1
|
McCloskey E, Tan ATH, Schini M. Update on fracture risk assessment in osteoporosis. Curr Opin Endocrinol Diabetes Obes 2024:01266029-990000000-00098. [PMID: 38809256 DOI: 10.1097/med.0000000000000871] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/30/2024]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eugene McCloskey
- Division of Clinical Medicine, School of Medicine and Population Health
- Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Andre T H Tan
- Fast and Chronic Programmes, Alexandra Hospital, Queenstown
- Division of Endocrinology, Department of Medicine, National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Marian Schini
- Division of Clinical Medicine, School of Medicine and Population Health
- Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Naseri A, Bakhshayeshkaram M, Salehi S, Heydari ST, Dabbaghmanesh MH, Dabbaghmanesh MM. FRAX-derived intervention and assessment thresholds for osteoporosis in ten Middle Eastern countries. Arch Osteoporos 2024; 19:41. [PMID: 38780743 DOI: 10.1007/s11657-024-01397-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/25/2023] [Accepted: 05/01/2024] [Indexed: 05/25/2024]
Abstract
This study established FRAX-based age-specific assessment and intervention thresholds for ten Middle Eastern countries where FRAX is currently available, but the lack of specific thresholds has limited its usefulness. The intervention thresholds ranged from 0.6 (Saudi Arabia) to 36.0% (Syria) at the ages of 40 and 90 years, respectively. INTRODUCTION Developing fracture risk assessment tools allows physicians to select patients for therapy based on their absolute fracture risk instead of relying solely on bone mineral density (BMD). The most widely used tool is FRAX, currently available in ten Middle Eastern countries. This study aimed to set FRAX-derived assessment and intervention thresholds for individuals aged 40 or above in ten Middle Eastern countries. METHODS The age-specific 10-year probabilities of a major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) for a woman with a BMI of 25.0 kg/m2, without BMD and clinical risk factors except for prior fracture, were calculated as intervention Threshold (IT). The upper and lower assessment thresholds were set at 1.2 times the IT and an age-specific 10-year probability of a MOF in a woman with a BMI of 25.0 kg/m2, without BMD, prior fracture, and other clinical risk factors, respectively. IT is utilized to determine treatment or reassurance when BMD facilities are unavailable. However, with BMD facilities, assessment thresholds can offer treatment, reassurance, or bone densitometry based on MOF probability. RESULTS The age-specific IT varied from 0.9 to 11.0% in Abu Dhabi, 2.9 to 10% in Egypt, 2.7 to 14.0% in Iran, 1.0 to 28.0% in Jordan, 2.7 to 27.0% in Kuwait, 0.9 to 35.0% in Lebanon, 1.0 to 16.0% in Palestine, 4.1 to 14% in Qatar, 0.6 to 3.7% in Saudi Arabia, and 0.9 to 36.0% in Syria at the age of 40 and 90 years, respectively. CONCLUSIONS FRAX-based IT in Middle Eastern countries provides an opportunity to identify individuals with high fracture risk.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Arzhang Naseri
- Endocrinology and Metabolism Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran
| | - Marzieh Bakhshayeshkaram
- Endocrinology and Metabolism Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran
| | - Sara Salehi
- Endocrinology and Metabolism Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran
| | - Seyed Taghi Heydari
- Health Policy Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran
| | - Mohammad Hossein Dabbaghmanesh
- Endocrinology and Metabolism Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran.
- Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran.
| | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
Schini M, Johansson H, Harvey NC, Lorentzon M, Kanis JA, McCloskey EV. An overview of the use of the fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX) in osteoporosis. J Endocrinol Invest 2024; 47:501-511. [PMID: 37874461 PMCID: PMC10904566 DOI: 10.1007/s40618-023-02219-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/05/2023] [Accepted: 10/03/2023] [Indexed: 10/25/2023]
Abstract
FRAX®, a simple-to-use fracture risk calculator, was first released in 2008 and since then has been used increasingly worldwide. By calculating the 10-year probabilities of a major osteoporotic fracture and hip fracture, it assists clinicians when deciding whether further investigation, for example a bone mineral density measurement (BMD), and/or treatment is needed to prevent future fractures. In this review, we explore the literature around osteoporosis and how FRAX has changed its management. We present the characteristics of this tool and describe the use of thresholds (diagnostic and therapeutic). We also present arguments as to why screening with FRAX should be considered. FRAX has several limitations which are described in this review. This review coincides with the release of a version, FRAXplus, which addresses some of these limitations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M Schini
- Department of Oncology & Metabolism, Metabolic Bone Centre, Northern General Hospital, University of Sheffield, Herries Road, Sheffield, S5 7AU, UK.
| | - H Johansson
- Sahlgrenska Osteoporosis Centre, Institute of Medicine, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
- Mary McKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - N C Harvey
- MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
- NIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, University of Southampton and University Hospitals Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK
| | - M Lorentzon
- Sahlgrenska Osteoporosis Centre, Institute of Medicine, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
- Mary McKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - J A Kanis
- Mary McKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia
- Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - E V McCloskey
- Department of Oncology & Metabolism, Metabolic Bone Centre, Northern General Hospital, University of Sheffield, Herries Road, Sheffield, S5 7AU, UK
- Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Belaya Z, Rozhinskaya L, Dedov I, Drapkina O, Fadeev V, Golounina O, Lesnyak O, Mamedova E, Melnichenko G, Petraikin A, Rodionova S, Skripnikova I, Tkacheva O, Toroptsova N, Yureneva S, Kanis JA. A summary of the Russian clinical guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int 2023; 34:429-447. [PMID: 36651943 DOI: 10.1007/s00198-022-06667-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/09/2022] [Accepted: 12/29/2022] [Indexed: 01/19/2023]
Abstract
UNLABELLED Key statements of the Russian clinical guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis are summarized. They were developed by a task force representing the key Russian professional associations involved in the management of osteoporosis and approved by the Russian Ministry of Health. PURPOSE To summarize key statements of the Russian clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis. METHODS The Russian clinical guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis were developed by a task force representing the key Russian professional associations involved in the management of osteoporosis: These comprised the Russian Association of Endocrinologists, the Russian Association for Osteoporosis, the Association of Rheumatologists of Russia, the Association of Orthopedic surgeons and Traumatologists of Russia, the Russian Association of Gynecologists-Endocrinologists, and the Russian Association of Gerontologists and Geriatrics. The guidelines are based on a systematic literature review and principles of evidence-based medicine and were compiled in accordance with the requirements for clinical recommendations developed by the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation. RESULTS Key statements included in the Russian guidelines of osteoporosis approved by the Russian Ministry of Health in 2021 are summarized. The statements are graded based on levels of evidence and supported by short comments. The guidelines are focused on the current approach to screening, diagnosis, differential diagnosis, and treatment of osteoporosis. CONCLUSION These guidelines are a practical tool for general practitioners, as well as medical specialists, primarily endocrinologists, rheumatologists, orthopedic surgeons, and other physicians who are involved in the management of patients with osteoporosis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zhanna Belaya
- Neuroendocrinology and Bone Diseases, Endocrinology Research Centre, Moscow, Russia.
| | - Liudmila Rozhinskaya
- Neuroendocrinology and Bone Diseases, Endocrinology Research Centre, Moscow, Russia
| | - Ivan Dedov
- Neuroendocrinology and Bone Diseases, Endocrinology Research Centre, Moscow, Russia
| | - Oksana Drapkina
- National Medical Research Center for Therapy and Preventive Medicine, Moscow, Russia
| | - Valentin Fadeev
- Department of Endocrinology, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation (Sechenov University), Moscow, Russia
| | - Olga Golounina
- Department of Endocrinology, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation (Sechenov University), Moscow, Russia
| | - Olga Lesnyak
- Family Medicine Department-Western State Medical University Named After I.I. Mechnikov, St. Petersburg, Russia
| | - Elizaveta Mamedova
- Neuroendocrinology and Bone Diseases, Endocrinology Research Centre, Moscow, Russia
| | - Galina Melnichenko
- Neuroendocrinology and Bone Diseases, Endocrinology Research Centre, Moscow, Russia
| | - Alexey Petraikin
- Department of Radiation Diagnostics, Research and Practical Clinical Center for Diagnostics, Telemedicine Technologies of Moscow Health Care Department, Moscow, Russia
| | - Svetlana Rodionova
- National Medical Research Center of Traumatology and Orthopedics named after. N.N. Priorov, Moscow, Russia
| | - Irina Skripnikova
- National Medical Research Center for Therapy and Preventive Medicine, Moscow, Russia
| | - Olga Tkacheva
- Russian National Research Medical University Named After N.I. Pirogov, Moscow, Russia
| | | | - Svetlana Yureneva
- Department of Gynecological Endocrinology, National Medical Research Center for Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology Named After V.I. Kulakov, Moscow, Russia
| | - John A Kanis
- Mary McKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia
- Center for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Gavilanez EL, Luis IN, Mario NG, Johansson H, Harvey NC, Lorentzon M, Liu E, Vandenput L, McCloskey EV, Kanis JA. An assessment of intervention thresholds for high fracture risk in Chile. Arch Osteoporos 2022; 18:11. [PMID: 36527508 DOI: 10.1007/s11657-022-01198-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/13/2022] [Accepted: 12/01/2022] [Indexed: 12/23/2022]
Abstract
Assessment and treatment pathways using FRAX-based intervention thresholds in Chile can be used to identify patients at high risk of fracture and avoid unnecessary treatment in those at low fracture risk. PURPOSE The aim of the present study was to explore treatment paths and characteristics of women eligible for treatment in Chile based on major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) probabilities derived from FRAX®. METHODS Intervention and assessment thresholds were derived using methods adopted by the National Osteoporosis Guideline Group for FRAX-based guidelines in the UK but based on the epidemiology of fracture and death in Chile. Age-dependent and hybrid assessment and intervention thresholds were applied to 1998 women and 1122 men age 50 years or more drawn from participants in the National Health Survey 2016-2017. RESULTS Approximately 12% of men and women had a prior fragility fracture and would be eligible for treatment for this reason. Using age-dependent thresholds, an additional 2.6% of women (0.3% of men) were eligible for treatment in that MOF probabilities lay above the upper assessment threshold. A BMD test would be recommended in 5% of men and 38% of women. With hybrid thresholds, an additional 13% of women (3.6% of men) were eligible for treatment and BMD recommended in 11% of men and 42% of women. CONCLUSION The application of hybrid intervention thresholds ameliorates the disparity in fracture probabilities seen with age-dependent thresholds. Probability-based assessment of fracture risk, including the use of the hybrid intervention thresholds for Chile, is expected to help guide decisions about treatment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Enrique Lopez Gavilanez
- AECE Research Group, The Association of Clinical Endocrinologists of Ecuador, Guayaquil, Ecuador
- Hospital Docente de La Policía Nacional Guayaquil #2, Guayaquil, Ecuador
| | - Imaicela N Luis
- AECE Research Group, The Association of Clinical Endocrinologists of Ecuador, Guayaquil, Ecuador
| | - Navarro G Mario
- AECE Research Group, The Association of Clinical Endocrinologists of Ecuador, Guayaquil, Ecuador
| | - Helena Johansson
- Mary MacKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia
- Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield Medical School, Beech Hill Road, Sheffield, S10 2RX, UK
- Sahlgrenska Osteoporosis Centre, Institute of Medicine, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - Nicholas C Harvey
- MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
- NIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, University of Southampton and University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK
| | - Mattias Lorentzon
- Mary MacKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia
- Sahlgrenska Osteoporosis Centre, Institute of Medicine, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - Enwu Liu
- Mary MacKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Liesbeth Vandenput
- Mary MacKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia
- Sahlgrenska Osteoporosis Centre, Institute of Medicine, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - Eugene V McCloskey
- Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield Medical School, Beech Hill Road, Sheffield, S10 2RX, UK
- Department of Oncology and Metabolism, Mellanby Centre for Musculoskeletal Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - John A Kanis
- Mary MacKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia.
- Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield Medical School, Beech Hill Road, Sheffield, S10 2RX, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Osteoporosis treatment in Austria-assessment of FRAX-based intervention thresholds for high and very high fracture risk. Arch Osteoporos 2022; 17:141. [PMID: 36357621 PMCID: PMC9649455 DOI: 10.1007/s11657-022-01175-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/27/2022] [Accepted: 10/04/2022] [Indexed: 11/12/2022]
Abstract
The adoption of the management pathway proposed by the National Osteoporosis Guideline Group (NOGG), UK applied using the Austrian FRAX® tool in a referral population of Austrian women categorises 22-29% of women age 40 years or more eligible for treatment of whom 28-34% are classified at very high risk. PURPOSE The aim of this study is to provide a reference document for the further development of existing guidelines for the management of osteoporosis in Austria, considering FRAX-based intervention thresholds for high and very high fracture risk. METHODS The model development was based on two Austrian hospital referral cohorts. Baseline information was collected to compute the 10-year probability (using the Austrian FRAX model) of a major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) and hip fracture both with and without the inclusion of femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD). Assessment thresholds for BMD testing were defined, as well as intervention thresholds. In addition, thresholds that characterise men and women at high and very high fracture risk were established. The management pathway followed that currently recommended by the UK National Osteoporosis Guideline Group (NOGG). RESULTS The two cohorts comprised a total of 1306 women and men with a mean age of 66.7 years. Slightly more than 50% were eligible for treatment by virtue of a prior fragility fracture. In those women without a prior fracture, 22% (n = 120) were eligible for treatment based on MOF probabilities. Of these, 28% (n = 33) were found to be at very high risk. When both MOF and hip fracture probabilities were used to characterise risk, 164 women without a prior fracture were eligible for treatment (29%). Of these, 34% (n = 56) were found to be at very high risk. Fewer men without prior fracture were eligible for treatment compared with women. CONCLUSION The management pathway as currently outlined is expected to reduce inequalities in patient management. The characterisation of very high risk may aid in the identification of patients suitable for treatment with osteoanabolic agents.
