Rationale of the Spanish FRAX model in decision-making for predicting osteoporotic fractures: an update of FRIDEX cohort of Spanish women

The Lebanese GRADE-based vitamin D guidelines: a paradigm for the MENA region

BACKGROUND

The Middle East and North Africa region are traditionally known as regions with a high prevalence of vitamin D deficiency. However, serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25OHD) levels seem to be increasing lately. We developed guidelines on the screening and supplementation of adult Lebanese patients with vitamin D. These guidelines address community-dwelling and institutionalized individuals.

METHODS

Our guideline panel consisted of clinical and methodology experts that formulated the guidelines questions. We conducted a systematic review to gather global data on fracture (CRD42019129540), regional data on vitamin D trials (CRD42014010488), and on patients' values and preferences (CRD42022320022). We also complemented the latter with results from a cross-sectional local study. We followed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology to assess the quality and certainty of evidence, and to develop recommendations.

RESULTS

For community-dwelling and institutionalized Lebanese adult population, the panel suggests no screening for vitamin D deficiency, over screening for vitamin D deficiency (conditional recommendation, based on very low certainty evidence). For community-dwelling Lebanese adult population, the panel suggests no supplementation with calcium and vitamin D, over supplementation (conditional recommendation, based on moderate certainty evidence). For institutionalized Lebanese adult population, the panel suggests supplementation with calcium and vitamin D, over no supplementation (conditional recommendation, based on moderate certainty evidence). The guidelines also identify high-risk subgroups, more likely to benefit from screening and supplementation. In community dwelling and institutionalized Lebanese adult individuals, for whom there is a decision to supplement with calcium and vitamin D, the panel suggests supplementation with a daily vitamin D equivalent of 600-2000 IU, as compared to doses higher than 2000 IU (conditional recommendation, very low certainty evidence).

CONCLUSION

The Lebanese GRADE-based vitamin D guidelines recommend against population screening and vitamin D supplementation. Subgroups at high risk are identified. The guidelines take into account contextual factors, and allow their adoption or adaptation in countries in the region.

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.

Electronic Health Records (EHRs) Can Identify Patients at High Risk of Fracture but Require Substantial Race Adjustments to Currently Available Fracture Risk Calculators

BACKGROUND

Osteoporotic fracture prediction calculators are poorly utilized in primary care, leading to underdiagnosis and undertreatment of those at risk for fracture. The use of these calculators could be improved if predictions were automated using the electronic health record (EHR). However, this approach is not well validated in multi-ethnic populations, and it is not clear if the adjustments for race or ethnicity made by calculators are appropriate.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate EHR-generated fracture predictions in a multi-ethnic population.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study using data from the EHR.

SETTING

An urban, academic medical center in Philadelphia, PA.

PARTICIPANTS

12,758 White, 7,844 Black, and 3,587 Hispanic patients seeking routine care from 2010 to 2018 with mean 3.8 years follow-up.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS

FRAX and QFracture, two of the most used fracture prediction tools, were studied. Risk for major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) and hip fracture were calculated using data from the EHR at baseline and compared to the number of fractures that occurred during follow-up.

RESULTS

MOF rates varied from 3.2 per 1000 patient-years in Black men to 7.6 in White women. FRAX and QFracture had similar discrimination for MOF prediction (area under the curve, AUC, 0.69 vs. 0.70, p=0.08) and for hip fracture prediction (AUC 0.77 vs 0.79, p=0.21) and were similar by race or ethnicity. FRAX had superior calibration than QFracture (calibration-in-the-large for FRAX 0.97 versus QFracture 2.02). The adjustment factors used in MOF prediction were generally accurate in Black women, but underestimated risk in Black men, Hispanic women, and Hispanic men.

LIMITATIONS

Single center design.

CONCLUSIONS

Fracture predictions using only EHR inputs can discriminate between high and low risk patients, even in Black and Hispanic patients, and could help primary care physicians identify patients who need screening or treatment. However, further refinements to the calculators may better adjust for race-ethnicity.

