Does Trabecular Bone Score (TBS) improve the predictive ability of FRAX® for major osteoporotic fractures according to the Japanese Population-Based Osteoporosis (JPOS) cohort study?

Clinical Use of Trabecular Bone Score: The 2023 ISCD Official Positions

Osteoporosis can currently be diagnosed by applying the WHO classification to bone mineral density (BMD) assessed by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA). However, skeletal factors other than BMD contribute to bone strength and fracture risk. Lumbar spine TBS, a grey-level texture measure which is derived from DXA images has been extensively studied, enhances fracture prediction independent of BMD and can be used to adjust fracture probability from FRAX® to improve risk stratification. The purpose of this International Society for Clinical Densitometry task force was to review the existing evidence and develop recommendations to assist clinicians regarding when and how to perform, report and utilize TBS. Our review concluded that TBS is most likely to alter clinical management in patients aged ≥ 40 years who are close to the pharmacologic intervention threshold by FRAX. The TBS value from L1-L4 vertebral levels, without vertebral exclusions, should be used to calculate adjusted FRAX probabilities. L1-L4 vertebral levels can be used in the presence of degenerative changes and lumbar compression fractures. It is recommended not to report TBS if extreme structural or pathological artifacts are present. Monitoring and reporting TBS change is unlikely to be helpful with the current version of the TBS algorithm. The next version of TBS software will include an adjustment based upon directly measured tissue thickness. This is expected to improve performance and address some of the technical factors that affect the current algorithm which may require modifications to these Official Positions as experience is acquired with this new algorithm.

Inflammatory Processes Affecting Bone Health and Repair

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this article is to review the current understanding of inflammatory processes on bone, including direct impacts of inflammatory factors on bone cells, the effect of senescence on inflamed bone, and the critical role of inflammation in bone pain and healing.

RECENT FINDINGS

Advances in osteoimmunology have provided new perspectives on inflammatory bone loss in recent years. Characterization of so-called inflammatory osteoclasts has revealed insights into physiological and pathological bone loss. The identification of inflammation-associated senescent markers in bone cells indicates that therapies that reduce senescent cell burden may reverse bone loss caused by inflammatory processes. Finally, novel studies have refined the role of inflammation in bone healing, including cross talk between nerves and bone cells. Except for the initial stages of fracture healing, inflammation has predominately negative effects on bone and increases fracture risk. Eliminating senescent cells, priming the osteo-immune axis in bone cells, and alleviating pro-inflammatory cytokine burden may ameliorate the negative effects of inflammation on bone.

Update on the clinical use of trabecular bone score (TBS) in the management of osteoporosis: results of an expert group meeting organized by the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO), and the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) under the auspices of WHO Collaborating Center for Epidemiology of Musculoskeletal Health and Aging

PURPOSE

Trabecular bone score (TBS) is a grey-level textural measurement acquired from dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry lumbar spine images and is a validated index of bone microarchitecture. In 2015, a Working Group of the European Society on Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO) published a review of the TBS literature, concluding that TBS predicts hip and major osteoporotic fracture, at least partly independent of bone mineral density (BMD) and clinical risk factors. It was also concluded that TBS is potentially amenable to change as a result of pharmacological therapy. Further evidence on the utility of TBS has since accumulated in both primary and secondary osteoporosis, and the introduction of FRAX and BMD T-score adjustment for TBS has accelerated adoption. This position paper therefore presents a review of the updated scientific literature and provides expert consensus statements and corresponding operational guidelines for the use of TBS.

METHODS

An Expert Working Group was convened by the ESCEO and a systematic review of the evidence undertaken, with defined search strategies for four key topics with respect to the potential use of TBS: (1) fracture prediction in men and women; (2) initiating and monitoring treatment in postmenopausal osteoporosis; (3) fracture prediction in secondary osteoporosis; and (4) treatment monitoring in secondary osteoporosis. Statements to guide the clinical use of TBS were derived from the review and graded by consensus using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

RESULTS

A total of 96 articles were reviewed and included data on the use of TBS for fracture prediction in men and women, from over 20 countries. The updated evidence shows that TBS enhances fracture risk prediction in both primary and secondary osteoporosis, and can, when taken with BMD and clinical risk factors, inform treatment initiation and the choice of antiosteoporosis treatment. Evidence also indicates that TBS provides useful adjunctive information in monitoring treatment with long-term denosumab and anabolic agents. All expert consensus statements were voted as strongly recommended.

