Total Hip Bone Area Affects Fracture Prediction With FRAX® in Canadian White Women

Effect of Race/Ethnicity on United States FRAX Calculations and Treatment Qualification: A Registry-Based Study

Since 2008. the United States has had four race/ethnic fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX) calculators: White ("Caucasian"), Black, Asian, and Hispanic. The American Society for Bone and Mineral Research Task Force on Clinical Algorithms for Fracture Risk has been examining the implications of retaining race/ethnicity in the US FRAX calculators. To inform the Task Force, we computed FRAX scores according to each US calculator in 114,942 White, 485 Black, and 2816 Asian women (self-reported race/ethnicity) aged 50 years and older. We estimated treatment qualification based upon FRAX thresholds (3% for hip fracture, 20% for major osteoporotic fracture [MOF]). Finally, we examined measures for a hypothetical population-based FRAX calculator derived as the weighted mean for the US population based upon US Census Bureau statistics. With identical inputs, the highest FRAX measurements were found with the White FRAX calculator, lowest measurements with the Black calculator, and intermediate measurements for the Asian and Hispanic calculators. The percentage of women with FRAX scores exceeding the hip fracture treatment threshold was 32.0% for White, 1.9% for Black, and 19.7% for Asian women; the MOF treatment threshold was exceeded for 14.9% of White, 0.0% of Black, and 3.5% of Asian women. Disparities in treatment qualification were reduced after considering additional criteria (fracture history and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry [DXA] T-score -2.5 or lower). When fracture risk was recalculated for non-White women using the White FRAX calculator, mean values for Asian women slightly exceeded those for White women but for Black women remained substantially below those for White women. When using a single population-based FRAX calculator, the mean probability of fracture and treatment qualification increased for non-White women across the age range. In summary, use of a single population-based FRAX calculator, rather than existing US race/ethnic FRAX calculators, will reduce differences in treatment qualification and may ultimately enhance equity and access to osteoporosis treatment. © 2023 The Authors. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).

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.

Fracture prediction from FRAX for Canadian ethnic groups: a registry-based cohort study

We identified large between-ethnicity calibration differences in the Canadian FRAX® tool which substantially overestimated the major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) risk in Asian women and Black women, and overestimated hip fracture risk in Asian women.

PURPOSE

FRAX® is calibrated using population-specific fracture and mortality data. The need for FRAX to accommodate ethnic diversity within a country is uncertain. We addressed this question using the population-based Manitoba Bone Mineral Density (BMD) Program registry and self-reported ethnicity.

METHODS

The study population was women aged 40 years or older with baseline FRAX assessments (Canadian and other ethnic calculators), fracture outcomes, and self-reported ethnicity (White N = 68,907 [referent], Asian N = 1910, Black N = 356). Adjusted hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for time to MOF and hip fracture were estimated. We examined candidate variables from DXA that might contribute to ethnic differences including skeletal size, hip axis length (HAL), trabecular bone score (TBS), and estimated body composition.

RESULTS

Adjusted for baseline risk using the Canadian FRAX tool with BMD, Asian women compared with White women were at much lower risk for MOF (HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.35-0.59) and hip fracture (0.16, 95% CI 0.08-0.34). Black women were also at lower MOF risk (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.32-1.00); there were no hip fractures. The US ethnic-specific FRAX calculators accounted for most of the between-ethnicity differences in MOF risk (86% for Asian, 92% for Black) but only partially accounted for lower hip fracture risk in Asian women (40%). The candidate variables explained only a minority of the effect of ethnicity. Gradient of risk in analyses was similar (p-interactions ethnicity*FRAX non-significant).

CONCLUSIONS

We identified significant ethnic differences in performance of the Canadian FRAX tool with fracture probability overestimated among Asian and Black women. The US ethnic calculators helped to address this discrepancy for MOF risk assessment, but not for hip fracture risk among Asian women.

A bone resorption marker as predictor of rate of change in femoral neck size and strength during the menopause transition

We assessed whether a bone resorption marker, measured early in the menopause transition (MT), is associated with change in femoral neck size and strength during the MT. Higher levels of bone resorption were associated with slower increases in femoral neck size and faster decreases in femoral neck strength.

