The risk-stratified osteoporosis strategy evaluation study (ROSE): a randomized prospective population-based study. Design and baseline characteristics

Long-term adherence to anti-osteoporosis medication and determinants of adherence in the population-based screening trial ROSE

Screening initiatives for osteoporosis must facilitate treatment of those at elevated fracture risk. In a randomized controlled trial of 24,229 women, those in the screening group with FRAX ≥ 15% were invited for DXA with AOM treatment offered as per national guidelines. Treatment initiation in the following year was 9.5 times higher compared with controls.

PURPOSE

To determine if screened individuals have lower adherence to anti-osteoporotic medication (AOM) than unscreened and to examine determinants for low treatment adherence.

METHOD

In 2010/2011, women aged 65-80 (N = 34,229) in the Region of Southern Denmark were invited to the risk-stratified osteoporosis strategy evaluation (ROSE) randomized study. Women in the screening group with moderate to high 10-year fracture risk (FRAX® ≥ 15%) were invited for dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry with AOM treatment as per national guidelines. Screened, controls, and an age-matched general population sample were compared for adherence to AOM using 10-year follow-up data on prescription and hospital records.

RESULTS

Among ROSE participants with FRAX ≥ 15%, 5864 screened and 5790 controls were eligible for analysis, along with an equal number from the general population. AOM initiation in the first year was 9.5 times higher in screened compared to controls (HR 9.50, 7.16; 12.61). There was no difference in implementation assessed as medication possession ratio. The 5-year persistence rates were similar in screened and controls (51-52%), but lower in the general population (44%). FRAX risk factors partly influenced AOM initiation in the screened, with different patterns in other groups. Immobilization, comorbidities, and co-medications were key determinants of discontinuation in both the short and long term.

CONCLUSION

The ROSE screening programme significantly increased treatment initiation in postmenopausal women. Screened women showed similar treatment adherence levels to non-screened once they started medication. However, frail women were more prone to treatment discontinuation, highlighting the need for targeted support in this subgroup.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The original ROSE trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01388244). The study protocol has been published in Rubin et al. The risk-stratified osteoporosis strategy evaluation study (ROSE): a randomized prospective population-based study. Design and baseline characteristics. Calcif Tissue Int. 2015;96(2):167-79.

Screening for Osteoporosis to Prevent Fractures: A Systematic Evidence Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force

Importance

Fragility fractures result in significant morbidity.

Objective

To review evidence on osteoporosis screening to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Data Sources

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and trial registries through January 9, 2024; references, experts, and literature surveillance through July 31, 2024.

Study Selection

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews of screening; pharmacotherapy studies for primary osteoporosis; predictive and diagnostic accuracy studies.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Two reviewers assessed titles/abstracts, full-text articles, study quality, and extracted data; when at least 2 similar studies were available, meta-analyses were conducted.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Hip, clinical vertebral, major osteoporotic, and total fractures; mortality; harms; accuracy.

Results

Three RCTs and 3 systematic reviews reported benefits of screening in older, higher-risk women. Two RCTs used 2-stage screening: Fracture Risk Assessment Tool estimate with bone mineral density (BMD) testing if risk threshold exceeded. One RCT used BMD plus additional tests. Screening was associated with reduced hip (pooled relative risk [RR], 0.83 [95% CI, 0.73-0.93]; 3 RCTs; 42 009 participants) and major osteoporotic fracture (pooled RR, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.88-0.99]; 3 RCTs; 42 009 participants) compared with usual care. Corresponding absolute risk differences were 5 to 6 fewer fractures per 1000 participants screened. The discriminative accuracy of risk assessment instruments to predict fracture or identify osteoporosis varied by instrument and fracture type; most had an area under the curve between 0.60 and 0.80 to predict major osteoporotic fracture, hip fracture, or both. Calibration outcomes were limited. Compared with placebo, bisphosphonates (pooled RR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.45-1.00]; 6 RCTs; 12 055 participants) and denosumab (RR, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.37-0.97] from the largest RCT [7808 participants]) were associated with reduced hip fractures. Compared with placebo, no statistically significant associations were observed for adverse events.