Collapse
|
7
|
Vandenput L, Johansson H, McCloskey EV, Liu E, Åkesson KE, Anderson FA, Azagra R, Bager CL, Beaudart C, Bischoff-Ferrari HA, Biver E, Bruyère O, Cauley JA, Center JR, Chapurlat R, Christiansen C, Cooper C, Crandall CJ, Cummings SR, da Silva JAP, Dawson-Hughes B, Diez-Perez A, Dufour AB, Eisman JA, Elders PJM, Ferrari S, Fujita Y, Fujiwara S, Glüer CC, Goldshtein I, Goltzman D, Gudnason V, Hall J, Hans D, Hoff M, Hollick RJ, Huisman M, Iki M, Ish-Shalom S, Jones G, Karlsson MK, Khosla S, Kiel DP, Koh WP, Koromani F, Kotowicz MA, Kröger H, Kwok T, Lamy O, Langhammer A, Larijani B, Lippuner K, Mellström D, Merlijn T, Nordström A, Nordström P, O'Neill TW, Obermayer-Pietsch B, Ohlsson C, Orwoll ES, Pasco JA, Rivadeneira F, Schei B, Schott AM, Shiroma EJ, Siggeirsdottir K, Simonsick EM, Sornay-Rendu E, Sund R, Swart KMA, Szulc P, Tamaki J, Torgerson DJ, van Schoor NM, van Staa TP, Vila J, Wareham NJ, Wright NC, Yoshimura N, Zillikens MC, Zwart M, Harvey NC, Lorentzon M, Leslie WD, Kanis JA. Update of the fracture risk prediction tool FRAX: a systematic review of potential cohorts and analysis plan. Osteoporos Int 2022; 33:2103-2136. [PMID: 35639106 DOI: 10.1007/s00198-022-06435-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 27] [Impact Index Per Article: 13.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/10/2022] [Accepted: 05/18/2022] [Indexed: 12/15/2022]
Abstract
We describe the collection of cohorts together with the analysis plan for an update of the fracture risk prediction tool FRAX with respect to current and novel risk factors. The resource comprises 2,138,428 participants with a follow-up of approximately 20 million person-years and 116,117 documented incident major osteoporotic fractures. INTRODUCTION The availability of the fracture risk assessment tool FRAX® has substantially enhanced the targeting of treatment to those at high risk of fracture with FRAX now incorporated into more than 100 clinical osteoporosis guidelines worldwide. The aim of this study is to determine whether the current algorithms can be further optimised with respect to current and novel risk factors. METHODS A computerised literature search was performed in PubMed from inception until May 17, 2019, to identify eligible cohorts for updating the FRAX coefficients. Additionally, we searched the abstracts of conference proceedings of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research, European Calcified Tissue Society and World Congress of Osteoporosis. Prospective cohort studies with data on baseline clinical risk factors and incident fractures were eligible. RESULTS Of the 836 records retrieved, 53 were selected for full-text assessment after screening on title and abstract. Twelve cohorts were deemed eligible and of these, 4 novel cohorts were identified. These cohorts, together with 60 previously identified cohorts, will provide the resource for constructing an updated version of FRAX comprising 2,138,428 participants with a follow-up of approximately 20 million person-years and 116,117 documented incident major osteoporotic fractures. For each known and candidate risk factor, multivariate hazard functions for hip fracture, major osteoporotic fracture and death will be tested using extended Poisson regression. Sex- and/or ethnicity-specific differences in the weights of the risk factors will be investigated. After meta-analyses of the cohort-specific beta coefficients for each risk factor, models comprising 10-year probability of hip and major osteoporotic fracture, with or without femoral neck bone mineral density, will be computed. CONCLUSIONS These assembled cohorts and described models will provide the framework for an updated FRAX tool enabling enhanced assessment of fracture risk (PROSPERO (CRD42021227266)).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- L Vandenput
- Mary McKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia
- Sahlgrenska Osteoporosis Centre, Department of Internal Medicine and Clinical Nutrition, Institute of Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - H Johansson
- Mary McKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia
- Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - E V McCloskey
- Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
- MRC Versus Arthritis Centre for Integrated Research in Musculoskeletal Ageing, Mellanby Centre for Musculoskeletal Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - E Liu
- Mary McKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - K E Åkesson
- Clinical and Molecular Osteoporosis Research Unit, Department of Clinical Sciences, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
- Department of Orthopedics, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden
| | - F A Anderson
- GLOW Coordinating Center, Center for Outcomes Research, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA, USA
| | - R Azagra
- Department of Medicine, Autonomous University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
- Health Center Badia del Valles, Catalan Institute of Health, Barcelona, Spain
- GROIMAP (Research Group), Unitat de Suport a La Recerca Metropolitana Nord, Institut Universitari d'Investigació en Atenció Primària Jordi Gol, Santa Coloma de Gramenet, Barcelona, Spain
| | - C L Bager
- Nordic Bioscience A/S, Herlev, Denmark
| | - C Beaudart
- WHO Collaborating Centre for Public Health Aspects of Musculoskeletal Health and Aging, Division of Public Health, Epidemiology and Health Economics, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium
| | - H A Bischoff-Ferrari
- Department of Aging Medicine and Aging Research, University Hospital, Zurich, and University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
- Centre On Aging and Mobility, University of Zurich and City Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - E Biver
- Division of Bone Diseases, Department of Medicine, Geneva University Hospitals and Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - O Bruyère
- WHO Collaborating Centre for Public Health Aspects of Musculoskeletal Health and Aging, Division of Public Health, Epidemiology and Health Economics, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium
| | - J A Cauley
- Department of Epidemiology, Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, USA
| | - J R Center
- Bone Biology, Healthy Ageing Theme, Garvan Institute of Medical Research, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- St Vincent's Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- School of Medicine Sydney, University of Notre Dame Australia, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - R Chapurlat
- INSERM UMR 1033, University of Lyon, Hôpital Edouard Herriot, Lyon, France
| | | | - C Cooper
- MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
- National Institute for Health Research Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, University of Southampton and University Hospitals Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK
- National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Unit, , University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - C J Crandall
- Division of General Internal Medicine and Health Services Research, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - S R Cummings
- San Francisco Coordinating Center, California Pacific Medical Center Research Institute, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | - J A P da Silva
- Coimbra Institute for Clinical and Biomedical Research, Faculty of Medicine, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal
- Rheumatology Department, University Hospital and University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal
| | - B Dawson-Hughes
- Bone Metabolism Laboratory, Jean Mayer US Department of Agriculture Human Nutrition Research Center On Aging, Tufts University, Boston, MA, USA
| | - A Diez-Perez
- Department of Internal Medicine, Hospital del Mar and CIBERFES, Autonomous University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
| | - A B Dufour
- Marcus Institute for Aging Research, Hebrew SeniorLife, Boston, MA, USA
- Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - J A Eisman
- St Vincent's Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- School of Medicine Sydney, University of Notre Dame Australia, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- Osteoporosis and Bone Biology Division, Garvan Institute of Medical Research, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - P J M Elders
- Department of General Practice, Amsterdam UMC, Location VUmc, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - S Ferrari
- Division of Bone Diseases, Department of Medicine, Geneva University Hospitals and Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Y Fujita
- Department of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Kindai University, Osaka, Japan
| | - S Fujiwara
- Department of Pharmacy, Yasuda Women's University, Hiroshima, Japan
| | - C-C Glüer
- Section Biomedical Imaging, Molecular Imaging North Competence Center, Department of Radiology and Neuroradiology, University Medical Center Schleswig-Holstein Kiel, Kiel University, Kiel, Germany
| | - I Goldshtein
- Maccabitech Institute of Research and Innovation, Maccabi Healthcare Services, Tel Aviv, Israel
- Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
| | - D Goltzman
- Department of Medicine, McGill University and McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Canada
| | - V Gudnason
- Icelandic Heart Association, Kopavogur, Iceland
- University of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland
| | - J Hall
- MRC Centre for Reproductive Health, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - D Hans
- Centre of Bone Diseases, Bone and Joint Department, Lausanne University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - M Hoff
- Department of Neuromedicine and Movement Science, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway
- Department of Rheumatology, St Olavs Hospital, Trondheim, Norway
| | - R J Hollick
- Aberdeen Centre for Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Health, Epidemiology Group, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
| | - M Huisman
- Department of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Sociology, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - M Iki
- Department of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Kindai University, Osaka, Japan
| | - S Ish-Shalom
- Endocrine Clinic, Elisha Hospital, Haifa, Israel
| | - G Jones
- Menzies Institute for Medical Research, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia
| | - M K Karlsson
- Clinical and Molecular Osteoporosis Research Unit, Department of Clinical Sciences, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
- Department of Orthopaedics, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden
| | - S Khosla
- Robert and Arlene Kogod Center On Aging and Division of Endocrinology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - D P Kiel
- Marcus Institute for Aging Research, Hebrew SeniorLife, Boston, MA, USA
- Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - W-P Koh
- Healthy Longevity Translational Research Programme, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
- Singapore Institute for Clinical Sciences, Agency for Science Technology and Research (A*STAR), Singapore, Singapore
| | - F Koromani
- Department of Internal Medicine, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - M A Kotowicz
- IMPACT (Institute for Mental and Physical Health and Clinical Translation), Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia
- Barwon Health, Geelong, VIC, Australia
- Department of Medicine - Western Health, The University of Melbourne, St Albans, Victoria, Australia
| | - H Kröger
- Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Kuopio University Hospital, Kuopio, Finland
- Kuopio Musculoskeletal Research Unit, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland
| | - T Kwok
- Department of Medicine and Therapeutics, Faculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong
- Jockey Club Centre for Osteoporosis Care and Control, Faculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong
| | - O Lamy
- Centre of Bone Diseases, Lausanne University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland
- Service of Internal Medicine, Lausanne University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - A Langhammer
- Department of Public Health and Nursing, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, HUNT Research Centre, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway
| | - B Larijani
- Endocrinology and Metabolism Research Center, Endocrinology and Metabolism Clinical Sciences Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
| | - K Lippuner
- Department of Osteoporosis, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - D Mellström
- Geriatric Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine and Clinical Nutrition, Institute of Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
- Geriatric Medicine, Sahlgrenska University Hospital Mölndal, Mölndal, Sweden
| | - T Merlijn
- Department of General Practice, Amsterdam UMC, Location VUmc, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - A Nordström
- Division of Sustainable Health, Department of Public Health and Clinical Medicine, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden
- School of Sport Sciences, Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway
| | - P Nordström
- Unit of Geriatric Medicine, Department of Community Medicine and Rehabilitation, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden
| | - T W O'Neill
- National Institute for Health Research Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
- Centre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - B Obermayer-Pietsch
- Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Endocrinology and Diabetology, Medical University Graz, Graz, Austria
- Center for Biomarker Research in Medicine, Graz, Austria
| | - C Ohlsson
- Sahlgrenska Osteoporosis Centre, Department of Internal Medicine and Clinical Nutrition, Institute of Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
- Department of Drug Treatment, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Region Västra Götaland, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - E S Orwoll
- Department of Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, USA
| | - J A Pasco
- Institute for Physical and Mental Health and Clinical Translation (IMPACT), Deakin University, Geelong, Australia
- Department of Medicine-Western Health, The University of Melbourne, St Albans, Australia
- Barwon Health, Geelong, Australia
- Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - F Rivadeneira
- Department of Internal Medicine, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - B Schei
- Department of Public Health and Nursing, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway
- Department of Gynecology, St Olavs Hospital, Trondheim, Norway
| | - A-M Schott
- Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, U INSERM 1290 RESHAPE, Lyon, France
| | - E J Shiroma
- Laboratory of Epidemiology and Population Sciences, National Institute On Aging, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - K Siggeirsdottir
- Icelandic Heart Association, Kopavogur, Iceland
- Janus Rehabilitation, Reykjavik, Iceland
| | - E M Simonsick
- Translational Gerontology Branch, National Institute On Aging Intramural Research Program, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | | | - R Sund
- Kuopio Musculoskeletal Research Unit, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland
| | - K M A Swart
- Department of General Practice, Amsterdam UMC, Location VUmc, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - P Szulc
- INSERM UMR 1033, University of Lyon, Hôpital Edouard Herriot, Lyon, France
| | - J Tamaki
- Department of Hygiene and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Educational Foundation of Osaka Medical and Pharmaceutical University, Osaka, Japan
| | - D J Torgerson
- York Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK
| | - N M van Schoor
- Department of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - T P van Staa
- Centre for Health Informatics, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - J Vila
- Statistics Support Unit, Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute, CIBER Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBERESP), Barcelona, Spain
| | - N J Wareham
- MRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - N C Wright
- Department of Epidemiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA
| | - N Yoshimura
- Department of Preventive Medicine for Locomotive Organ Disorders, The University of Tokyo Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
| | - M C Zillikens
- Department of Internal Medicine, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - M Zwart
- Health Center Can Gibert del Plà, Catalan Institute of Health, Girona, Spain
- Department of Medical Sciences, University of Girona, Girona, Spain
- GROIMAP (Research Group), Institut Universitari d'Investigació en Atenció Primària Jordi Gol, Barcelona, Spain
| | - N C Harvey
- MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
- NIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, University of Southampton and University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK
| | - M Lorentzon
- Mary McKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia
- Sahlgrenska Osteoporosis Centre, Institute of Medicine, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
- Geriatric Medicine, Region Västra Götaland, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Mölndal, Sweden
| | - W D Leslie
- Department of Medicine, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada
| | - J A Kanis
- Mary McKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia.
- Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
- Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield Medical School, Sheffield, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Javaid MK, Harvey NC, McCloskey EV, Kanis JA, Cooper C. Assessment and management of imminent fracture risk in the setting of the fracture liaison service. Osteoporos Int 2022; 33:1185-1189. [PMID: 35286437 DOI: 10.1007/s00198-021-06284-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/28/2021] [Accepted: 12/21/2021] [Indexed: 10/18/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- M K Javaid
- Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
| | - N C Harvey
- MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
- NIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, University of Southampton and University Hospital, Southampton, UK
| | - E V McCloskey
- Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
- MRC Versus Arthritis Centre for Integrated Research in Musculoskeletal Ageing, Mellanby Centre for Musculoskeletal Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - J A Kanis
- Mary McKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia
- Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield Medical School, Sheffield, UK
| | - C Cooper
- Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
- MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Gregson CL, Armstrong DJ, Bowden J, Cooper C, Edwards J, Gittoes NJL, Harvey N, Kanis J, Leyland S, Low R, McCloskey E, Moss K, Parker J, Paskins Z, Poole K, Reid DM, Stone M, Thomson J, Vine N, Compston J. UK clinical guideline for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis. Arch Osteoporos 2022; 17:58. [PMID: 35378630 PMCID: PMC8979902 DOI: 10.1007/s11657-022-01061-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 137] [Impact Index Per Article: 68.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/20/2021] [Accepted: 01/03/2022] [Indexed: 02/03/2023]
Abstract
The National Osteoporosis Guideline Group (NOGG) has revised the UK guideline for the assessment and management of osteoporosis and the prevention of fragility fractures in postmenopausal women, and men age 50 years and older. Accredited by NICE, this guideline is relevant for all healthcare professionals involved in osteoporosis management. INTRODUCTION The UK National Osteoporosis Guideline Group (NOGG) first produced a guideline on the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis in 2008, with updates in 2013 and 2017. This paper presents a major update of the guideline, the scope of which is to review the assessment and management of osteoporosis and the prevention of fragility fractures in postmenopausal women, and men age 50 years and older. METHODS Where available, systematic reviews, meta-analyses and randomised controlled trials were used to provide the evidence base. Conclusions and recommendations were systematically graded according to the strength of the available evidence. RESULTS Review of the evidence and recommendations are provided for the diagnosis of osteoporosis, fracture-risk assessment and intervention thresholds, management of vertebral fractures, non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatments, including duration and monitoring of anti-resorptive therapy, glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis, and models of care for fracture prevention. Recommendations are made for training; service leads and commissioners of healthcare; and for review criteria for audit and quality improvement. CONCLUSION The guideline, which has received accreditation from the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE), provides a comprehensive overview of the assessment and management of osteoporosis for all healthcare professionals involved in its management. This position paper has been endorsed by the International Osteoporosis Foundation and by the European Society for the Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Celia L Gregson
- Musculoskeletal Research Unit, Bristol Medical School, Learning and Research Building, University of Bristol, Southmead Hospital, Bristol, BS10 5NB, UK.
