Fracture burden in relation to low bone mineral density and FRAX(®) probability

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.

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.

Fracture Risk Assessment: An Update

➤

Our ability to accurately identify high fracture risk in individuals has improved as the volume of clinical data has expanded and fracture risk assessment tools have been developed.

➤

Given its accessibility, affordability, and low radiation exposure, dual x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) remains the standard for osteoporosis screening and monitoring response to treatment.

➤

The trabecular bone score (TBS) is a DXA software add-on that uses lumbar spine DXA imaging to produce an output that correlates with bone microarchitecture. It has been identified as an independent fracture risk factor and may prove useful in further stratifying fracture risk among those with a bone mineral density (BMD) in the osteopenic range (-1.0 to -2.4 standard deviations), in those with low-energy fractures but normal or only mildly low BMD, or in those with conditions known to impair bone microarchitecture.

➤

Fracture risk assessment tools, including the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX), Garvan fracture risk calculator, and QFracture, evaluate the impact of multiple clinical factors on fracture risk, even in the absence of BMD data. Each produces an absolute fracture risk output over a defined interval of time. When used appropriately, these enhance our ability to identify high-risk patients and allow us to differentiate fracture risk among patients who present with similar BMDs.

➤

For challenging clinical cases, a combined approach is likely to improve accuracy in the identification of high-risk patients who would benefit from the available osteoporosis therapies.

Vertebral Fracture Assessment Increases Use of Pharmacologic Therapy for Fracture Prevention in Clinical Practice

The impact of vertebral fracture assessment (VFA) on lateral spine images in clinical practice on subsequent patient use of fracture prevention medication is unknown. Our objective was to determine the association of prevalent vertebral fracture identified on bone density lateral spine images (positive VFA) with subsequent use of fracture prevention therapy in usual clinical practice, using the Manitoba Bone Density Program database prospective observational cohort. Since 2010, targeted VFA imaging has been done at the time of bone densitometry in Manitoba for 21% of women and men meeting criteria based on age, bone mineral density (BMD), height loss, and glucocorticoid use. Among 6652 treatment-naive individuals with at least 90 days follow-up who had VFA imaging, 923 (13.9%) had one or more definite vertebral fractures identified using a modified algorithm-based qualitative (ABQ) method. For those with a positive VFA, their bone density reports stated the patient was at high risk of subsequent fracture and qualified for fracture prevention therapy. Subsequent osteoporosis treatment initiated within the next 12 months was identified using population-based pharmacy data. Logistic regression models were used to estimate the association of positive VFA with subsequent prescription (Rx), compared to negative VFA. Fracture prevention medication was started by 2127 (32%) individuals, 52.3% with positive versus 28.4% with negative VFA (p value <0.001). This association was substantially stronger in those designated (before VFA results were known) to have low or moderate fracture risk compared to high fracture risk (interaction p value <0.001), and in those with osteopenia (OR 4.51; 95% CI, 3.48 to 5.85) compared to those with osteoporosis by BMD criteria (OR 1.72; 95% CI, 1.43 to 2.08, interaction p value <0.001). Targeted VFA imaging at the time of bone densitometry substantially improves identification of those at high fracture risk and fracture prevention medication use among those with prevalent vertebral fracture. © 2019 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research. © 2019 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Fracture Risk Indices From DXA-Based Finite Element Analysis Predict Incident Fractures Independently From FRAX: The Manitoba BMD Registry

OBJECTIVE

Finite element analysis (FEA) is a computational method to predict the behavior of materials under applied loading. We developed a software tool that automatically performs FEA on dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry hip scans to generate site-specific fracture risk indices (FRIs) that reflect the likelihood of hip fracture from a sideways fall. This longitudinal study examined associations between FRIs and incident fractures.

METHODS

Using the Manitoba Bone Mineral Density (BMD) Registry, femoral neck (FN), intertrochanter (IT), and subtrochanter (ST) FRIs were automatically derived from 13,978 anonymized dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry scans (Prodigy, GE Healthcare) in women and men aged 50 yr or older (mean age 65 yr). Baseline covariates and incident fractures were assessed from population-based data. We compared c-statistics for FRIs vs FN BMD alone and fracture risk assessment (FRAX) probability computed with BMD. Cox regression was used to estimate hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) for incident hip, major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) and non-hip MOF adjusted for relevant covariates including age, sex, FN BMD, FRAX probability, FRAX risk factors, and hip axis length (HAL).

RESULTS

During mean follow-up of 6 yr, there were 268 subjects with incident hip fractures, 1003 with incident MOF, and 787 with incident non-hip MOF. All FRIs gave significant stratification for hip fracture (c-statistics FN-FRI: 0.76, 95% CI 0.73-0.79, IT-FRI 0.74, 0.71-0.77; ST-FRI 0.72, 0.69-0.75). FRIs continued to predict hip fracture risk even after adjustment for age and sex (hazard ratio per standard deviation FN-FRI 1.89, 95% CI 1.66-2.16); age, sex, and BMD (1.26, 1.07-1.48); FRAX probability (1.30, 1.11-1.52); FRAX probability with HAL (1.26, 1.05-1.51); and individual FRAX risk factors (1.32, 1.09-1.59). FRIs also predicted MOF and non-hip MOF, but the prediction was not as strong as for hip fracture.

