Comparison of the Male Osteoporosis Risk Estimation Score (MORES) With FRAX in Identifying Men at Risk for Osteoporosis

Race and Ethnicity and Fracture Prediction Among Younger Postmenopausal Women in the Women's Health Initiative Study

Importance

The best approach to identify younger postmenopausal women for osteoporosis screening is uncertain. The Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX), which includes self-identified racial and ethnic information, and the Osteoporosis Self-assessment Tool (OST), which does not, are risk assessment tools recommended by US Preventive Services Task Force guidelines to identify candidates for bone mineral density (BMD) testing in this age group.

Objective

To compare the ability of FRAX vs OST to discriminate between younger postmenopausal women who do and do not experience incident fracture during a 10-year follow-up in the 4 racial and ethnic groups specified by FRAX.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cohort study of Women's Health Initiative participants included 67 169 women (baseline age range, 50-64 years) with 10 years of follow-up for major osteoporotic fracture (MOF; including hip, clinical spine, forearm, and shoulder fracture) at 40 US clinical centers. Data were collected from October 1993 to December 2008 and analyzed between May 11, 2022, and February 23, 2023.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Incident MOF and BMD (in a subset of 4607 women) were assessed. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for FRAX (without BMD information) and OST was calculated within each racial and ethnic category.

Results

Among the 67 169 participants, mean (SD) age at baseline was 57.8 (4.1) years. A total of 1486 (2.2%) self-identified as Asian, 5927 (8.8%) as Black, 2545 (3.8%) as Hispanic, and 57 211 (85.2%) as White. During follow-up, 5594 women experienced MOF. For discrimination of MOF, AUC values for FRAX were 0.65 (95% CI, 0.58-0.71) for Asian, 0.55 (95% CI, 0.52-0.59) for Black, 0.61 (95% CI, 0.56-0.65) for Hispanic, and 0.59 (95% CI, 0.58-0.59) for White women. The AUC values for OST were 0.62 (95% CI, 0.56-0.69) for Asian, 0.53 (95% CI, 0.50-0.57) for Black, 0.58 (95% CI, 0.54-0.62) for Hispanic, and 0.55 (95% CI, 0.54-0.56) for White women. For discrimination of femoral neck osteoporosis, AUC values were excellent for OST (range, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.65-0.93] to 0.85 [95% CI, 0.74-0.96]), higher for OST than FRAX (range, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.68-0.75] to 0.74 [95% CI, 0.60-0.88]), and similar in each of the 4 racial and ethnic groups.

Conclusions and Relevance

These findings suggest that within each racial and ethnic category, the US FRAX and OST have suboptimal performance in discrimination of MOF in younger postmenopausal women. In contrast, for identifying osteoporosis, OST was excellent. The US version of FRAX should not be routinely used to make screening decisions in younger postmenopausal women. Future investigations should improve existing tools or create new approaches to osteoporosis risk assessment for this age group.

Gender Disparities in Osteoporosis Screening and Management Among Older Adults

INTRODUCTION

One in two women and one in four men experience an osteoporosis-related fracture in their lifetime. Related morbidity and mortality rates are higher in men versus women. Current guidelines are inconsistent in the screening recommendations for osteoporosis in men. Examination of gender disparities in the management of osteoporosis-related fractures among Medicare enrollees is currently lacking.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study using 5% National Medicare claims data from January 1, 2012 through December 31, 2016, eligible patients who were at least 65 years of age on the date of a new fracture episode were classified into two mutually exclusive cohorts on the basis of whether they received testing and/or treatment for osteoporosis in the 6-month period after the new fracture episode. The cohorts were defined on the basis of the National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA) quality measure "osteoporosis management in women who had a fracture." Patients were followed to identify the occurrence of subsequent fracture, all-cause mortality, and a composite outcome-defined as the first occurrence of either subsequent fracture or mortality. Logistic regression models were carried out to identify predictors of testing and/or treatment and time-varying survival analysis to identify the relationship between the presence of testing and/or treatment and patient outcomes.

RESULTS

Of the 35,774 eligible patients, only 10.2% (12.1% women and 5.7% men) received osteoporosis testing and/or treatment within 6 months after a fracture. The interaction between gender and fragility fracture was significant (P < 0.0001). Fragility fracture had greater adjusted odds of testing and/or treatment among men (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 3.47; 95% CI 2.94-4.10) than women (AOR 1.65; 95% CI 1.53-1.79). Of patients who were eligible for the outcome assessment, 27.5% experienced a subsequent fracture, 23.2% died, and 44.3% experienced a composite outcome during follow-up. Patients who received testing and/or treatment had a significantly lower hazard of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 0.57; 95% CI 0.50-0.65; P < 0.0001) and the composite outcome (HR 0.42; 95% CI 0.39-0.45; P < 0.0001), but no difference in the risk of subsequent fracture (HR 1.02; 95% CI 0.94-1.11; P = 0.6083). Men were found to have a significantly lower hazard of subsequent fracture (HR 0.69; 95% CI 0.64-0.73; P < 0.0001), all-cause mortality (HR 0.67; 95% CI 0.61-0.72; P < 0.0001), and the composite outcome (HR 0.69; 95% CI 0.65-0.73; P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Testing and/or treatment for osteoporosis among older adults with a fracture is poor in the Medicare fee-for-service population overall and worse for men compared to women. Receiving appropriate testing and/or treatment was associated with reduced mortality and the risk of composite outcome. Improving osteoporosis testing and/or treatment and reducing health disparities are essential for managing the clinical and economic burden of osteoporosis in the USA.

