[FRAX® thresholds to identify people with high or low risk of osteoporotic fracture in Spanish female population]

Screening for Osteoporosis to Prevent Fractures: A Systematic Evidence Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force

Importance

Fragility fractures result in significant morbidity.

Objective

To review evidence on osteoporosis screening to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Data Sources

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and trial registries through January 9, 2024; references, experts, and literature surveillance through July 31, 2024.

Study Selection

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews of screening; pharmacotherapy studies for primary osteoporosis; predictive and diagnostic accuracy studies.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Two reviewers assessed titles/abstracts, full-text articles, study quality, and extracted data; when at least 2 similar studies were available, meta-analyses were conducted.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Hip, clinical vertebral, major osteoporotic, and total fractures; mortality; harms; accuracy.

Results

Three RCTs and 3 systematic reviews reported benefits of screening in older, higher-risk women. Two RCTs used 2-stage screening: Fracture Risk Assessment Tool estimate with bone mineral density (BMD) testing if risk threshold exceeded. One RCT used BMD plus additional tests. Screening was associated with reduced hip (pooled relative risk [RR], 0.83 [95% CI, 0.73-0.93]; 3 RCTs; 42 009 participants) and major osteoporotic fracture (pooled RR, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.88-0.99]; 3 RCTs; 42 009 participants) compared with usual care. Corresponding absolute risk differences were 5 to 6 fewer fractures per 1000 participants screened. The discriminative accuracy of risk assessment instruments to predict fracture or identify osteoporosis varied by instrument and fracture type; most had an area under the curve between 0.60 and 0.80 to predict major osteoporotic fracture, hip fracture, or both. Calibration outcomes were limited. Compared with placebo, bisphosphonates (pooled RR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.45-1.00]; 6 RCTs; 12 055 participants) and denosumab (RR, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.37-0.97] from the largest RCT [7808 participants]) were associated with reduced hip fractures. Compared with placebo, no statistically significant associations were observed for adverse events.

Conclusions and Relevance

Screening in higher-risk women 65 years or older was associated with a small absolute risk reduction in hip and major fractures compared with usual care. No evidence evaluated screening with BMD alone or screening in men or younger women. Risk assessment instruments, BMD alone, or both have poor to modest discrimination for predicting fracture. Osteoporosis treatment with bisphosphonates or denosumab over several years was associated with fracture reductions and no meaningful increase in adverse events.

[Translated article] Evaluation, differential diagnosis and treatment of vertebral osteoporosis: How to avoid the occurrence of new fractures

Osteoporosis is a highly prevalent and multifactorial disease whose main manifestation is the appearance of fragility or low-impact fractures. The most frequent locations of osteoporotic fractures occur at the vertebrae, femoral, distal end of the radius and humerus. Osteoporotic vertebral fracture deserves special mention among them due to its prevalence, importance as it often goes unnoticed and medium-long term consequences are: pain, deformity, disability and deterioration in quality of life. In this review we will focus on the classification and initial evaluation of the patient with osteoporosis, estimation of risk factors, laboratory and imaging studies for an adequate assessment using simple radiography, dual densitometry and magnetic resonance imaging. We will also address the main aspects of the differential diagnosis, treatment and prevention of vertebral fragility fracture, briefly reviewing the main therapeutic agents currently used for its prevention and treatment.

Evaluation, differential diagnosis and treatment of vertebral osteoporosis: How to avoid the occurrence of new fractures

Osteoporosis is a highly prevalent and multifactorial disease whose main manifestation is the appearance of fragility or low-impact fractures. The most frequent locations of osteoporotic fractures occur at the vertebrae, femoral, distal end of the radius and humerus. Osteoporotic vertebral fracture deserves special mention among them due to its prevalence, importance as it often goes unnoticed and medium-long term consequences are: pain, deformity, disability and deterioration in quality of life. In this review we will focus on the classification and initial evaluation of the patient with osteoporosis, estimation of risk factors, laboratory and imaging studies for an adequate assessment using simple radiography, dual densitometry and magnetic resonance imaging. We will also address the main aspects of the differential diagnosis, treatment and prevention of vertebral fragility fracture, briefly reviewing the main therapeutic agents currently used for its prevention and treatment.