- Royal United Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Bath, UK.
| | - David J Armstrong
- Western Health and Social Care Trust (NI), Nutrition Innovation Centre for Food and Health, Ulster University, and Visiting Professor, Belfast, Northern Ireland
| | - Jean Bowden
- Musculoskeletal Research Unit, Bristol Medical School, Learning and Research Building, University of Bristol, Southmead Hospital, Bristol, BS10 5NB, UK
| | - Cyrus Cooper
- MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
- NIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, University of Southampton and University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK
- NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - John Edwards
- Primary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, School of Medicine, Keele University, Staffordshire, and Wolstanton Medical Centre, Newcastle under Lyme, UK
| | - Neil J L Gittoes
- Centre for Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, University Hospitals Birmingham & University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Nicholas Harvey
- MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
- NIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, University of Southampton and University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK
| | - John Kanis
- Mary McKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia and Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | | | - Rebecca Low
- Abingdon and Specialty Doctor in Metabolic Bone Disease, Marcham Road Health Centre, Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre, Oxford, UK
| | - Eugene McCloskey
- Department of Oncology & Metabolism, MRC Versus Arthritis Centre for Integrated Research in Musculoskeletal Ageing (CIMA), Mellanby Centre for Musculoskeletal Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Katie Moss
- St George's University Hospital, London, UK
| | - Jane Parker
- Musculoskeletal Research Unit, Bristol Medical School, Learning and Research Building, University of Bristol, Southmead Hospital, Bristol, BS10 5NB, UK
| | - Zoe Paskins
- School of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, Haywood Academic Rheumatology Centre, Haywood Hospital, Midlands Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Stoke-on-Trent, UK
| | - Kenneth Poole
- Department of Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
- NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge, UK
| | | | - Mike Stone
- University Hospital Llandough, Cardiff and Vale University Health Board, Llandough, UK
| | | | - Nic Vine
- Musculoskeletal Research Unit, Bristol Medical School, Learning and Research Building, University of Bristol, Southmead Hospital, Bristol, BS10 5NB, UK
| | - Juliet Compston
- University of Cambridge, School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge, UK
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
McCloskey EV, Harvey NC, Johansson H, Lorentzon M, Liu E, Vandenput L, Leslie WD, Kanis JA. Fracture risk assessment by the FRAX model. Climacteric 2022; 25:22-28. [PMID: 34319212 DOI: 10.1080/13697137.2021.1945027] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/01/2021] [Accepted: 06/07/2021] [Indexed: 10/20/2022]
Abstract
The introduction of the FRAX algorithms has facilitated the assessment of fracture risk on the basis of fracture probability. FRAX integrates the influence of several well-validated risk factors for fracture with or without the use of bone mineral density. Since age-specific rates of fracture and death differ across the world, FRAX models are calibrated with regard to the epidemiology of hip fracture (preferably from national sources) and mortality (usually United Nations sources). Models are currently available for 73 nations or territories covering more than 80% of the world population. FRAX has been incorporated into more than 80 guidelines worldwide, although the nature of this application has been heterogeneous. The limitations of FRAX have been extensively reviewed. Arithmetic procedures have been proposed in order to address some of these limitations, which can be applied to conventional FRAX estimates to accommodate knowledge of dose exposure to glucocorticoids, concurrent data on lumbar spine bone mineral density, information on trabecular bone score, hip axis length, falls history, type 2 diabetes, immigration status and recency of prior fracture.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- E V McCloskey
- Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield Medical School, Sheffield, UK
- Centre for Integrated research in Musculoskeletal Ageing (CIMA), Mellanby Centre for Musculoskeletal Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - N C Harvey
- MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
- NIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, University of Southampton and University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK
| | - H Johansson
- Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield Medical School, Sheffield, UK
- Mary McKillop Health Institute, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - M Lorentzon
- Centre for Bone and Arthritis Research (CBAR), Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
- Geriatric Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine and Clinical Nutrition, Institute of Medicine, University of Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - E Liu
- Mary McKillop Health Institute, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - L Vandenput
- Mary McKillop Health Institute, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
- Geriatric Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine and Clinical Nutrition, Institute of Medicine, University of Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - W D Leslie
- Department of Internal Medicine, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada
| | - J A Kanis
- Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield Medical School, Sheffield, UK
- Mary McKillop Health Institute, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Sobecki J, Weigman B, Anderson-Carter I, Barroilhet L, Chandereng T, Kliewer M, Hartenbach E. Opportunistic osteoporosis screening using routine computed tomography images to identify bone loss in gynecologic cancer survivors. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2022; 32:1050-1055. [DOI: 10.1136/ijgc-2021-003169] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/21/2023] Open
Abstract
ObjectiveCancer treatment-induced bone loss is a known side effect of cancer therapy. Computed tomography (CT) bone mineral density screening is a novel tool for identifying bone loss. This study aims to use routine CT images to determine long-term bone mineral density changes and osteoporosis risk among women with gynecologic cancers.MethodsBone loss was evaluated in a retrospective cohort of women ≤65 years old with gynecologic cancer who underwent oophorectomy from January 2010 to December 2014. Opportunistic CT-based bone mineral density measurements (Hounsfield units, HU) were performed at baseline and intervals up to 5 years after cancer diagnosis. Osteoporosis risk was categorized by HU. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were performed to compare baseline to follow-up bone mineral density at 1, 3, and 5 years and to identify predictors of bone loss following diagnosis.ResultsA total of 185 patients (median age 53 years, range 23–65 years, 78.1% ovarian cancer) were included. Bone mineral density significantly decreased between baseline and 1 year (p<0.001), 3 years (p<0.001), and 5 years (p<0.001). Half with normal bone mineral density at baseline had risk for osteopenia or osteoporosis at 5 years. Four percent had osteoporosis risk at baseline compared with 1 year (7.4%), 3 years (15.7%), and 5 years (18.0%). Pre-treatment bone mineral density was a significant predictor at 1 and 5 years (1 year: p<0.01; 5 years: p<0.01). History of chemotherapy predicted bone loss at 1 year (p=0.03). More lifetime chemotherapy cycles were associated with increased risk of osteoporosis at 1 year (p=0.03) and 5 years (p=0.01).ConclusionsWomen with gynecologic cancers may experience accelerated cancer treatment-induced bone loss. Routine CT imaging is a convenient screening modality to identify those at highest risk for osteoporosis who warrant further evaluation with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Routine bone mineral density assessments 1 year following oophorectomy for cancer treatment may be warranted in this population.
Collapse
|
12
|
Johansson H, Naureen G, Iqbal R, Jafri L, Khan AH, Umer M, Liu E, Vandenput L, Lorentzon M, McCloskey EV, Kanis JA, Harvey NC. FRAX-based intervention thresholds for Pakistan. Osteoporos Int 2022; 33:105-112. [PMID: 34414463 DOI: 10.1007/s00198-021-06087-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/18/2021] [Accepted: 07/26/2021] [Indexed: 10/20/2022]
Abstract
We compared, for women in Pakistan, the utility of intervention thresholds either at a T-score ≤ - 2.5 or based on a FRAX probability equivalent to women of average body mass index (BMI) with a prior fragility fracture. Whereas the FRAX-based intervention threshold identified women at high fracture probability, the T-score threshold was less sensitive, and the associated fracture risk decreased markedly with age. PURPOSE The fracture risk assessment algorithm FRAX® has been recently calibrated for Pakistan, but guidance is needed on how to apply fracture probabilities to clinical practice. METHODS The age-specific 10-year probabilities of a major osteoporotic fracture were calculated in women with average BMI to determine fracture probabilities at two potential intervention thresholds. The first comprised the age-specific fracture probabilities associated with a femoral neck T-score of - 2.5. The second approach determined age-specific fracture probabilities that were equivalent to a woman with a prior fragility fracture, without bone mineral density (BMD). The parsimonious use of BMD was additionally explored by the computation of upper and lower assessment thresholds for BMD testing. RESULTS When a BMD T-score ≤ - 2.5 was used as an intervention threshold, FRAX probabilities in women aged 50 years were approximately two-fold higher than in women of the same age but with no risk factors and average BMD. The relative increase in risk associated with the BMD threshold decreased progressively with age such that, at the age of 80 years or more, a T-score of - 2.5 was actually protective. The 10-year probability of a major osteoporotic fracture by age, equivalent to women with a previous fracture, rose with age from 2.1% at the age of 40 years to 17%, at the age of 90 years, and identified women at increased risk at all ages. CONCLUSION Intervention thresholds based on BMD alone do not effectively target women at high fracture risk, particularly in the elderly. In contrast, intervention thresholds based on fracture probabilities equivalent to a 'fracture threshold' target women at high fracture risk.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- H Johansson
- Mary McKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia
- Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield, Beech Hill Road, Sheffield, S10 2RX, UK
- Sahlgrenska Osteoporosis Centre, Institute of Medicine, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - G Naureen
- Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
- Australian Institute for Musculoskeletal Science (AIMSS), The University of Melbourne and Western Health, Melbourne, Australia
| | - R Iqbal
- Departments of Community Health Sciences and Medicine, Aga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan
| | - L Jafri
- Department of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine, Aga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan
| | - A H Khan
- Department of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine, Aga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan
| | - M Umer
- Department of Orthopaedics, Aga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan
| | - E Liu
- Mary McKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - L Vandenput
- Mary McKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia
- Centre for Bone and Arthritis Research, Department of Internal Medicine and Clinical Nutrition, Institute of Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - M Lorentzon
- Mary McKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia
- Sahlgrenska Osteoporosis Centre, Institute of Medicine, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - E V McCloskey
- Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield, Beech Hill Road, Sheffield, S10 2RX, UK
- Department of Oncology and Metabolism, Mellanby Centre for Musculoskeletal Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - J A Kanis
- Mary McKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia.
- Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield, Beech Hill Road, Sheffield, S10 2RX, UK.
| | - N C Harvey
- MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
- NIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, University of Southampton and University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Al-Daghri NM, Sabico S, Al-Saleh Y, Sulimani R, Aljohani NJ, Sheshah E, Alodhayani A, Harvey NC, Liu E, Lorentzon M, McCloskey EV, Vandenput L, Johansson H, Kanis JA. The application of FRAX in Saudi Arabia. Arch Osteoporos 2021; 16:166. [PMID: 34739604 DOI: 10.1007/s11657-021-01024-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/09/2021] [Accepted: 10/06/2021] [Indexed: 02/03/2023]
Abstract
UNLABELLED Assessment and treatment pathways based on age-specific intervention thresholds in Saudi Arabi can be used to identify patients at high risk of fracture and avoid unnecessary treatment in those at low fracture risk. PURPOSE Intervention thresholds for the treatment of osteoporosis have historically been based on the measurement of bone mineral density. The aim of the present study was to explore treatment paths and characteristics of women eligible for treatment in Saudi Arabia based on fracture probabilities derived from FRAX®. METHODS The approach to the setting of intervention and assessment thresholds used the methodology adopted by the National Osteoporosis Guideline Group for FRAX-based guidelines in the UK but based on the epidemiology of fracture and death in Saudi Arabia. The methodology was applied to women age 40 years or more drawn from a tertiary referral population for skeletal assessment. Missing data for the calculation of FRAX was simulated using data from the referral and FRAX derivation cohorts. RESULTS Intervention thresholds expressed as a 10-year probability of a major osteoporotic fracture ranged from 2.0% at the age of 50 years increasing to 7.6% at the age of 70 years. A total of 163 of 1365 women (11.9%) had a prior fragility fracture and would be eligible for treatment for this reason. An additional 5 women were eligible for treatment in that MOF probabilities lay above the upper assessment threshold. A BMD test would be recommended for 593 women (43.4%) so that FRAX could be recalculated with the inclusion of femoral neck BMD. Of these, 220 individuals would be eligible for treatment after a BMD test and 373 women categorised at low risk after a BMD test. CONCLUSION Probability-based assessment of fracture risk using age-specific intervention thresholds was developed for Saudi Arabia to help guide decisions about treatment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nasser M Al-Daghri
- Biochemistry Department, College of Science, King Saud University, 11451, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
| | - Shaun Sabico
- Biochemistry Department, College of Science, King Saud University, 11451, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
| | - Yousef Al-Saleh
- Biochemistry Department, College of Science, King Saud University, 11451, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.,College of Medicine, King Saud Bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.,King Abdullah International Medical Research Center, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.,Department of Medicine, King Abdulaziz Medical City, Riyadh, Ministry of National Guard-Health Affairs, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
| | - Riad Sulimani
- Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
| | - Naji J Aljohani
- Biochemistry Department, College of Science, King Saud University, 11451, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.,Obesity, Endocrine and Metabolism Center, King Fahad Medical City, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
| | - Eman Sheshah
- Diabetes Care Center, King Salman Bin Abdulaziz Hospital, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
| | - Abdulaziz Alodhayani
- Department of Family Medicine and Community, College of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
| | - Nicholas C Harvey
- MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - Enwu Liu
- Mary McKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Mattias Lorentzon
- Mary McKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia.,Sahlgrenska Osteoporosis Centre, Institute of Medicine, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - Eugene V McCloskey
- Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield Medical School, Beech Hill Road, Sheffield, S10 2RX, UK.,MRC and Arthritis Research UK Centre for Integrated Research in Musculoskeletal Ageing, Mellanby Centre for Bone Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Liesbeth Vandenput
- Mary McKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia.,Department of Internal Medicine and Clinical Nutrition, Institute of Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - Helena Johansson
- Mary McKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia.,Sahlgrenska Osteoporosis Centre, Institute of Medicine, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.,Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield Medical School, Beech Hill Road, Sheffield, S10 2RX, UK
| | - John A Kanis
- Mary McKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia. .,Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield Medical School, Beech Hill Road, Sheffield, S10 2RX, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Horta-Baas G. Evaluation of FRAX Performance Without Bone Mineral Density Calibrated for Mexico to Recognize Women at Risk of Fragility Fractures in Routine Clinical Care. J Clin Rheumatol 2021; 27:S316-S321. [PMID: 33298815 DOI: 10.1097/rhu.0000000000001587] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gabriel Horta-Baas
- From the Rheumatology Service, Hospital General Regional Número 1, Delegación Yucatán, Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social, Mérida, Yucatán, México
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
FRAX-based intervention thresholds in eight Eurasian countries: Armenia, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, Moldova, the Russian Federation, and Uzbekistan. Arch Osteoporos 2021; 16:87. [PMID: 34089424 DOI: 10.1007/s11657-021-00962-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/02/2021] [Accepted: 04/25/2021] [Indexed: 02/03/2023]
Abstract
UNLABELLED Age-specific intervention and assessment thresholds based on FRAX® were developed for eight Eurasian countries participating in the EVA study (Armenia, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, the Russian Federation, and Uzbekistan). The intervention thresholds (major osteoporotic fracture) ranged from 3.6 (Armenia and Georgia) to 12.3% (Uzbekistan) for people at age 50 years, and from 16 (Armenia) to 27% (Belarus) at the age of 90 years. These thresholds enable a substantial advance in the ease of detection of individuals at high fracture risk. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this study was to derive and compare FRAX-based intervention and BMD assessment thresholds for 8 Eurasian countries in the EVA study. METHODS The intervention threshold (IT) was set at a 10-year probability of a major osteoporotic fracture (MOF), calculated without BMD, equivalent to a woman with a prior fragility fracture but no other clinical risk factors, and a body mass index (BMI) of 25.0 kg/m2. The lower assessment threshold was set at a 10-year probability of a MOF in women with BMI of 25.0 kg/m2, without previous fracture or other clinical risk factors. The upper assessment threshold was set at 1.2 times the IT. RESULTS The age-specific intervention thresholds ranged from 3.6 (Armenia and Georgia) to 12.3% (Uzbekistan) for men and women at the age of 50 years and from 16 (Armenia) to 27% (Belarus) at the age of 90 years. The difference between countries was most evident at younger ages and become progressively less with advancing age. CONCLUSIONS For the 8 Eurasian countries, the newly established FRAX-based intervention thresholds provide an opportunity to improve the clinical detection of both men and women with a high risk of fracture and improve treatment rates.