CONCLUSION

The addition of TBS assessment to FRAX and/or BMD enhances fracture risk prediction in primary and secondary osteoporosis, adding useful information for treatment decision-making and monitoring. The expert consensus statements provided in this paper can be used to guide the integration of TBS in clinical practice for the assessment and management of osteoporosis. An example of an operational approach is provided in the appendix. This position paper presents an up-to-date review of the evidence base, synthesised through expert consensus statements, which informs the implementation of Trabecular Bone Score in clinical practice.

Screening for the primary prevention of fragility fractures among adults aged 40 years and older in primary care: systematic reviews of the effects and acceptability of screening and treatment, and the accuracy of risk prediction tools

BACKGROUND

To inform recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care, we reviewed evidence on the benefits, harms, and acceptability of screening and treatment, and on the accuracy of risk prediction tools for the primary prevention of fragility fractures among adults aged 40 years and older in primary care.

METHODS

For screening effectiveness, accuracy of risk prediction tools, and treatment benefits, our search methods involved integrating studies published up to 2016 from an existing systematic review. Then, to locate more recent studies and any evidence relating to acceptability and treatment harms, we searched online databases (2016 to April 4, 2022 [screening] or to June 1, 2021 [predictive accuracy]; 1995 to June 1, 2021, for acceptability; 2016 to March 2, 2020, for treatment benefits; 2015 to June 24, 2020, for treatment harms), trial registries and gray literature, and hand-searched reviews, guidelines, and the included studies. Two reviewers selected studies, extracted results, and appraised risk of bias, with disagreements resolved by consensus or a third reviewer. The overview of reviews on treatment harms relied on one reviewer, with verification of data by another reviewer to correct errors and omissions. When appropriate, study results were pooled using random effects meta-analysis; otherwise, findings were described narratively. Evidence certainty was rated according to the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