Conclusions and Relevance

Screening in higher-risk women 65 years or older was associated with a small absolute risk reduction in hip and major fractures compared with usual care. No evidence evaluated screening with BMD alone or screening in men or younger women. Risk assessment instruments, BMD alone, or both have poor to modest discrimination for predicting fracture. Osteoporosis treatment with bisphosphonates or denosumab over several years was associated with fracture reductions and no meaningful increase in adverse events.

Prediction of imminent osteoporotic fracture risk in Danish postmenopausal women-can the addition of self-reported clinical risk factors improve the prediction of the register-based FREM algorithm?

Obtaining accurate self-reports on clinical risk factors, such as parental hip fracture or alcohol and tobacco use, limits the utility of conventional risk scores for fracture risk. We demonstrate that fracture-risk prediction based on administrative health data alone performs equally to prediction based on self-reported clinical risk factors.

BACKGROUND

Accurate assessment of fracture risk is crucial. Unlike established risk prediction tools that rely on patient recall, the Fracture Risk Evaluation Model (FREM) utilises register data to estimate the risk of major osteoporotic fracture (MOF). We investigated whether adding self-reported clinical risk factors for osteoporosis to the FREM algorithm improved the prediction of 1-year fracture risk by comparing three approaches: the FREM algorithm (FREMorig), clinical risk factors (CRFonly), and FREM combined with clinical risk factors (FREM-CRF).

METHOD

Clinical risk factor information was obtained through questionnaires sent to women aged 65-80 years living in the Region of Southern Denmark in 2010, who participated in the Risk-stratified Osteoporosis Strategy Evaluation study. Register data was obtained through national health registers and linked to the survey data. Positive and negative predictive values and concordance statistics were calculated for the performance of each approach using logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards models.

RESULTS

Of the 18,605 women included, 280 sustained a MOF within 1 year. All three approaches performed similarly in 1-year fracture risk prediction for low- and high-risk individuals. However, the FREMorig and FREM-CRF approach slightly overestimated fracture risk for medium-risk individuals.

CONCLUSION

Adding self-reported clinical data to FREM did not increase precision in predicting 1-year MOF risk. The discrimination of FREMorig was similar to that of CRFonly, suggesting it may be possible to estimate fracture risk with the same precision by using register data instead of self-reported risk information. Register-based prediction models may be applicable in individualised risk monitoring or large-scale osteoporosis screening programmes.

Ten-year follow-up of fracture risk in a systematic population-based screening program: the risk-stratified osteoporosis strategy evaluation (ROSE) randomised trial

Background

Osteoporotic fractures pose a growing public health concern. Osteoporosis is underdiagnosed and undertreated, highlighting the necessity of systematic screening programs. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a two-step population-based osteoporotic screening program.

Methods

This ten-year follow-up of the Risk-stratified Osteoporosis Strategy Evaluation (ROSE) randomized trial tested the effectiveness of a screening program utilizing the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) for major osteoporotic fractures (MOF) to select women for dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scan following standard osteoporosis treatment. Women residing in the Region of Southern Denmark, aged 65-80, were randomised (single masked) into a screening or a control group by a computer program prior to inclusion and subsequently approached with a mailed questionnaire. Based on the questionnaire data, women in the screening group with a FRAX value ≥15% were invited for DXA scanning. The primary outcome was MOF derived from nationwide registers. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01388244, status: Completed.

Findings

All randomised women were included February 4, 2010-January 8, 2011, the same day as approached to participate. During follow-up, 7355 MOFs were observed. No differences in incidences of MOF were identified, comparing the 17,072 women in the screening group with the 17,157 controls in the intention-to-treat analysis (IRR 1.01, 0.95; 1.06). However, per-protocol, women DXA-scanned exhibited a 14% lower incidence of MOF (IRR 0.86, 0.78; 0.94) than controls with a FRAX value ≥15%. Similar trends were observed for hip fractures, all fractures, and mortality.

Interpretation

While the ROSE program had no overall effect on osteoporotic fracture incidence or mortality it showed a preventive effect for women at moderate to high risk who underwent DXA scans. Hence the overall effect might have been diluted by those who were not at an intervention level threshold risk or those who did not show up for DXA. Using self-administered questionnaires as screening tools may be inefficient for systematic screening due to the low and differential screening uptake.

Funding

INTERREG and the Region of Southern Denmark.

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.

