Bone health management in men undergoing ADT: examining enablers and barriers to care

Effectiveness of a Nurse-Led Mobile-Based Health Coaching Program for Patients With Prostate Cancer at High Risk of Metabolic Syndrome: Randomized Waitlist Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), a standard treatment for prostate cancer (PC), causes many physical side effects. In particular, it causes metabolic changes such as fasting glucose abnormalities or accumulation of body fat, and its continuation can lead to metabolic syndrome (MetS), which is closely related to diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Therefore, it is important to maintain and practice a healthy lifestyle in patients with PC.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of a nurse-led mobile-based program that aims to promote a healthy lifestyle in patients with PC undergoing ADT with MetS risk factors.

METHODS

This was a single-blind, randomized, waitlist control interventional study. A total of 48 patients were randomly assigned to the experimental and waitlist control groups at the urology cancer clinic of a tertiary general hospital in South Korea. The inclusion criteria were patients who had undergone ADT for >6 months, had at least 1 of the 5 MetS components in the abnormal range, and could access a mobile-based education program. The experimental group attended a 4-week mobile-based program on exercise and diet that included counseling and encouragement to maintain a healthy lifestyle, whereas the control group was placed on a waitlist and received usual care during the follow-up period, followed by the intervention. The primary outcome was a change in the lifestyle score. The secondary outcomes were changes in 5 MetS components, body composition, and health-related quality of life. The outcomes were measured at 6 weeks and 12 weeks after the initiation of the intervention. Each participant was assigned to each group in a sequential order of enrollment in a 4×4 permuted block design randomization table generated in the SAS (SAS Institute) statistical program. A linear mixed model was used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 24 participants were randomly assigned to each group; however, 2 participants in the experimental group dropped out for personal reasons before starting the intervention. Finally, 46 participants were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. The experimental group showed more positive changes in the healthy lifestyle score (β=29.23; P≤.001), level of each MetS component (fasting blood sugar: β=-12.0; P=.05 and abdominal circumference: β=-2.49; P=.049), body composition (body weight: β=-1.52; P<.001 and BMI: β=-0.55; P<.001), and the urinary irritative and obstructive domain of health-related quality of life (β=14.63; P<.001) over time than the waitlist control group.

CONCLUSIONS

Lifestyle changes through nurse-led education can improve level of each MetS components, body composition, and ADT side effects. Nurses can induce positive changes in patients' lifestyles and improve the self-management of patients starting ADT through this program.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical Research Information Service KCT0006560; http://tinyurl.com/yhvj4vwh.

Quantitative ultrasound of the calcaneus (QUS): A valuable tool in the identification of patients with non-metastatic prostate cancer requiring screening for osteoporosis

Non-metastatic prostate cancer (PCa) patients are at increased risk for osteoporosis and fractures mainly due to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT)-associated hypogonadism, but this remains largely underdiagnosed and untreated. In this study, we examine the value of pre-screening calcaneal QUS in identifying patients who should be referred for screening for osteoporosis using dual-energy X-Ray absorptiometry (DXA). In a single-center retrospective cross-sectional cohort study, we analysed data on DXA and calcaneal QUS measurements systematically collected between 2011 and 2013 in all non-metastatic PCa patients attending our Uro-Oncological Clinic at the Leiden University Medical Center. Receiver operating characteristic curves were used to assess the positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive values of QUS T-scores of 0, -1.0, and - 1.8 in identifying DXA-diagnosed osteoporosis (T-scores ≤ - 2.5 and ≤ -2) at lumbar spine and/or femoral neck. Complete sets of data were available in 256 patients, median age 70.9 (53.6-89.5) years; 93.0 % had received local treatment, 84.4 % with additional ADT. Prevalence of osteoporosis and osteopenia was respectively 10.5 % and 53 %. Mean QUS T-score was -0.54 ± 1.58. Whereas PPV at any QUS T-score was <25 %, precluding the use of QUS as surrogate for DXA in screening for osteoporosis, QUS T-scores of -1.0 to 0.0 had a NPV of ≥94.5 % for DXA T-scores ≤ 2.5 and ≤ -2 at any site, confidently identifying patients least likely to have osteoporosis, thereby significantly reducing the number of patients requiring DXA screening for diagnosing osteoporosis by up to two-third. Osteoporosis screening is a significant unmet need in non-metastatic prostate cancer patients treated with ADT, and QUS may represent a valuable alternative pre-screening strategy to overcome logistics, time demands, and economic barriers encountered with current strategies for osteoporosis screening in these patients.