Collapse
|
16
|
Belaya ZE, Rozhinskaya LY, Grebennikova TA, Kanis JA, Pigarova EA, Rodionova SS, Toroptsova NV, Nikitinskaya OA, Skripnikova IA, Drapkina OМ, Ershova OV, Biryukova EV, Lesnyak OМ, Tsoriev TТ, Belova KY, Marchenkova LА, Dzeranova LK, Dreval’ AV, Mamedova EO, Tkacheva ON, Dudinskaya EN, Nikankina LV, Farba LY, Chernova TO, Yureneva SV, Yakushevskaya OV, Ilyukhina OB, Kryukova IV, Tarbaeva NV, Petryaykin AV, Zagorodniy NV, Mel’nichenko GА, Dedov II. Summary of the draft federal clinical guidelines for osteoporosis. ACTA ACUST UNITED AC 2021. [DOI: 10.14341/osteo12710] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/31/2022]
Abstract
A summary of the draft federal clinical guidelines on osteoporosis developed by members of the Russian Association of Endocrinologists, the Russian Association for Osteoporosis, the Association of Rheumatologists of Russia, the Association of Traumatologists and Orthopedists of Russia, the Russian Association for Menopause and the Russian Association of Gerontologists and Geriatrics is presented. The recommendations were developed from the perspective of evidence-based medicine, in accordance with the requirements for compiling clinical recommendations of the Ministry of Health of Russia published in 2019. A significant place is given to screening of primary osteoporosis in adults, differential diagnosis with other metabolic diseases of the skeleton, modern methods of diagnosing osteoporosis, principles of prescribing pathogenetic treatment, features of sequential and combination therapy, disease prevention and rehabilitation. Clinical recommendations will be useful both to general practitioners and physicians, as well as to narrow specialists, primarily endocrinologists, rheumatologists, orthopedic traumatologists, nephrologists, obstetrician-gynecologists and neurologists, since osteoporosis is a multifactorial and multidisciplinary disease.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | - John A. Kanis
- Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield; Catholic University of Australia, Melbourne
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Elena V. Biryukova
- Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry named after A.I. Evdokimov
| | - Olga М. Lesnyak
- North-Western State Medical University named after I.I. Mechnikov
| | | | - Kseniya Y. Belova
- Yaroslavl State Medical University; Clinical emergency hospital named. N. V. Soloviev
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Alexey V. Petryaykin
- Scientific and Practical Clinical Center for Diagnostics and Telemedicine Technologies of the Moscow Department of Health
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
17
|
Teeratakulpisarn N, Charoensri S, Theerakulpisut D, Pongchaiyakul C. FRAX score with and without bone mineral density: a comparison and factors affecting the discordance in osteoporosis treatment in Thais. Arch Osteoporos 2021; 16:44. [PMID: 33635451 DOI: 10.1007/s11657-021-00911-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/22/2020] [Accepted: 02/12/2021] [Indexed: 02/03/2023]
Abstract
UNLABELLED We investigate the rate of concordance between treatment recommendations of osteoporosis with 10-year probability of hip fracture calculated using FRAX scores with and without BMD. We found that predictions were concordant in 83.8% of patients. However, older age, lower BMD, and FRAX without BMD around the intervention threshold were associated with discordant results. In the discordant group, FRAX with BMD suggested treatment in more participants with lower age, higher BMI, and lower BMD when compared with FRAX without BMD. INTRODUCTION The Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) is used to calculate the 10-year probability of fracture using important clinical factors, with bone mineral density (BMD) as an optional input variable. We aimed to determine the rate of concordance between treatment recommendations of osteoporosis with 10-year probability of hip fracture calculated using FRAX scores with and without BMD and to identify relevant clinical risk factors associated with discordance. METHODS This was a cross-sectional study conducted in patients between 40 and 90 years of age who were screened for osteoporosis by BMD measurement using dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) from 2010 to 2018 at a university hospital in Thailand. A FRAX questionnaire was administered to determine demographic data and osteoporotic risk factors. FRAX scores with and without BMD were calculated for each participant using the Thai reference, and patients were categorized into either the treatment or non-treatment group based on a cut-off of 3% 10-year probability of hip fracture. When FRAX scores with and without BMD results were consistent, they were considered concordant. Otherwise, they were deemed discordant. Clinical risk factors were compared between the concordant and discordant groups. RESULTS A total of 3545 participants were included in the study. The majority (83.8%) were in the concordant group. However, older age, lower BMD, and FRAX without BMD around the intervention threshold were significantly associated with discordant results. In the discordant group, FRAX with BMD suggested treatment in more participants with lower age, higher BMI, and lower BMD when compared with FRAX without BMD. CONCLUSION FRAX scores with and without BMD yielded concordant predictions regarding the 10-year probability of hip fracture suggesting pharmacological treatment. However, this concordance declined in elderly and osteoporotic participants and in those with FRAX without BMD around intervention threshold. BMD data may be required in these populations in order to facilitate accurate risk assessment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Suranut Charoensri
- Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, 40002, Thailand.
| | - Daris Theerakulpisut
- Division of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand
| | - Chatlert Pongchaiyakul
- Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, 40002, Thailand
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Recent developments towards closing the gap in osteoporosis management. EGYPTIAN RHEUMATOLOGY AND REHABILITATION 2021. [DOI: 10.1186/s43166-020-00048-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/22/2023] Open
Abstract
Abstract
Background
A fracture that occurs in people with low bone mass in the setting of minimal trauma—such as a fall from standing height—meets the criteria for the clinical diagnosis of osteoporosis and qualifies this particular individual for being at high risk of further fractures, particularly in the first 2 years after the index fracture. Therefore, it is vital to identify those individuals at very high and high fracture risk with the potential of instantly starting osteoporosis therapy.
Main body
Currently, there are unmet needs in the management of bone fragility and fracture prevention. Therefore, re-stratification of the people according to their risk of fracture, and, also, identify what is and is not achievable using different osteoporosis therapies, represent a major step forward. In 2020, the dichotomisation of high risk into high and very high-risk categories, which represent a new concept in osteoporosis assessment, was published by the IOF and the ESCEO. This coincided with proliferation of the available therapies with different modes of action and new therapeutic targets for treating osteoporosis. Fear of complications, even though rare, associated with long-term bisphosphonates and the positive impact of osteoanabolic agents on fracture reduction and bone quality, have changed the prescribing patterns and paved the way for sequential and combined therapy.
Conclusion
The incorporation of recent concepts in osteoporosis and the development of new interventional thresholds have positive implication on strategies for osteoporotic patients’ diagnosis and management.
Collapse
|
19
|
Sobecki JN, Rice LW, Hartenbach EM. Bone health and osteoporosis screening in gynecologic cancer survivors. Gynecol Oncol 2020; 160:619-624. [PMID: 33309416 DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2020.11.028] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/09/2020] [Accepted: 11/26/2020] [Indexed: 01/22/2023]
Abstract
Cancer treatment-induced bone loss is a known side effect of cancer therapy that increases the risk of osteoporosis and bone fracture. Women with gynecologic cancer are at increased risk of bone loss secondary to the combined effect of oophorectomy and adjuvant therapies. Data regarding bone loss in women with gynecologic cancers are overall lacking compared to other cancer populations. Consequently, guidelines for osteoporosis screening in women with cancer are largely based on data generated among non-gynecologic cancer survivors. This article reviews current available data of bone health in women with gynecologic cancer, summarizes best-available guidelines for screening for osteoporosis in women with cancer, and provides guidance for osteoporosis screening in women with gynecologic cancers based on best available evidence.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Janelle N Sobecki
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Medicine and Public Health, United States.
| | - Laurel W Rice
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Medicine and Public Health, United States
| | - Ellen M Hartenbach
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Medicine and Public Health, United States
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
A decade of FRAX: how has it changed the management of osteoporosis? Aging Clin Exp Res 2020; 32:187-196. [PMID: 32043227 DOI: 10.1007/s40520-019-01432-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 71] [Impact Index Per Article: 17.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/23/2019] [Accepted: 11/21/2019] [Indexed: 01/14/2023]
Abstract
The fracture risk assessment tool, FRAX®, was released in 2008 and provides country-specific algorithms for estimating individualized 10-year probability of hip and major osteoporotic fracture (hip, clinical spine, distal forearm, and proximal humerus). Since its release, 71 models have been made available for 66 countries covering more than 80% of the world population. The website receives approximately 3 million visits annually. Following independent validation, FRAX has been incorporated into more than 80 guidelines worldwide. The application of FRAX in assessment guidelines has been heterogeneous with the adoption of several different approaches in setting intervention thresholds. Whereas most guidelines adopt a case-finding strategy, the case for FRAX-based community screening in the elderly is increasing. The relationship between FRAX and efficacy of intervention has been explored and is expected to influence treatment guidelines in the future.
Collapse
|
21
|
Kanis JA, Chandran M, Chionh SB, Ganeson G, Harvey NC, Koh WP, Kwok T, Lau TC, Liu E, Lorentzon M, McCloskey EV, Tan KB, Vandenput L, Johansson H. Use of age-dependent FRAX-based intervention thresholds for Singapore. Arch Osteoporos 2020; 15:104. [PMID: 32700118 PMCID: PMC7376084 DOI: 10.1007/s11657-020-00782-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/19/2020] [Accepted: 06/30/2020] [Indexed: 02/03/2023]
Abstract
UNLABELLED Assessment and treatment pathways based on age-specific intervention thresholds in Singapore using FRAX paths can be used to identify patients at high risk of fracture and avoid unnecessary treatment in those at low risk. PURPOSE Intervention thresholds for the treatment of osteoporosis have been based historically on the measurement of bone mineral density. The development of FRAX® has permitted a more accurate assessment of fracture risk. The aim of the present study was to explore treatment paths and characteristics of women selected for treatment in Singapore based on FRAX. METHODS The approach to the setting of intervention and assessment thresholds used the methodology adopted by the National Osteoporosis Guideline Group for FRAX-based guidelines in the UK but based on the epidemiology of fracture and death in Singapore. The methodology was applied to women age 50 years or more drawn from the population-based Singapore Chinese Health Study (SCHS) cohort. Missing data for the calculation of FRAX was simulated using data from Chinese cohorts from Hong Kong. RESULTS Intervention thresholds expressed as a 10-year probability of a major osteoporotic fracture ranged from 2.9% at the age of 50 years increasing to 32% at the age of 90 years. A total of 1927 of 29,323 women (7%) had a prior fragility fracture and would be eligible for treatment for this reason. An additional 3019 women (10.3%) would be eligible for treatment on the basis of age-dependent thresholds. The mean BMD T-score of women so selected was -2.94. CONCLUSION Probability-based assessment of fracture risk using age-specific intervention thresholds was developed for Singapore to help guide decisions about treatment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- John A. Kanis
- grid.11835.3e0000 0004 1936 9262Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield, Beech Hill Road, Sheffield, S10 2RX UK ,grid.411958.00000 0001 2194 1270Mary McKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Manju Chandran
- grid.163555.10000 0000 9486 5048Osteoporosis and Bone Metabolism Unit, Department of Endocrinology, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Siok Bee Chionh
- grid.4280.e0000 0001 2180 6431Department of Medicine, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Ganga Ganeson
- grid.415698.70000 0004 0622 8735Division of Policy, Research and Evaluation, Ministry of Health, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Nicholas C Harvey
- grid.5491.90000 0004 1936 9297MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - Woon-Puay Koh
- grid.428397.30000 0004 0385 0924Health Services and Systems Research, Duke-NUS Medical School, 8 College Road, Singapore, 169857 Singapore ,grid.4280.e0000 0001 2180 6431Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, 12 Science Drive 2, Singapore, 117549 Singapore
| | - Timothy Kwok
- grid.415197.f0000 0004 1764 7206Department of Medicine and Therapeutics, Prince of Wales Hospital, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong, China ,grid.10784.3a0000 0004 1937 0482Jockey Club Centre for Osteoporosis Care and Control, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong, China
| | - Tang Ching Lau
- grid.4280.e0000 0001 2180 6431Department of Medicine, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Enwu Liu
- grid.411958.00000 0001 2194 1270Mary McKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Mattias Lorentzon
- grid.411958.00000 0001 2194 1270Mary McKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia ,grid.8761.80000 0000 9919 9582Geriatric Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine and Clinical Nutrition, Institute of Medicine and Clinical Nutrition, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - Eugene V McCloskey
- grid.11835.3e0000 0004 1936 9262Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield, Beech Hill Road, Sheffield, S10 2RX UK ,grid.11835.3e0000 0004 1936 9262MRC and Arthritis Research UK Centre for Integrated Research in Musculoskeletal Ageing, Mellanby Centre for Bone Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Kelvin Bryan Tan
- grid.415698.70000 0004 0622 8735Ministry of Health Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Liesbeth Vandenput
- grid.411958.00000 0001 2194 1270Mary McKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia ,grid.8761.80000 0000 9919 9582Department of Internal Medicine and Clinical Nutrition, Institute of Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - Helena Johansson
- grid.11835.3e0000 0004 1936 9262Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield, Beech Hill Road, Sheffield, S10 2RX UK ,grid.411958.00000 0001 2194 1270Mary McKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Khashayar P, Keshtkar A, Ostovar A, Larijani B, Johansson H, Harvey NC, Lorentzon M, McCloskey E, Kanis JA. FRAX-based intervention and assessment thresholds for osteoporosis in Iran. Osteoporos Int 2019; 30:2225-2230. [PMID: 31372709 DOI: 10.1007/s00198-019-05078-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/17/2019] [Accepted: 07/01/2019] [Indexed: 12/28/2022]
Abstract
UNLABELLED We compared the utility of the current Iranian guidelines that recommend treatment in women with a T-score ≤ - 2.5 SD with a FRAX-based intervention threshold equivalent to women of average BMI with a prior fragility fracture. Whereas the FRAX-based intervention threshold identified women at high fracture probability, the T-score threshold was less sensitive, and the associated fracture risk decreased markedly with age. INTRODUCTION The fracture risk assessment algorithm FRAX® has been recently calibrated for Iran, but guidance is needed on how to apply fracture probabilities to clinical practice. METHODS The age-specific ten-year probabilities of a major osteoporotic fracture were calculated in women with average BMI to determine fracture probabilities at two potential intervention thresholds. The first comprised the age-specific fracture probabilities associated with a femoral neck T-score of - 2.5 SD, in line with current guidelines in Iran. The second approach determined age-specific fracture probabilities that were equivalent to a woman with a prior fragility fracture, without BMD. The parsimonious use of BMD was additionally explored by the computation of upper and lower assessment thresholds for BMD testing. RESULTS When a BMD T-score ≤ - 2.5 SD was used as an intervention threshold, FRAX probabilities in women aged 50 years was approximately two-fold higher than in women of the same age but with an average BMD and no risk factors. The relative increase in risk associated with the BMD threshold decreased progressively with age such that, at the age of 80 years or more, a T-score of - 2.5 SD was actually protective. The 10-year probability of a major osteoporotic fracture by age, equivalent to women with a previous fracture rose with age from 4.9% at the age of 50 years to 17%, at the age of 80 years, and identified women at increased risk at all ages. CONCLUSION Intervention thresholds based on BMD alone do not effectively target women at high fracture risk, particularly in the elderly. In contrast, intervention thresholds based on fracture probabilities equivalent to a "fracture threshold" target women at high fracture risk.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- P Khashayar
- Osteoporosis Research Center, Endocrinology and Metabolism Clinical Sciences Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
- Center for Microsystems Technology, Imec and Ghent University, 9052, Gent-Zwijnaarde, Belgium
| | - A Keshtkar
- Department of Health Sciences Education Development, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
| | - A Ostovar
- Osteoporosis Research Center, Endocrinology and Metabolism Clinical Sciences Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
| | - B Larijani
- Endocrinology and Metabolism Research Center, Endocrinology and Metabolism Clinical Sciences Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
| | - H Johansson
- Mary McKillop Health Institute, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia
- Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - N C Harvey
- MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
- NIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, University of Southampton and University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Tremona Road, Southampton, UK
| | - M Lorentzon
- Mary McKillop Health Institute, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia
- Geriatric Medicine, Institute of Medicine, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
- Department of Geriatric Medicine, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Mölndal, Sweden
| | - E McCloskey
- Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
- Centre for Integrated research in Musculoskeletal Ageing (CIMA), Mellanby Centre for Bone Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - J A Kanis
- Mary McKillop Health Institute, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia
- Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Assessing the risk of osteoporotic fractures: the Ecuadorian FRAX model. Arch Osteoporos 2019; 14:93. [PMID: 31440846 DOI: 10.1007/s11657-019-0644-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/10/2019] [Accepted: 08/12/2019] [Indexed: 02/03/2023]
Abstract
UNLABELLED The FRAX tool incorporates data on the incidence of fractures and mortality in each country. The epidemiology of fractures changes over time, this makes it necessary to update the specific FRAX model of each population. It is shown that there are differences between old and new FRAX models in older individuals. PURPOSE A new FRAX® model for Ecuador was released online in April 2019. This paper describes the data used to build the revised model, its characteristics, and how intervention and assessment thresholds were constructed. METHODS The national rates of hip fracture incidence standardized by age and sex from the age of 40 years for 2016 were used to synthesize a FRAX model for Ecuador. For other major fractures, Ecuadorian incidence rates were calculated using ratios obtained in Malmö, Sweden, for other major osteoporotic fractures. The new FRAX model was compared with the previous model released in 2012. Assessment and intervention thresholds were based on age-specific probabilities of a major osteoporotic fracture equivalent to women with a previous fracture. RESULTS Fracture incidence rates increase with age. The probability of hip or major fractures at 10 years increased in patients with a clinical risk factor, lower BMI, female sex, a higher age, and a lower BMD T-score. Compared to the previous model, the new FRAX model gave similar 10-year fracture probabilities in men and women age less than70 years but substantially higher above this age. Notwithstanding, there were very close correlations in fracture probabilities between the two models (> 0.99) so that the revision had little impact on the rank order of risk. CONCLUSIONS The FRAX tool provides a country-specific fracture prediction model for Ecuador. This update of the model is based on the original FRAX methodology, which has been validated externally in several independent cohorts. The FRAX model is an evolving tool that is being continuously refined, as the databases of each country are updated with more epidemiological information.