Is it time to consider population screening for fracture risk in postmenopausal women? A position paper from the International Osteoporosis Foundation Epidemiology/Quality of Life Working Group

The IOF Epidemiology and Quality of Life Working Group has reviewed the potential role of population screening for high hip fracture risk against well-established criteria. The report concludes that such an approach should strongly be considered in many health care systems to reduce the burden of hip fractures.

INTRODUCTION

The burden of long-term osteoporosis management falls on primary care in most healthcare systems. However, a wide and stable treatment gap exists in many such settings; most of which appears to be secondary to a lack of awareness of fracture risk. Screening is a public health measure for the purpose of identifying individuals who are likely to benefit from further investigations and/or treatment to reduce the risk of a disease or its complications. The purpose of this report was to review the evidence for a potential screening programme to identify postmenopausal women at increased risk of hip fracture.

METHODS

The approach took well-established criteria for the development of a screening program, adapted by the UK National Screening Committee, and sought the opinion of 20 members of the International Osteoporosis Foundation's Working Group on Epidemiology and Quality of Life as to whether each criterion was met (yes, partial or no). For each criterion, the evidence base was then reviewed and summarized.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

The report concludes that evidence supports the proposal that screening for high fracture risk in primary care should strongly be considered for incorporation into many health care systems to reduce the burden of fractures, particularly hip fractures. The key remaining hurdles to overcome are engagement with primary care healthcare professionals, and the implementation of systems that facilitate and maintain the screening program.

Osteoporosis case ascertainment strategies in European and Asian countries: a comparative review

While many clinical guidelines recommend screening for osteoporosis for early detection and treatment, there is great diversity in the case-finding strategies globally. We sought to compare case-finding strategies, focusing on the approaches used in European and Asian countries. This article provides an overview of the current case-finding strategies in the UK, Germany (including Austria and German-speaking regions of Switzerland), China, Japan, and Korea. We conducted a review of current treatment guidelines in each country and included expert opinions from key opinion leaders. Most countries define osteoporosis among patients with a radiographically identified fracture of the hip or the vertebrae. However, for other types of fractures, or in the absence of a fracture, varying combinations of risk-factor assessment and areal bone mineral density (aBMD) assessed by dual X-ray absorptiometry are used to define osteoporosis cases. A T-score ≤ - 2.5 is accepted to identify osteoporosis in the absence of a fracture; however, not all countries accept DXA alone as the sole criteria. Additionally, the critera for requiring clinical risk factors in addition to aBMD differ across countries. In most Asian countries, aBMD scanning is only provided beyond a particular age threshold. However, all guidelines recommend fracture risk assessment in younger ages if risk factors are present. Our review identified that strategies for case-finding differ regionally, particularly among patients without a fracture. More homogenized ways of identifying osteoporosis cases are needed, in both the Eastern and the Western countries, to improve osteoporosis case-finding before a fracture occurs.Case-finding in osteoporosis is essential to initiate treatment and minimize fracture risk. We identified differences in case-finding strategies between Eastern and Western countries. In the absence of a diagnosed fracture, varying combinations of risk factors and bone density measurements are used. Standardized case-finding strategies may help improve treatment rates.

Reliability of a Risk-Factor Questionnaire for Osteoporosis: A Primary Care Survey Study with Dual Energy X-ray Absorptiometry Ground Truth

(1) Purpose: Predisposing factors to osteoporosis (OP) as well as dual-source x-ray densitometry (DXA) steer therapeutic decisions by determining the FRAX index. This study examines the reliability of a standard risk factor questionnaire in OP-screening. (2) Methods: n = 553 eligible questionnaires encompassed 24 OP-predisposing factors. Reliability was assessed using DXA as a gold standard. Multiple logistic regression and Spearman's correlations, as well as the confounding influence of age and body mass index, were analyzed in SPSS (IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY, USA). (3) Results: Our study revealed low patient self-awareness regarding OP and its risk factors. One out of every four patients reported a positive history for osteoporosis not confirmed by DXA. The extraordinarily high incidence of rheumatoid arthritis and thyroid disorders likely reflect confusion with other diseases or health anxiety. FRAX-determining risk factors such as malnutrition, liver insufficiency, prior fracture without trauma, and glucocorticoid therapy did not correlate with increased OP incidence, altogether demonstrating how inaccurate survey information could influence therapeutic decisions on osteoporosis. (4) Conclusions: Contradictive results and a low level of patient self-awareness suggest a high degree of uncertainty and low reliability of the current OP risk factor survey.

