Treatment indications and thresholds of intervention: consensus and controversies in osteoporosis

Advancing care: optimizing osteoporosis treatment in the older and oldest old population

Osteoporosis is a critical public health issue, particularly in the "older" (those aged over 75) and "oldest old" population (those aged 85 and above), who are at a heightened risk for fractures and related complications. This article reviews current osteoporosis treatments tailored for these age groups, emphasizing the balance between efficacy and safety, while considering cost/benefit aspects. We discuss pharmacological therapies available nowadays and their respective benefits and risks in the old population, based on the available literature on the subject. Special attention is given to specific features of this age category, like challenges of polypharmacy, physiological changes associated with age, comorbidities and patient adherence. This paper highlights the need for individualised treatment plans that consider the patient's overall health status, life expectancy and quality of life and the importance of continued innovation and personalized care in managing osteoporosis especially among the "older" population.

Update on fracture risk assessment in osteoporosis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The assessment of fracture risk is playing an ever-increasing role in osteoporosis clinical management and informing international guidelines for osteoporosis. FRAX, a fracture risk calculator that provides individualized 10-year probabilities of hip and major osteoporotic fracture, has been widely used since 2008. In this review, we recap the development and limitations of intervention thresholds and the role of absolute fracture risk.

RECENT FINDINGS

There is an increasing awareness of disparities and inequities in the setting of intervention thresholds in osteoporosis. The limitations of the simple use of prior fracture or the DXA-derived BMD T -score threshold are increasingly being discussed; one solution is to use fracture risk or probabilities in the setting of such thresholds. This approach also permits more objective assessment of high and very high fracture risk to enable physicians to make choices not just about the need to treat but what agents to use in individual patients.

SUMMARY

Like all clinical tools, FRAX has limitations that need to be considered, but the use of fracture risk in deciding who to treat, when to treat and what agent to use is a mechanism to target treatment equitably to those at an increased risk of fracture.

Age-dependent FRAX-based assessment and intervention thresholds for therapeutic decision making in osteoporosis in the Malaysian population

Fracture risk stratification is crucial in countries with limited access to bone density measurement. 24.8% women were in the high-risk category while 30.4% were in the low-risk category. In the intermediate risk group, after recalculation of fracture risk with bone density, 38.3% required treatment. In more than half, treatment decisions can be made without bone density.

PURPOSE

We aimed to examine the role of age-dependent intervention thresholds (ITs) applied to the Fracture Risk Assessment (FRAX) tool in therapeutic decision making for osteoporosis in the Malaysian population.

METHODS

Data were collated from 1380 treatment-naïve postmenopausal women aged 40-85 years who underwent bone mineral density (BMD) measurements for clinical reasons. Age-dependent ITs, for both major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) and hip fracture (HF), were calculated considering a woman with a BMI of 25 kg/m2, aged between 40 and 85years, with a prior fragility fracture, sans other clinical risk factors. Those with fracture probabilities equal to or above upper assessment thresholds (UATs) were considered to have high fracture risk. Those below the lower assessment thresholds (LATs) were considered to have low fracture risk.

RESULTS

The ITs of MOF and HF ranged from 0.7 to 18% and 0.2 to 8%, between 40 and 85years. The LATs of MOF ranged from 0.3 to 11%, while those of HF ranged from 0.1 to 5.2%. The UATs of MOF and HF were 0.8 to 21.6% and 0.2 to 9.6%, respectively. In this study, 24.8% women were in the high-risk category while 30.4% were in the low-risk category. Of the 44.8% (n=618) in the intermediate risk group, after recalculation of fracture risk with BMD input, 38.3% (237/618) were above the ITs while the rest (n=381, 61.7%) were below the ITs. Judged by the Youden Index, 11.5% MOF probability which was associated with a sensitivity of 0.62 and specificity of 0.83 and 4.0% HF probability associated with a sensitivity of 0.63 and a specificity 0.82 were found to be the most appropriate fixed ITs in this analysis.

CONCLUSION

Less than half of the study population (44.8%) required BMD for osteoporosis management when age-specific assessment thresholds were applied. Therefore, in more than half, therapeutic decisions can be made without BMD based on these assessment thresholds.