Summary

Osteoporosis and associated increased fracture risk are common in non-metastatic prostate carcinoma, mainly due to androgen deprivation therapy, but these often remain underdiagnosed and untreated. We demonstrate that QUS is a safe, less costly pre-screen tool that reduces by up to two-third the number of patients requiring referral for DXA for osteoporosis screening.

Fracture risk and assessment in adults with cancer

Individuals with cancer face unique risk factors for osteoporosis and fractures. Clinicians must consider the additive effects of cancer-specific factors, including treatment-induced bone loss, and premorbid fracture risk, utilizing FRAX score and bone mineral densitometry when available. Pharmacologic therapy should be offered as per cancer-specific guidelines, when available, or local general osteoporosis guidelines informed by clinical judgment and patient preferences. Our objective was to review and summarize the epidemiologic burden of osteoporotic fracture risk and fracture risk assessment in adults with cancer, and recommended treatment thresholds for cancer treatment-induced bone loss, with specific focus on breast, prostate, thyroid, gynecological, multiple myeloma, and hematopoietic stem cell transplant. This narrative review was informed by PubMed searches to July 25, 2022, that combined terms for cancer, stem cell transplantation, fracture, bone mineral density (BMD), trabecular bone score, FRAX, Garvan nomogram or fracture risk calculator, QFracture, prediction, and risk factors. The literature informs that cancer can impact bone health in numerous ways, leading to both systemic and localized decreases in BMD. Many cancer treatments can have detrimental effects on bone health. In particular, hormone deprivation therapies for hormone-responsive cancers such as breast cancer and prostate cancer, and hematopoietic stem cell transplant for hematologic malignancies, adversely affect bone turnover, resulting in osteoporosis and fractures. Surgical treatments such as hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy for gynecological cancers can also lead to deleterious effects on bone health. Radiation therapy is well documented to cause localized bone loss and fractures. Few studies have validated the use of fracture risk prediction tools in the cancer population. Guidelines on cancer-specific treatment thresholds are limited, and major knowledge gaps still exist in fracture risk and fracture risk assessment in patients with cancer. Despite the limitations of current knowledge on fracture risk assessment and treatment thresholds in patients with cancer, clinicians must consider the additive effects of bone damaging factors to which these patients are exposed and their premorbid fracture risk profile. Pharmacologic treatment should be offered as per cancer-specific guidelines when available, or per local general osteoporosis guidelines, in accordance with clinical judgment and patient preferences.

Implementing and Evaluating the Impact of BoneRx: A Healthy Bone Prescription for Men with Prostate Cancer Initiating Androgen Deprivation Therapy

Background: The initiation of Androgen Deprivation Therapy (ADT) results in rapid and profound hypogonadism, resulting in significant bone and muscle loss, increasing the risk for osteoporosis (OP), falls, and fractures. Despite this, there exist very low rates of guideline adherent care regarding bone health in this population. We developed and implemented a healthy bone prescription tool entitled BoneRx to facilitate the uptake of guideline-concordant bone health care into practice and increase patient awareness and promote the uptake of health bone behaviours (HBBs). Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional pre-BoneRx implementation (n = 143) vs. post-implementation (n = 149) cohort study to evaluate the impact on (i) bone health care, patient engagement in HBB, and patient knowledge and health beliefs regarding OP. Results: There was a significant difference pre- vs. post BoneRx implementation on receipt of baseline BMD (34.7% vs. 59.5%, p < 0.0001) and bone health counselling (32.4% vs. 59.9%, p < 0.0001). More participants in the post-BoneRx implementation cohort reported taking vitamin D supplements 57% vs. 81% (p < 0.001) and calcium supplements 39% vs. 61% (p < 0.001). Physical activity levels also significantly increased (p = 0.021). No differences were detected in OP knowledge or feelings of OP susceptibility, seriousness, or health motivation. Conclusion: BoneRx is a simple, cost-effective, and acceptable strategy that could improve the care of PCa survivors receiving ADT.