Predictive capacity of FRAX in a spanish region with a hip fracture rate close to the national mean

BACKGROUND

It is known that standardized incidence rates of hip fracture vary among older people in Spain. So far, the results published on the validation of the FRAX® tool in Spain have suggested that the major osteoporotic fractures (MOFs) risk in our country is underestimated. These studies have practically been based on Spanish cohorts evaluated in Catalonia, a higher hip fracture rate area. The purpose of this study is to analyse the ability of the FRAX® in a Spanish mid-fracture rate population.

METHODS

Study design: Retrospective cohort study.

MEASURES

MOFs: hip, humerus, wrist, spine fractures. Risk of fracture assessed by calculating odds ratios (ORs). Predictive capacity of FRAX® according to the osteoporotic fractures observed between 2009 and 2018 (ObsFr) to predicted by FRAX® without densitometry in 2009 (PredFr) ratio.

RESULTS

285 participants (156 women, 54.7%) with a mean ± SD of 61.5 ± 14 years. Twenty-four people sustained 27 fractures (15 MOFs). Significant ORs were observed for an age ≥ 65 (2.92; 95% CI, 1.07-7.96), female sex (3.18; 95% CI, 1.24-8.16), rheumatoid arthritis (0.62; 95% CI, 2.03-55.55), proton pump (2.71; 95% CI, 1.20-6.09) and serotonin reuptake (2.51; 95% CI, 1.02-6.16) inhibitors. The ObsFr/PredFr ratio in women were 1.12 (95% CI, 0.95-1.29) for MOFs and 0.47 (95% CI, 0-0.94) for hip fractures. Men had a ratio of 0.57 (95% CI, 0.01-1.14) for MOF, no hip fractures were observed. The ratios for the overall group were 1.29 (95% CI, 1.12-1.48) for MOFs and 0.70 (95% CI, 0.22-1.17) for hip fractures.

CONCLUSIONS

FRAX® accurately predicted MOFs in women population with a hip fracture incidence rate close to the national mean compared to previous studies conducted in higher incidence regions in Spain.

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.

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.

Development and external validation of a 1- and 5-year fracture prediction tool based on electronic medical records data: The EPIC risk algorithm

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to develop and validate a fracture risk algorithm for the automatic identification of subjects at high risk of imminent and long-term fracture risk.

RESEARCH, DESIGN, AND METHODS

A cohort of subjects aged 50-85, between 2007 and 2017, was extracted from the Catalan information system for the development of research in primary care database (SIDIAP). Participants were followed until the earliest of death, transfer out, fracture, or 12/31/2017. Potential risk factors were obtained based on the existing literature. Cox regression was used to model 1 and 5-year risk of hip and major fracture. The original cohort was randomly split in 80:20 for development and internal validation purposes respectively. External validation was explored in a cohort extracted from the Spanish database for pharmaco-epidemiological research in primary care.

RESULTS

A total of 1.76 million people were included from SIDIAP (50.7 % women with mean age of 65.4 years). Hip and major fracture incidence rates were 3.57 [95%CI 3.53 to 3.60] and 11.61 [95%CI 11.54 to 11.68] per 1000 person-years, respectively. The derived model included 19 risk factors. Internal validity showed good results on calibration and discrimination. The 1-year C-statistic for hip and major fracture were 0.851 (95%CI 0.853 to 0.864), and 0.717 (95%CI 0.742 to 0.749) respectively. The 5-year C-statistic for hip and major fracture were 0.849 (95%CI 0.847 to 0.852) and 0.724 (95%CI 0.721 to 0.727) respectively. External validation showed good performance for hip and major fracture risk prediction.

