Judicious use of DXA-BMD in assessing fracture risk by using clinical risk factors in the Indian population

Cost-effectiveness of FRAX®-based intervention thresholds for management of osteoporosis in Indian women: a Markov microsimulation model analysis

A cost-effectiveness analysis of FRAX® intervention thresholds (ITs) in Indian women over 50 years indicated that generic alendronate was cost-effective for age-dependent major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) ITs and hip fracture (HF) ITs starting at ages 60 and 65 years for full and real-world adherence, respectively. Alendronate was cost-effective at fixed MOF IT of 14% and HF IT of 3.5%, regardless of age.

PURPOSE

Osteoporosis represents a significant public health challenge in India, with an increasing economic burden due to the aging population. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of using fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX®)-based intervention thresholds (ITs) for managing osteoporosis with generic alendronate in Indian women.

METHODS

A Markov microsimulation model, adapted to the Indian healthcare context, was used to simulate the costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) associated with different treatment strategies. The one-time gross domestic product (GDP) per capita (estimated at INR 1,97,468/QALY gained) was used as the cost-effectiveness threshold.

RESULTS

The model revealed that generic alendronate is cost-effective for major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) ITs beginning at age 60 years with full adherence-incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of INR 102,151 per QALY gained, and age 65 with real-world adherence-ICER of INR 28,203 per QALY gained (conversion rate used is 1 US dollar (USD) = INR 83.97 and 1 EURO = INR 92.70). Hip fracture (HF) ITs showed similar cost-effectiveness at ages 60 (ICER of INR 67,144) and was the dominant strategy (i.e., more QALYs for lower costs) at ≥ 65 years. Fixed ITs of 14% for MOF and 3.5% for HF proved cost-effective across all age groups (dominant strategy for ages ≥ 65 years). Limitations of our study include the reliance on fracture incidence data from Singaporean Indians and variability in fracture prevalence across India.

CONCLUSION

The results support the integration of FRAX®-based fixed ITs from the age of 50 years and age-based ones from the age of 65 years in India to optimize resource allocation and improve osteoporosis management.

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.

Measuring levels of hormones in osteoporosis Iraqi women patients

This study was conducted to investigate the effect of the hormone progesterone and testosterone on osteoporosis in women, and it was found that there are statistically significant differences between the hormone progesterone and there are no statistically significant differences for the hormone testosterone. The ELISA method measured the testosterone concentration in the blood and the progesterone concentration. The purpose of the study measuring the levels of some hormones in osteoporosis Iraqi women patients. Fifty (50) women patients with osteoporosis were admitting Baghdad Teaching Hospital with osteoporosis and 40 healthy populations, and it was conducted in Baghdad Teaching Hospital/ Bone density examination unit/ in Baghdad-Iraq. Endocrine testing Estrogen content was measured following the manufacturer's instructions using available human Uno ELISA kits (Immunolab GmbH, Kassel, Germany). Results showed a significant difference (P-value of 0.0038) in progesterone between the two study groups. The mean of patient groups was mean±SD (6.759 ± 6.705), and control groups were mean±SD (11.03 ± 6.546). The main risk factor for osteoporosis is the presence of more progesterone when comparing patients with healthy women. As for testosterone, there are no significant differences; that is, it does not affect women Keywords: ELISA Technique, progesterone, testosterone

Proposed bone health screening protocol to identify total knee arthroplasty patients for preoperative DXA

This study evaluates a novel, simple bone health screening protocol composed of patient sex, age, fracture history, and FRAX risk to identify total knee arthroplasty patients for preoperative DXA. Findings supported effectiveness, with sensitivity of 1.00 (CI 0.92-1.00) and specificity of 0.54 (CI 0.41-0.68) when evaluating for clinical osteoporosis.

PURPOSE

Bone health optimization is a process where osteoporotic patients are identified, evaluated via modalities such as dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), and treated when indicated. There are currently no established guidelines to determine who needs presurgical DXA. This study evaluates the effectiveness of a simple screening protocol to identify TKA patients for preoperative DXA.

METHODS

This prospective cohort study began on September 1, 2019, and included 100 elective TKA patients. Inclusion criteria were ≥ 50 years and primary TKA. All patients obtained routine clinical DXA. The screening protocol defining who should obtain DXA included meeting any of the following: female ≥ 65, male ≥ 70, fracture history after age 50, or FRAX major osteoporotic fracture risk without bone mineral density (BMD) adjustments ≥ 8.4%. Osteoporosis was defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) criteria (T-score ≤  - 2.5) or clinically (T-score ≤  - 2.5, elevated BMD-adjusted FRAX risk, or prior hip/spine fracture). Sensitivity and specificity were calculated.