Higher serum alkaline phosphatase value indicates the need for bone mineral density testing in non-metastatic prostate cancer patients undergoing androgen deprivation therapy

PURPOSE

Osteoporosis is a well-known adverse effect of androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer. This study aimed to reveal the factors associated with the diagnosis of osteoporosis in prostate cancer patients undergoing androgen deprivation therapy.

METHODS

This retrospective cross-sectional study included 106 prostate cancer patients treated with androgen deprivation therapy. Patients with bone metastasis at the initiation of androgen deprivation therapy and those with castration-resistant prostate cancer were excluded. Bone mineral density was measured at the lumbar spine and femoral neck using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Osteoporosis was defined as bone mineral density equal to or below either -2.5 SD or 70% of the mean in young adults. The association between clinicopathological variables and bone mineral density or diagnosis of osteoporosis was investigated.

RESULTS

Thirty-six (34%) patients were found to have osteoporosis. The incidence of osteoporosis increased in a stepwise manner depending on the duration of androgen deprivation therapy. Multivariate logistic regression analysis identified a longer duration of androgen deprivation therapy (months, odd's ratio = 1.017, P = 0.006), lower body mass index (kg/m2, odd's ratio = 0.801, P = 0.005) and higher serum alkaline phosphatase value (U/l, odd's ratio 1.007, P = 0.014) as the factors independently associated with the diagnosis of osteoporosis. Eleven out of 50 (22%), 14 out of 35 (40%) and 11 out of 20 patients (55%) were osteoporotic in the patients with serum alkaline phosphatase values <238 U/l, 238-322 U/l and >322 U/l, respectively (P = 0.022).

CONCLUSIONS

Osteoporosis is common in prostate cancer patients undergoing androgen deprivation therapy; furthermore, its incidence increases depending on the duration of androgen deprivation therapy. Bone mineral density testing should be considered for all patients on androgen deprivation therapy, especially for those with a lower body mass index and higher serum alkaline phosphatase value.

Attention to bone health in follow-up of gynaecological cancers in tertiary care

OBJECTIVE

Women with gynaecological cancers are at an increased risk of cancer treatment-induced bone loss, which impacts on their quality of life and overall survival. Clinical cancer follow-up reviews focus on cancer status and fail to attend to important health and quality-of-life issues. We questioned whether there was a care-gap between tertiary clinicians and primary care physicians in the management of bone health in this cohort. Significant care-gaps in relation to bone health have been demonstrated in other oncologic settings. The objective of this study was to determine the level of attention to bone health in the care of women living with and beyond gynaecological cancer at a tertiary referral centre for gynaecological oncology.

METHODS

Retrospective, observational cohort study of attention to bone health in the management and follow-up of gynaecological cancers.

RESULTS

This study shows that there has been suboptimal attention from the carers at a cancer centre to bone health during the oncological follow up of women undergoing treatment for gynaecological cancer. In those at particular risk of cancer treatment-induced bone loss (iatrogenic menopause and/or external beam pelvic radiotherapy), 52% of women had no reference to bone health in their notes, and 57% had no assessment of bone mineral density.

CONCLUSION

Tertiary cancer carers may underestimate the importance of bone health or believe that it falls outside the remit of their gynaecologic oncology service. Further research is needed to explore whether these findings are indicative of a true care gap and to gain insight into possible corrective measures.

Cancer patients with fractures are rarely assessed or treated for osteoporosis: a population-based study

Among 4238 cancer and 16,418 cancer-free individuals with incident major non-traumatic fractures (hip, clinical vertebral, forearm, humerus), post-fracture osteoporosis care was equally poor for both groups, whether assessed from bone mineral density (BMD) testing, initiation of osteoporosis therapy or either intervention (BMD testing and/or osteoporosis therapy).

INTRODUCTION

Most individuals sustaining a fracture do not undergo evaluation and/or treatment for osteoporosis. Cancer survivors are at increased risk for osteoporosis and fracture. Whether cancer survivors experience a similar post-fracture "care gap" is unclear. Using population-based databases, we assessed whether cancer patients are evaluated and/or treated for osteoporosis after a major fracture.

