commissioned by the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) Professional Practice Committee has recommended that FRAX® models in the US do not include adjustment for race and ethnicity. This position paper finds that an agnostic model would unfairly discriminate against the Black, Asian and Hispanic communities and recommends the retention of ethnic and race-specific FRAX models for the US, preferably with updated data on fracture and death hazards. In contrast, the use of intervention thresholds based on a fixed bone mineral density unfairly discriminates against the Black, Asian and Hispanic communities in the US. This position of the Working Group on Epidemiology and Quality of Life of the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) is endorsed both by the IOF and the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO).

A plasma protein-based risk score to predict hip fractures

As there are effective treatments to reduce hip fractures, identification of patients at high risk of hip fracture is important to inform efficient intervention strategies. To obtain a new tool for hip fracture prediction, we developed a protein-based risk score in the Cardiovascular Health Study using an aptamer-based proteomic platform. The proteomic risk score predicted incident hip fractures and improved hip fracture discrimination in two Trøndelag Health Study validation cohorts using the same aptamer-based platform. When transferred to an antibody-based proteomic platform in a UK Biobank validation cohort, the proteomic risk score was strongly associated with hip fractures (hazard ratio per s.d. increase, 1.64; 95% confidence interval 1.53-1.77). The proteomic risk score, but not available polygenic risk scores for fractures or bone mineral density, improved the C-index beyond the fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX), which integrates information from clinical risk factors (C-index, FRAX 0.735 versus FRAX + proteomic risk score 0.776). The developed proteomic risk score constitutes a new tool for stratifying patients according to hip fracture risk; however, its improvement in hip fracture discrimination is modest and its clinical utility beyond FRAX with information on femoral neck bone mineral density remains to be determined.

Hip Axis Length and Femoral Neck-Shaft Angle as Risk Factors for Proximal Femur Fractures in Octogenarians to Centenarians

(1) Background: The prevention of proximal femoral fractures among people of very advanced age is relevant as they are common and increasing in number. The aim of this study was to determine if the hip axis length (HAL) and the neck-shaft angle (caput-collum-diaphyseal CCD) are risk factors for those fractures among people aged 80 years and over. Consequently, it was additionally analysed if these parameters are associated with a certain fracture type. (2) Methods: Anteroposterior radiographs of the pelvis were collected to form three groups (femoral neck fractures (FNFx), trochanteric fractures (TFx) and non-fractured femora (NFx)). Two independent blinded observers separately conducted each measurement of the HAL and CCD. Statistical analysis was performed to determine the association between the measured parameters and type of fracture. (3) Results: One hundred and fifty patients (50 per group) were examined, of which the mean age was 92.7 ± 3.5 (range 81-104) years. Both the HAL and CCD of the FNFx group were significantly larger than in the TFx group (p = 0.013, 0.003). The CCD was higher in the FNFx than that of the NFx group (p = 0.001). No further significant differences of HAL and CCD were observed between the groups. (4) Conclusions: For people aged 80 years and over, an increased HAL represented no risk factor for proximal femur fractures, and a large HAL was associated with an increased occurrence of FNFx instead of TFx. A large CCD was associated with an increased risk of suffering a femoral neck fracture, showing evidence of the CCD being a risk factor for the extremely old population.

Associations of accelerometer-estimated free-living daily activity impact intensities with 10-year probability of osteoporotic fractures in adults

PURPOSE

Accelerometers are used to objectively measure physical activity; however, the relationship between accelerometer-based activity parameters and bone health is not well understood. This study examines the association between accelerometer-estimated daily activity impact intensities and future risk estimates of major osteoporotic fractures in a large population-based cohort.

METHODS

Participants were 3165 adults 46 years of age from the Northern Finland Birth Cohort 1966 who agreed to wear a hip-worn accelerometer during all waking hours for 14 consecutive days. Raw accelerometer data were converted to resultant acceleration. Impact magnitude peaks were extracted and divided into 32 intensity bands, and the osteogenic index (OI) was calculated to assess the osteogenic effectiveness of various activities. Additionally, the impact peaks were categorized into three separate impact intensity categories (low, medium, and high). The 10-year probabilities of hip and all major osteoporotic fractures were estimated with FRAX-tool using clinical and questionnaire data in combination with body mass index collected at the age of 46 years. The associations of daily activity impact intensities with 10-year fracture probabilities were examined using three statistical approaches: multiple linear regression, partial correlation, and partial least squares (PLS) regression.