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.

[Effect of different schemes of androgen deprivation therapy on bone mass density in prostate cancer patients]

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the aspects of the basal bone health status in prostate cancer patients. Furthermore, to evaluate in a real-world setting the effect of different schemes (intermittent or continuous) of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and the effect of denosumab in bone mass density (BMD).

METHODS

Observational, retrospective study of a cohort of prostate cancer patients in treatment with luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LH-RH) agonists, evaluated in the rheumatology department of a tertiary center. Demographics, FRAX score, LH-RH treatment scheme, osteoporosis treatment, laboratory data and BMD were collected. Mixed effect regression models to analyze the interaction between LH-RH treatment scheme, denosumab and BMD evolution were used.

RESULTS

Eighty-three patients (mean age 71±8years) were included. At the basal evaluation, 16% of patients presented densitometric osteoporosis and 27% of patients presented high fracture risk. Eighty percent of patients had inadequate vitaminD levels. VitaminD >30ng/mL was correlated with higher T-scores. There was no association between LH-RH treatment scheme and BMD evolution, however there was a positive association with denosumab.

CONCLUSION

A high proportion of patients presented elevated fracture risk or inadequate vitaminD levels, not previously recognized. Bone health assessment and fracture risk evaluation are convenient in these patients. In a real-world setting, the effect of denosumab in BMD is detected, however the effect of intermittent LH-RH schema treatment is less evident.

Study of pelvic organ prolapse as a predictor of osteoporotic fracture risk

Purpose: The present study aimed to examine the association between the stage of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and the risk of fracture in postmenopausal women.Methods: A cross-sectional design was used, which included 133 women with POP over 50 years of age. The participants were classified according to their POP stage, underwent blood tests (hemogram, biochemistry, bone remodeling markers, and hormone tests), and completed a sociodemographic and lifestyle questionnaire along with densitometry, FRAX, and FRIDEX tests.Results: Of the 133 women studied, 66 presented stages I-II POP (49.6%) and 67 III-IV POP (50.4%). The mean age of the participants was 64.47 years. Women with a high POP stage showed higher FRAX scores for major osteoporotic and hip fracture (p .001 and p < .001p). Bivariate analysis revealed that higher scores on the FRIDEX scale were associated with a higher POP stage (p = .032). In addition, there was a marginally significant negative association between bone mineral density (BMD) and POP stage (p = .054).Conclusions: High-stage POP can be considered an independent predictor of osteoporotic fracture risk, as measured using the FRAX and FRIDEX scales.

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.

Fracture risk assessment in the general population in Spain by FRAX® algorithm. EPISER2016 study

OBJECTIVES

To analyse the risk of fracture calculated by FRAX® and the frequency of high risk of fracture in the general population in Spain.

METHODS

EPISER2016 is a multicentre cross-sectional population-based study of the prevalence of rheumatic diseases in the adult population in Spain. 3,154 subjects aged ≥40 years (1,184 men and 1,970 women) were selected by stratified random sampling. The questions related to fracture risk factors were asked by telephone survey. The risk of major osteoporotic fracture (MOFR) and hip fracture (HFR) were calculated with the Spanish version of the FRAX® tool, without the inclusion of bone mineral density. To define high fracture risk, the MOFR≥20%, MOFR≥10%, MOFR≥7.5% and HFR≥3% thresholds were used.

RESULTS

The median (interquartile range) of the MOFR was 2.61% (1.55-6.34%) in women and 1.67% (1.15-2.87%) in men, whereas that of the HFR was 0.39% (0.14-1.86%) and 0.18% (0.07-0.77%); 3.83% of women and no men had a MOFR≥20%; 15.71% and 1.14% had a MOFR≥10%; 20.62% and 2.21%, a MOFR≥7.5%; and 19.27% and 8.05%, an HFR≥3%. In women aged 65 and over, the HFR was high in 58.09%.