Collapse
|
24
|
Kanis JA, Cooper C, Rizzoli R, Reginster JY. European guidance for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women. Osteoporos Int 2019; 30:3-44. [PMID: 30324412 PMCID: PMC7026233 DOI: 10.1007/s00198-018-4704-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 841] [Impact Index Per Article: 168.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/30/2018] [Accepted: 09/12/2018] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
Guidance is provided in a European setting on the assessment and treatment of postmenopausal women at risk from fractures due to osteoporosis. INTRODUCTION The International Osteoporosis Foundation and European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis published guidance for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in 2013. This manuscript updates these in a European setting. METHODS Systematic reviews were updated. RESULTS The following areas are reviewed: the role of bone mineral density measurement for the diagnosis of osteoporosis and assessment of fracture risk; general and pharmacological management of osteoporosis; monitoring of treatment; assessment of fracture risk; case-finding strategies; investigation of patients; health economics of treatment. The update includes new information on the evaluation of bone microstructure evaluation in facture risk assessment, the role of FRAX® and Fracture Liaison Services in secondary fracture prevention, long-term effects on fracture risk of dietary intakes, and increased fracture risk on stopping drug treatment. CONCLUSIONS A platform is provided on which specific guidelines can be developed for national use.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J A Kanis
- Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield Medical School, Beech Hill Road, Sheffield, S10 2RX, UK.
- Mary McKillop Health Institute, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia.
| | - C Cooper
- MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
- NIHR Musculoskeletal Biomedical Research Unit, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - R Rizzoli
- University Hospitals and Faculty of Medicine of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - J-Y Reginster
- Department of Public Health, Epidemiology and Health Economics, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium
- Prince Mutaib Chair for Biomarkers of Osteoporosis, Biochemistry Department, College of Science, King Saud University, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
| |
Collapse
|
25
|
Abstract
This paper reviews the research programme that went into the development of FRAX® and its impact in the 10 years since its release in 2008. INTRODUCTION Osteoporosis is defined on the measurement of bone mineral density though the clinical consequence is fracture. The sensitivity of bone mineral density measurements for fracture prediction is low, leading to the development of FRAX to better calculate the likelihood of fracture and target anti-osteoporosis treatments. METHODS The method used in this paper is literature review. RESULTS FRAX, developed over an 8-year period, was launched in 2008. Since the launch of FRAX, models have been made available for 64 countries and in 31 languages covering more than 80% of the world population. CONCLUSION FRAX provides an advance in fracture risk assessment and a reference technology platform for future improvements in performance characteristics.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- John A Kanis
- Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield Medical School, Beech Hill Road, Sheffield, S10 2RX, UK.
- Mary McKillop Research Institute, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia.
| | - Helena Johansson
- Mary McKillop Research Institute, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Nicholas C Harvey
- MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
- NIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, University of Southampton and University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK
| | - Eugene V McCloskey
- Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield Medical School, Beech Hill Road, Sheffield, S10 2RX, UK
- Mellanby Centre for Bone Research, Department of Oncology and Metabolism, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| |
Collapse
|
26
|
Zerbini CAF, Albergaria BH. The brazilian FRAX model: an introduction. Rev Assoc Med Bras (1992) 2018; 64:481-483. [DOI: 10.1590/1806-9282.64.06.481] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/30/2018] [Accepted: 06/30/2018] [Indexed: 11/21/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
| | - Ben Hur Albergaria
- Federal University of Espírito Santo, Brasil; Osteoporosis Research and Diagnosis Center - CEDOES, Brasil
| |
Collapse
|
27
|
Clark P, Denova-Gutiérrez E, Zerbini C, Sanchez A, Messina O, Jaller JJ, Campusano C, Orces CH, Riera G, Johansson H, Kanis JA. FRAX-based intervention and assessment thresholds in seven Latin American countries. Osteoporos Int 2018; 29:707-715. [PMID: 29273826 DOI: 10.1007/s00198-017-4341-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 33] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/24/2017] [Accepted: 12/04/2017] [Indexed: 10/18/2022]
Abstract
UNLABELLED Age-specific intervention and assessment thresholds were developed for seven Latin American countries. The intervention threshold ranged from 1.2% (Ecuador) to 27.5% (Argentina) at the age of 50 and 90 years, respectively. In the Latin American countries, FRAX offers a substantial advance for the detection of subjects at high fracture risk. INTRODUCTION Intervention thresholds are proposed using the Fracture Risk Assessment (FRAX) tool. We recommended their use to calculate the ten-year probability of fragility fracture (FF) in both, men and women with or without the inclusion of bone mineral density (BMD). The purpose of this study is to compute FRAX-based intervention and BMD assessment thresholds for seven Latin American countries in men and women ≥ 40 years. METHODS The intervention threshold (IT) was set at a 10-year probability of a major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) equivalent to a woman with a prior FF and a body mass index (BMI) equal to 25.0 kg/m2 without BMD or other clinical risk factors. The lower assessment threshold was set at a 10-year probability of a MOF in women with BMI equal to 25.0 kg/m2, no previous fracture and no clinical risk factors. The upper assessment threshold was set at 1.2 times the IT. RESULTS For the seven LA countries, the age-specific IT varied from 1.5 to 27.5% in Argentina, 3.8 to 25.2% in Brazil, 1.6 up to 20.0% in Chile, 0.6 to 10.2% in Colombia, 0.9 up to 13.6% in Ecuador, 2.6 to 20.0% in Mexico, and 0.7 up to 22.0% in Venezuela at the age of 40 and 90 years, respectively. CONCLUSIONS In the LA countries, FRAX-based IT offers a substantial advance for the detection of men and women at high fracture risk, particularly in the elderly. The heterogeneity of IT between the LA countries indicates that country-specific FRAX models are appropriate rather than a global LA model.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- P Clark
- Clinical Epidemiology Research Unit, Hospital Infantil de México Federico Gomez, Dr. Márquez #164, Col. Doctores, Mexico City, Mexico
- School of Medicine, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM), Mexico City, Mexico
| | - E Denova-Gutiérrez
- Clinical Epidemiology Research Unit, Hospital Infantil de México Federico Gomez, Dr. Márquez #164, Col. Doctores, Mexico City, Mexico.
- School of Medicine, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM), Mexico City, Mexico.
| | - C Zerbini
- Centro Paulista de Investigação Clinica, São Paulo, Brazil
| | - A Sanchez
- Centro de Endocrinología, Rosario, Argentina
| | - O Messina
- Servicio de Reumatología, Hospital Argerich, Buenos Aires, Argentina
- Unidad de Postgrado en Reumatología, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina
| | - J J Jaller
- Centro de Reumatología y Ortopedia, Barranquilla, Colombia
| | - C Campusano
- Clínica de la Universidad de los Andes, Santiago, Chile
| | - C H Orces
- Department of Medicine, Laredo Medical Center, Laredo, TX, USA
| | - G Riera
- Unidad Metabolica, Universidad de Carabobo, Valencia, Venezuela
| | - H Johansson
- Institute for Health and Ageing, Catholic University of Australia, Melbourne, Australia
| | - J A Kanis
- Institute for Health and Ageing, Catholic University of Australia, Melbourne, Australia
- Medical School, Sheffield, UK Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, England
| |
Collapse
|
28
|
Lee JH, Hong AR, Kim JH, Kim KM, Koo BK, Shin CS, Kim SW. Amount of smoking, pulmonary function, and bone mineral density in middle-aged Korean men: KNHANES 2008-2011. J Bone Miner Metab 2018; 36:95-102. [PMID: 28144749 DOI: 10.1007/s00774-017-0811-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/01/2016] [Accepted: 12/15/2016] [Indexed: 01/21/2023]
Abstract
Smoking induces bone loss; however, data on the relationship between smoking history and bone mineral density (BMD) are lacking. Age and pulmonary function can affect BMD. We investigated the relationships among pack-years (PYs) of smoking, pulmonary function, and BMD in middle-aged Korean men (50-64 years old). This cross-sectional study used data from the Korean National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2008-2011. All participants underwent BMD measurements using dual energy X-ray absorptiometry and pulmonary function tests using standardized spirometry. In total, 388 never-smokers and 1088 ever-smokers were analyzed. The number of PYs of smoking was negatively correlated with total hip BMD (r = -0.088; P = 0.004) after adjusting for age, height, and weight. Ever-smokers were classified into 3 groups according to PYs of smoking. The highest tertile (n = 482) exhibited significantly lower total hip bone mass than the lowest tertile (n = 214) after adjusting for confounding factors (age, height, weight, forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), alcohol consumption, physical activity, and vitamin D levels) that could affect bone metabolism (P = 0.003). In conclusion, smoking for >30 PYs was significantly associated with low hip BMD after adjusting for pulmonary function in middle-aged Korean men. Long-term smoking may be a risk factor for bone loss in middle-aged men independent of age, height, weight, and pulmonary function.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ji Hyun Lee
- Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine, 101 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 110-744, South Korea
| | - A Ram Hong
- Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine, 101 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 110-744, South Korea
| | - Jung Hee Kim
- Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine, 101 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 110-744, South Korea
| | - Kyoung Min Kim
- Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine, 101 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 110-744, South Korea
- Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital and Seoul National University College of Medicine, 300 Gumi-dong, Bundang-gu, Seongnam-si, Gyeonggi-do, 463-707, South Korea
| | - Bo Kyung Koo
- Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine, 101 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 110-744, South Korea
- Department of Internal Medicine, Boramae Medical Center, 20 Boramae-Ro 5-Gil, Dongjak-Gu, Seoul, 156-707, South Korea
| | - Chan Soo Shin
- Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine, 101 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 110-744, South Korea
| | - Sang Wan Kim
- Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine, 101 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 110-744, South Korea.