Application of machine learning approaches for osteoporosis risk prediction in postmenopausal women

Many predictive tools have been reported for assessing osteoporosis risk. The development and validation of osteoporosis risk prediction models were supported by machine learning.

INTRODUCTION

Osteoporosis is a silent disease until it results in fragility fractures. However, early diagnosis of osteoporosis provides an opportunity to detect and prevent fractures. We aimed to develop machine learning approaches to achieve high predictive ability for osteoporosis risk that could help primary care providers identify which women are at increased risk of osteoporosis and should therefore undergo further testing with bone densitometry.

METHODS

We included all postmenopausal Korean women from the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (KNHANES V-1, V-2) conducted in 2010 and 2011. Machine learning models using methods such as the k-nearest neighbors (KNN), decision tree (DT), random forest (RF), gradient boosting machine (GBM), support vector machine (SVM), artificial neural networks (ANN), and logistic regression (LR) were developed to predict osteoporosis risk. We analyzed the effect of applying the machine learning algorithms to the raw data and featuring the selected data only where the statistically significant variables were included as model inputs. The accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) were used to evaluate performance among the seven models.

RESULTS

A total of 1792 patients were included in this study, of which 613 had osteoporosis. The raw data consisted of 19 variables and achieved performances (in terms of AUROCs) of 0.712, 0.684, 0.727, 0.652, 0.724, 0.741, and 0.726 for KNN, DT, RF, GBM, SVM, ANN, and LR with fivefold cross-validation, respectively. The feature selected data consisted of nine variables and achieved performances (in terms of AUROCs) of 0.713, 0.685, 0.734, 0.728, 0.728, 0.743, and 0.727 for KNN, DT, RF, GBM, SVM, ANN, and LR with fivefold cross-validation, respectively.

CONCLUSION

In this study, we developed and compared seven machine learning models to accurately predict osteoporosis risk. The ANN model performed best when compared to the other models, having the highest AUROC value. Applying the ANN model in the clinical environment could help primary care providers stratify osteoporosis patients and improve the prevention, detection, and early treatment of osteoporosis.

Use of antiosteoporotic medication in the Danish ROSE population-based screening study

Use of antiosteoporotic medication in the population-based, risk-stratified osteoporosis strategy evaluation (ROSE) screening study, comparing the use of FRAX followed by DXA with usual care, was examined. Screening increased the overall use of medication. Being recommended treatment by the hospital and higher age increased the likelihood of starting medication, but, nevertheless, a large percentage opted not to start treatment.

INTRODUCTION

The aim of the study was to examine the impact on medication prescription, adherence, and persistence of osteoporotic medicine in the randomized population-based ROSE screening study for osteoporosis.

METHODS

The Danish ROSE study included a population-based random sample of women aged 65-81 years randomized to either a two-step screening program consisting of FRAX followed by DXA for high-risk participants or opportunistic screening for osteoporosis (usual care). This sub-study on the intention-to-treat population examined the impact of the screening program on antiosteoporotic medication redemption rates, adherence, and persistence using Danish registers.

RESULTS

A total of 30,719 of 34,229 women were treatment-naïve. Significantly more participants in the screening group started on antiosteoporotic medication, but no differences in adherence and persistence rates were found. Higher age was associated with a higher likelihood of starting medication. A low Charlson comorbidity score (= 1) was associated with higher treatment initiation but lower adherence and persistence of antiosteoporotic treatment. A total of 31.7% of participants advised to initiate treatment did not follow the advice.

CONCLUSIONS

Screening for osteoporosis using FRAX followed by DXA increased the overall use of antiosteoporotic medication in the screening group without differences in adherence and persistence rates. A large percentage of participants advised to initiate treatment did nevertheless fail to do so.