We included 4 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 1 controlled clinical trial (CCT) for the benefits and harms of screening, 1 RCT for comparative benefits and harms of different screening strategies, 32 validation cohort studies for the calibration of risk prediction tools (26 of these reporting on the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool without [i.e., clinical FRAX], or with the inclusion of bone mineral density (BMD) results [i.e., FRAX + BMD]), 27 RCTs for the benefits of treatment, 10 systematic reviews for the harms of treatment, and 12 studies for the acceptability of screening or initiating treatment. In females aged 65 years and older who are willing to independently complete a mailed fracture risk questionnaire (referred to as "selected population"), 2-step screening using a risk assessment tool with or without measurement of BMD probably (moderate certainty) reduces the risk of hip fractures (3 RCTs and 1 CCT, n = 43,736, absolute risk reduction [ARD] = 6.2 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 9.0-2.8 fewer, number needed to screen [NNS] = 161) and clinical fragility fractures (3 RCTs, n = 42,009, ARD = 5.9 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 10.9-0.8 fewer, NNS = 169). It probably does not reduce all-cause mortality (2 RCTs and 1 CCT, n = 26,511, ARD = no difference in 1000, 95% CI 7.1 fewer to 5.3 more) and may (low certainty) not affect health-related quality of life. Benefits for fracture outcomes were not replicated in an offer-to-screen population where the rate of response to mailed screening questionnaires was low. For females aged 68-80 years, population screening may not reduce the risk of hip fractures (1 RCT, n = 34,229, ARD = 0.3 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 4.2 fewer to 3.9 more) or clinical fragility fractures (1 RCT, n = 34,229, ARD = 1.0 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 8.0 fewer to 6.0 more) over 5 years of follow-up. The evidence for serious adverse events among all patients and for all outcomes among males and younger females (<65 years) is very uncertain. We defined overdiagnosis as the identification of high risk in individuals who, if not screened, would never have known that they were at risk and would never have experienced a fragility fracture. This was not directly reported in any of the trials. Estimates using data available in the trials suggest that among "selected" females offered screening, 12% of those meeting age-specific treatment thresholds based on clinical FRAX 10-year hip fracture risk, and 19% of those meeting thresholds based on clinical FRAX 10-year major osteoporotic fracture risk, may be overdiagnosed as being at high risk of fracture. Of those identified as being at high clinical FRAX 10-year hip fracture risk and who were referred for BMD assessment, 24% may be overdiagnosed. One RCT (n = 9268) provided evidence comparing 1-step to 2-step screening among postmenopausal females, but the evidence from this trial was very uncertain. For the calibration of risk prediction tools, evidence from three Canadian studies (n = 67,611) without serious risk of bias concerns indicates that clinical FRAX-Canada may be well calibrated for the 10-year prediction of hip fractures (observed-to-expected fracture ratio [O:E] = 1.13, 95% CI 0.74-1.72, I² = 89.2%), and is probably well calibrated for the 10-year prediction of clinical fragility fractures (O:E = 1.10, 95% CI 1.01-1.20, I² = 50.4%), both leading to some underestimation of the observed risk. Data from these same studies (n = 61,156) showed that FRAX-Canada with BMD may perform poorly to estimate 10-year hip fracture risk (O:E = 1.31, 95% CI 0.91-2.13, I² = 92.7%), but is probably well calibrated for the 10-year prediction of clinical fragility fractures, with some underestimation of the observed risk (O:E 1.16, 95% CI 1.12-1.20, I² = 0%). The Canadian Association of Radiologists and Osteoporosis Canada Risk Assessment (CAROC) tool may be well calibrated to predict a category of risk for 10-year clinical fractures (low, moderate, or high risk; 1 study, n = 34,060). The evidence for most other tools was limited, or in the case of FRAX tools calibrated for countries other than Canada, very uncertain due to serious risk of bias concerns and large inconsistency in findings across studies. Postmenopausal females in a primary prevention population defined as <50% prevalence of prior fragility fracture (median 16.9%, range 0 to 48% when reported in the trials) and at risk of fragility fracture, treatment with bisphosphonates as a class (median 2 years, range 1-6 years) probably reduces the risk of clinical fragility fractures (19 RCTs, n = 22,482, ARD = 11.1 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 15.0-6.6 fewer, [number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome] NNT = 90), and may reduce the risk of hip fractures (14 RCTs, n = 21,038, ARD = 2.9 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 4.6-0.9 fewer, NNT = 345) and clinical vertebral fractures (11 RCTs, n = 8921, ARD = 10.0 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 14.0-3.9 fewer, NNT = 100); it may not reduce all-cause mortality. There is low certainty evidence of little-to-no reduction in hip fractures with any individual bisphosphonate, but all provided evidence of decreased risk of clinical fragility fractures (moderate certainty for alendronate [NNT=68] and zoledronic acid [NNT=50], low certainty for risedronate [NNT=128]) among postmenopausal females. Evidence for an impact on risk of clinical vertebral fractures is very uncertain for alendronate and risedronate; zoledronic acid may reduce the risk of this outcome (4 RCTs, n = 2367, ARD = 18.7 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 25.6-6.6 fewer, NNT = 54) for postmenopausal females. Denosumab probably reduces the risk of clinical fragility fractures (6 RCTs, n = 9473, ARD = 9.1 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 12.1-5.6 fewer, NNT = 110) and clinical vertebral fractures (4 RCTs, n = 8639, ARD = 16.0 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 18.6-12.1 fewer, NNT=62), but may make little-to-no difference in the risk of hip fractures among postmenopausal females. Denosumab probably makes little-to-no difference in the risk of all-cause mortality or health-related quality of life among postmenopausal females. Evidence in males is limited to two trials (1 zoledronic acid, 1 denosumab); in this population, zoledronic acid may make little-to-no difference in the risk of hip or clinical fragility fractures, and evidence for all-cause mortality is very uncertain. The evidence for treatment with denosumab in males is very uncertain for all fracture outcomes (hip, clinical fragility, clinical vertebral) and all-cause mortality. There is moderate certainty evidence that treatment causes a small number of patients to experience a non-serious adverse event, notably non-serious gastrointestinal events (e.g., abdominal pain, reflux) with alendronate (50 RCTs, n = 22,549, ARD = 16.3 more in 1000, 95% CI 2.4-31.3 more, [number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome] NNH = 61) but not with risedronate; influenza-like symptoms with zoledronic acid (5 RCTs, n = 10,695, ARD = 142.5 more in 1000, 95% CI 105.5-188.5 more, NNH = 7); and non-serious gastrointestinal adverse events (3 RCTs, n = 8454, ARD = 64.5 more in 1000, 95% CI 26.4-13.3 more, NNH = 16), dermatologic adverse events (3 RCTs, n = 8454, ARD = 15.6 more in 1000, 95% CI 7.6-27.0 more, NNH = 64), and infections (any severity; 4 RCTs, n = 8691, ARD = 1.8 more in 1000, 95% CI 0.1-4.0 more, NNH = 556) with denosumab. For serious adverse events overall and specific to stroke and myocardial infarction, treatment with bisphosphonates probably makes little-to-no difference; evidence for other specific serious harms was less certain or not available. There was low certainty evidence for an increased risk for the rare occurrence of atypical femoral fractures (0.06 to 0.08 more in 1000) and osteonecrosis of the jaw (0.22 more in 1000) with bisphosphonates (most evidence for alendronate). The evidence for these rare outcomes and for rebound fractures with denosumab was very uncertain. Younger (lower risk) females have high willingness to be screened. A minority of postmenopausal females at increased risk for fracture may accept treatment. Further, there is large heterogeneity in the level of risk at which patients may be accepting of initiating treatment, and treatment effects appear to be overestimated.