CONCLUSIONS

EPISER2016 enabled us to establish the risk of fracture calculated by FRAX® and the prevalence of high risk of fracture in the general population according to the different thresholds used in Spain.

Osteoporosis and Psoriasis

Psoriasis is a chronic inflammatory disease associated with multiple comorbidities, particularly in patients with arthritis or more severe forms of the disease. The link between all these comorbidities is probably systemic inflammation. Several recent studies have indicated that patients with psoriasis may be at an increased risk of pathologic fractures and osteoporosis. Current guidelines on comorbidities in psoriasis do not recommend assessment of bone health. In this article, we review the available evidence on the association between psoriasis and osteoporosis. We first examine the concept of osteoporosis and the role of vitaminD in bone health and then propose an algorithm for managing and treating this condition in patients with psoriasis.

[Osteosarcopenia: A narrative review]

Osteosarcopenia is a phenotype resulting from the combination of sarcopenia and low bone mineral density. Based on the relationship between bone and muscle, this phenotype is associated with a higher risk of falls, fractures, dependence, and health care costs than its individual components. Given its characteristics, it can be considered as a new geriatric syndrome. Therefore, understanding its pathophysiology and diagnosis, as well as its non-pharmacological and pharmacological management is a task of great importance. The problem in addressing this phenotype arises from the tradition of managing sarcopenia and osteoporosis separately. There is also a lack of consensus on what to call it (sarco-osteopenia, sarco-osteoporosis, osteosarcopenia). The aim of this review is to outline the epidemiology, pathophysiology, diagnoses, adverse events, and management of osteosarcopenia.

Osteoporosis, bone mineral density and CKD-MBD complex (I): Diagnostic considerations

Osteoporosis (OP) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) independently influence bone and cardiovascular health. A considerable number of patients with CKD, especially those with stages 3a to 5D, have a significantly reduced bone mineral density leading to a high risk of fracture and a significant increase in associated morbidity and mortality. Independently of classic OP related to age and/or gender, the mechanical properties of bone are also affected by inherent risk factors for CKD ("uraemic OP"). In the first part of this review, we will analyse the general concepts regarding bone mineral density, OP and fractures, which have been largely undervalued until now by nephrologists due to the lack of evidence and diagnostic difficulties in the context of CKD. It has now been proven that a reduced bone mineral density is highly predictive of fracture risk in CKD patients, although it does not allow a distinction to be made between the causes which generate it (hyperparathyroidism, adynamic bone disease and/or senile osteoporosis, etc.). Therefore, in the second part, we will analyse the therapeutic indications in different CKD stages. In any case, the individual assessment of factors which represent a higher or lower risk of fracture, the quantification of this risk (i.e. using tools such as FRAX^®) and the potential indications for densitometry in patients with CKD could represent an important first step pending new clinical guidelines based on randomised studies which do not exclude CKD patients, all the while avoiding therapeutic nihilism in an area of growing importance.

[Prevalence of osteoporosis, estimation of probability of fracture and bone metabolism study in patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer in the health area of Lugo]

OBJECTIVE

To study the prevalence of osteoporosis and fracture probability in patients diagnosed with prostate cancer.

DESIGN

Observational descriptive transversal study. SITE: Study performed from Primary Care of Lugo in collaboration with Rheumatology and Urology Services of our referral hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients diagnosed with prostate cancer without bone metastatic disease from January to December 2012.

MAIN MEASUREMENTS

Epidemiologic, clinical, laboratory and densitometric variables involved in osteoporosis were collected. The likelihood of fracture was estimated by FRAX^® Tool.