SUMMARY

Automatically-derived FN, IT, and ST FRIs are associated with incident hip fracture independent of multiple covariates, including FN BMD, FRAX probability and risk factors, and HAL.

Interactive graph-cut segmentation for fast creation of finite element models from clinical ct data for hip fracture prediction

In this study, we propose interactive graph cut image segmentation for fast creation of femur finite element (FE) models from clinical computed tomography scans for hip fracture prediction. Using a sample of N = 48 bone scans representing normal, osteopenic and osteoporotic subjects, the proximal femur was segmented using manual (gold standard) and graph cut segmentation. Segmentations were subsequently used to generate FE models to calculate overall stiffness and peak force in a sideways fall simulations. Results show that, comparable FE results can be obtained with the graph cut method, with a reduction from 20 to 2-5 min interaction time. Average differences between segmentation methods of 0.22 mm were not significantly correlated with differences in FE derived stiffness (R² = 0.08, p = 0.05) and weakly correlated to differences in FE derived peak force (R² = 0.16, p = 0.01). We further found that changes in automatically assigned boundary conditions as a consequence of small segmentation differences were significantly correlated with FE derived results. The proposed interactive graph cut segmentation software MITK-GEM is freely available online at https://simtk.org/home/mitk-gem .

Risk Assessment Tools for Osteoporosis Screening in Postmenopausal Women: A Systematic Review

Osteoporotic fractures are common in postmenopausal women. Tools are available to estimate the risk of low bone mineral density (BMD) or fracture. This systematic review retrieved articles that evaluated osteoporosis risk assessment tools among postmenopausal women in North America. For identifying BMD T-score ≤-2.5, most studies of the Simple Calculated Osteoporosis Risk Estimation tool (SCORE) and Osteoporosis Risk Assessment Instrument (ORAI) reported sensitivity ≥90 %. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was usually <0.75 for SCORE and ≥0.75 for ORAI. Among women 50-64 years old, a Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) threshold ≥9.3 % had a sensitivity of 33 % for identifying BMD T-score ≤-2.5 and 26 % for predicting major osteoporotic fracture (MOF). For predicting MOF, sensitivity was higher for SCORE and Osteoporosis Self-assessment Tool equation (OST), and higher in women ≥65 years old. For predicting BMD T-score ≤-2.5 in women ≥65 years old, the sensitivities of SCORE; ORAI; and Age, Body Size, No Estrogen (ABONE) were very high. No optimal osteoporosis risk assessment tool is available for identifying low BMD and MOF risk.

Cancer treatment-induced bone loss (CTIBL): pathogenesis and clinical implications

Osteopenia and osteoporosis are often long-term complications of anti-neoplastic treatments, defined as "cancer treatment-induced bone loss" (CTIBL). This pathological condition in oncologic patients results in a higher fracture risk than in the general population, and so has a significant negative impact on their quality of life. Hormone treatment is the main actor in this scenario, but not the only one. In fact, chemotherapies, radiotherapy and tyrosine kinase inhibitors may contribute to deregulate bone remodeling via different mechanisms. Thus, the identification of cancer patients at risk for CTIBL is essential for early diagnosis and appropriate intervention, that includes both lifestyle modifications and pharmacological approaches to prevent bone metabolism failure during anti-tumor treatments.

Assessment of fracture risk

Osteoporosis-related fractures (low-trauma, fragility fractures) are associated with significant morbidity, mortality, and health care expenditure worldwide. In the absence of a defining fracture, the diagnosis of osteoporosis is based on the World Health Organization's T-score criteria using central dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA). Paradoxically, the majority of those patients who will sustain a low-trauma fracture do not meet the T-score definition of osteoporosis. Conversely, younger individuals with bone density in the osteoporotic range but no other risk factors have relatively low fracture rates and yet are frequently considered candidates for osteoporosis therapies. The limited accuracy of bone density testing alone to predict fractures has led to the development of a variety of fracture assessment tools that utilize the combination of bone density and clinical risk factors to improve the prediction of low-trauma fractures. These fracture assessment tools quantitatively predict the 10-year fracture probability of hip and major osteoporosis-related fractures, and can be used to define cost-effective intervention strategies for primary and secondary fracture prevention.

Potential Extensions of the US FRAX Algorithm

To determine if the revised US FRAX can identify those at high risk for fractures at any skeletal site, we studied 250 women and 249 men ≥40 years old from an age-stratified random sample of Rochester, MN residents. At baseline, femoral neck (FN) bone density was assessed, as were the clinical risk factors included in FRAX, along with additional fracture risk factors such as bone turnover markers and fall history. Fracture ascertainment through periodic interviews and comprehensive medical record review was performed over 10 years of followup. In both women and men, a higher FRAX probability at baseline was associated with greater subsequent likelihood of a major osteoporotic fracture. However, a relative 10% increase in the FRAX 10-year fracture probability was also associated with a 1.4-fold increase (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.1-1.7) in other fractures in women and a 1.7-fold increase (95% CI 0.8-3.1) in men. Furthermore, FRAX predicted asymptomatic vertebral fractures and fractures generally in both sexes. The addition of risk factors not currently included in FRAX did not appear to improve the accuracy of fracture risk prediction. FRAX may provide a conservative estimate of risk for major osteoporotic fractures, but it also predicts fractures generally.