CONCLUSION

An offer of 2-step screening with risk assessment and BMD measurement to selected postmenopausal females with low prevalence of prior fracture probably results in a small reduction in the risk of clinical fragility fracture and hip fracture compared to no screening. These findings were most applicable to the use of clinical FRAX for risk assessment and were not replicated in the offer-to-screen population where the rate of response to mailed screening questionnaires was low. Limited direct evidence on harms of screening were available; using study data to provide estimates, there may be a moderate degree of overdiagnosis of high risk for fracture to consider. The evidence for younger females and males is very limited. The benefits of screening and treatment need to be weighed against the potential for harm; patient views on the acceptability of treatment are highly variable.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO): CRD42019123767.

Trabecular Bone Score as a Risk Factor of Major Osteoporotic Fracture in Postmenopausal Women: The First Study in Thailand

OBJECTIVES

To compare the trabecular bone score (TBS) between Thai postmenopausal women with and without major osteoporotic fracture, and to determine whether TBS is associated with fracture risk.

METHODS

All postmenopausal women sent for dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) at the Police General Hospital were retrospectively recruited. The hospital's online database and radiographs were reviewed to collect information on underlying disease, medication, previous fractures, bone mineral density, and trabecular bone score. Patients with anti-osteoporotic medication use, skeletal malignancy, fracture from high-energy trauma, and uninterpretable DXA images were excluded.

RESULTS

A total of 407 Thai postmenopausal women were enrolled. They were divided into 292 women without fractures and 115 women with major osteoporotic fractures. The fracture group was older (73.36 ± 9.95 vs. 66.00 ± 8.58, P < 0.001) and had lower serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels (23.28 ± 9.09 vs. 26.44 ± 9.20, P = 0.023). The mean TBS was lower in the fracture group, compared to the non-fracture group (1.244 ± 0.101 vs. 1.272 ± 0.099, P = 0.011). The subgroup analysis resulted in noticeably lower TBS in spine fracture, but not other fracture sites. The odds ratio of fracture was 1.355 (P = 0.013) for a decrease in one standard deviation of TBS.

CONCLUSIONS

TBS was significantly lower in postmenopausal women having fractures with an odd ratio of 1.355 (P = 0.013) per SD decrease in TBS. Categorizing by fracture sites, TBS was only found to be noticeably lower in the lumbar spine despite similar lumbar spine bone mineral density.

Update on trabecular bone score

Trabecular bone score (TBS) is an indirect and noninvasive measure of bone quality. A low TBS indicates degraded bone microarchitecture, predicts osteoporotic fracture, and is partially independent of clinical risk factors and bone mineral density (BMD). There is substantial evidence supporting the use of TBS to assess vertebral, hip, and major osteoporotic fracture risk in postmenopausal women, as well as to assess hip and major osteoporotic fracture risk in men aged > 50 years. TBS complements BMD information and can be used to adjust the FRAX (Fracture Risk Assessment) score to improve risk stratification. While TBS should not be used to monitor antiresorptive therapy, it may be potentially useful for monitoring anabolic therapy. There is also a growing body of evidence indicating that TBS is particularly useful as an adjunct to BMD for fracture risk assessment in conditions associated with increased fracture risk, such as type-2 diabetes, chronic corticosteroid excess, and other conditions wherein BMD readings are often misleading. The interference of abdominal soft tissue thickness (STT) on TBS should also be considered when interpreting these findings because image noise can impact TBS evaluation. A new TBS software version based on an algorithm that accounts for STT rather than BMI seems to correct this technical limitation and is under development. In this paper, we review the current state of TBS, its technical aspects, and its evolving role in the assessment and management of several clinical conditions.