RESULTS

On average, participants' various levels of impact were 8331 (SD = 3478) low; 2032 (1248) medium; and 1295 (1468) high impacts per day. All three statistical approaches found a significant positive association between the daily number of low-intensity impacts and 10-year probability of hip and all major osteoporotic fractures. In contrast, increased number of moderate to very high daily activity impacts was associated with a lower probability of future osteoporotic fractures. A higher OI was also associated with a lower probability of future major osteoporotic fractures.

CONCLUSION

Low-intensity impacts might not be sufficient for reducing fracture risk in middle-aged adults, while high-intensity impacts could be beneficial for preventing major osteoporotic fractures.

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.

A systematic review on the performance of fracture risk assessment tools: FRAX, DeFRA, FRA-HS

PURPOSE

Preventing fragility fractures by treating osteoporosis may reduce disability and mortality worldwide. Algorithms combining clinical risk factors with bone mineral density have been developed to better estimate fracture risk and possible treatment thresholds. This systematic review supported panel members of the Italian Fragility Fracture Guidelines in recommending the use of best-performant tool. The clinical performance of the three most used fracture risk assessment tools (DeFRA, FRAX, and FRA-HS) was assessed in at-risk patients.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched till December 2020 for studies investigating risk assessment tools for predicting major osteoporotic or hip fractures in patients with osteoporosis or fragility fractures. Sensitivity (Sn), specificity (Sp), and areas under the curve (AUCs) were evaluated for all tools at different thresholds. Quality assessment was performed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2; certainty of evidence (CoE) was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.

RESULTS

Forty-three articles were considered (40, 1, and 2 for FRAX, FRA-HS, and DeFRA, respectively), with the CoE ranging from very low to high quality. A reduction of Sn and increase of Sp for major osteoporotic fractures were observed among women and the entire population with cut-off augmentation. No significant differences were found on comparing FRAX to DeFRA in women (AUC 59-88% vs. 74%) and diabetics (AUC 73% vs. 89%). FRAX demonstrated non-significantly better discriminatory power than FRA-HS among men.

CONCLUSION

The task force formulated appropriate recommendations on the use of any fracture risk assessment tools in patients with or at risk of fragility fractures, since no statistically significant differences emerged across different prediction tools.

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.

Executive summary: Italian guidelines for diagnosis, risk stratification, and care continuity of fragility fractures 2021

Background

Fragility fractures are a major public health concern owing to their worrying and growing burden and their onerous burden upon health systems. There is now a substantial body of evidence that individuals who have already suffered a fragility fracture are at a greater risk for further fractures, thus suggesting the potential for secondary prevention in this field.

Purpose

This guideline aims to provide evidence-based recommendations for recognizing, stratifying the risk, treating, and managing patients with fragility fracture. This is a summary version of the full Italian guideline.

Methods

The Italian Fragility Fracture Team appointed by the Italian National Health Institute was employed from January 2020 to February 2021 to (i) identify previously published systematic reviews and guidelines on the field, (ii) formulate relevant clinical questions, (iii) systematically review literature and summarize evidence, (iv) draft the Evidence to Decision Framework, and (v) formulate recommendations.

Results

Overall, 351 original papers were included in our systematic review to answer six clinical questions. Recommendations were categorized into issues concerning (i) frailty recognition as the cause of bone fracture, (ii) (re)fracture risk assessment, for prioritizing interventions, and (iii) treatment and management of patients experiencing fragility fractures. Six recommendations were overall developed, of which one, four, and one were of high, moderate, and low quality, respectively.

Conclusions

The current guidelines provide guidance to support individualized management of patients experiencing non-traumatic bone fracture to benefit from secondary prevention of (re)fracture. Although our recommendations are based on the best available evidence, questionable quality evidence is still available for some relevant clinical questions, so future research has the potential to reduce uncertainty about the effects of intervention and the reasons for doing so at a reasonable cost.

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)).

Risk of osteoporotic fracture in women using the FRAX tool with and without bone mineral density score in patients followed at a tertiary outpatient clinic ‒ An observational study

OBJECTIVES

Fragility fractures increase morbidity and mortality. Adding assessment of clinical risk factors independently or as a previous step to Bone Densitometry (BD) should provide better accuracy in fracture risk prediction. FRAX tool might be used to stratify patients in order to rationalize the need for BD and risk classification. The primary objective of this study is to describe and perform comparisons between the estimated risk of fractures in 10 years using the FRAX calculator based on clinical factors with and without BD results for women aged 40 or more with clinical diseases monitored in tertiary care service in internal medicine.

