Bone Mineral Density Reporting Underestimates Fracture Risk in Ontario

Association of mental disorders and psychotropic medications with bone texture as measured with trabecular bone score

INTRODUCTION

Mental disorders and psychotropic medications are known to increase the risk of osteoporosis and fractures. However, current evidence is mostly limited to studies that used bone mineral density (BMD), which does not provide information about the texture of bone tissue and can underestimate fracture risk.

METHODS

We tested the association between bone texture, as measured with lumbar spine trabecular bone score (TBS), and both diagnosed mental disorders and psychotropic medication use in a large population-based BMD registry from Manitoba, Canada. General linear and logistic regression models were used to test the association of TBS with mental disorders (anxiety, depression, schizophrenia, and alcohol use disorder) and psychotropic medications use (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors [SSRI], tricyclic antidepressants [TCA], other antidepressants, lithium, non‑lithium mood stabilizers, antipsychotics, and benzodiazepines), adjusted for comorbidities and confounding factors.

RESULTS

The study population contained 45,716 women (mean age = 64.1, SD = 10.4), which included 21.1 % with diagnoses for mental disorders and 18.7 % using psychotropic medications. We observed significant negative covariate-adjusted effects on TBS from diagnosed alcohol use disorder (3.1 % reduction in TBS, p < 0.001) and exposure to SSRI (0.6 % reduction, p < 0.001), TCA (0.8 % reduction, p < 0.001), other antidepressants (0.8 % reduction, p < 0.001), and lithium (3 % reduction, p < 0.001). Logistic regression revealed that TBS in the lowest (versus highest) tertile was associated with alcohol use disorder (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 2.87, 95 % confidence interval [CI]: 1.95, 4.21), exposure to SSRI (OR = 1.21; 95 % CI: 1.08, 1.35), TCA (OR = 1.18, 95 % confidence interval [CI]: 1.04, 1.35), other antidepressants (OR = 1.26; 95 % CI: 1.09, 1.45), and lithium (OR = 1.97; 95 % CI: 1.09, 3.57).

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that alcohol use disorder, antidepressants, and lithium are associated with poorer bone texture in women. These findings add to the current literature on the link of bone pathology with mental disorders and psychotropic medications.

Screening to prevent fragility fractures among adults 40 years and older in primary care: protocol for a systematic review

PURPOSE

To inform recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care by systematically reviewing direct evidence on the effectiveness and acceptability of screening adults 40 years and older in primary care to reduce fragility fractures and related mortality and morbidity, and indirect evidence on the accuracy of fracture risk prediction tools. Evidence on the benefits and harms of pharmacological treatment will be reviewed, if needed to meaningfully influence the Task Force's decision-making.

METHODS

A modified update of an existing systematic review will evaluate screening effectiveness, the accuracy of screening tools, and treatment benefits. For treatment harms, we will integrate studies from existing systematic reviews. A de novo review on acceptability will be conducted. Peer-reviewed searches (Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO [acceptability only]), grey literature, and hand searches of reviews and included studies will update the literature. Based on pre-specified criteria, we will screen studies for inclusion following a liberal-accelerated approach. Final inclusion will be based on consensus. Data extraction for study results will be performed independently by two reviewers while other data will be verified by a second reviewer; there may be some reliance on extracted data from the existing reviews. The risk of bias assessments reported in the existing reviews will be verified and for new studies will be performed independently. When appropriate, results will be pooled using either pairwise random effects meta-analysis (screening and treatment) or restricted maximum likelihood estimation with Hartun-Knapp-Sidnick-Jonkman correction (risk prediction model calibration). Subgroups of interest to explain heterogeneity are age, sex, and menopausal status. Two independent reviewers will rate the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach, with consensus reached for each outcome rated as critical or important by the Task Force.

DISCUSSION

Since the publication of other guidance in Canada, new trials have been published that are likely to improve understanding of screening in primary care settings to prevent fragility fractures. A systematic review is required to inform updated recommendations that align with the current evidence base.

Treatment recommendations based on fracture risk status are not consistently provided in osteoporosis guidelines

We examined international osteoporosis guidelines to determine the tools used to assess fracture risk, the classification of fracture risk presented, and the recommendations based on fracture risk status. We conducted a document analysis of guidelines from the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) website retrieved as of May 10, 2018, focusing on guidelines written in English only. Two reviewers independently reviewed each document and the following data were extracted: (1) fracture risk tool(s) endorsed; (2) classification system used to describe fracture risk status (e.g., low, moderate, high); and (3) recommendations based on risk status (e.g., pharmacological treatment). Two additional reviewers verified all data extraction. A total of 112 guidelines were listed on the IOF website, of which 94 were located either through the provided link or through a PubMed search. Of 70 guidelines written in English, 63 guidelines discussed the concept of fracture risk of which, 39 endorsed FRAX. Twenty-eight guidelines defined fracture risk categories or thresholds which determined recommendations. In total, 26 provided a risk category or threshold which constituted an indication for pharmacotherapy. Twelve guidelines reported a moderate, medium, or intermediate risk category which was associated with variable recommendations for testing and treatment. Despite the generally accepted international shift to fracture risk as a basis for treatment decisions, the majority of guidelines in English did not provide treatment recommendations based on fracture risk status. In guidelines with recommendations based on fracture risk status, thresholds and recommendations varied making international comparisons of treatment difficult.

Evaluation of Automated Fracture Risk Assessment Based on the Canadian Association of Radiologists and Osteoporosis Canada Assessment Tool

Fracture risk assessments are not always clearly communicated on bone mineral density (BMD) reports; evidence suggests that structured reporting (SR) tools may improve report clarity. The aim of this study is to compare fracture risk assessments automatically assigned by SR software in accordance with Canadian Association of Radiologists and Osteoporosis Canada (CAROC) recommendations to assessments from experts on narrative BMD reports. Charts for 500 adult patients who recently received a BMD exam were sampled from across University of Toronto's Joint Department of Medical Imaging. BMD measures and clinical details were manually abstracted from charts and were used to create structured reports with assessments generated by a software implementation of CAROC recommendations. CAROC calculations were statistically compared to experts' original assessments using percentage agreement (PA) and Krippendorff's alpha. Canadian FRAX calculations were also compared to experts', where possible. A total of 25 (5.0%) reported assessments did not conform to categorizations recommended by Canadian guidelines. Across the remainder, the Krippendorff's alpha relating software assigned assessments to physicians was high at 0.918; PA was 94.3%. Lower agreement was associated with reports for patients with documented modifying factors (alpha = 0.860, PA = 90.2%). Similar patterns of agreement related expert assessments to FRAX calculations, although statistics of agreement were lower. Categories of disagreement were defined by (1) gray areas in current guidelines, (2) margins of assessment categorizations, (3) dictation/transcription errors, (4) patients on low doses of steroids, and (5) ambiguous documentation of modifying factors. Results suggest that SR software can produce fracture risk assessments that agree with experts on most routine, adult BMD exams. Results also highlight situations where experts tend to diverge from guidelines and illustrate the potential for SR software to (1) reduce variability in, (2) ameliorate errors in, and (3) improve clarity of routine adult BMD exam reports.