Focal osteoporosis defect is associated with vertebral compression fracture prevalence in a bone mineral density-independent manner

Introduction

Focal osteoporosis defect has shown a high association with the bone fragility and osteoporotic fracture prevalence. However, no routine computed tomography (CT)‐based vertebral focal osteoporosis defect measurement and its association with vertebral compression fracture (VCF) were discussed yet. This study aimed to develop a routine CT‐based measurement method for focal osteoporosis defect quantification, and to assess its association with the VCF prevalence.

Materials and Methods

A total of 205 cases who underwent routine CT scanning, were retrospectively reviewed and enrolled into either the VCF or the control group. The focal bone mineral content loss (focal BMC loss), measured as the cumulated demineralization within bone void space, was proposed for focal osteoporosis defect quantification. Its scan‐rescan reproducibility and its correlation with trabecular bone mineral density (BMD) and apparent microarchitecture parameters were evaluated. The association between focal BMC loss and the prevalence of VCF was studied by logistic regression.

Results

The measurement of focal BMC loss showed high reproducibility (RMSSD = 0.011 mm, LSC = 0.030 mm, ICC = 0.97), and good correlation with focal bone volume fraction (r = 0.79, P < 0.001), trabecular bone separation (r = 0.76, P < 0.001), but poor correlation with trabecular BMD (r = 0.37, P < 0.001). The focal BMC loss was significantly higher in the fracture group than the control (1.03 ± 0.13 vs. 0.93 ± 0.11 mm; P < 0.001), and was associated with prevalent VCF (1.87, 95% CI = 1.31–2.65, P < 0.001) independent of trabecular BMD level.

Discussion

As a surrogate measure of focal osteoporosis defect, focal BMC Loss independently associated with the VCF prevalence. It suggests that focal osteoporosis defect is a common manifestation that positively contributed to compression fracture risk and can be quantified with routine CT using focal BMC Loss.

Prediction Models for Osteoporotic Fractures Risk: A Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal

Osteoporotic fractures (OF) are a global public health problem currently. Many risk prediction models for OF have been developed, but their performance and methodological quality are unclear. We conducted this systematic review to summarize and critically appraise the OF risk prediction models. Three databases were searched until April 2021. Studies developing or validating multivariable models for OF risk prediction were considered eligible. Used the prediction model risk of bias assessment tool to appraise the risk of bias and applicability of included models. All results were narratively summarized and described. A total of 68 studies describing 70 newly developed prediction models and 138 external validations were included. Most models were explicitly developed (n=31, 44%) and validated (n=76, 55%) only for female. Only 22 developed models (31%) were externally validated. The most validated tool was Fracture Risk Assessment Tool. Overall, only a few models showed outstanding (n=3, 1%) or excellent (n=32, 15%) prediction discrimination. Calibration of developed models (n=25, 36%) or external validation models (n=33, 24%) were rarely assessed. No model was rated as low risk of bias, mostly because of an insufficient number of cases and inappropriate assessment of calibration. There are a certain number of OF risk prediction models. However, few models have been thoroughly internally validated or externally validated (with calibration being unassessed for most of the models), and all models showed methodological shortcomings. Instead of developing completely new models, future research is suggested to validate, improve, and analyze the impact of existing models.

Spine-Hip Discordance and FRAX assessment Fracture Risk in Postmenopausal Women with Osteopenia from Concordant Diagnosis Between Lumbar Spine and Femoral Neck

The diagnostic criteria proposed by the World Health Organization did not consider the discrepancy in diagnosis between lumbar spine (LS) and femoral neck (FN) and the clinical implications is unclear. Therefore, this retrospective study evaluated the probability of fracture risk in postmenopausal women with lumbar spine (LS)-femoral neck (FN) bone mineral density (BMD) discordance or not Patients included 1066 healthy postmenopausal women (median age 55.5 years) who visited our hospital for a health check-up between May 2013 and April 2017. Discordance was defined as a difference of one or two degrees between LS BMD and FN BMD. TBS was calculated from dual energy absorptiometry (DXA) images. Fracture risk was assessed using the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX), including TBS-adjusted FRAX Seven hundred and two patients (65.9%) showed concordant LS and FN results, whereas 364 patients (34.1%) exhibited discordance. Normal BMD was found in 519 concordant patients (73.9%). Concordant patients showed significantly higher FRAX scores, including TBS-adjusted FRAX results, than discordant patients with low LS or FN. Furthermore, FRAX results in concordant osteopenia patients were similar to that of osteoporosis patients with osteopenia or a normal result at one site. FRAX and TBS-adjusted FRAX results in concordant osteopenia patients were comparable to that of discordant osteoporosis patients We concluded that patients with colncordant osteopenia in both the FN and LS should be managed in a similar way to patients with discordant osteoporosis.