RESULTS

Eighty-three patients met the inclusion criteria. None was excluded. The average age was 67 years. The Body Mass Index was 28.28. Twenty-five patients (30.1%) had previous osteoporotic fractures. Other prevalent risk factors were alcohol (26.5%) and smoking (22.9%). Eighty-two subjects had vitamin D below normal level (98.80%). Femoral Neck densitometry showed that 8.9% had osteoporosis and 54% osteopenia. The average fracture risk in this population, estimated by FRAX^®, was 2.63% for hip fracture and 5.28% for major fracture. Cut level for FRAX^® major fracture value without DXA >5% and ≥7.5% proposed by Azagra et al. showed 24 patients (28.92%) and 8 patients (9.64%) respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of osteoporosis in this population was very high. The more frequent risk factors associated with osteoporosis were: previous osteoporotic fracture, alcohol consumption, smoking and family history of previous fracture. The probability of fracture using femoral neck FRAX^® tool was low. Vitamin D deficiency was very common (98.8%).

In-hospital care, complications, and 4-month mortality following a hip or proximal femur fracture: the Spanish registry of osteoporotic femur fractures prospective cohort study

We have characterised 997 hip fracture patients from a representative 45 Spanish hospitals, and followed them up prospectively for up to 4 months. Despite suboptimal surgical delays (average 59.1 hours), in-hospital mortality was lower than in Northern European cohorts. The secondary fracture prevention gap is unacceptably high at 85%.

PURPOSE

To characterise inpatient care, complications, and 4-month mortality following a hip or proximal femur fracture in Spain.

METHODS

Design: prospective cohort study. Consecutive sample of patients ≥ 50 years old admitted in a representative 45 hospitals for a hip or proximal femur fragility fracture, from June 2014 to June 2016 and followed up for 4 months post-fracture. Patient characteristics, site of fracture, in-patient care (including secondary fracture prevention) and complications, and 4-month mortality are described.

RESULTS

A total of 997 subjects (765 women) of mean (standard deviation) age 83.6 (8.4) years were included. Previous history of fracture/s (36.9%) and falls (43%) were common, and 10-year FRAX-estimated major and hip fracture risks were 15.2% (9.0%) and 8.5% (7.6%) respectively. Inter-trochanteric (44.6%) and displaced intra-capsular (28.0%) were the most common fracture sites, and fixation with short intramedullary nail (38.6%) with spinal anaesthesia (75.5%) the most common procedures. Surgery and rehabilitation were initiated within a mean 59.1 (56.7) and 61.9 (55.1) hours respectively, and average length of stay was 11.5 (9.3) days. Antithrombotic and antibiotic prophylaxis were given to 99.8% and 98.2% respectively, whilst only 12.4% received secondary fracture prevention at discharge. Common complications included delirium (36.1 %) and kidney failure (14.1%), with in-hospital and 4-month mortality of 2.1% and 11% respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite suboptimal surgical delay, post-hip fracture mortality is low in Spanish hospitals. The secondary fracture prevention gap is unacceptably high at > 85%, in spite of virtually universal anti-thrombotic and antibiotic prophylaxis.

[Adequacy of treatment for osteoporosis in primary prevention. Quantitative and qualitative study]

Objetivo

Estudio cuantitativo: conocer la prevalencia de inadecuación del tratamiento para la osteoporosis en prevención primaria (OPP) en mujeres de 60-74 años. Estudio cualitativo: conocer los criterios diagnósticos y de tratamiento de la OPP y su variabilidad en médicos de atención primaria (AP) y especialistas.

Material y método

Estudio cuantitativo: estudio observacional, transversal y retrospectivo. Población: mujeres de 60-74 años con tratamiento activo para la OPP (n = 424) en mayo del 2012. Se consideró inadecuación si presentaban ≤ 2 factores de riesgo con DXA realizada o con DXA T-score ≥ −2,4. Estudio cualitativo: técnica Delphi (15 ítems) y dos rondas de consulta. Periodo: marzo-abril del 2014. Población: médicos AP, reumatólogos y traumatólogos (n = 251). Muestreo aleatorio.