- Department of Internal Medicine, Boramae Medical Center, 20 Boramae-Ro 5-Gil, Dongjak-Gu, Seoul, 156-707, South Korea.
| |
Collapse
|
29
|
Compston J, Cooper A, Cooper C, Gittoes N, Gregson C, Harvey N, Hope S, Kanis JA, McCloskey EV, Poole KES, Reid DM, Selby P, Thompson F, Thurston A, Vine N. UK clinical guideline for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis. Arch Osteoporos 2017; 12:43. [PMID: 28425085 PMCID: PMC5397452 DOI: 10.1007/s11657-017-0324-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 500] [Impact Index Per Article: 71.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/07/2017] [Accepted: 03/07/2017] [Indexed: 02/03/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION In 2008, the UK National Osteoporosis Guideline Group (NOGG) produced a guideline on the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis, with an update in 2013. This paper presents a major update of the guideline, the scope of which is to review the assessment and management of osteoporosis and the prevention of fragility fractures in postmenopausal women and men age 50 years or over. METHODS Where available, systematic reviews, meta-analyses and randomised controlled trials were used to provide the evidence base. Conclusions and recommendations were systematically graded according to the strength of the available evidence. RESULTS Review of the evidence and recommendations are provided for the diagnosis of osteoporosis, fracture-risk assessment, lifestyle measures and pharmacological interventions, duration and monitoring of bisphosphonate therapy, glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis, osteoporosis in men, postfracture care and intervention thresholds. CONCLUSION The guideline, which has received accreditation from the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE), provides a comprehensive overview of the assessment and management of osteoporosis for all healthcare professionals who are involved in its management.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J. Compston
- Department of Medicine, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge, UK
| | - A. Cooper
- Crawley Fracture Liaison Service, Crawley, Sussex, UK
| | - C. Cooper
- MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - N. Gittoes
- University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Centre for Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism, University of Birmingham & Birmingham Health Partners, Birmingham, UK
| | - C. Gregson
- Musculoskeletal Research Unit, University of Bristol and Royal United Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Bath, UK
| | - N. Harvey
- MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - S. Hope
- Metabolic Bone, Nuffield Orthopaedic Hospital, Oxford, UK
| | - J. A. Kanis
- Centre for Metabolic Diseases, University of Sheffield Medical School, Sheffield, UK
| | | | - K. E. S. Poole
- Department of Medicine, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge, UK
| | - D. M. Reid
- Emeritus Professor of Rheumatology, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
| | - P. Selby
- Metabolic Bone Disease, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | | | | | - N. Vine
- Department of Medicine, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge, UK
| | - The National Osteoporosis Guideline Group (NOGG)
- Department of Medicine, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge, UK
- Crawley Fracture Liaison Service, Crawley, Sussex, UK
- MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
- University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Centre for Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism, University of Birmingham & Birmingham Health Partners, Birmingham, UK
- Musculoskeletal Research Unit, University of Bristol and Royal United Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Bath, UK
- Metabolic Bone, Nuffield Orthopaedic Hospital, Oxford, UK
- Centre for Metabolic Diseases, University of Sheffield Medical School, Sheffield, UK
- Metabolic Bone, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
- Emeritus Professor of Rheumatology, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
- Metabolic Bone Disease, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
- National Osteoporosis Society, Camerton, UK
| |
Collapse
|
30
|
Johansson H, Azizieh F, Al Ali N, Alessa T, Harvey NC, McCloskey E, Kanis JA. FRAX- vs. T-score-based intervention thresholds for osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int 2017; 28:3099-3105. [PMID: 28782072 PMCID: PMC5881885 DOI: 10.1007/s00198-017-4160-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 31] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/07/2017] [Accepted: 07/11/2017] [Indexed: 10/19/2022]
Abstract
UNLABELLED Many current guidelines for the assessment of osteoporosis, including those in Kuwait, initiate fracture risk assessment in men and women using BMD T-score thresholds. We compared the Kuwaiti guidelines with FRAX-based age-dependent intervention thresholds equivalent to that in women with a prior fragility fracture. FRAX-based intervention thresholds identified women at higher fracture probability than fixed T-score thresholds, particularly in the elderly. PURPOSE A FRAX® model been recently calibrated for Kuwait, but guidance is needed on how to utilise fracture probabilities in the assessment and treatment of patients. METHODS We compared age-specific fracture probabilities, equivalent to women with no clinical risk factors and a prior fragility fracture (without BMD), with the age-specific fracture probabilities associated with femoral neck T-scores of -2.5 and -1.5 SD, in line with current guidelines in Kuwait. Upper and lower assessment thresholds for BMD testing were additionally explored using FRAX. RESULTS When a BMD T-score of -2.5 SD was used as an intervention threshold, FRAX probabilities of a major osteoporotic fracture in women aged 50 years were approximately twofold higher than those in women of the same age but with an average BMD. The increase in risk associated with the BMD threshold decreased progressively with age such that, at the age of 83 years or more, a T-score of -2.5 SD was associated with a lower probability of fracture than that of the age-matched general population with no clinical risk factors. The same phenomenon was observed from the age of 66 years at a T-score of -1.5 SD. A FRAX-based intervention threshold, defined as the 10-year probability of a major osteoporotic fracture in a woman of average BMI with a previous fracture, rose with age from 4.3% at the age of 50 years to 23%, at the age of 90 years, and identified women at increased risk at all ages. Qualitatively comparable findings were observed in the case of hip fracture probability and in men. CONCLUSION Intervention thresholds based on BMD alone do not optimally target women at higher fracture risk than those on age-matched individuals without clinical risk factors, particularly in the elderly. In contrast, intervention thresholds based on fracture probabilities equivalent to a 'fracture threshold' consistently target women at higher fracture risk, irrespective of age.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- H Johansson
- Institute for Health and Ageing, Catholic University of Australia, Melbourne, Australia
| | - F Azizieh
- Department of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Gulf University for Science and Technology, Mubarak Al-Abdullah, Kuwait City, Kuwait
| | - N Al Ali
- Unit of Endocrinology & Metabolism, Al-Amiri Hospital, Kuwait City, Kuwait
| | - T Alessa
- Endocrinology, Diabetes & Metabolism, Mubarak Al-Kabeer Hospital, Jabriya, Kuwait
| | - N C Harvey
- MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
- NIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, University of Southampton and University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Tremona Road, Southampton, UK
| | - E McCloskey
- Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield Medical School, Beech Hill Road, Sheffield, S10 2RX, UK
| | - J A Kanis
- Institute for Health and Ageing, Catholic University of Australia, Melbourne, Australia.
- Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield Medical School, Beech Hill Road, Sheffield, S10 2RX, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
31
|
Strong AL, Jones RB, Glowacki J, Boue SM, Burow ME, Bunnell BA. Glycinol enhances osteogenic differentiation and attenuates the effects of age on mesenchymal stem cells. Regen Med 2017; 12:513-524. [PMID: 28718749 DOI: 10.2217/rme-2016-0148] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/10/2023] Open
Abstract
AIM Phytoestrogens, such as glycinol, have recently gained significant attention as an alternative therapy for osteoporosis due to their structural similarity to estradiol and their bone-generating potential. METHODS The osteogenic effects of glycinol were investigated in human bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells (BMSCs) derived from older (>50 years old) and younger subjects (<25 years old). RESULTS BMSCs isolated from older donors demonstrated reduced osteogenesis. 17β-estradiol and glycinol exposure rescued the age-related reduction in osteogenic differentiation of BMSCs. These results correlated with the induction of osteogenic genes and estrogen receptor-α (ER-α) following glycinol treatment. ER antagonist studies further support that glycinol promotes osteogenesis through ER signaling. CONCLUSION The results from these studies support investigating glycinol as a potential preventive or treatment for osteoporosis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Amy L Strong
- Center for Stem Cell Research & Regenerative Medicine, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, LA, USA
| | - Robert B Jones
- Center for Stem Cell Research & Regenerative Medicine, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, LA, USA
| | - Julie Glowacki
- Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Brigham & Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Stephen M Boue
- Southern Regional Research Center, US Department of Agriculture, 1100 Robert E Lee Blvd, New Orleans, LA, USA
| | - Matthew E Burow
- Department of Medicine, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, LA, USA
| | - Bruce A Bunnell
- Center for Stem Cell Research & Regenerative Medicine, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, LA, USA.,Department of Pharmacology, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, LA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
32
|
Abstract
The fracture risk assessment tool, FRAX, was released in 2008 and provides country-specific algorithms for estimating individualized 10-year probability of hip and major osteoporotic fracture (hip, clinical spine, distal forearm, and proximal humerus). Since its release, models are now available for 63 countries, covering 79% of the world population. The website receives approximately 3 million visits annually. Following independent validation, FRAX has been incorporated into more than 80 guidelines worldwide. However, the application of FRAX in guidelines has been heterogeneous with the adoption of several different approaches to setting intervention thresholds. The relationship between FRAX and efficacy of intervention has been explored and is expected to influence treatment guidelines in the future. A more unified approach to setting intervention thresholds with FRAX is a research priority.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- John A Kanis
- Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield Medical School, Sheffield, UK; Institute of Health and Ageing, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia.
| | - Nicholas C Harvey
- MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - Helena Johansson
- Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield Medical School, Sheffield, UK; Centre for Bone and Arthritis Research (CBAR), Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - Anders Odén
- Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield Medical School, Sheffield, UK
| | - William D Leslie
- Department of Internal Medicine, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
| | - Eugene V McCloskey
- Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield Medical School, Sheffield, UK
| |
Collapse
|
33
|
LaFleur J, Rillamas-Sun E, Colón-Emeric CS, Knippenberg KA, Ensrud KE, Gray SL, Cauley JA, LaCroix AZ. Fracture Rates and Bone Density Among Postmenopausal Veteran and Non-Veteran Women From the Women's Health Initiative. THE GERONTOLOGIST 2017; 56 Suppl 1:S78-90. [PMID: 26768394 DOI: 10.1093/geront/gnv677] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/14/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY Postmenopausal osteoporosis can impact quality-of-life even prefracture. To determine whether osteoporosis should be a greater concern in women Veterans versus non-Veterans, we compared fracture rates and bone mineral density (BMD) for Veterans and non-Veterans using Women's Health Initiative data. DESIGN AND METHODS In this cohort study, participants were women aged 50-79 years. Outcomes were hip, central body, and limb fractures occurring during up to 19 years of follow-up and hip, spine, and whole body BMD collected three times over a 6-year period in a participant subsample. Covariates comprised risk factors for fracture, including fall history and other components of the World Health Organization Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX). Cox Proportional Hazards models were used to examine fracture rates for Veterans compared with non-Veterans. RESULTS Of 161,808 women, 145,521 self-identified as Veteran (n = 3,719) or non-Veteran (n = 141,802). Baseline FRAX scores showed that Veterans had higher 10-year probabilities for any major fracture (13.3 vs 10.2; p < .01) and hip fracture (4.1 vs 2.2; p < .01) compared with non-Veterans. The age-adjusted rate of hip fracture per 1,000 person-years for Veterans was 3.3 versus 2.4 for non-Veterans (p < .01). After adjustment, the hazards ratio for hip fracture was 1.24 (95% confidence interval 1.03-1.49) for Veterans versus non-Veterans. Hazards ratios at other anatomic sites did not differ by Veteran status. Mean BMD at baseline and at Years 3 and 6 also did not differ by Veteran status at any site. IMPLICATIONS Women Veterans had an increased hip fracture rate not explained by differences in well-recognized fracture risk factors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Joanne LaFleur
- VA Salt Lake City Healthcare System, Utah. Department of Pharmacotherapy, University of Utah College of Pharmacy, Salt Lake City.
| | - Eileen Rillamas-Sun
- Division of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington
| | - Cathleen S Colón-Emeric
- Durham Center for Health Services Research and Durham Geriatric Research, Education and Clinical Center, Department of Veterans Affairs, North Carolina. Department of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina
| | - Kristin A Knippenberg
- VA Salt Lake City Healthcare System, Utah. Department of Pharmacotherapy, University of Utah College of Pharmacy, Salt Lake City
| | - Kristine E Ensrud
- Center for Chronic Disease Outcomes Research, Minneapolis VA Health Care System, One Veterans Drive, Minnesota. Department of Medicine, Division of Epidemiology and Community Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis
| | - Shelly L Gray
- School of Pharmacy, University of Washington, Seattle
| | - Jane A Cauley
- Department of Epidemiology, Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
| | - Andrea Z LaCroix
- Division of Epidemiology, Department of Family Medicine and Public Health, University of California San Diego, La Jolla
| |
Collapse
|
34
|
Kanis JA, Harvey NC, Cooper C, Johansson H, Odén A, McCloskey EV. A systematic review of intervention thresholds based on FRAX : A report prepared for the National Osteoporosis Guideline Group and the International Osteoporosis Foundation. Arch Osteoporos 2016; 11:25. [PMID: 27465509 PMCID: PMC4978487 DOI: 10.1007/s11657-016-0278-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 254] [Impact Index Per Article: 31.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/03/2016] [Accepted: 06/16/2016] [Indexed: 02/03/2023]
Abstract
UNLABELLED 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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- John A Kanis
- Centre for Metabolic Diseases, University of Sheffield Medical School, Beech Hill Road, Sheffield, S10 2RX, UK.
- Institute of Health and Ageing, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia.
| | - Nicholas C Harvey
- MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - Cyrus Cooper
- MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - Helena Johansson
- Centre for Metabolic Diseases, University of Sheffield Medical School, Beech Hill Road, Sheffield, S10 2RX, UK
| | - Anders Odén
- Centre for Metabolic Diseases, University of Sheffield Medical School, Beech Hill Road, Sheffield, S10 2RX, UK
| | - Eugene V McCloskey
- Centre for Metabolic Diseases, University of Sheffield Medical School, Beech Hill Road, Sheffield, S10 2RX, UK
| |
Collapse
|
35
|
Zeidan ZA, Sultan IE, Guraya SS, Al-Zalabani AH, Khoshhal KI. Low bone mineral density among young healthy adult Saudi women. Prevalence and associated factors in the age group of 20 to 36 years. Saudi Med J 2016; 37:1225-1233. [PMID: 27761561 PMCID: PMC5303800 DOI: 10.15537/smj.2016.11.16248] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
Objectives: To screen for low bone mineral density among young adult Saudi women using quantitative ultrasound (QUS) and exploring the high risk groups. Methods: A cross-sectional study was performed on 279, 20-36 years old female students and employees of Taibah University, Al Madinah Al Munawwarah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia between January and May 2014. The study included bone status assessed using QUS, a structured self-reported questionnaire, anthropometric measurements, and evaluation of bone markers of bone metabolism. Results: The prevalence of low bone mineral density was 9%. Serum osteocalcin was found significantly higher in candidates with low bone mineral density, 20.67 ng/ml versus 10.7 ng/ml, and it was negatively correlated with T-scores. At any given point in time the exposed subjects to low calcium intake and inadequate sun exposure in the population were 11 times and 3 times more likely to have low bone mineral density, (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 11.0; 95%confidence interval [CI]=3.16, 38.34; p=0.001) and (adjusted OR, 3.32, 95%CI=1.27, 8.66, p<0.01). Conclusion: Early detection screening programs for low bone mineral density are needed in Saudi Arabia as it affects young Saudi women specially the high-risk group that includes young women with insufficient calcium intake and insufficient sun exposure. Serum osteocalcin as a biomarker for screening for low bone mineral density could be introduced.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zeidan A Zeidan
- Department of Family and Community Medicine, College of Medicine, Taibah University, Al Madinah Al Munawwarah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. E-mail.