CONCLUSIONS

We have developed and validated a clinical prediction tool for 1- and 5-year hip and major osteoporotic fracture risks using electronic primary care data. The proposed algorithm can be automatically estimated at the population level using the available primary care records. Future work is needed on the cost-effectiveness of its use for population-based screening and targeted prevention of osteoporotic fractures.

Prevalence and treatment of fragility fractures in Spanish primary care: PREFRAOS study

In Spanish primary care (PC), the prevalence of fragility fractures (FF) in subjects ≥ 70 years old is high, especially in women. One-third of subjects with an FF lacked osteoporosis (OP) diagnosis and >50% were not currently receiving OP medication. An improvement of the FF management in this population is needed.

PURPOSE

In Spanish PC, the prevalence of FF is high, especially in women. One-third of subjects with a FF lacked an OP diagnosis and more than half were not currently receiving OP medication. Several studies reported underdiagnosis/undertreatment of OP in PC among elderly subjects with FF. To date, no such data exist for Spain. The purpose is to estimate the prevalence of FF in the elderly population (≥ 70 years old) and to describe the characteristics, risk factors, comorbidities, and OP diagnosis and treatment rates of subjects with FF in Spanish PC centers.

METHODS

This is an observational, retrospective study in Spain consisting of two phases. Phase A included all subjects ≥ 70 years old listed in the center's medical records from November 2018 to March 2020. Phase B included subjects with FF and prior consultation at the center for any reason. Subjects were excluded only if they had previously participated in another study. Primary outcomes were prevalence of FF (phase A) and characteristics of subjects with at least one FF (phase B).

RESULTS

The overall prevalence of FF was 17.7% among subjects visiting medical centers for any reason (24.1% women vs. 8.0% men) (30 PC centers from 14 Spanish regions). Vertebral (5.1%) was the most prevalent fracture. Of 665 subjects in phase B, most (87%) were women and ≥ 80 years old (57%), suffered mainly major OP fracture (68%), and had multiple comorbidities (≥ 2, 89.2%). While two-thirds had OP diagnosis and 61.1% received OP medication anytime in the past, 56.8% were not currently receiving OP medication. Diagnosis and treatment rates were lower among men (43% and 38% vs. 70% and 65%, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Prevalence of FF was high, especially in women. One-third of subjects lacked OP diagnosis and ≥ 50% were not receiving OP treatment; diagnosis and treatment gaps were larger among men. This reinforces the need to improve the management of FF in the elderly population. However, as PC centers participating in this study had high OP experience that have the potential to do better in terms of diagnosis and treatment, caution in the generalization of these data should be taken.

Validation of the Taiwan FRAX® calculator for the prediction of fracture risk

The Taiwan FRAX® calculator was validated to predict incident fractures preliminarily. Cutoffs of FRAX probability for predicting major osteoporotic fracture and hip fracture were proposed as 9.5% and 4% in Taiwanese individuals.

PURPOSE

FRAX® is an algorithm used to calculate fracture probabilities based on clinical risk factors (CRFs) and bone mineral density (BMD). The country-specific Taiwan FRAX calculator has not been validated since its establishment in 2010. The aim of the present study is to evaluate the predictive performance of the Taiwan FRAX calculator using longitudinal fracture data.

METHODS

A total of 1975 subjects, aged ≧ 40 years old, from Yunlin and Tianliao cohorts in Taiwan during the period 2009-2010, were identified and completely connected with the 2008-2016 National Health Insurance Research Database.

RESULTS

During the average 6.8 ± 1.1 years of follow-up, 160 incident major osteoporotic fractures (MOFs) were identified. The predictive ability assessing based on the observed to expected fractures (O/E) ratio calculated with the FRAX probability adjusted for 6.8 years were 1.19 (95%CI 1.02-1.39) for MOF, and 1.07 (95%CI 0.82-1.39) for hip fractures. In the discriminative statistics, the AUC for prediction of major osteoporotic fractures using FRAX was 0.75 without and 0.77 with BMD (AUC for hip fracture was 0.75 without and 0.77 with BMD). The optimal cutoff value was 9.5% of the FRAX score with BMD for all major osteoporotic fractures, with good sensitivity (76.9%) and specificity (65.3%). For hip fractures, the optimal cutoff point for the FRAX probability with BMD was 4.0%, and the sensitivity and specificity were 74.4% and 68.3%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The Taiwan FRAX® calculator was validated to predict incident fractures preliminarily. Cutoffs are proposed for predicting fracture risk in Taiwanese individuals.