Sex difference: an important issue to consider in epidemiological and clinical studies dealing with serum paraoxonase-1

The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of sex on serum paraoxonase-1 (PON1) activities and on its relationship with cardiovascular disease risk factors such as overall and central obesity. Arylesterase and lactonase activities of PON1 were assessed in 374 women and 92 men. Both arylesterase and lactonase activities were significantly higher in women compared to men (p<0.001), irrespectively of confounders such as high density lipoprotein-cholesterol, age, smoking and body mass index or waist circumference. Sex also strongly influenced the interplay between PON1 and both fat measures, with only the arylesterase showing a significant and independent inverse correlation with the former parameter (r = -0.248, p<0.001) and the risk of overall obesity (odds ratio: 0.559, 95% confidence interval: 0.340-0.919) in women, but not in men; conversely, neither of the two activities remained associated with waist circumference in men or women after full adjustment. Noteworthy, the association between arylesterase and BMI in the female subsample was significant among women younger than forty-five years (r = -0.453, p<0.001, R ² = 0.207). In conclusion, our study suggests that sex might chiefly influence PON1 activity and its contribution to cardiovascular disease risk. Further studies are needed to confirm and clarify our preliminary findings.

Primary screening for increased fracture risk by the FRAX® questionnaire-uptake rates in relation to invitation method

The aim of the study was to evaluate the feasibility and most efficient way of offering middle-aged Swedish women a primary fracture screening program via a questionnaire. Two out of five invited women returned the FRAX questionnaire and those contacted directly by mail were most prone to respond.

PURPOSE

Osteoporosis and its associated fractures are increasing, and this study aims to explore ways to identify women at an increased risk of fracture using the FRAX® algorithm.

METHODS

Three thousand middle-aged women were invited and presented a questionnaire distributed by three different methods-by mail, at routine mammography, or internet-based.

RESULTS

In total, 1120 (37.3%) women responded to the questionnaire and agreed to participate. The response rates for the mail, mammography, and internet-based groups were 39.1%, 35.7%, and 25.2% respectively. Women in the mammography group weighed more, were slightly older than the other women, and also had a higher BMI than women from the mail and internet-based groups. No difference was observed between the groups regarding previous fracture, family history for fracture, current smoking, glucocorticoid use, and alcohol usage. The mammography group had a higher median (interquartile range) major osteoporotic FRAX® score (10.0% (7.8-17.0)) than the mail group (9.7% (7.1-15.0); p = 0.005) and the internet-based group (8.7% (6.7-14.0); p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Two out of five early postmenopausal women returned the questionnaire and women contacted directly by mail were more prone to respond. Out of the participants, 26.6% had a 10-year fracture risk score ≥ 15% according to the FRAX® algorithm.

Socioeconomic status and risk of osteoporotic fractures and the use of DXA scans: data from the Danish population-based ROSE study

There is a need of studies exploring the link between socioeconomic status and DXA scans and osteoporotic fracture, which was the aim of the present study. No differences in socioeconomic status and risk of osteoporotic fractures were found. However, women with further/higher education and higher income are more often DXA-scanned.

INTRODUCTION

Lower socioeconomic status is known to be associated with a range of chronic conditions and with access to health care services. The link between socioeconomic status and the use of DXA scans and osteoporotic fracture, however, needs to be explored more closely. Therefore, the aim of this study was to examine the relationship between socioeconomic status and both DXA scan utilization and major osteoporotic fractures (MOF) using a population-based cohort of Danish women and national registers.

METHODS

The study included 17,155 women (65-81 years) sampled from the Risk-stratified Osteoporosis Strategy Evaluation study (ROSE). Information on socioeconomic background, DXA scans, and MOFs was retrieved from national registers. Competing-risk regression analyses were performed. Mean follow-up was 4.8 years.

RESULTS

A total of 4245 women had a DXA scan (24.7%) and 1719 (10.0%) had an incident MOF during follow-up. Analyses showed that women with basic education had a lower probability of undergoing DXA scans than women with further or higher education (greater than upper secondary education and vocational training education) (subhazard ratio (SHR) = 0.82; 95% CI 0.75-0.89, adjusted for age and comorbidity). Moreover, women with disposable income in the low and medium tertiles had a lower probability of undergoing DXA scans than women in the high-income tertile (SHR = 0.90; 95% CI 0.84-0.97 and SHR = 0.88, 95% CI 0.82-0.95, respectively, adjusted for age and comorbidity). No association between socioeconomic background and probability of DXA was found in adjusted analyses.