Resultados

Estudio cuantitativo: grado de inadecuación del 63,4%. En el 43,2% no constaba diagnóstico de osteoporosis. En el 82,3% no constaban factores de riesgo. Tratamiento: 40,3% con bisfosfonatos y 47,9% con calcio + vitamina D. Estudio cualitativo: el 23% respondieron a la primera ronda y, de estos, el 67% a la segunda ronda. Los ítems con mayor acuerdo fueron valoración de factores de riesgo para el diagnóstico y bisfosfonatos como tratamiento. Los ítems con menor consenso fueron utilización del FRAX y densitometría y tratamiento solo con calcio + vitamina D.

Conclusiones

El porcentaje de inadecuación es alto. El grado de registro en historia clínica es bajo. La metodología Delphi es útil para detectar discrepancias entre recomendaciones de guías de práctica clínica y resultados.

A systematic review of intervention thresholds based on FRAX : A report prepared for the National Osteoporosis Guideline Group and the International Osteoporosis Foundation

This systematic review identified assessment guidelines for osteoporosis that incorporate FRAX. The rationale for intervention thresholds is given in a minority of papers. Intervention thresholds (fixed or age-dependent) need to be country-specific.

INTRODUCTION

In most assessment guidelines, treatment for osteoporosis is recommended in individuals with prior fragility fractures, especially fractures at spine and hip. However, for those without prior fractures, the intervention thresholds can be derived using different methods. The aim of this report was to undertake a systematic review of the available information on the use of FRAX® in assessment guidelines, in particular the setting of thresholds and their validation.

METHODS

We identified 120 guidelines or academic papers that incorporated FRAX of which 38 provided no clear statement on how the fracture probabilities derived are to be used in decision-making in clinical practice. The remainder recommended a fixed intervention threshold (n = 58), most commonly as a component of more complex guidance (e.g. bone mineral density (BMD) thresholds) or an age-dependent threshold (n = 22). Two guidelines have adopted both age-dependent and fixed thresholds.

RESULTS

Fixed probability thresholds have ranged from 4 to 20 % for a major fracture and 1.3-5 % for hip fracture. More than one half (39) of the 58 publications identified utilised a threshold probability of 20 % for a major osteoporotic fracture, many of which also mention a hip fracture probability of 3 % as an alternative intervention threshold. In nearly all instances, no rationale is provided other than that this was the threshold used by the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA. Where undertaken, fixed probability thresholds have been determined from tests of discrimination (Hong Kong), health economic assessment (USA, Switzerland), to match the prevalence of osteoporosis (China) or to align with pre-existing guidelines or reimbursement criteria (Japan, Poland). Age-dependent intervention thresholds, first developed by the National Osteoporosis Guideline Group (NOGG), are based on the rationale that if a woman with a prior fragility fracture is eligible for treatment, then, at any given age, a man or woman with the same fracture probability but in the absence of a previous fracture (i.e. at the 'fracture threshold') should also be eligible. Under current NOGG guidelines, based on age-dependent probability thresholds, inequalities in access to therapy arise especially at older ages (≥70 years) depending on the presence or absence of a prior fracture. An alternative threshold using a hybrid model reduces this disparity.

CONCLUSION

The use of FRAX (fixed or age-dependent thresholds) as the gateway to assessment identifies individuals at high risk more effectively than the use of BMD. However, the setting of intervention thresholds needs to be country-specific.

A comparative study between the implementation of the FRIDEX calibration and the NOGG guideline in the management of osteoporosis in routine clinical practice

OBJECTIVE

The recent FRIDEX calibration proposed cost-effectiveness thresholds for the Spanish population. The aim of our study is to evaluate the impact of its application in routine clinical practice and to compare its thresholds with those of the National Osteoporosis Guideline Group (NOGG).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Cross-sectional study in women referred to a bone densitometry unit who were not receiving antiresorptive therapy. The absolute risk of major fracture or hip fracture was calculated with the Spanish and British formulas of the FRAX^® tool using the intervention thresholds of the FRIDEX calibration and the NOGG guideline, respectively.