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
36
|
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW In the 8 years since the launch of the FRAX tool, it has continued to grow with the addition of new country or territory models. Although the core of the fracture risk algorithm remains unchanged, there is growing evidence of possible additional independent clinical variables that might modulate the interpretation of the FRAX outputs. There is also an expanding number of international guidelines that incorporate FRAX assessments, leading to discussions on the use of FRAX in treated patients and the determination of intervention thresholds. RECENT FINDINGS This review encompasses recent information on the use of FRAX in immigrant populations and the potential influence of skeletal and extraskeletal risk factors on FRAX estimations. For example, trabecular bone score and falls risk appear to be promising additional factors in individual risk assessment. FRAX appears to remain accurate in those on osteoporosis treatments, but FRAX is not a suitable tool for use in treat-to-target strategies. SUMMARY The assessment of fracture risk in immigrants is probably more accurate with the use of the FRAX tool for the country of origin, if available. The impact of additional risk variables will need evaluation of the impact of these on recharacterizing patients by moving them across intervention thresholds.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eugene V McCloskey
- aCentre for Metabolic Bone Diseases bCentre for Integrated Research Musculoskeletal Ageing, Mellanby Centre for Bone Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield cMRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
37
|
McCloskey EV, Odén A, Harvey NC, Leslie WD, Hans D, Johansson H, Barkmann R, Boutroy S, Brown J, Chapurlat R, Elders PJM, Fujita Y, Glüer CC, Goltzman D, Iki M, Karlsson M, Kindmark A, Kotowicz M, Kurumatani N, Kwok T, Lamy O, Leung J, Lippuner K, Ljunggren Ö, Lorentzon M, Mellström D, Merlijn T, Oei L, Ohlsson C, Pasco JA, Rivadeneira F, Rosengren B, Sornay-Rendu E, Szulc P, Tamaki J, Kanis JA. A Meta-Analysis of Trabecular Bone Score in Fracture Risk Prediction and Its Relationship to FRAX. J Bone Miner Res 2016; 31:940-8. [PMID: 26498132 DOI: 10.1002/jbmr.2734] [Citation(s) in RCA: 428] [Impact Index Per Article: 53.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/26/2015] [Revised: 10/08/2015] [Accepted: 10/23/2015] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
Trabecular bone score (TBS) is a gray-level textural index of bone microarchitecture derived from lumbar spine dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) images. TBS is a bone mineral density (BMD)-independent predictor of fracture risk. The objective of this meta-analysis was to determine whether TBS predicted fracture risk independently of FRAX probability and to examine their combined performance by adjusting the FRAX probability for TBS. We utilized individual-level data from 17,809 men and women in 14 prospective population-based cohorts. Baseline evaluation included TBS and the FRAX risk variables, and outcomes during follow-up (mean 6.7 years) comprised major osteoporotic fractures. The association between TBS, FRAX probabilities, and the risk of fracture was examined using an extension of the Poisson regression model in each cohort and for each sex and expressed as the gradient of risk (GR; hazard ratio per 1 SD change in risk variable in direction of increased risk). FRAX probabilities were adjusted for TBS using an adjustment factor derived from an independent cohort (the Manitoba Bone Density Cohort). Overall, the GR of TBS for major osteoporotic fracture was 1.44 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.35-1.53) when adjusted for age and time since baseline and was similar in men and women (p > 0.10). When additionally adjusted for FRAX 10-year probability of major osteoporotic fracture, TBS remained a significant, independent predictor for fracture (GR = 1.32, 95% CI 1.24-1.41). The adjustment of FRAX probability for TBS resulted in a small increase in the GR (1.76, 95% CI 1.65-1.87 versus 1.70, 95% CI 1.60-1.81). A smaller change in GR for hip fracture was observed (FRAX hip fracture probability GR 2.25 vs. 2.22). TBS is a significant predictor of fracture risk independently of FRAX. The findings support the use of TBS as a potential adjustment for FRAX probability, though the impact of the adjustment remains to be determined in the context of clinical assessment guidelines. © 2015 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eugene V McCloskey
- Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield Medical School, Sheffield, UK
| | - Anders Odén
- Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield Medical School, Sheffield, UK
| | - Nicholas C Harvey
- MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | | | - Didier Hans
- Lausanne University Hospital, Center of Bone Diseases, Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Helena Johansson
- Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield Medical School, Sheffield, UK
| | - Reinhard Barkmann
- Sektion Biomedizinische Bildgebung Klinik für Diagnostische Radiologie, Kiel, Germany
| | - Stephanie Boutroy
- INSERM UMR 1033 and Lyon University, E Herriot Hospital (HEH), Lyon, France
| | - Jacques Brown
- Department of Rheumatology, Laval University, Québec, Canada
| | - Roland Chapurlat
- INSERM UMR 1033 and Lyon University, E Herriot Hospital (HEH), Lyon, France
| | - Petra J M Elders
- Department of General Practice and Elderly Care Medicine, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Yuki Fujita
- Department of Public Health, Kinki University Faculty of Medicine, Osaka, Japan
| | - Claus-C Glüer
- Sektion Biomedizinische Bildgebung Klinik für Diagnostische Radiologie, Kiel, Germany
| | - David Goltzman
- Department of Medicine, McGill University Health Centre and McGill University, Montreal, Canada
| | - Masayuki Iki
- Department of Public Health, Kinki University Faculty of Medicine, Osaka, Japan
| | - Magnus Karlsson
- Clinical and Molecular Osteoporosis Research Unit, Department of Clinical Sciences, Lund University, Malmö, and Department of Orthopaedics, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden
| | - Andreas Kindmark
- Department of Medical Sciences, Uppsala University Hospital, Uppsala, Sweden
| | - Mark Kotowicz
- Epi-Centre for Healthy Ageing, School of Medicine, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia
| | - Norio Kurumatani
- Department of Community Health and Epidemiology, Nara Medical University School of Medicine, Nara, Japan
| | - Timothy Kwok
- Jockey Club Centre for Osteoporosis Care and Control, the Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong-Kong, China
| | - Oliver Lamy
- Lausanne University Hospital, Center of Bone Diseases, Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Jason Leung
- Jockey Club Centre for Osteoporosis Care and Control, the Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong-Kong, China
| | - Kurt Lippuner
- Department of Osteoporosis, Inselspital, Berne University Hospital, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Östen Ljunggren
- Department of Medical Sciences, Uppsala University Hospital, Uppsala, Sweden
| | - Mattias Lorentzon
- Geriatric Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine and Clinical Nutrition, Institute of Medicine, University of Gothenburg, Gothenberg, Sweden.,Center for Bone Research at the Sahlgrenska Academy, Institute of Medicine, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - Dan Mellström
- Geriatric Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine and Clinical Nutrition, Institute of Medicine, University of Gothenburg, Gothenberg, Sweden.,Center for Bone Research at the Sahlgrenska Academy, Institute of Medicine, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - Thomas Merlijn
- Department of General Practice and Elderly Care Medicine, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Ling Oei
- Epi-Centre for Healthy Ageing, School of Medicine, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia
| | - Claes Ohlsson
- Center for Bone Research at the Sahlgrenska Academy, Institute of Medicine, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - Julie A Pasco
- Epi-Centre for Healthy Ageing, School of Medicine, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia
| | - Fernando Rivadeneira
- Department of Internal Medicine and Department of Epidemiology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Björn Rosengren
- Clinical and Molecular Osteoporosis Research Unit, Department of Clinical Sciences, Lund University, Malmö, and Department of Orthopaedics, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden
| | | | - Pawel Szulc
- INSERM UMR 1033 and Lyon University, E Herriot Hospital (HEH), Lyon, France
| | - Junko Tamaki
- Department of Hygiene and Public Health, Osaka Medical College, Osaka, Japan
| | - John A Kanis
- Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield Medical School, Sheffield, UK
| |
Collapse
|
38
|
McCloskey E. A BMD threshold for treatment efficacy in osteoporosis? A need to consider the whole evidence base. Osteoporos Int 2016; 27:417-9. [PMID: 26564227 DOI: 10.1007/s00198-015-3406-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/26/2015] [Accepted: 11/04/2015] [Indexed: 12/26/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- E McCloskey
- Academic Unit of Bone Metabolism, Department of Oncology and Metabolism Metabolic Bone Centre, Northern General Hospital, Herries Road, Sheffield, S5 7AU, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
39
|
Bell K, Clark L, Fairhurst C, Mitchell N, Lenaghan E, Blacklock J, Cushnaghan J, Cooper C, Gittoes N, O'Neill TW, Shepstone L, Torgerson DJ. Enclosing a pen reduced time to response to questionnaire mailings. J Clin Epidemiol 2015; 74:144-50. [PMID: 26738971 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.12.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/16/2015] [Revised: 11/05/2015] [Accepted: 12/21/2015] [Indexed: 10/22/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To assess the effectiveness of including a pen in postal questionnaires on response rate, necessity of reminders, time to response, and completeness of response to the primary outcome question (POQ). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING A two-arm randomized controlled trial (RCT) embedded within the screening of older women for prevention of fracture trial (SCOOP). Women, aged 70-75 years, were randomized to receive a pen with their questionnaire (n = 3,826) or to receive the questionnaire alone (n = 3,829). The results were combined with another embedded RCT in a meta-analysis. RESULTS A response rate of 92.4% was observed in the pen group compared with 91.3% in the control group (odds ratio [OR] = 1.16; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.98, 1.37; P = 0.08). There was a difference in reminders required (OR = 0.88; 95% CI: 0.79, 0.98; P = 0.02), time to response (hazard ratio = 1.06; 95% CI: 1.01, 1.11; P = 0.01) and some difference in the completeness of response to the POQ (OR = 1.18; 95% CI: 1.00, 1.39; P = 0.05). The pooled OR from the meta-analysis for response rate was 1.21 (95% CI: 1.05, 1.39; P = 0.01). CONCLUSION Inclusion of a pen with postal questionnaires potentially has a positive impact on response rates and the number of reminders required. There may be some reduction in time to response. Studies of different participant groups are needed to test the effectiveness over more diverse populations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kerry Bell
- York Trials Unit, Health Sciences Department, University of York, York YO10 5DD, UK.
| | - Laura Clark
- York Trials Unit, Health Sciences Department, University of York, York YO10 5DD, UK
| | - Caroline Fairhurst
- York Trials Unit, Health Sciences Department, University of York, York YO10 5DD, UK
| | - Natasha Mitchell
- York Trials Unit, Health Sciences Department, University of York, York YO10 5DD, UK
| | - Elizabeth Lenaghan
- Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, MED Building, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK
| | - Jeanette Blacklock
- Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, MED Building, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK
| | - Janet Cushnaghan
- MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, Southampton General Hospital, University of Southampton, Southampton SO16 6YD, UK
| | - Cyrus Cooper
- MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, Southampton General Hospital, University of Southampton, Southampton SO16 6YD, UK
| | - Neil Gittoes
- Department of Endocrinology, Queen Elizabeth Medical Centre, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Wolfson Endocrinology-University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Old QEH 3rd Floor, 3-05D & 2nd Floor, Birmingham B15 2TH
| | - Terence W O'Neill
- Arthritis Research UK Centre for Epidemiology, Institute of Inflammation and Repair, Faculty of Medical and Human Sciences, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9NT, UK; NIHR Manchester Musculoskeletal Biomedical Research Unit, Central Manchester NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester M13 9NT, UK
| | - Lee Shepstone
- Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, MED Building, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK
| | - David J Torgerson
- York Trials Unit, Health Sciences Department, University of York, York YO10 5DD, UK
| | | |
Collapse
|
40
|
Kanis JA, Harvey NC, Johansson H, Odén A, Leslie WD, McCloskey EV. FRAX and fracture prediction without bone mineral density. Climacteric 2015; 18 Suppl 2:2-9. [PMID: 26489076 DOI: 10.3109/13697137.2015.1092342] [Citation(s) in RCA: 41] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/07/2023]
Abstract
The major application of FRAX in osteoporosis is to direct pharmacological interventions to those at high risk of fracture. Whereas the efficacy of osteoporosis treatment, with the possible exception of alendronate, is largely independent of baseline bone mineral density (BMD), it remains a widely held perception that osteoporosis therapies are only effective in the presence of low BMD. Thus, the use of FRAX in the absence of BMD to identify individuals requiring therapy remains the subject of some debate and is the focus of this review. The clinical risk factors used in FRAX have high evidence-based validity to identify a risk responsive to intervention. The selection of high-risk individuals with FRAX, without knowledge of BMD, preferentially selects for low BMD and thus identifies a risk that is responsive to pharmacological intervention. The prediction of fractures with the use of clinical risk factors alone in FRAX is comparable to the use of BMD alone to predict fractures and is suitable, therefore, in the many countries where facilities for BMD testing are sparse. In countries where access to BMD is greater, FRAX can be used without BMD in the majority of cases and BMD tests reserved for those close to a probability-based intervention threshold. Thus concerns surrounding the use of FRAX in clinical practice without information on BMD are largely misplaced.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J A Kanis
- a Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield Medical School , UK
| | - N C Harvey
- b MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton , Southampton , UK
| | - H Johansson
- a Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield Medical School , UK ;,c Centre for Bone and Arthritis Research, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg , Gothenburg , Sweden
| | - A Odén
- a Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield Medical School , UK
| | - W D Leslie
- d University of Manitoba , Winnipeg , Canada
| | - E V McCloskey
- a Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield Medical School , UK
| |
Collapse
|
41
|
Incidence of hip fracture in Brazil and the development of a FRAX model. Arch Osteoporos 2015; 10:224. [PMID: 26303038 DOI: 10.1007/s11657-015-0224-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 54] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/29/2015] [Accepted: 06/17/2015] [Indexed: 02/03/2023]
Abstract
UNLABELLED The Brazilian FRAX model is described and used to determine intervention thresholds for the treatment of osteoporosis. INTRODUCTION A FRAX model for Brazil was released May 1, 2013. This paper describes the data used to develop the Brazilian FRAX(®) model, illustrates its features and develops intervention thresholds. METHODS Age- and sex-stratified hip fracture incidence rates were extracted from four regional estimates from the age of 40 years. For other major fractures, Brazilian incidence rates were estimated using Swedish ratios for hip to other major osteoporotic fracture (humerus, forearm or clinical vertebral fractures). Assessment and intervention thresholds were determined using the approach recommended by the National Osteoporosis Guideline Group (UK) applied to the Brazilian FRAX model. RESULTS Fracture incidence rates increased with increasing age: for hip fracture, incidence rates were higher amongst younger men than women but with a female preponderance from the age of 50 years. Ten-year probability of hip or major fracture was increased in patients with a clinical risk factor, lower BMI, female gender, a higher age and a decreased BMD T-score. Of the clinical risk factors, prior fracture accounted for the greatest increase in 10-year fracture probability at younger ages while a parental hip fracture history was the strongest risk factor at ages 80-90 years. Age-dependent probability-based intervention thresholds were developed equivalent to women with a prior fragility fracture. CONCLUSIONS The FRAX tool is the first to provide a country-specific fracture prediction model for Brazil. It is based on the original FRAX methodology, which has been externally validated in several independent cohorts. Despite some limitations, the strengths make the Brazilian FRAX tool a good candidate for implementation into clinical practice.