Application of the Trabecular Bone Score in Clinical Practice

The trabecular bone score (TBS) was introduced as an indirect index of trabecular microarchitecture, complementary to bone mineral density (BMD), and is derived using the same dual energy X-ray absorptiometry images. Recently, it has been approved for clinical use in Korea. Therefore, we conducted a comprehensive review to optimize the use of TBS in clinical practice. The TBS is an independent predictor of osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women and men aged >50 years. The TBS is potentially useful in monitoring the skeletal effects of anabolic agents but not of antiresorptive agents. In postmenopausal women with type 2 diabetes mellitus, the TBS assesses osteoporotic fracture risk not captured by BMD. However, high body mass index and soft tissue thickness can cause underestimation of the TBS; however, this limitation has been improved in recent versions of the TBS software. However, a high precision error and low reproducibility limit the use of TBS. This review may provide information on the application of the TBS in clinical practice based on reliable evidence.

Ability of FRAX Sri Lanka adjusted for trabecular bone score to discriminate between postmenopausal women with a recent fracture and without a fracture

Objectives

We evaluated the ability of fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX) Sri Lanka to discriminate between women with a recent fracture and without a fracture, when trabecular bone score (TBS) is added to the calculation.

Methods

We studied 394 women without previous fractures and 87 women who underwent dual energy X-ray absorptiometry within 3 months after the first fragility fracture. Fracture probabilities (FP) were estimated with and without TBS using Sri Lankan FRAX model and their ability to discriminate those with and without fracture was tested.

Results

Women without fractures had higher bone mineral densities (BMDs) and lower FPs, compared to those with a recent fracture. Area under curves of receiver operating characteristic for FPs unadjusted were not different from those adjusted for TBS. The odd ratios of FPs unadjusted were not different from those of adjusted. The FPs estimated with TBS were higher, hence the intervention thresholds (ITs) were higher compared to FPs estimated without TBS. Thirty-two percent of women without previous fracture were above the ITs and the inclusion of TBS increased this to 36%. The integrated discriminatory index analysis showed a 8% increase in the discriminatory slope.

Conclusions

The inclusion of TBS to Sri Lankan FRAX did not show an added advantage in discriminating between postmenopausal women with a recent fracture and without a fracture. TBS inclusion in fracture risk calculation among those without previous fractures, however, showed a marginal increase in the number of women above ITs.

Combining Frailty and Trabecular Bone Score Did Not Improve Predictive Accuracy in Risk of Major Osteoporotic Fractures

It is recognized that the trabecular bone score (TBS) provides skeletal information, and frailty measurement is significantly associated with increased risks of adverse health outcomes. Given the suboptimal predictive power in fracture risk assessment tools, we aimed to evaluate the combination of frailty and TBS regarding predictive accuracy for risk of major osteoporotic fracture (MOF). Data from the prospective longitudinal study of CaMos (Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study) were used for this study. TBS values were estimated using lumbar spine (L₁ to L₄ ) dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) images; frailty was evaluated by a frailty index (FI) of deficit accumulation. Outcome was time to first incident MOF during the follow-up. We used the Harrell's C-index to compare the model predictive accuracy. The Akaike information criterion, likelihood ratio test, and net reclassification improvement (NRI) were used to compare model performances between the model combining frailty and TBS (subsequently called "FI + TBS"), FI-alone, and TBS-alone models. We included 2730 participants (mean age 69 years; 70% women) for analyses (mean follow-up 7.5 years). There were 243 (8.90%) MOFs observed during follow-up. Participants with MOF had significantly higher FI (0.24 versus 0.20) and lower TBS (1.231 versus 1.285) than those without MOF. FI and TBS were significantly related with MOF risk in the model adjusted for FRAX with bone mineral density (BMD) and other covariates: hazard ratio (HR) = 1.26 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.11-1.43) for per-SD increase in FI; HR = 1.38 (95% CI 1.21-1.59) for per-SD decrease in TBS; and these associations showed negligible attenuation (HR = 1.24 for per-SD increase in FI, and 1.35 for per-SD decrease in TBS) when combined in the same model. Although the model FI + TBS was a better fit to the data than FI-alone and TBS-alone, only minimal and nonsignificant enhancement of discrimination and NRI were observed in FI + TBS. To conclude, frailty and TBS are significantly and independently related to MOF risk. Larger studies are warranted to determine whether combining frailty and TBS can yield improved predictive accuracy for MOF risk. © 2020 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Do Additional Clinical Risk Factors Improve the Performance of Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) Among Postmenopausal Women? Findings From the Women's Health Initiative Observational Study and Clinical Trials

