Accuracy of the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool for judging pharmacotherapy initiation for primary osteoporosis

Correlation Between Handgrip Strength and Bone Density and Fragility Fracture Risk Among Older Adults: A Cross-Sectional Study

BACKGROUND

Population aging has led to a surge in elderly care needs worldwide. Bone aging, skeletal muscle degeneration, and osteoporosis pose critical health challenges for the elderly. The process of bone and skeletal muscle aging not only impacts the functional abilities but also increases fragility fracture risk. Although a negative correlation between handgrip strength and fragility fracture risk has been identified in elderly populations, there is a lack of related research in Taiwan.

PURPOSE

This cross-sectional study was designed to investigate the association between handgrip strength and two outcome variables, bone density and risk of fragility fracture, in Taiwanese individuals aged 65 years and older with low bone mass.

METHODS

A total of 548 older adults, including 84 men and 464 women, were recruited between August 2019 and July 2021. Bone mineral density T -scores acquired using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry scan, the total score for the Taiwan-specific Fracture Risk Assessment (FRAX) tool, and bilateral handgrip strength acquired using a digital hand dynamometer were recorded along with other factors such as comorbidities, dietary habits, and daily activities.

RESULTS

In this study, the mean age was 70.9 ( SD = 5.6) years, mean bone mass index was 24.1 ( SD = 3.5) kg/m 2 , mean FRAX main fracture risk score was 19.5% ( SD = 8.3), and mean FRAX hip fracture risk score was 7.7% ( SD = 5.7). Lumbar and hip T -scores were both significantly correlated with both dominant and nondominant handgrip strength in older woman. Older age; both lower hip and spine T -scores; both lower dominant and nondominant handgrip strengths; having Type 2 diabetes, coronary artery disease, or chronic hepatic disease; and lacking a steady job were significantly associated with a higher risk of fragility fracture.

CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

The results of this study provide important information regarding the correlation between handgrip strength and several variables, including bone mineral density T -score, FRAX score, comorbidities, and job status, among older adults. Notably, these correlations were found to be particularly strong in the female participants. This information may be used to facilitate the early identification of elderly individuals at a high risk of fragility fractures, enabling the timely development of preventive nursing strategies and the provision of targeted interventions.

Discriminatory Accuracy of Fracture Risk Assessment Tool in Asian Populations: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

This review explores the discriminative ability of fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX) in major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) and hip fracture (HF) risk prediction and the densitometric diagnosis of osteoporosis in Asian populations.

METHODS

We systematically searched the EMBASE, Cochrane, and PubMed databases from the earliest indexing date to January 2024. Studies were included if FRAX was used to identify future osteoporotic fractures or a densitometric diagnosis of osteoporosis in an Asian population and reported the area under the curve (AUC) values. Meta-analyses were conducted after quality assessment for AUC with 95% confidence intervals across the following categories: standard FRAX without/with bone mineral density (BMD), adjusted FRAX, and BMD alone for fracture prediction, as well as standard FRAX for densitometric diagnosis of osteoporosis.

RESULTS

A total of 42 studies were included. The AUC values for predicting fracture risk using FRAX-MOF with BMD (0.73 [0.70-0.77]) was highest compared to FRAX-MOF without BMD (0.72 [0.66-0.77]), and adjusted FRAX-MOF (0.71 [0.65-0.77]). The AUC values for predicting fracture risk using FRAX-HF with BMD (0.77 [0.71-0.83]) was highest compared to FRAX-HF without BMD (0.72 [0.65-0.80]), and adjusted FRAX-HF (0.75 [0.63-0.86]). The AUC values for BMD alone (0.68 [0.62-0.73]) was lowest for fracture prediction. The AUC values for identifying a densitometric diagnosis of osteoporosis was 0.77 [0.70-0.84] and 0.76 [0.67-0.86] using FRAX-MOF and FRAX-HF, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

FRAX with BMD tends to perform more reliably in predicting HF compared to MOF in Asia. However, its accuracy in predicting fracture risk in Asian populations can be improved through region-specific, long-term epidemiological data.

Can TBS reference values be a valid indicator for clinical vertebral fracture? A cross-sectional study

INTRODUCTION

Trabecular bone score (TBS) is partially independent of fracture risk. Reference values for TBS have not been established in official guidelines, and thus clinicians often have difficulty interpreting TBS results. This study aimed to investigate whether reference values for TBS could be a valid indicator for clinical vertebral fracture (CVF).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This cross-sectional study involved 231 women with CVF and 563 women without CVF aged 60-90 years who underwent dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry during 2019-2023. They were divided into osteoporosis, osteopenia, and normal groups according to bone mineral density of the lumbar spine. Reference values for TBS were defined as low (≤ 1.23), intermediate (1.23-1.31), and high (≥ 1.31).

RESULTS

Among patients without anti-osteoporosis treatment (n = 476), the proportion with low TBS was 36.7% in the CVF group and 10.7% in the control group. The proportion with CVF was higher in the low TBS group than in the intermediate and high TBS groups, especially in the osteoporosis group (p < 0.001). The odds ratio for CVF was higher in the low TBS group than in the intermediate and high especially in patients with normal BMD and osteoporosis. The TBS cut-off values for incidence of CVF in the osteoporosis, osteopenia, and normal groups were 1.224, 1.319, and 1.322, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The reference value for low TBS (≤ 1.23) was useful as an indicator for CVF, especially in patients with osteoporosis. It is expected that reference values for TBS will be established in official guidelines in the future.