FRAX (Australia) scores in women with impaired fasting glucose and diabetes

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.

Comparison of Trabecular Bone Score-Adjusted Fracture Risk Assessment (TBS-FRAX) and FRAX Tools for Identification of High Fracture Risk among Taiwanese Adults Aged 50 to 90 Years with or without Prediabetes and Diabetes

Background and Objectives: The burden of osteoporosis is projected to increase. Identification and prompt intervention for osteoporotic fractures are important. Adjusting the Fracture Risk Assessment (FRAX®) tool with trabecular bone score (TBS) could improve risk prediction. However, little is known about whether TBS-adjusted FRAX® would change the proportion of individuals qualified for osteoporosis intervention. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to compare the proportions of Taiwanese adults who qualified for intervention, according to the FRAX® and TBS-adjusted FRAX®, with stratification by sex, age group, and glucose regulation status. Materials and Methods: A medical record review on adults 50−90 years who had undergone a general health examination in a regional hospital in Taiwan was conducted. FRAX® and TBS-adjusted FRAX® were calculated. FRAX® cut-points of ≥ 20% for major osteoporotic fracture and ≥3% for hip fracture were adopted to identify individuals qualified for osteoporosis intervention. Individuals were classified as prediabetes and diabetes if their HbA1c was 5.7−6.4% and >6.4%, respectively. Results: A total of 8098 individuals with a mean age of 61.0 years were included. The proportion of men qualified for intervention for hip fracture was significantly lower according to TBS-adjusted FRAX® (17.2%) compared with FRAX® (20.7%) (p < 0.001), with a similar pattern across all three age groups and in those with prediabetes. In contrast, the proportion of women qualified for intervention for major osteoporotic fracture was significantly higher according to TBS-adjusted FRAX® (4.6%) compared with FRAX® (3.7%) (p < 0.001), particularly among those with prediabetes 60−69 years. Conclusions: TBS-adjusted FRAX® led to small but significant changes in the proportions of individuals qualified for intervention in specific age groups and glucose regulation status.

Fracture prediction tools in diabetes

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Type 1 (T1D) and 2 diabetes (T2D) are associated with increased risk of fracture independent of bone mineral density (BMD). Fracture risk prediction tools can identify individuals at highest risk, and therefore, most likely to benefit from antifracture therapy. This review summarizes recent advances in fracture prediction tools as applied to individuals with diabetes.

RECENT FINDINGS

The Fracture Risk Assessment (FRAX) tool, Garvan Fracture Risk Calculator (FRC), and QFracture tool are validated tools for fracture risk prediction. FRAX is most widely used internationally, and considers T1D (but not T2D) under secondary osteoporosis disorders. FRAX underestimates fracture risk in both T1D and T2D. Trabecular bone score and other adjustments for T2D-associated risk improve FRAX-based estimations. Similar adjustments for T1D are not identified. Garvan FRC does not incorporate diabetes as an input but does includes falls. Garvan FRC slightly underestimates osteoporotic fracture risk in women with diabetes. QFracture incorporates both T1D and T2D and falls as input variables, but has not been directly validated in individuals with diabetes.

SUMMARY

Further research is needed to validate and compare available fracture prediction tools and their performance in individuals with diabetes.

Effects of a Lifestyle Intervention on Bone Turnover in Persons with Type 2 Diabetes: A Post Hoc Analysis of the U-TURN Trial

INTRODUCTION/PURPOSE

The increased risk of fractures with type 2 diabetes (T2D) is suggested to be caused by decreased bone turnover. Current international guidelines recommend lifestyle modifications, including exercise, as first-line treatment for T2D. The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of an exercise-based lifestyle intervention on bone turnover and bone mineral density (BMD) in persons with T2D.

METHODS

Persons with T2D were randomized to either a 12-month lifestyle intervention (n = 64) or standard care (n = 34). The lifestyle intervention included five to six weekly aerobic training sessions, half of them combined with resistance training. Serum markers of bone turnover (osteocalcin, N-terminal propeptide of type-I procollagen, reflecting bone formation, and carboxyterminal collagen I crosslinks, reflecting bone resorption) and BMD (by DXA) were measured before the intervention and at follow-up.