METHODS

Cross-sectional. Women over 40 years with BD in the previous year. After medical chart review, identification of risk factors and risk estimations using FRAX-BRAZIL with (FRAX BDI) and without (FRAX BDNI) the inclusion of T-score.

RESULTS

239 women. Age 65 ± 10.35 years. BMI 29.68 ± 6.27kg/m2.

RISK FACTORS

32(13.4%) previous fractures; 23 (9.6%) current smoking; 78 (32.6%) corticosteroids use; 44 (18.4%) rheumatoid arthritis; 38 (15.9%) secondary causes; FRAX scores were higher when BD was not included. Spearman correlation coefficients between FRAX BDNI and FRAX BDI for major fractures r = 0.793 (95% CI 0.7388‒0.836). For hip fractures r = 0.6922 (95% CI 0.6174‒0.75446) CONCLUSION: Using FRAX to estimate 10-year fracture risk without BD data might be a reliable tool for screening, even for patients with a high prevalence of risk factors, improving accessibility and equity in health systems. The present study's data suggest an overestimation of fracture risk with FRAX BDNI, suggesting that it is safe to be widely used as a screening tool.

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.

Detecting pathological features and predicting fracture risk from dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry images using deep learning

Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is the gold standard imaging method for diagnosing osteoporosis in clinical practice. The DXA images are commonly used to estimate a numerical value for bone mineral density (BMD), which decreases in osteoporosis. Low BMD is a known risk factor for osteoporotic fractures. In this study, we used deep learning to identify lumbar scoliosis and structural abnormalities that potentially affect BMD but are often neglected in lumbar spine DXA analysis. In addition, we tested the approach's ability to predict fractures using only DXA images. A dataset of 2949 images gathered by Kuopio Osteoporosis Risk Factor and Prevention Study was used to train a convolutional neural network (CNN) for classification. The model was able to classify scoliosis with an AUC of 0.96 and structural abnormalities causing unreliable BMD measurement with an AUC of 0.91. It predicted fractures occurring within 5 years from the lumbar spine DXA scan with an AUC of 0.63, meeting the predictive performance of combined BMD measurements from the lumbar spine and hip. In an independent test set of 574 clinical patients, AUC for lumbar scoliosis was 0.93 and AUC for unreliable BMD measurements was 0.94. In each classification task, neural network visualizations indicated the model's predictive strategy. We conclude that deep learning could complement the well established DXA method for osteoporosis diagnostics by analyzing incidental findings and image reliability, and improve its predictive ability in the future.

Real-World Evidence: A Primer

SUMMARY

The insights that real-world data (RWD) can provide, beyond what can be learned within the traditional clinical trial setting, have gained enormous traction in recent years. RWD, which are increasingly available and accessible, can further our understanding of disease, disease progression, and safety and effectiveness of treatments with the speed and accuracy required by the health care environment and patients today. Over the decades since RWD were first recognized, innovation has evolved to take real-world research beyond finding ways to identify, store, and analyze large volumes of data. The research community has developed strong methods to address challenges of using RWD and as a result has increased the acceptance of RWD in research, practice, and policy. Historic concerns about RWD relate to data quality, privacy, and transparency; however, new tools, methods, and approaches mitigate these challenges and expand the utility of RWD to new applications. Specific guidelines for RWD use have been developed and published by numerous groups, including regulatory authorities. These and other efforts have shown that the more RWD are used and understood and the more the tools for handling it are refined, the more useful it will be.

New Developments in Fracture Risk Assessment for Current Osteoporosis Reports

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Identifying individuals at high fracture risk can be used to target those likely to derive the greatest benefit from treatment. This narrative review examines recent developments in using specific risk factors used to assess fracture risk, with a focus on publications in the last 3 years.

RECENT FINDINGS

There is expanding evidence for the recognition of individual clinical risk factors and clinical use of composite scores in the general population. Unfortunately, enthusiasm is dampened by three pragmatic randomized trials that raise questions about the effectiveness of widespread population screening using clinical fracture prediction tools given suboptimal participation and adherence. There have been refinements in risk assessment in special populations: men, patients with diabetes, and secondary causes of osteoporosis. New evidence supports the value of vertebral fracture assessment (VFA), high resolution peripheral quantitative CT (HR-pQCT), opportunistic screening using CT, skeletal strength assessment with finite element analysis (FEA), and trabecular bone score (TBS). The last 3 years have seen important developments in the area of fracture risk assessment, both in the research setting and translation to clinical practice. The next challenge will be incorporating these advances into routine work flows that can improve the identification of high risk individuals at the population level and meaningfully impact the ongoing crisis in osteoporosis management.