METHODS

From the Manitoba Cancer Registry, we identified cancer cases (first cancer diagnosis between 1987 and 2013) and cancer-free controls with incident major non-traumatic fractures (from provincial physician billing claims and hospitalization databases). The outcomes were performance of BMD testing (from the BMD Registry), initiation of osteoporosis therapy (from drug dispensation database) or either intervention (BMD testing and/or osteoporosis therapy) in the 12 months post-fracture.

RESULTS

There were 4238 cancer and 16,418 cancer-free individuals who sustained a fracture after the index date (cancer diagnosis) and were followed for at least 1 year post-fracture. Subsequent BMD testing was performed in 11.0% of cancer cases versus 11.5% non-cancer controls (P = 0.43), osteoporosis treatment in 22.9% cancer cases versus 21.8% non-cancer controls (P = 0.15), and either testing or treatment in 28.9% cancer cases versus 28.4% non-cancer controls (P = 0.53). Predictors of BMD testing and/or initiation of therapy were similar for non-cancer and cancer patients. Post-fracture interventions were consistently used more frequently among women, older patients (age 50 years or older), those who sustained fractures in a later calendar period, and (for treatment) after vertebral fracture. Cancer-specific variables (cancer type, years from cancer diagnosis to fracture, specialty of care provider) showed only weak and inconsistent effects.

CONCLUSIONS

A large care gap exists among cancer patients who sustain a fracture, similar to the general population, whereby the evaluation or treatment for osteoporosis is seldom conducted. Care maps may need to be developed for cancer populations to improve post-fracture care.

Guidance for the assessment and management of prostate cancer treatment-induced bone loss. A consensus position statement from an expert group

•

Bone health should be prioritised when men with prostate cancer start long-term ADT.

•

Assessment by FRAX (±bone mineral density) identifies those at highest risk of fracture.

•

Treatment can minimise skeletal complications and reduce morbidity and mortality.

Context and objective

Incidence of prostate cancer (PC) is increasing, but androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and other therapies are substantially improving survival. In this context, careful consideration of skeletal health is required to reduce the risk of treatment-related fragility fractures and their associated morbidity and mortality. This risk is currently not well-managed. ADT causes significant loss of bone mineral density (BMD). In the metastatic setting, systemic treatments (e.g. chemotherapy, abiraterone, enzalutamide) are used alongside ADT and may require concomitant glucocorticoids. Both ADT and glucocorticoids pose significant challenges to skeletal health in a population of patients already likely to have ongoing age-related bone loss and/or comorbid conditions. Current PC guidelines lack specific recommendations for optimising bone health. This guidance presents evidence for assessment and management of bone health in this population, with specific recommendations for clinical practitioners in day-to-day PC management.

Methods

Structured meetings of key opinion leaders were integrated with a systematic literature review. Input and endorsement was sought from patients, nursing representatives and specialist societies.

Summary of guidance

All men starting or continuing long-term ADT should receive lifestyle advice regarding bone health. Calcium/vitamin D supplementation should be offered if required. Fracture risk should be calculated (using the FRAX® tool), with BMD assessment included where feasible. BMD should always be assessed where fracture risk calculated using FRAX® alone is close to the intervention threshold. Intervention should be provided if indicated by local or national guidelines e.g. UK National Osteoporosis Guideline Group (NOGG) thresholds. Men requiring bone protection therapy should be further assessed (e.g. renal function), with referral to specialist centres if available and offered appropriate treatment to reduce fracture risk. Those near to, but below an intervention threshold, and patients going on to additional systemic therapies (particularly those requiring glucocorticoids), should have FRAX® (including BMD) repeated after 12–18 months.

Patient summary

Modern treatments for prostate cancer have led to significant improvements in survival and quality of life. However, some of these treatments may lead to weakening of patient’s bones with risk of fracture and it is therefore important to monitor patients’ bone health and provide bone protection where needed. This paper provides specific guidance to clinical teams, based on the most recent research evidence, to ensure optimal bone health in their patients.