RESULTS

From baseline to follow-up, s-propeptide of type-I procollagen increased by 34% (95% confidence interval [CI], 17%-50%), serum-carboxyterminal collagen I crosslink by 36% (95% CI, 1%-71%), and s-osteocalcin by 31% (95% CI, 11-51%) more in the lifestyle intervention group compared with standard care. Loss of weight and fat mass were the strongest mediators of the increased bone turnover. Bone mineral density was unaffected by the intervention (ΔBMD, 0.1%; 95% CI, -1.1% to 1.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

A 12-month intensive exercise-based lifestyle intervention led to a substantial but balanced increase in bone turnover in persons with T2D. The increased bone turnover combined with a preserved BMD, despite a considerable weight loss, is likely to reflect improved bone health and warrants further studies addressing the impact of exercise on risk of fractures in persons with T2D.

Fracture risk assessment in diabetes mellitus

Growing evidence suggests that diabetes mellitus is associated with an increased risk of fracture. Bone intrinsic factors (such as accumulation of glycation end products, low bone turnover, and bone microstructural changes) and extrinsic factors (such as hypoglycemia caused by treatment, diabetes peripheral neuropathy, muscle weakness, visual impairment, and some hypoglycemic agents affecting bone metabolism) probably contribute to damage of bone strength and the increased risk of fragility fracture. Traditionally, bone mineral density (BMD) measured by dual x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is considered to be the gold standard for assessing osteoporosis. However, it cannot fully capture the changes in bone strength and often underestimates the risk of fracture in diabetes. The fracture risk assessment tool is easy to operate, giving it a certain edge in assessing fracture risk in diabetes. However, some parameters need to be regulated or replaced to improve the sensitivity of the tool. Trabecular bone score, a noninvasive tool, indirectly evaluates bone microstructure by analyzing the texture sparsity of trabecular bone, which is based on the pixel gray level of DXA. Trabecular bone score combined with BMD can effectively improve the prediction ability of fracture risk. Quantitative computed tomography is another noninvasive examination of bone microstructure. High-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography can measure volume bone mineral density. Quantitative computed tomography combined with microstructure finite element analysis can evaluate the mechanical properties of bones. Considering the invasive nature, the use of microindentation and histomorphometry is limited in clinical settings. Some studies found that the changes in bone turnover markers in diabetes might be associated with fracture risk, but further studies are needed to confirm this. This review focused on summarizing the current development of these assessment tools in diabetes so as to provide references for clinical practice. Moreover, these tools can reduce the occurrence of fragility fractures in diabetes through early detection and intervention.

Evaluation of FRAX Performance Without Bone Mineral Density Calibrated for Mexico to Recognize Women at Risk of Fragility Fractures in Routine Clinical Care

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate FRAX clinical performance without bone mineral density (BMD) to approach people with fracture risk.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was carried out from July 2012 to February 2020 at outpatient clinic of rheumatology in 2 public hospitals. Postmenopausal women between 40 and 90 years of age were chosen if no previous osteoporosis treatment was received and had femoral neck BMD determination. Clinical performance of FRAX without BMD was evaluated using agreement and diagnostic test statistics.

RESULTS

Four hundred seventy-seven women with a mean age of 62.85 years were included. FRAX without BMD classified 46.03% of them at low risk, 45.82% intermediate risk, and 8.16% high risk. When BMD was included, 17.19% of them revealed high risk. Not incorporating BMD value in the risk assessed a higher percentage of error in the fracture risk classification in high-risk patients; otherwise, including BMD reclassified it as risk below treatment threshold in 20.51% of the patients. The percentage of agreement between the recommendations based on FRAX with and without BMD was 94.98%. Agreement between FRAX score with or without BMD was good to very good (κ = 0.79, Gwet = 0.93). FRAX without BMD presented a positive predictive value of 79.5% and negative predictive value of 97.7%.

CONCLUSIONS

FRAX without BMD correctly classified most women evaluated, primarily low-risk women. In order to identify accurately women at high fracture risk, it would be advisable to determine the BMD in women with moderate to high risk of FRAX without BMD.