RESULTS

The study included 607 women with a median age of 59.4 (IQR=14) years. Treatment was initiated in 31.4% after bone mineral densitometry. With the application of the FRIDEX calibration, bone mineral density testing would have been indicated in 35.4% of the sample and treatment in 26.7%, reducing costs by 18.8% over a 5-year period. The NOGG guideline would have recommended testing in 32% and treatment in 21.3% of the participants, resulting in a reduction in costs of 35% over 5years, when compared with the standard approach. Agreement between the FRIDEX calibration and the NOGG guideline, as defined by Cohen's kappa coefficient, was low in terms of both diagnostic (0.16 [95%CI, 0.09-0.24]) and therapeutic indications (0.39 [95%CI, 0.31-0.47]).

CONCLUSIONS

The application of the FRIDEX calibration and the NOGG guideline improves efficiency in the management of osteoporosis, although the level of agreement between the two is low.

Establishing and evaluating FRAX® probability thresholds in Taiwan

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

The Taiwanese FRAX^® calculator was launched in 2010. However, cost-effectiveness thresholds for the prescription of antiosteoporosis medications were not established. This study aims to establish and evaluate FRAX^®-based probability thresholds in Taiwan.

METHODS

Using previous data from Taiwan and literature, we determined cost-effectiveness thresholds for prevention of osteoporotic fractures by alendronate with a Markov model, as well as using two other translational approaches. Sensitivity analysis was applied using different alendronate prices. A clinical sample was used to test these Taiwan-specific thresholds by determining the percentages of high-risk patients who would be qualified for current National Health Insurance reimbursement.

RESULTS

With the Markov model, the intervention threshold for hip fracture was 7% for women and 6% for men; for major osteoporotic fracture, it was 15% for women and 12.5% for men. Both translational approach models were cost effective only for certain age groups. However, if branded alendronate was reimbursed at 60% of the current price, they became cost effective in almost all age groups. This clinical screening study showed that the National Health Insurance Administration model identified the highest proportion (44%) of patients qualified for National Health Insurance reimbursements, followed by the Markov model (30%), and the United States model (22%).

CONCLUSION

Three FRAX^®-based models of alendronate use were established in Taiwan to help optimize treatment strategies. The government is encouraged to incorporate FRAX^®-based approaches into the reimbursement policy for antiosteoporosis medicines.

The accuracy of osteoporotic fracture risk prediction tools: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To identify and synthesise the best available evidence on the accuracy of the currently available tools for predicting fracture risk.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane databases to 2014. Two reviewers independently selected articles, collected data from studies, and carried out a hand search of the references of the included studies. The Quality Assessment Tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) checklist was used, and the primary outcome was the area under the curve (AUC) and 95% CIs, obtained from receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses. We excluded tools if they had not been externally validated or were designed for specific disease populations. Random effects meta-analyses were performed with the selected tools.

RESULTS

Forty-five studies met inclusion criteria, corresponding to 13 different tools. Only three tools had been tested more than once in a population-based setting: FRAX (26 studies in 9 countries), GARVAN (6 studies in 3 countries) and QFracture (3 studies in the UK, 1 also including Irish participants). Twenty studies with these three tools were included in a total of 17 meta-analyses (for hip or major osteoporotic fractures; men or women; with or without bone mineral density).

CONCLUSIONS

Most of the 13 tools are feasible in clinical practice. FRAX has the largest number of externally validated and independent studies. The overall accuracy of the different tools is satisfactory (>0.70), with QFracture reaching 0.89 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.89). Significant methodological limitations were observed in many studies, suggesting caution when comparing tools based solely on the AUC.