RESULTS

The study included 68 females and 32 males, mean age 67.2 ± 7.7. T-score osteoporosis was observed in 16 patients while 43 had clinical osteoporosis. Screening criteria recommending DXA was met by 69 patients. Screening sensitivity was 1.00 (CI 0.79-1.00) and specificity was 0.37 (CI 0.27-0.48) for identifying patients with T-score osteoporosis. Similar sensitivity of 1.00 (CI 0.92-1.00) and specificity of 0.54 (CI 0.41-0.68) were found for clinical osteoporosis.

CONCLUSIONS

A simple screening protocol identifies TKA patients with T-score and clinical osteoporosis for preoperative DXA with high sensitivity in this prospective cohort study.

Executive summary: Italian guidelines for diagnosis, risk stratification, and care continuity of fragility fractures 2021

Background

Fragility fractures are a major public health concern owing to their worrying and growing burden and their onerous burden upon health systems. There is now a substantial body of evidence that individuals who have already suffered a fragility fracture are at a greater risk for further fractures, thus suggesting the potential for secondary prevention in this field.

Purpose

This guideline aims to provide evidence-based recommendations for recognizing, stratifying the risk, treating, and managing patients with fragility fracture. This is a summary version of the full Italian guideline.

Methods

The Italian Fragility Fracture Team appointed by the Italian National Health Institute was employed from January 2020 to February 2021 to (i) identify previously published systematic reviews and guidelines on the field, (ii) formulate relevant clinical questions, (iii) systematically review literature and summarize evidence, (iv) draft the Evidence to Decision Framework, and (v) formulate recommendations.

Results

Overall, 351 original papers were included in our systematic review to answer six clinical questions. Recommendations were categorized into issues concerning (i) frailty recognition as the cause of bone fracture, (ii) (re)fracture risk assessment, for prioritizing interventions, and (iii) treatment and management of patients experiencing fragility fractures. Six recommendations were overall developed, of which one, four, and one were of high, moderate, and low quality, respectively.

Conclusions

The current guidelines provide guidance to support individualized management of patients experiencing non-traumatic bone fracture to benefit from secondary prevention of (re)fracture. Although our recommendations are based on the best available evidence, questionable quality evidence is still available for some relevant clinical questions, so future research has the potential to reduce uncertainty about the effects of intervention and the reasons for doing so at a reasonable cost.

The Indian Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ISBMR) position statement for the diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis in adults

The Indian Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ISBMR) has herein drafted clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis for the people of India. Implementation of the position statement in clinical practice is expected to improve the overall care of patients with osteoporosis in India.

PURPOSE

In India, osteoporosis is a major public health problem. However, in the absence of any robust regional guidelines, the screening, treatment, and follow-up of patients with osteoporosis are lagging behind in the country.

METHODS

The Indian Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ISBMR), which is a multidisciplinary group of physicians, researchers, dietitians, and epidemiologists and who study bone and related tissues, in their annual meeting, drafted the guidelines for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis that would be appropriate in a resource constraint setting like India.

RESULTS

Diagnosis of osteoporosis can be made in a patient with minimal trauma fracture without the aid of any other diagnostic tools. In others, bone mineral density measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry remains the modality of choice. Data indicates that osteoporotic fractures occur at an earlier age in Indians than in the West; hence, screening for osteoporosis should begin at an earlier age. FRAX can be used for fracture risk estimation; however, it may underestimate the risk of future fractures in our population and still needs validation. Maintaining optimum serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels is essential, which, in most cases, would require regular vitamin D supplementation. Pharmacotherapy should be guided by the presence/absence of vertebral/hip fractures or the severity of risk based on clinical factors, although bisphosphonates remain the first choice in most cases. Regular follow-up is essential to ensure adherence and response to therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of the position statement in clinical practice is expected to improve the overall care of patients with osteoporosis in India.

FRAX-based osteoporosis treatment guidelines for resource-poor settings in India

Using the FRAX® model for India, thresholds for osteoporosis evaluation and treatment without bone mineral density measurement were derived and were validated in a cohort of 300 patients. We suggest the use of this newer age and ethnic-specific FRAX®-derived thresholds for management of osteoporosis in India.