Pathophysiology of Bone Loss in Patients with Prostate Cancer Receiving Androgen-Deprivation Therapy and Lifestyle Modifications for the Management of Bone Health: A Comprehensive Review

Androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) is a systemic therapy administered for the management of advanced prostate cancer (PCa). Although ADT may improve survival, long-term use reduces bone mass density (BMD), posing an increased risk of fracture. Considering the long natural history of PCa, it is essential to preserve bone health and quality-of-life in patients on long-term ADT. As an alternative to pharmacological interventions targeted at preserving BMD, current evidence recommends lifestyle modifications, including individualized exercise and nutritional interventions. Exercise interventions include resistance training, aerobic exercise, and weight-bearing impact exercise, and have shown efficacy in preserving BMD. At the same time, it is important to take into account that PCa is a progressive and debilitating disease in which a substantial proportion of patients on long-term ADT are older individuals who harbor axial bone metastases. Smoking cessation and limited alcohol consumption are commonly recommended lifestyle measures in patients receiving ADT. Contemporary guidelines regarding lifestyle modifications vary by country, organization, and expert opinion. This comprehensive review will provide an evidence-based, updated summary of lifestyle interventions that could be implemented to preserve bone health and maintain quality-of-life throughout the disease course of PCa.

Bone Health in Men with Prostate Cancer: Review Article

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The improvement in prostate cancer survival over time, even in those with advanced disease, has led to an increasing recognition of the impact of prostate cancer and its treatment on bone health. Cancer treatment-induced bone loss (CTIBL) is a well-recognized entity but greater awareness of the risks associated with CTIBL and its treatment is required.

RECENT FINDINGS

The principal culprit in causing CTIBL is hormonal ablation induced by prostate cancer treatment, including several new agents which have been developed in recent years which significantly improve survival, but may cause CTIBL. This review discusses the impact of prostate cancer and its treatment on bone health, including published evidence on the underlying pathophysiology, assessment of bone health, and strategies for prevention and treatment. It is important to recognize the potential cumulative impact of systemic prostate cancer treatments on bone health.

Harnessing the potential of therapeutic agents to safeguard bone health in prostate cancer

Background

Patients with prostate cancer are at risk of impaired bone health. Prostate cancer has a propensity to metastasize to bone, after which patients are at risk of skeletal-related events (SREs). These complications are associated with increased mortality, substantial pain, and reduced quality of life. Patients are also at risk of bone loss due to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), which can be compounded in elderly patients with reduced bone density. It is essential, therefore, that aspects of bone health and therapies able to prevent the occurrence of SREs are considered throughout the clinical course of prostate cancer.

Methods

We reviewed the literature regarding the molecular mechanisms underpinning bone lesion formation, the modes of action of therapies that prevent SREs, and the efficacy and safety of these therapies in patients with hormone-sensitive or castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC).

Results

Therapies such as denosumab (a RANKL inhibitor) and zoledronic acid (a bisphosphonate) were indicated for prevention of SREs. Radium-223 dichloride also has proven efficacy in delaying symptomatic SREs, as well as in improving overall survival through effects on bone metastases. Before development of bone metastases, low-dose denosumab may also be used for treatment of ADT-associated bone loss. Denosumab may also have the potential to delay bone metastases development in patients with CRPC, although this is not currently an approved indication. The safety profile of therapies to prevent SREs should be considered. This review consolidates the available evidence on use of denosumab and bisphosphonates in prostate cancer, differentiated by hormone-sensitive and castration-resistant disease.

Conclusions

There is convincing evidence to support the use of denosumab and bisphosphonates to maintain bone health in patients with prostate cancer. Clinicians should be mindful of the adverse event risk profile of these therapies.

Comparison of fracture risk assessment tools in older men without prior hip or spine fracture: the MrOS study

Femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD), age plus femoral neck BMD T score, and three externally generated fracture risk tools had similar accuracy to identify older men who developed osteoporotic fractures. Risk tools with femoral neck BMD performed better than those without BMD. The externally developed risk tools were poorly calibrated.

INTRODUCTION

We compared the performance of fracture risk assessment tools in older men, accounting for competing risks including mortality.