CONCLUSION

The study found no differences in risk of osteoporotic fractures depending on socioeconomic status. However, women with further or higher education as well as higher income are more often DXA-scanned.

Sex difference: an important issue to consider in epidemiological and clinical studies dealing with serum paraoxonase-1

The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of sex on serum paraoxonase-1 (PON1) activities and on its relationship with cardiovascular disease risk factors such as overall and central obesity. Arylesterase and lactonase activities of PON1 were assessed in 374 women and 92 men. Both arylesterase and lactonase activities were significantly higher in women compared to men (p<0.001), irrespectively of confounders such as high density lipoprotein-cholesterol, age, smoking and body mass index or waist circumference. Sex also strongly influenced the interplay between PON1 and both fat measures, with only the arylesterase showing a significant and independent inverse correlation with the former parameter (r = −0.248, p<0.001) and the risk of overall obesity (odds ratio: 0.559, 95% confidence interval: 0.340–0.919) in women, but not in men; conversely, neither of the two activities remained associated with waist circumference in men or women after full adjustment. Noteworthy, the association between arylesterase and BMI in the female subsample was significant among women younger than forty-five years (r = −0.453, p<0.001, R² = 0.207). In conclusion, our study suggests that sex might chiefly influence PON1 activity and its contribution to cardiovascular disease risk. Further studies are needed to confirm and clarify our preliminary findings.

Effectiveness of a two-step population-based osteoporosis screening program using FRAX: the randomized Risk-stratified Osteoporosis Strategy Evaluation (ROSE) study

The Risk-stratified Osteoporosis Strategy Evaluation (ROSE) study investigated the effectiveness of a two-step screening program for osteoporosis in women. We found no overall reduction in fractures from systematic screening compared to the current case-finding strategy. The group of moderate- to high-risk women, who accepted the invitation to DXA, seemed to benefit from the program.

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of the ROSE study was to investigate the effectiveness of a two-step population-based osteoporosis screening program using the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) derived from a self-administered questionnaire to select women for DXA scan. After the scanning, standard osteoporosis management according to Danish national guidelines was followed.

METHODS

Participants were randomized to either screening or control group, and randomization was stratified according to age and area of residence. Inclusion took place from February 2010 to November 2011. Participants received a self-administered questionnaire, and women in the screening group with a FRAX score ≥ 15% (major osteoporotic fractures) were invited to a DXA scan. Primary outcome was incident clinical fractures. Intention-to-treat analysis and two per-protocol analyses were performed.

RESULTS

A total of 3416 fractures were observed during a median follow-up of 5 years. No significant differences were found in the intention-to-treat analyses with 34,229 women included aged 65-80 years. The per-protocol analyses showed a risk reduction in the group that underwent DXA scanning compared to women in the control group with a FRAX ≥ 15%, in regard to major osteoporotic fractures, hip fractures, and all fractures. The risk reduction was most pronounced for hip fractures (adjusted SHR 0.741, p = 0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to an office-based case-finding strategy, the two-step systematic screening strategy had no overall effect on fracture incidence. The two-step strategy seemed, however, to be beneficial in the group of women who were identified by FRAX as moderate- or high-risk patients and complied with DXA.

Non-participation in systematic screening for osteoporosis-the ROSE trial

Population-based screening for osteoporosis is still controversial and has not been implemented. Non-participation in systematic screening was evaluated in 34,229 women age 65-81 years. Although participation rate was high, non-participation was associated with comorbidity, aging other risk factors for fractures, and markers of low social status, e.g., low income, pension, and living alone. A range of strategies is needed to increase participation, including development of targeted information and further research to better understand the barriers and enablers in screening for osteoporosis.

INTRODUCTION

Participation is crucial to the success of a screening program. The objective of this study was to analyze non-participation in Risk-stratified Osteoporosis Strategy Evaluation, a two-step population-based screening program for osteoporosis.

METHODS

Thirty-four thousand two hundred twenty-nine women aged 65 to 81 years were randomly selected from the background population and randomized to either a screening group (intervention) or a control group. All women received a self-administered questionnaire designed to allow calculation of future risk of fracture based on FRAX. In the intervention group, women with an estimated high risk of future fracture were invited to DXA scanning. Information on individual socioeconomic status and comorbidity was obtained from national registers.