Development and efficacy of a computerized decision support system for osteoporosis management in the community

Computerized alerts for primary care physicians, provided during visits of patients who met treatment guidelines based on their electronic medical records, are an efficient method to raise awareness to many otherwise missed cases, especially after fracture.

PURPOSE

Measure the efficacy of an automated real-time alert which was developed to assist osteoporosis management in the community.

METHODS

The study population included treatment naïve patients with T-score ≤ - 2.5 or hip or vertebral fracture in a 2 million member Israeli health fund. On each ambulatory visit to a primary care physician or endocrinologist, a pop-up screen reminded the caregiver to consider treatment initiation. A follow-up "smart-set" screen conveniently gathered links to common actions (namely, (a) issue first line therapy prescription, (b) referral to nutritionist consultation, (c) laboratory tests relevant for osteoporosis, and (d) printing an information page for the patient). Time till treatment initiation was compared between the 3 years prior to and following the intervention.

RESULTS

Within 2 years since alert activation, a total of n = 21,070 cases were alerted, 52% of which were long standing cases: untreated for over 6 months since the event. During this period, a total of 30% initiated treatment purchases. As compared with the 3 years prior to the intervention, time till treatment initiation decreased following the intervention with HR = 1.05, 1.94, 1.29 (p values = 0.020, < 0.001, 0.005) for T-score, hip, and vertebral cases respectively. Initiation rates within 6 months increased from 52.0 to 59.8%, from 12.3 to 27.7%, and from 17.4 to 27.1% among T-score, hip, and vertebral cases, respectively (p value < 0.001). Male sex, nursing home residence, having diabetes or a cardiovascular disease and age younger than 60 or older than 80 were associated with lower treatment rates.

CONCLUSIONS

A computerized decision support system can efficiently raise attention to many otherwise missed high-risk osteoporotic cases, particularly those after fractures.

Population-Based Osteoporosis Primary Prevention and Screening for Quality of Care in Osteoporosis, Current Osteoporosis Reports

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Despite the high prevalence and impact of osteoporosis, screening and treatment rates remain low, with few women age 65 years and older utilizing osteoporosis screening for primary prevention.

RECENT FINDINGS

This review examines opportunities and challenges related to primary prevention and screening for osteoporosis at the population level. Strategies on how to identify individuals at high fracture risk and target them for treatment have lagged far behind other developments in the osteoporosis field. Most osteoporosis quality improvement strategies have focused on patients with recent or prior fracture (secondary prevention), with limited attention to individuals without prior fracture. For populations without prior fracture, the only quality improvement strategy for which meta-analysis demonstrated significant improvement in osteoporosis care was patient self-scheduling of DXA plus education Much more work is needed to develop and validate effective primary screening and prevention strategies and translate these into high-quality guidelines.

Healthcare Policy Changes in Osteoporosis Can Improve Outcomes and Reduce Costs in the United States

In the United States, osteoporosis affects over 10 million adults, has high societal costs ($22 billion in 2008), and is currently being underdiagnosed and undertreated. Given an aging population, this burden is expected to rise. We projected the fracture burden in US women by modeling the expected demographic shift as well as potential policy changes. With the anticipated population aging and growth, annual fractures are projected to increase from 1.9 million to 3.2 million (68%), from 2018 to 2040, with related costs rising from $57 billion to over $95 billion. Policy‐driven expansion of case finding and treatment of at‐risk women could lower this burden, preventing 6.1 million fractures over the next 22 years while reducing payer costs by $29 billion and societal costs by $55 billion. Increasing use of osteoporosis‐related interventions can reduce fractures and result in substantial cost‐savings, a rare and fortunate combination given the current landscape in healthcare policy. © 2019 The Authors. JBMR Plus published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Role of Bisphosphonate Therapy in Patients with Osteopenia: A Systemic Review

By contrast to clinical trials exploring osteoporosis, clinical trials specifically designed for the osteopenic population are limited. Thus, less clinical data are available regarding treatment benefits and cost-effectiveness of treating a patient population with a bone mass density in the osteopenic range (T-score between -1 and -2.5). In this article, we aimed to highlight this high-risk population with a low bone mass density (BMD) susceptible to high fracture risk by reviewing different national and international guidelines for treating osteopenia. The cost-effectiveness of the therapy for the above-mentioned patient population is also discussed. By reviewing different clinical trials, we have specifically highlighted the role of bisphosphonate therapy for fracture risk reduction and increment in bone mineral density (BMD) in patients with osteopenia.