METHODS

A comparative ROC curve analysis assessed the ability of the QFracture, FRAX® and Garvan fracture risk tools, and femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD) T score with or without age to identify incident fracture in community-dwelling men aged 65 years or older (N = 4994) without hip or clinical vertebral fracture or antifracture treatment at baseline.

RESULTS

Among risk tools calculated with BMD, the discriminative ability to identify men with incident hip fracture was similar for FRAX (AUC 0.77, 95% CI 0.73, 0.81), the Garvan tool (AUC 0.78, 95% CI 0.74, 0.82), age plus femoral neck BMD T score (AUC 0.79, 95% CI 0.75, 0.83), and femoral neck BMD T score alone (AUC 0.76, 95% CI 0.72, 0.81). Among risk tools calculated without BMD, the discriminative ability to identify hip fracture was similar for QFracture (AUC 0.69, 95% CI 0.66, 0.73), FRAX (AUC 0.70, 95% CI 0.66, 0.73), and the Garvan tool (AUC 0.71, 95% CI 0.67, 0.74). Correlated ROC curve analyses revealed better diagnostic accuracy for risk scores calculated with BMD compared with QFracture (P < 0.0001). Calibration was good for the internally generated BMD T score predictor with or without age and poor for the externally developed risk tools.

CONCLUSION

In untreated older men without fragility fractures at baseline, an age plus femoral neck BMD T score classifier identified men with incident hip fracture as accurately as more complicated fracture risk scores.

Adverse bone effects of medications used to treat non-skeletal disorders

There is a growing list of medications used to treat non-skeletal disorders that cause bone loss and/or increase fracture risk. This review discusses glucocorticoids, drugs that reduce sex steroids, antidiabetic agents, acid-reducing drugs, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, and heparin. A number of drugs are known to cause bone loss, increase fracture risk, or both. These drugs should be used in the lowest dose necessary to achieve the desired benefit and for the shortest time necessary, but in many cases, long-term treatment is required. Effective countermeasures are available for some.

The prevention of fragility fractures in patients with non-metastatic prostate cancer: a position statement by the international osteoporosis foundation

Androgen deprivation therapy is commonly employed for the treatment of non-metastatic prostate cancer as primary or adjuvant treatment. The skeleton is greatly compromised in men with prostate cancer during androgen deprivation therapy because of the lack of androgens and estrogens, which are trophic factors for bone. Men receiving androgen deprivation therapy sustain variable degrees of bone loss with an increased risk of fragility fractures. Several bone antiresorptive agents have been tested in randomized controlled trials in these patients. Oral bisphosphonates, such as alendronate and risedronate, and intravenous bisphosphonates, such as pamidronate and zoledronic acid, have been shown to increase bone density and decrease the risk of fractures in men receiving androgen deprivation therapy. Denosumab, a fully monoclonal antibody that inhibits osteoclastic-mediated bone resorption, is also effective in increasing bone mineral density and reducing fracture rates in these patients. The assessment of fracture risk, T-score and/or the evaluation of prevalent fragility fractures are mandatory for the selection of patients who will benefit from antiresorptive therapy. In the future, new agents modulating bone turnover and skeletal muscle metabolism will be available for testing in these subjects.

Mind the (treatment) gap: a global perspective on current and future strategies for prevention of fragility fractures

This narrative review considers the key challenges facing healthcare professionals and policymakers responsible for providing care to populations in relation to bone health. These challenges broadly fall into four distinct themes: (1) case finding and management of individuals at high risk of fracture, (2) public awareness of osteoporosis and fragility fractures, (3) reimbursement and health system policy and (4) epidemiology of fracture in the developing world. Findings from cohort studies, randomised controlled trials, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, in addition to current clinical guidelines, position papers and national and international audits, are summarised, with the intention of providing a prioritised approach to delivery of optimal bone health for all. Systematic approaches to case-finding individuals who are at high risk of sustaining fragility fractures are described. These include strategies and models of care intended to improve case finding for individuals who have sustained fragility fractures, those undergoing treatment with medicines which have an adverse effect on bone health and people who have diseases, whereby bone loss and, consequently, fragility fractures are a common comorbidity. Approaches to deliver primary fracture prevention in a clinically effective and cost-effective manner are also explored. Public awareness of osteoporosis is low worldwide. If older people are to be more pro-active in the management of their bone health, that needs to change. Effective disease awareness campaigns have been implemented in some countries but need to be undertaken in many more. A major need exists to improve awareness of the risk that osteoporosis poses to individuals who have initiated treatment, with the intention of improving adherence in the long term. A multisector effort is also required to support patients and their clinicians to have meaningful discussions concerning the risk-benefit ratio of osteoporosis treatment. With regard to prioritisation of fragility fracture prevention in national policy, there is much to be done. In the developing world, robust epidemiological estimates of fracture incidence are required to inform policy development. As the aging of the baby boomer generation is upon us, this review provides a comprehensive analysis of how bone health can be improved worldwide for all.