Systematic review of major osteoporotic fracture to hip fracture incidence rate ratios worldwide: implications for Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX)-derived estimates

The Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) is the most widely used tool for fracture prediction. It provides 10-year probabilities for hip and major osteoporotic fracture (MOF). It uses country-specific hip fracture incidence and life expectancy data, and for most countries, MOF/hip fracture incidence rate ratios (IRRs) from Malmo Sweden. However, the risk of MOF varies by age, sex, and geography. The objective is to compare the MOF/hip IRRs across countries, by sex and age. This systematic review targeted observational studies of MOF and hip fractures in individuals >50 years (PROSPERO 2019 CRD42019129259). One reviewer screened potential articles. Two reviewers completed duplicate and independent data abstraction, and assessed study quality based on population representativeness, study design and duration, definition of ethnicity, and fracture characteristics. We calculated the MOF/hip IRRs (95% confidence interval) and Z-values to compare IRRs in various countries to those for Sweden. We included 27 studies, of fair to good quality in the majority, from Europe (15), US and Canada (7), Asia (3), and Australia (2). The IRRs were twofold to 10-fold higher in younger compared to older age categories, and in women compared to men, with few exceptions. Within Europe, and using Sweden as a reference, MOF/Hip IRRs in women 50-54 years from Finland, Italy, Netherlands, Denmark, and UK were significantly lower by 38% to 60%. Findings were similar in men. At older ages, MOF/Hip IRRs were consistently lower in women from European countries compared to Sweden, by 10%-40% and 11%-51%, at 75-79 years and 85-89 years, respectively. Findings were heterogenous in men and in non-European countries. In conclusion, the MOF/hip fracture IRR may vary between countries. The variability at older ages may affect FRAX prediction when country-specific fracture IRRs are not used. Further research is needed to elucidate the implication of our findings to FRAX-derived MOF estimates in various countries. © 2021 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).

Performance of predictive tools to identify individuals at risk of non-traumatic fracture: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression

There is no consensus on which tool is the most accurate to assess fracture risk. The results of this systematic review suggest that QFracture, Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) with BMD, and Garvan with BMD are the tools with the best discriminative ability. More studies assessing the comparative performance of current tools are needed.

INTRODUCTION

Many tools exist to assess fracture risk. This review aims to determine which tools have the best predictive accuracy to identify individuals at high risk of non-traumatic fracture.

METHODS

Studies assessing the accuracy of tools for prediction of fracture were searched in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews, and Global Health. Studies were eligible if discrimination was assessed in a population independent of the derivation cohort. Meta-analyses and meta-regressions were performed on areas under the ROC curve (AUCs). Gender, mean age, age range, and study quality were used as adjustment variables.

RESULTS

We identified 53 validation studies assessing the discriminative ability of 14 tools. Given the small number of studies on some tools, only FRAX, Garvan, and QFracture were compared using meta-regression models. In the unadjusted analyses, QFracture had the best discriminative ability to predict hip fracture (AUC = 0.88). In the adjusted analysis, FRAX with BMD (AUC = 0.81) and Garvan with BMD (AUC = 0.79) had the highest AUCs. For prediction of major osteoporotic fracture, QFracture had the best discriminative ability (AUC = 0.77). For prediction of osteoporotic or any fracture, FRAX with BMD and Garvan with BMD had higher discriminative ability than their versions without BMD (FRAX: AUC = 0.72 vs 0.69, Garvan: AUC = 0.72 vs 0.65). A significant amount of heterogeneity was present in the analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

QFracture, FRAX with BMD, and Garvan with BMD have the highest discriminative performance for predicting fracture. Additional studies in which the performance of current tools is assessed in the same individuals may be performed to confirm this conclusion.