RESULTS

A completed questionnaire was returned by 20,905 (61%) women. Non-completion was associated with older age, living alone, lower education, lower income, and higher comorbidity. In the intervention group, ticking "not interested in DXA" in the questionnaire was associated with older age, living alone, and low self-perceived fracture risk. Women with previous fracture or history of parental hip fracture were more likely to accept screening by DXA. Dropping out when offered DXA, was associated with older age, current smoking, higher alcohol consumption, and physical impairment.

CONCLUSIONS

Barriers to population-based screening for osteoporosis appear to be both psychosocial and physical in nature. Women who decline are older, have lower self-perceived fracture risk, and more often live alone compared to women who accept the program. Dropping out after primary acceptance is associated not only with aging and physical impairment but also with current smoking and alcohol consumption. Measures to increase program participation could include targeted information and reducing physical barriers for attending screening procedures.

Worldwide Fracture Prediction

The substantial increase in the burden of non-communicable diseases in general and osteoporosis in particular, necessitates the establishment of efficient and targeted diagnosis and treatment strategies. This chapter reviews and compares different tools for osteoporosis screening and diagnosis; it also provides an overview of different treatment guidelines adopted by countries worldwide. While access to dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry to measure bone mineral density (BMD) is limited in most areas in the world, the introduction of risk calculators that combine risk factors, with or without BMD, have resulted in a paradigm shift in osteoporosis screening and management. To-date, forty eight risk assessment tools that allow risk stratification of patients are available, however only few are externally validated and tested in a population-based setting. These include Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool; Osteoporosis Risk Assessment Instrument; Simple Calculated Osteoporosis Risk Estimation; Canadian Association of Radiologists and Osteoporosis Canada calculator; Fracture Risk Assessment Calculator (FRAX); Garvan; and QFracture. These tools vary in the number of risk factors incorporated. We present a detailed analysis of the development, characteristics, validation, performance, advantages and limitations of these tools. The World Health Organization proposes a dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry-BMD T-score ≤ -2.5 as an operational diagnostic threshold for osteoporosis, and many countries have also adopted this cut-off as an intervention threshold in their treatment guidelines. With the introduction of the new fracture assessment calculators, many countries chose to include fracture risk as one of the major criteria to initiate osteoporosis treatment. Of the 52 national guidelines identified in 36 countries, 30 included FRAX derived risk in their intervention threshold and 22 were non-FRAX based.  No universal tool or guideline approach will address the needs of all countries worldwide.  Osteoporosis screening and management guidelines are best tailored according to the needs and resources of individual counties. While few countries have succeeded in generating valuable epidemiological data on osteoporotic fractures, to validate their risk calculators and base their guidelines, many have yet to find the resources to assess variations and secular trends in fractures, the performance of various calculators, and ultimately adopt the most convenient care pathway algorithms.

Linkage of clinical trial and administrative data: a survey of cancer patient preferences

BACKGROUND

Personal health information, including diagnoses and hospital admissions, is routinely collected in administrative databases. Patients enrolling on clinical trials consent to separate collection and storage of their personal health information. We evaluated patient preferences for linking long-term data from administrative databases with clinical trials.

METHODS

Adults with cancer attending outpatient clinics at 3 Ontario hospitals were surveyed about their willingness, when faced with the hypothetical scenario of participating in a clinical trial, to provide potentially identifying information such as initials and date of birth to facilitate long-term research access to normally deidentified publicly collected databases.

RESULTS

Of 569 patients surveyed, 335 (59%) were women, 452 (79%) were white, 385 (68%) had a post-secondary education, and 386 (68%) had never participated in a clinical trial. Median age in the group was 59 years. Most participants (93%, cohort 1) would allow long-term access to their information and allow personal information to be used to match clinical trial with administrative data. At the time of clinical trial closure, two thirds of participants (68%, cohort 2) preferred to make additional clinical information available through linkage with administrative databases, and 8 (9%) preferred to have no further information made available to researchers. No significant differences were found in the subset of patients who were part of a clinical trial and those who had never participated (p = 0.65).

INTERPRETATION

Almost all patients would allow a clinical trial research team to access their confidential information, providing a more comprehensive assessment of an intervention's long-term risks and benefits.