PURPOSE

Composite indices of the femoral neck's ability to withstand compressive (compression strength index, CSI) and impact (impact strength index, ISI) forces integrate DXA-derived femoral neck width (FNW), bone mineral density (BMD), and body size. During the menopause transition (MT), FNW increases, and CSI and ISI decrease. This proof-of-concept study assessed whether a bone resorption marker, measured early in the MT, is associated with rates of change in FNW, CSI and ISI during the MT.

METHODS

We used previously collected bone resorption marker (urine collagen type I N-telopeptide [U-NTX]) and femoral neck strength data from 696 participants from the Study of Women's Health Across the Nation (SWAN), a longitudinal study of the MT in a multi-ethnic cohort of community-dwelling women.

RESULTS

Adjusted for MT stage (pre- vs. early perimenopause), age, body mass index (BMI), bone resorption marker collection time, and study site in multivariable linear regression, bone resorption in pre- and early perimenopause was not associated with transmenopausal decline rate in femoral neck BMD. However, each standard deviation (SD) increase in bone resorption level was associated with 0.2% per year slower increase in FNW (p = 0.03), and 0.3% per year faster declines in CSI (p = 0.02) and ISI (p = 0.01). When restricted to women in early perimenopause, the associations of bone resorption with change in FNW, CSI, and ISI were similar to those in the full sample.

CONCLUSIONS

Measuring a bone resorption marker in pre- and early perimenopause may identify women who will experience the greatest loss in bone strength during the MT.

External Bone Size Is a Key Determinant of Strength-Decline Trajectories of Aging Male Radii

Given prior work showing associations between remodeling and external bone size, we tested the hypothesis that wide bones would show a greater negative correlation between whole-bone strength and age compared with narrow bones. Cadaveric male radii (n = 37 pairs, 18 to 89 years old) were evaluated biomechanically, and samples were sorted into narrow and wide subgroups using height-adjusted robustness (total area/bone length). Strength was 54% greater (p < 0.0001) in wide compared with narrow radii for young adults (<40 years old). However, the greater strength of young-adult wide radii was not observed for older wide radii, as the wide (R² = 0.565, p = 0.001), but not narrow (R² = 0.0004, p = 0.944) subgroup showed a significant negative correlation between strength and age. Significant positive correlations between age and robustness (R² = 0.269, p = 0.048), cortical area (Ct.Ar; R² = 0.356, p = 0.019), and the mineral/matrix ratio (MMR; R² = 0.293, p = 0.037) were observed for narrow, but not wide radii (robustness: R² = 0.015, p = 0.217; Ct.Ar: R² = 0.095, p = 0.245; MMR: R² = 0.086, p = 0.271). Porosity increased with age for the narrow (R² = 0.556, p = 0.001) and wide (R² = 0.321, p = 0.022) subgroups. The wide subgroup (p < 0.0001) showed a significantly greater elevation of a new measure called the Cortical Pore Score, which quantifies the cumulative effect of pore size and location, indicating that porosity had a more deleterious effect on strength for wide compared with narrow radii. Thus, the divergent strength-age regressions implied that narrow radii maintained a low strength with aging by increasing external size and mineral content to mechanically offset increases in porosity. In contrast, the significant negative strength-age correlation for wide radii implied that the deleterious effect of greater porosity further from the centroid was not offset by changes in outer bone size or mineral content. Thus, the low strength of elderly male radii arose through different biomechanical mechanisms. Consideration of different strength-age regressions (trajectories) may inform clinical decisions on how best to treat individuals to reduce fracture risk. © 2019 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

European guidance for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women

Guidance is provided in a European setting on the assessment and treatment of postmenopausal women at risk from fractures due to osteoporosis.

INTRODUCTION

The International Osteoporosis Foundation and European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis published guidance for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in 2013. This manuscript updates these in a European setting.

METHODS

Systematic reviews were updated.

RESULTS

The following areas are reviewed: the role of bone mineral density measurement for the diagnosis of osteoporosis and assessment of fracture risk; general and pharmacological management of osteoporosis; monitoring of treatment; assessment of fracture risk; case-finding strategies; investigation of patients; health economics of treatment. The update includes new information on the evaluation of bone microstructure evaluation in facture risk assessment, the role of FRAX® and Fracture Liaison Services in secondary fracture prevention, long-term effects on fracture risk of dietary intakes, and increased fracture risk on stopping drug treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

A platform is provided on which specific guidelines can be developed for national use.