Prevalence of Cardiovascular Disease and Osteoporosis During Androgen Deprivation Therapy Prescription Discordant to EAU Guidelines: Results From a Multicenter, Cross-sectional Analysis From the CHOsIng Treatment for Prostate canCEr (CHOICE) Study

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the prevalence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and osteoporosis in patients treated with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for prostate cancer (PCa) but not adherent to European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The CHOosIng Treatment for Prostate CanCEr (CHOICE) study was an Italian multicenter, cross-sectional study conducted from December 2010 to January 2012. A total of 1386 patients treated with ADT for PCa (first prescription or renewal of ADT) were selected. According to EAU guidelines, the cohort was categorized in discordant ADT (Group A) and concordant ADT (Group B). The prevalence of CVD and osteoporosis after ADT was recorded.

RESULTS

The final cohort included 1075 patients. According to EAU guidelines adherence, 285 (26.51%) and 790 (73.49%) were considered discordant and concordant, respectively. The proportion of men with Charlson Comorbidity Index  > 2 at baseline was statistically similar in Group A (81.8%) compared to Group B (80.8%) (P = .96). The number of complications reported at enrollment was as follows: cardiovascular in 351 (32.7%), endocrine in 166 (15.4%), sexual in 498 (46.3%), osteoporosis in 181 (16.8%), and gynecomastia in 274 (25.5%) subjects. At the multivariate logistic regression analysis adjusted for confounding factors, discordant ADT was associated with greater risk of cardiovascular complications (odds ratio: 2.07; P < .01) and osteoporosis (odds ratio: 1.75; P = .04).

CONCLUSION

About one-third of patients with PCa received inappropriate ADT and showed a greater risk of CVD and osteoporosis. These results could be useful for setting better policy strategies to limit the inappropriateness of ADT prescription.

Comparing fracture absolute risk assessment (FARA) tools: an osteoporosis clinical informatics tool to improve identification and care of men at high risk of first fracture

BACKGROUND

Fracture absolute risk assessment (FARA) is recommended for guiding osteoporosis treatment decisions in males. The best strategy for applying FARA in the clinic setting is not known.

OBJECTIVES

We compared 2 FARA tools for use with electronic health records (EHRs) to determine which would more accurately identify patients known to be high risk for fracture. Tools evaluated were an adaptation of the World Health Organization's Fracture Risk Assessment Tool used with electronic data (eFRAX) and the Veterans Affairs (VA)-based tool, VA-FARA.

METHODS

We compared accuracies of VA-FARA and eFRAX for correctly classifying male veterans who fractured and who were seen in the VA's Sierra Pacific Network in 2002-2013. We then matched those cases to nonfracture controls to compare odds of fracture in patients classified as high risk by either tool.

RESULTS

Among 8740 patients, the mean (SD) age was 67.0 (11.1) years. Based on risk factors present in the EHR, VA-FARA correctly classified 40.1% of fracture patients as high risk (33.0% and 34.6% for hip and any major fracture, respectively); eFRAX classified 17.4% correctly (17.4% for hip and 0.2% for any major fracture). Compared with non-high-risk patients, those classified as high risk by VA-FARA were 35% more likely to fracture (95% CI = 23%-47%; P < 0.01) compared with 17% for eFRAX (95% CI = 5%-32%; P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

VA-FARA is more predictive of first fracture than eFRAX using EHR data. Decision support tools based on VA-FARA may improve early identification and care of men at risk.