Adults with polio are at risk of hip fracture from middle age: A nationwide population-based cohort study

BACKGROUND

Having motor impairment since childhood and being at risk of osteoporosis and falls, adults with polio would be more likely to suffer a hip fracture (HF) and may experience different epidemiological characteristics from the general population.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the risk and incidence of HF in adults with polio.

DESIGN

Using a national database, we conducted a population-based cohort study. We identified patients with polio using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) code of 138. For each patient with polio, we randomly selected five age- and sex-matched control subjects. Those subjects aged <40 years were excluded. We analyzed participants aged 40˜64 years (middle-aged) and subjects aged ≥65 years (elderly) separately and recognized subjects who had an HF (ICD-9-CM code, 820) only when they received hospitalization to care for the illness from January 1, 2003 to December 31, 2008.

RESULTS

We identified 403 adults with polio (mean age ± standard deviation, 47.2 ± 8.6 years). Compared to the controls, patients with polio had a higher incidence of HF (all, 4.1 vs. 1.1/1000 person-years, p = 0.002; middle-aged, 2.3 vs. 0.3/1000 person-years, p < 0.001; male, 6.2 vs. 0.9/1000 person-years, p < 0.001); had a younger mean age (±standard deviation) of fracturing a hip (61.0±14.9 vs. 74.4±9.3 years, p = 0.015); had a lower cumulative HF-free probability (±standard error) before the age of 65 years (0.970±0.017 vs. 0.988±0.007, p<0.001) and throughout the study duration (0.415 ± 0.296 vs. 0.682 ± 0.158, p<0.001); and had a higher risk of HF, yielding an adjusted hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) of 3.58 (1.45˜8.79, p = 0.006). Patients with polio aged >48.2 years were likely to experience an HF.

CONCLUSIONS

Adults with polio are at risk of HF. A customized HF prevention program is important for people with polio. The program should be started early in middle-age and should include men.

The challenges of diagnosing osteoporosis and the limitations of currently available tools

Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) was the first imaging tool widely utilized by clinicians to assess fracture risk, especially in postmenopausal women. The development of DXA nearly coincided with the availability of effective osteoporosis medications. Although osteoporosis in adults is diagnosed based on a T-score equal to or below − 2.5 SD, most individuals who sustain fragility fractures are above this arbitrary cutoff. This incongruity poses a challenge to clinicians to identify patients who may benefit from osteoporosis treatments. DXA scanners generate 2 dimensional images of complex 3 dimensional structures, and report bone density as the quotient of the bone mineral content divided by the bone area. An obvious pitfall of this method is that a larger bone will convey superior strength, but may in fact have the same bone density as a smaller bone. Other imaging modalities are available such as peripheral quantitative CT, but are largely research tools. Current osteoporosis medications increase bone density and reduce fracture risk but the mechanisms of these actions vary. Anti-resorptive medications (bisphosphonates and denosumab) primarily increase endocortical bone by bolstering mineralization of endosteal resorption pits and thereby increase cortical thickness and reduce cortical porosity. Anabolic medications (teriparatide and abaloparatide) increase the periosteal and endosteal perimeters without large changes in cortical thickness resulting in a larger more structurally sound bone. Because of the differences in the mechanisms of the various drugs, there are likely benefits of selecting a treatment based on a patient’s unique bone structure and pattern of bone loss. This review retreats to basic principles in order to advance clinical management of fragility fractures by examining how skeletal biomechanics, size, shape, and ultra-structural properties are the ultimate predictors of bone strength. Accurate measurement of these skeletal parameters through the development of better imaging scanners is critical to advancing fracture risk assessment and informing clinicians on the best treatment strategy. With this information, a “treat to target” approach could be employed to tailor current and future therapies to each patient’s unique skeletal characteristics.

Performance of risk assessment tools for predicting osteoporosis in south Indian rural elderly men

Osteoporosis in elderly men is an under-recognized problem. In the current study, we intend to look at the performance of two risk assessment tools [OSTA and MORES] for the diagnosis of osteoporosis. Osteoporosis was seen in 1/4th of elderly men at spine and 1/6th of them at femoral neck. Both risk assessment tools were found to have good sensitivity in predicting osteoporosis at spine and femoral neck with good area under curve (AUC).

PURPOSE

This study attempts to look at the performance of osteoporosis self-assessment tool for Asians (OSTA) and male osteoporosis risk estimation score (MORES) for predicting osteoporosis in south Indian rural elderly men.

METHODS

Five hundred and twelve men above 65 years of age from a south Indian rural community were recruited by cluster random sampling. All subjects underwent detailed clinical, anthropometric, and bone mineral density measurement at lumbar spine and femoral neck using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry scan. A T score ≤ - 2.5 was diagnostic of osteoporosis. Scores for OSTA and MORES were calculated at various cut offs, and their sensitivities and specificities for predicting osteoporosis were derived.

RESULTS

The prevalence of osteoporosis was found to be 16% at femoral neck and 23% at spine. OSTA with a cut-off value of ≤2 predicted osteoporosis with a sensitivity and specificity at lumbar spine of 94 and 17% and at femoral neck of 99 and 18%. The area under ROC curve for OSTA index for spine was 0.716 and for femoral neck was 0.778. MORES with a cut-off value of ≥6 predicted osteoporosis at spine with a sensitivity of 98% and specificity of 15%, and at femoral neck, they were 98 and 13%, respectively. The area under ROC curve for MORES for spine was 0.855 and for femoral neck was 0.760.

CONCLUSION

OSTA and MORES were found to be useful screening tools for predicting osteoporosis in Indian elderly men. These tools are simple, easy to perform, and cost effective in the context of rural Indian setting.