Epidemiology and correlates of osteoporotic fractures among type 2 diabetic patients

This study analyzed data on 87,224 osteoporotic patients with up to 18 years of computerized medical history. Patients with osteoporosis and type 2 diabetes had higher bone density yet more fractures than non-diabetic osteoporotic patients. Fracture incidence among the diabetic patients was associated with retinopathy and cardiovascular disease, but not with diabetes duration.

PURPOSE

Little is known about the association between type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and fragility fractures or the mechanism(s) involved. We examined fracture correlates among T2DM patients with osteoporosis.

METHODS

We used electronic health records of an osteoporosis (OP) registry cross-linked with a diabetes registry of a large payer provider healthcare organization in Israel. A cross-sectional analysis compared osteoporosis patients with and without T2DM, and a longitudinal Cox proportional hazard regression was used to identify incident fracture correlates.

RESULTS

As of December 2015 a total of 87,224 current OP patients were identified, of whom 15,700 (18%) had T2DM. The T2DM OP patients were characterized by older age (mean 74.6 vs. 69.5), more males (20.3 vs. 14.0%), and a higher rate of chronic comorbidities compared to OP without diabetes. All major OP fractures (hip, spine, humerus, and forearm) were significantly more prevalent among T2DM OP patients (44 vs. 32%), with an overall age-standardized ratio of 1.22 (95% CI 1.19 to 1.25) and 1.15 (95% CI 1.10 to 1.21) for females and males respectively. The average T-scores were higher (femur neck - 1.8 vs. - 1.9, total hip - 1.2 vs. - 1.6, and vertebrae - 1.3 vs. - 1.7) for the T2DM OP patients compared to the non-T2DM OP patients. Among women with coexisting T2DM and osteoporosis (n = 10,812), fracture incidence was significantly associated with retinopathy (HR = 1.24, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.47) and cardiovascular disease (HR = 1.22, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.36) after controlling for age, bone mineral density T-score, rheumatoid arthritis, glucocorticoids, alcohol, and smoking).

CONCLUSION

This large population-based study confirms the higher fracture risk of osteoporotic patients with T2DM, as compared to osteoporotic patients without T2DM, despite higher bone mineral density levels. The presence of micro- and macrovascular disease appears to increase this risk.

Impact of FRAX-based osteoporosis intervention using real world data

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the implications and accuracy of the most common fracture prevention strategies: (1) fixed threshold by the National Osteoporosis Foundation (NOF), (2) age-dependent threshold by the National Osteoporosis Guideline Group (NOGG) and (3) osteoporotic bone mineral density (BMD).

METHODS

A retrospective cohort of all 50-90years old female members in a nationally representative payer provider healthcare organization in Israel, with 10years of follow-up on incident events of major osteoporotic fractures. Since events are less frequent than non-events, balanced accuracy (the average between the accuracy obtained for patients with and without events) was used to measure performance.

RESULTS

Overall among 141,320 women NOF and NOGG would recommend therapy for 17.3% and 2.8% respectively, with NOF exhibiting higher balanced accuracy: 74.1% vs. 54.2% for incident hip fractures detection and 60.0% vs. 51.6% for a composite outcome of major osteoporotic fractures. In patients with available BMD (n=16,578) the treatment intervention criteria of NOF, NOGG, osteoporotic femur neck or vertebral BMD were met by 30.5%, 9.3% and 24.6% of the population, with balanced accuracy of 70.1%, 56.5% and 62.3% respectively for hip fractures and 61.4%, 52.8%, 58.1% for major osteoporotic fractures. At the age of 75years or older the NOF hip fracture risk threshold (3%) was exceeded in most women regardless of risk factors other than age.

CONCLUSIONS

In this large population-based study, detection of patients at high risk of sustaining a major osteoporotic fracture within 10 years was more accurate with the NOF fixed threshold criteria as compared with the age-varying NOGG or BMD-only. However, special consideration and further studies are warranted in patients aged 75years or older with preserved bone density, which may benefit from non-medicinal interventions.