Point-of-Care Phalangeal Bone Mineral Density Measurement Can Reduce the Need of Dual-Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry Scanning in Danish Women at Risk of Fracture

Identifying persons with a high risk of osteoporotic fractures remains a challenge. DXA uptake in women with elevated risk of osteoporosis seems to be depending on distance to scanning facilities. This study aimed to investigate the ability of a small portable scanner in identifying women with reduced bone mineral density (BMD), and to define triage thresholds for pre-selection. Total hip and lumbar spine BMD was measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry and phalangeal BMD by radiographic absorptiometry in 121 Danish women with intermediate or high 10-year fracture probability (aged 61-81 years). Correlation between the two methods was estimated using correlation coefficient (r) and Bland-Altman plots. A moderate correlation between phalangeal BMD versus total hip (r = 0.47) and lumbar spine (r = 0.51), and an AUC on 0.80 was found. The mean difference between phalangeal T score and total hip T score/lumbar spine T score was low, and ranged from -0.26 SD to -0.31 SD depending on site and reference database used for calculation of T scores, but, large variation was seen at an individual level. When applying a triage approach approx. one-third of all DXA scan could be avoided and only 6 % of women in the low-risk group would be false negatives.

Assessment of Fracture Risk in A Population of Postmenopausal Italian Women: A Comparison of Two Different Tools

The main objective of this study was to compare in the assessment of risk of fractures in postmenopausal women two algorithms for 10-year fracture risk evaluation, the WHO-endorsed FRAX(®) and the Italian FRAX-derived version (DeFRA), which considers BMD of different bone sites and allows the inclusion of other data. In a secondary analysis, we compared the performance of the tools in discriminating subjects who sustained previous major fractures from those who did not. The 10-year fracture risk score was evaluated in a sample of 989 climacteric women using FRAX and DeFRA tools. Bone mineral density was also included in the calculation of these algorithms. Comparing how the subjects were assigned to different risk classes by the two tools, we found that DeFRA attributed higher risk categories than FRAX, among women in the subgroups between 50 and 59 and, mostly, 60-69 years of age. ROC curve analysis showed that DeFRA had the same discriminative ability to identify previous major osteoporotic fractures compared to FRAX (AUC = 0.74 for both). If confirmed by prospective studies, our findings would suggest that DeFRA might be ascribed as at least equivalent to FRAX or perhaps slightly most appropriate in the categorization of the fracture risk, particularly in women aged 60-69 years, a period in which bone densitometry analysis is highly recommended.

Self-perceived facture risk: factors underlying women's perception of risk for osteoporotic fractures: the Risk-Stratified Osteoporosis Strategy Evaluation study (ROSE)

SUMMARY

This Danish cross-sectional study (n=20,905) showed that women aged 65-81 years generally underestimated fracture risk compared to absolute risk estimated by the FRAX® algorithm. Significant association was found between risk factors (e.g., previous fracture, parental hip fracture, and self-rated heath) and self-perceived fracture risk. Although women recognized the importance of some fracture risk factors, a number of significant risk factors appeared to be less well known.

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study is to investigate women's self-perceived fracture risk and potential factors associated with this and to compare self-perceived risk with absolute fracture risk estimated by FRAX® in women aged 65-80 years.

METHODS

Data from 20,905 questionnaires from the ROSE study were analyzed. The questionnaire included 25 items on osteoporosis, risk factors for fractures, and self-perceived risk of fractures and enabled calculation of absolute fracture risk by FRAX®. Data were analyzed using bivariate tests and regression models.

RESULTS

Women generally underestimated their fracture risk compared to absolute risk estimated by FRAX®. Women with risk factors for facture estimated their fracture risk significantly higher than their peers. No correlation between self-perceived risk and absolute risk was found. The ordered logistic regression model showed a significant association between high self-perceived fracture risk and previous fragility fracture, parental hip fracture, falls, self-rated heath, conditions related to secondary osteoporosis, and inability to do housework.

CONCLUSIONS

These women aged 65-81 years underestimated their risk of fracture. However, they did seem to have an understanding of the importance of some risk factors such as previous fractures, parental hip fracture and falls. Risk communication is a key element in fracture prevention and should have greater focus on less well-known risk factors. Furthermore, it is important to acknowledge that risk perception is not based solely on potential risk factors but is also affected by experiences from everyday life to personal history.