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.

Epidemiology of fractures in Armenia: development of a country-specific FRAX model and comparison to its surrogate

Fracture probabilities derived from the surrogate FRAX model for Armenia were compared to those from the model based on regional estimates of the incidence of hip fracture. Disparities between the surrogate and authentic FRAX models indicate the importance of developing country-specific FRAX models. Despite large differences between models, differences in the rank order of fracture probabilities were minimal.

OBJECTIVE

Armenia has relied on a surrogate FRAX model based on the fracture epidemiology of Romania. This paper describes the epidemiology of fragility fractures in Armenia used to create an Armenia-specific FRAX model with an aim of comparing this new model with the surrogate model.

METHODS

We carried out a population-based study in two regions of Armenia (Ararat and Vayots Dzor representing approximately 11% of the country's population). We aimed to identify all low-energy fractures: retrospectively from hospital registers in 2011-2012 and prospectively in 2013 with the inclusion of primary care sources.

RESULTS

The differences in incidence between the surveys with and without data from primary care suggested that 44% of patients sustaining a hip fracture did not receive specialized medical care. A similar proportion of forearm and humeral fractures did not come to hospital attention (48 and 49%, respectively). Only 57.7% of patients sustaining a hip fracture were hospitalized. In 2013, hip fracture incidence at the age of 50 years or more was 201/100,000 for women and 136/100,000 for men, and age- and sex-specific rates were incorporated into the new "authentic" FRAX model for Armenia. Compared to the surrogate model, the authentic model gave lower 10-year fracture probabilities in men and women aged less than 70 years but substantially higher above this age. Notwithstanding, there were very close correlations in fracture probabilities between the surrogate and authentic models (> 0.99) so that the revisions had little impact on the rank order of risk.

CONCLUSION

A substantial proportion of major osteoporotic fractures in Armenia do not come to hospital attention. The disparities between surrogate and authentic FRAX models indicate the importance of developing country-specific FRAX models. Despite large differences between models, differences in the rank order of fracture probabilities were minimal.

Epidemiology of hip fracture and the development of FRAX in Ukraine

A country-specific FRAX model has been developed for the Ukraine to replace the Austrian model hitherto used. Comparison of the Austrian and Ukrainian models indicated that the former markedly overestimated fracture probability whilst correctly stratifying risk.

INTRODUCTION

FRAX has been used to estimate osteoporotic fracture risk since 2009. Rather than using a surrogate model, the Austrian version of FRAX was adopted for clinical practice. Since then, data have become available on hip fracture incidence in the Ukraine.

METHODS

The incidence of hip fracture was computed from three regional estimates and used to construct a country-specific FRAX model for the Ukraine. The model characteristics were compared with those of the Austrian FRAX model, previously used in Ukraine by using all combinations of six risk factors and eight values of BMD (total number of combinations =512).

RESULTS

The relationship between the probabilities of a major fracture derived from the two versions of FRAX indicated a close correlation between the two estimates (r > 0.95). The Ukrainian version, however, gave markedly lower probabilities than the Austrian model at all ages. For a major osteoporotic fracture, the median probability was lower by 25% at age 50 years and the difference increased with age. At the age of 60, 70 and 80 years, the median value was lower by 30, 53 and 65%, respectively. Similar findings were observed for men and for hip fracture.

CONCLUSION

The Ukrainian FRAX model should enhance accuracy of determining fracture probability among the Ukrainian population and help to guide decisions about treatment. The study also indicates that the use of surrogate FRAX models or models from other countries, whilst correctly stratifying risk, may markedly over or underestimate the absolute fracture probability.