PURPOSE

Our study aimed to formulate population-specific intervention thresholds for treatment of osteoporosis in India which can be used even without dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA).

METHODS

Using the FRAX® model for India, thresholds for different age groups for men and women were calculated without bone mineral density (BMD) measurement. The lower assessment threshold (LAT) was based on the 10-year probability of a major osteoporosis fracture (MOF) or hip fracture (HF) equivalent to patients without clinical risk factors. The intervention threshold (IT) was based on the 10-year probability equivalent to patients with fracture. The upper assessment threshold (UAT) was set at 1.2 times the IT. Probability-based thresholds for no intervention (LAT), treatment initiation (UAT) and BMD assessment (between LAT and UAT) were derived. The thresholds were validated in a cohort of 300 patients who were referred for BMD testing.

RESULTS

Graphs for age, gender, BMI and ethnic-specific LAT, IT and UAT for MOF and HF are derived. In the validation cohort, BMD testing to initiate/defer treatment was required in only 32.3% patients. The intervention thresholds derived without BMD testing were valid in 98.7% patients. Use of National Osteoporosis Foundation (NOF) guidelines would have resulted in overtreatment in 56/300 (18.6%) patients.

CONCLUSION

We suggest the use of this newer age and ethnic-specific FRAX®-derived thresholds for management of osteoporosis. Adopting these cut-offs will ensure that those requiring osteoporosis treatment will not be denied of it just because of lack of a DXA machine and will also help avoid overtreatment.

FRAX® with or without BMD and TBS predicts fragility fractures in community-dwelling rural southern Indian postmenopausal women

This study from southern India showed that FRAX® with or without BMD or TBS predicted fragility vertebral fractures at a cut-off of ≥ 9% for major osteoporotic fracture and ≥ 2.5% for hip fracture with sensitivities of 77-88% and specificities of 55-72%.

PURPOSE

There is limited information available with regard to utility of Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX® tool) in predicting fragility fractures in Indian postmenopausal women. We studied the performance of 3 categories: FRAX® (without BMD), FRAX® (with BMD), and FRAX® (with BMD and TBS) in predicting fragility vertebral fractures in rural postmenopausal women.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

It was a cross-sectional study conducted at a south Indian tertiary care center. Rural postmenopausal women (n = 301) were recruited by simple random sampling. The risk for major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) and hip fracture (HF) was calculated individually for the 3 categories. The BMD (at lumbar spine and femoral neck) and vertebral fractures were assessed by a DXA (dual energy X-ray absorptiometry) scanner and TBS by TBS iNsight software. ROC curves were constructed, and area under curve (AUC), sensitivity and specificity of FRAX® scores, which would best predict prevalent vertebral fractures (moderate to severe), was computed.

RESULTS

The mean (SD) age was 65.6(5.1) years. The prevalence of osteoporosis at spine was 45%, and femoral neck was 32.6%. Moderate to severe vertebral fractures was seen in 29.2% of subjects. The performance of all 3 categories for FRAX® (MOF) and FRAX® (HF) were good (AUC was 0.798, 0.806, and 0.800, respectively, for MOF) at a cut-off score of ≥ 9, and at a cut-off of ≥ 2.5 for HF, it was 0.818, 0.775, and 0.770, respectively. At these cut-offs, sensitivities were 77-89%, and specificities were 55-72% for predicting prevalent vertebral fractures.

CONCLUSION

All three categories of FRAX® showed good performance in predicting fractures in Indian postmenopausal women. Thus, it may be utilized for decision regarding treatment and referral for osteoporosis.

Utility of FRAX (fracture risk assessment tool) in primary care and family practice setting in India

The prevalence of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women is about 35 to 50% and the mortality associated with hip fractures is about 20%. Despite these figures, osteoporosis continues to be under diagnosed in the primary care setting. One of the reasons for this is attributed to the poor availability of DXA (Dual Energy X-ray Absorptiometry) scanners in rural areas. The fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX) is an online web-based tool that takes into account multiple factors that help in predicting the 10-year risk of developing hip or major osteoporotic fractures. The tool was developed and validated in independent cohorts. The advantages of using the FRAX tool are that, it is inexpensive, easily available, and does not need the technical expertise that is required in the use of a DXA scanner. Besides these merits, it is a tool that is easy to use for the rural health care worker as well as the family physician in identifying those subjects at risk for developing osteoporotic fractures. These benefits make it a suitable fracture prediction tool in the primary care setting in India.