The ability of the fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX) to discriminate between women who do and do not experience major osteoporotic fractures (MOFs) is suboptimal. Adding common clinical risk factors may improve discrimination. We used data from the Women's Health Initiative, a prospective study of women aged 50 to 79 years at baseline (n = 99,413; n = 5722 in BMD subset) enrolled at 40 US clinical centers. The primary outcome was incident MOFs assessed annually during 10 years' follow‐up. For prediction of incident MOF, we examined the area under the receiver operatic characteristic curve (AUC) and net reclassification index (NRI) of the FRAX model alone and FRAX plus additional risk factors (singly or together: type 2 diabetes mellitus, frequent falls [≥2 falls in the past year], vasomotor symptoms, self‐reported physical function score [RAND 36‐item Health Survey subscale), and lumbar spine BMD). For NRI calculations, high risk was defined as predicted MOF risk ≥20%. We also assessed calibration as observed MOF events/expected MOF events. The AUC value for FRAX without BMD information was 0.65 (95% CI, 0.65 to 0.66). Compared with the FRAX model (without BMD), the AUC value was not improved by the addition of vasomotor symptoms, diabetes, or frequent falls, but was minimally increased by adding physical function score (AUC 0.66, 95% CI, 0.66 to 0.67). FRAX was well‐calibrated for MOF prediction. The NRI of FRAX + additional variables versus FRAX alone was 5.7% (p < 0.001) among MOF cases and −1.7% among noncases (p > 0.99). Additional variables (diabetes, frequent falls, vasomotor symptoms, physical function score, or lumbar spine BMD) did not yield meaningful improvements in NRI or discrimination of FRAX for MOFs. Future studies should assess whether tools other than FRAX provide superior discrimination for prediction of MOFs. © 2019 The Authors. JBMR Plus published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Trabecular bone score and bone mineral density reference data for women aged 20-70 years and the effect of local reference data on the prevalence of postmenopausal osteoporosis: a cross-sectional study from Sri Lanka

This paper describes age-specific BMD and TBS data of Sri Lankan women aged 20-70 years. No significant change of TBS and BMDs were seen between 20 and 50 years but a rapid decline was seen between 50 and 70 years. Prevalence of osteoporosis showed a marked difference when local reference data were used instead of manufacture provided data.

INTRODUCTION

It is recommended that country-specific reference data are used when estimating diagnostic and therapeutic thresholds in osteoporosis. This study estimated normative BMD and TBS reference data for women aged 20-70 in Sri Lanka and the effect of local reference data on the diagnosis of osteoporosis among postmenopausal women.

METHODOLOGY

A group of healthy community-dwelling women (n = 355) aged 20-70 was recruited from Galle district in the Southern province in Sri Lanka using stratified random sampling method. They underwent DXA adhering to the manufacturer's protocol and regional BMDs and TBS of the lumbar spine were measured.

RESULTS

The highest mean BMD in the spine (0.928 g/cm²) was seen in 20-29 age group while there was a delay in achieving the peak BMD in the femoral neck (0.818 g/cm²) and total hip (0.962 g/cm²) regions(40-49 years). BMDs showed only a mild change between 20 and 49 years but a rapid decline was seen after 50 years (spine 0.013, femoral neck 0.012, and total hip 0.011 g/cm² per year). The highest TBS was seen in 20-29 age group (1.371) and TBS trend with age was parallel to spine BMD. When the reference data provided by the manufacturer was used, 37% of postmenopausal women were found to have osteoporosis but this value changed to 17.6% when the local reference data were used.

CONCLUSION

We found a significant difference in the prevalence of osteoporosis when the local reference values were used instead of data provided by the manufacturer. However, representative data from more centers and fracture data are required before a recommendation to use local instead of international reference data can be stated.