Collapse
|
42
|
McCloskey E, Kanis JA, Johansson H, Harvey N, Odén A, Cooper A, Cooper C, Francis RM, Reid DM, Marsh D, Selby P, Thompson F, Hewitt S, Compston J. FRAX-based assessment and intervention thresholds--an exploration of thresholds in women aged 50 years and older in the UK. Osteoporos Int 2015; 26:2091-9. [PMID: 26077380 DOI: 10.1007/s00198-015-3176-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 41] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/05/2015] [Accepted: 05/13/2015] [Indexed: 01/22/2023]
Abstract
UNLABELLED Under current guidelines, based on prior fracture 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 (a fixed threshold from the age of 70 years) reduces this disparity, increases treatment access and decreases the need for bone densitometry. INTRODUCTION Several international guidelines set age-specific intervention thresholds at the 10-year probability of fracture equivalent to a woman of average BMI with a prior fracture. At older ages (≥70 years), women with prior fracture selected for treatment are at lower average absolute risk than those selected for treatment in the absence of prior fracture, prompting consideration of alternative thresholds in this age group. METHODS Using a simulated population of 50,633 women aged 50-90 years in the UK, with a distribution of risk factors similar to that in the European FRAX derivation cohorts and a UK-matched age distribution, the current NOGG intervention and assessment thresholds were compared to one where the thresholds remained constant from 70 years upwards. RESULTS Under current thresholds, 45.1% of women aged ≥70 years would be eligible for therapy, comprising 37.5% with prior fracture, 2.2% with high risk but no prior fracture and 5.4% selected for treatment after bone mineral density (BMD) measurement. Mean hip fracture probability was 11.3, 23.3 and 17.6%, respectively, in these groups. Under the alternative thresholds, the overall proportion of women treated increased from 45.1 to 52.9%, with 8.4% at high risk but no prior fracture and 7.0% selected for treatment after BMD measurement. In the latter group, the mean probability of hip fracture was identical to that observed in women with prior fracture (11.3%). The alternative threshold also reduced the need for BMD measurement, particularly at older ages (>80 years). CONCLUSIONS The alternative thresholds equilibrate fracture risk, particularly hip fracture risk, in those with or without prior fracture selected for treatment and reduce BMD usage at older ages.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- E McCloskey
- Academic Unit of Bone Metabolism and Mellanby Centre for Bone Research, University of Sheffield, Metabolic Bone Centre, Northern General Hospital, Herries Road, Sheffield, S5 7AU, UK
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
43
|
McCloskey EV, Kanis JA, Odén A, Harvey NC, Bauer D, González-Macias J, Hans D, Kaptoge S, Krieg MA, Kwok T, Marin F, Moayyeri A, Orwoll E, Gluёr C, Johansson H. Predictive ability of heel quantitative ultrasound for incident fractures: an individual-level meta-analysis. Osteoporos Int 2015; 26:1979-87. [PMID: 25690339 DOI: 10.1007/s00198-015-3072-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 67] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/09/2014] [Accepted: 02/06/2015] [Indexed: 01/07/2023]
Abstract
UNLABELLED The relationship between bone quantitative ultrasound (QUS) and fracture risk was estimated in an individual level data meta-analysis of 9 prospective studies of 46,124 individuals and 3018 incident fractures. Low QUS is associated with an increase in fracture risk, including hip fracture. The association with osteoporotic fracture decreases with time. INTRODUCTION The aim of this meta-analysis was to investigate the association between parameters of QUS and risk of fracture. METHODS In an individual-level analysis, we studied participants in nine prospective cohorts from Asia, Europe and North America. Heel broadband ultrasonic attenuation (BUA dB/MHz) and speed of sound (SOS m/s) were measured at baseline. Fractures during follow-up were collected by self-report and in some cohorts confirmed by radiography. An extension of Poisson regression was used to examine the gradient of risk (GR, hazard ratio per 1 SD decrease) between QUS and fracture risk adjusted for age and time since baseline in each cohort. Interactions between QUS and age and time since baseline were explored. RESULTS Baseline measurements were available in 46,124 men and women, mean age 70 years (range 20-100). Three thousand and eighteen osteoporotic fractures (787 hip fractures) occurred during follow-up of 214,000 person-years. The summary GR for osteoporotic fracture was similar for both BUA (1.45, 95 % confidence intervals (CI) 1.40-1.51) and SOS (1.42, 95 % CI 1.36-1.47). For hip fracture, the respective GRs were 1.69 (95 % CI, 1.56-1.82) and 1.60 (95 % CI, 1.48-1.72). However, the GR was significantly higher for both fracture outcomes at lower baseline BUA and SOS (p < 0.001). The predictive value of QUS was the same for men and women and for all ages (p > 0.20), but the predictive value of both BUA and SOS for osteoporotic fracture decreased with time (p = 0.018 and p = 0.010, respectively). For example, the GR of BUA for osteoporotic fracture, adjusted for age, was 1.51 (95 % CI 1.42-1.61) at 1 year after baseline, but at 5 years, it was 1.36 (95 % CI 1.27-1.46). CONCLUSIONS Our results confirm that quantitative ultrasound is an independent predictor of fracture for men and women particularly at low QUS values.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- E V McCloskey
- Academic Unit of Bone Metabolism and Mellanby Centre for Bone Research, University of Sheffield, Metabolic Bone Centre, Northern General Hospital, Herries Road, Sheffield, S5 7AU, UK,
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
44
|
Wilczek ML, Nielsen C, Kälvesten J, Algulin J, Brismar TB. Mammography and osteoporosis screening--clinical risk factors and their association with digital X-ray radiogrammetry bone mineral density. J Clin Densitom 2015; 18:22-9. [PMID: 25294740 DOI: 10.1016/j.jocd.2014.07.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/10/2014] [Accepted: 07/23/2014] [Indexed: 11/22/2022]
Abstract
The aim of this study was to study the association between digital X-ray radiogrammetry (DXR) T-score and clinical risk factors for osteoporosis. Women were recruited 2 d per wk at a single mammography screening center between year 2010 and 2012. Included women answered a questionnaire about risk factors for osteoporosis, and a radiograph of the nondominant hand was obtained for DXR analysis. Univariate associations between DXR T-score and risk factors were examined. A generalized linear regression model was fitted to independent variables with univariate associations at p<0.05. The multivariable model was reduced through manual backward elimination, with p>0.1 as the exclusion criterion. Seventy-six percent of the women chose to participate in the study (n=8810). The difference in number of daily mammograms performed on study vs nonstudy days was not significant. All univariate associations between DXR T-score and potential risk factors were highly significant. The multivariable model included height, weight, age, right-handedness, menopause before age 45, alcohol consumption, cortisone treatment, rheumatic disease, and age×smoking status. The coefficient of determination of the model was 0.37. The association between risk factors for osteoporosis and DXR T-score is similar to previously reported associations with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michael L Wilczek
- Division of Radiology, Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
| | | | - Johan Kälvesten
- Sectra AB, Linköping, Sweden; Center for Medical Image Science and Visualization (CMIV), Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden
| | | | - Torkel B Brismar
- Division of Radiology, Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
| |
Collapse
|
45
|
Leslie WD, Orwoll ES, Nielson CM, Morin SN, Majumdar SR, Johansson H, Odén A, McCloskey EV, Kanis JA. Estimated lean mass and fat mass differentially affect femoral bone density and strength index but are not FRAX independent risk factors for fracture. J Bone Miner Res 2014; 29:2511-9. [PMID: 24825359 DOI: 10.1002/jbmr.2280] [Citation(s) in RCA: 66] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/06/2014] [Revised: 04/26/2014] [Accepted: 05/04/2014] [Indexed: 11/07/2022]
Abstract
Although increasing body weight has been regarded as protective against osteoporosis and fractures, there is accumulating evidence that fat mass adversely affects skeletal health compared with lean mass. We examined skeletal health as a function of estimated total body lean and fat mass in 40,050 women and 3600 men age ≥50 years at the time of baseline dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) testing from a clinical registry from Manitoba, Canada. Femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD), strength index (SI), cross-sectional area (CSA), and cross-sectional moment of inertia (CSMI) were derived from DXA. Multivariable models showed that increasing lean mass was associated with near-linear increases in femoral BMD, CSA, and CSMI in both women and men, whereas increasing fat mass showed a small initial increase in these measurements followed by a plateau. In contrast, femoral SI was relatively unaffected by increasing lean mass but was associated with a continuous linear decline with increasing fat mass, which should predict higher fracture risk. During mean 5-year follow-up, incident major osteoporosis fractures and hip fractures were observed in 2505 women and 180 men (626 and 45 hip fractures, respectively). After adjustment for fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX) scores (with or without BMD), we found no evidence that lean mass, fat mass, or femoral SI affected prediction of major osteoporosis fractures or hip fractures. Findings were similar in men and women, without significant interactions with sex or obesity. In conclusion, skeletal adaptation to increasing lean mass was positively associated with BMD but had no effect on femoral SI, whereas increasing fat mass had no effect on BMD but adversely affected femoral SI. Greater fat mass was not independently associated with a greater risk of fractures over 5-year follow-up. FRAX robustly predicts fractures and was not affected by variations in body composition.
Collapse
|
46
|
James H, Aleksic I, Bienz MN, Pieczonka C, Iannotta P, Albala D, Mariados N, Mouraviev V, Saad F. Comparison of fracture risk assessment tool score to bone mineral density for estimating fracture risk in patients with advanced prostate cancer on androgen deprivation therapy. Urology 2014; 84:164-8. [PMID: 24976229 DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2013.12.071] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/30/2013] [Revised: 08/30/2013] [Accepted: 12/18/2013] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To estimate the risk of fracture (Fracture Risk Assessment Tool [FRAX] algorithm) because of the development of osteoporosis in prostate cancer patients undergoing androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for patients who would otherwise not have been identified for treatment by the T score. METHODS This study includes men undergoing ADT for prostate cancer at our urology group. Clinical data were collected via chart review. Subjects were evaluated for fracture risk using country specific (for the United States of America) World Health Organization's FRAX. The FRAX calculations were then compared to fracture risk as determined by T score, for a subset of our cohort that received dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. RESULTS Our cohort consisted of 613 patients on ADT, 94 of which had a dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry scan. The FRAX algorithm identified 61.6% patients requiring therapy without bone mass density (BMD), 46.8% with BMD, and 19.14% with T score alone. In addition, positive correlation was found between FRAX with and without BMD as well as T score and FRAX with BMD and without BMD. CONCLUSION Our data indicate that many patients who were not found at significant risk for fracture with T score were in fact found to be at risk with the FRAX calculation. The largest proportion of patients was found to be at risk through the FRAX calculation without BMD, followed by FRAX with BMD, followed by T score alone. The utility of FRAX is beneficial in identifying patients that may benefit from effective bone-tropic treatment modalities.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Herbert James
- Associated Medical Professionals of New York, Syracuse, NY
| | | | | | | | - Peter Iannotta
- Associated Medical Professionals of New York, Syracuse, NY
| | - David Albala
- Associated Medical Professionals of New York, Syracuse, NY
| | - Neil Mariados
- Associated Medical Professionals of New York, Syracuse, NY
| | | | - Fred Saad
- Division of Urology, University of Montreal Hospital Center, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
47
|
Weber NK, Fidler JL, Keaveny TM, Clarke BL, Khosla S, Fletcher JG, Lee DC, Pardi DS, Loftus EV, Kane SV, Barlow JM, Murthy NS, Becker BD, Bruining DH. Validation of a CT-derived method for osteoporosis screening in IBD patients undergoing contrast-enhanced CT enterography. Am J Gastroenterol 2014; 109:401-8. [PMID: 24445572 PMCID: PMC4033296 DOI: 10.1038/ajg.2013.478] [Citation(s) in RCA: 44] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/29/2013] [Accepted: 12/12/2013] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Osteoporosis and bone fractures are of particular concern in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Biomechanical computed tomography (BCT) is an image-analysis technique that can measure bone strength and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA)-equivalent bone mineral density (BMD) from noncontrast CT images. This study seeks to determine whether this advanced technology can be applied to patients with IBD undergoing CT enterography (CTE) with IV contrast. METHODS Patients with IBD who underwent a CTE and DXA scan between 2007 and 2011 were retrospectively identified. Femoral neck BMD (g/cm(2)) and T-scores were measured and compared between DXA and BCT analysis of the CTE images. Femoral strength (Newtons) was also determined from BCT analysis. RESULTS DXA- and CTE-generated BMD T-score values were highly correlated (R(2)=0.84, P<0.0001) in this patient cohort (n=136). CTE identified patients with both osteoporosis (sensitivity, 85.7%; 95% confidence interval (CI), 48.7-97.4 and specificity, 98.5%; 95% CI, 94.5-99.6) and osteopenia (sensitivity, 85.1%; 95% CI, 72.3-92.6 and specificity, 85.4%; 95% CI, 76.6-91.3). Of the 16 patients who had "fragile" bone strength by BCT (placing them at the equivalent high risk of fracture as for osteoporosis), 6 had osteoporosis and 10 had osteopenia by DXA. CONCLUSIONS CTE scans can provide hip BMD, T-scores, and clinical classifications that are comparable to those obtained from DXA; when combined with BCT analysis, CTE can identify a subset of patients with osteopenia who have clinically relevant fragile bone strength. This technique could markedly increase bone health assessments in IBD patients already undergoing CTE to evaluate small bowel disease.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nicholas K. Weber
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine , Rochester , Minnesota , USA
| | - Jeff L. Fidler
- Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine , Rochester , Minnesota , USA
| | - Tony M. Keaveny
- O.N. Diagnostics , Berkeley , California , USA
,Departments of Mechanical Engineering and Bioengineering, UC Berkeley , California , USA
| | - Bart L. Clarke
- Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, Metabolism and Nutrition, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine , Rochester , Minnesota , USA
| | - Sundeep Khosla
- Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, Metabolism and Nutrition, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine , Rochester , Minnesota , USA
| | - Joel G. Fletcher
- Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine , Rochester , Minnesota , USA
| | | | - Darrell S. Pardi
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine , Rochester , Minnesota , USA
| | - Edward V. Loftus
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine , Rochester , Minnesota , USA
| | - Sunanda V. Kane
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine , Rochester , Minnesota , USA
| | - John M. Barlow
- Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine , Rochester , Minnesota , USA
| | - Naveen S. Murthy
- Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine , Rochester , Minnesota , USA
| | - Brenda D. Becker
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine , Rochester , Minnesota , USA
| | - David H. Bruining
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine , Rochester , Minnesota , USA
| |
Collapse
|
48
|
Johansson H, Kanis JA, Odén A, McCloskey E, Chapurlat RD, Christiansen C, Cummings SR, Diez-Perez A, Eisman JA, Fujiwara S, Glüer CC, Goltzman D, Hans D, Khaw KT, Krieg MA, Kröger H, LaCroix AZ, Lau E, Leslie WD, Mellström D, Melton LJ, O'Neill TW, Pasco JA, Prior JC, Reid DM, Rivadeneira F, van Staa T, Yoshimura N, Zillikens MC. A meta-analysis of the association of fracture risk and body mass index in women. J Bone Miner Res 2014; 29:223-33. [PMID: 23775829 DOI: 10.1002/jbmr.2017] [Citation(s) in RCA: 339] [Impact Index Per Article: 33.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/05/2013] [Revised: 05/20/2013] [Accepted: 06/03/2013] [Indexed: 12/14/2022]
Abstract
Several recent studies suggest that obesity may be a risk factor for fracture. The aim of this study was to investigate the association between body mass index (BMI) and future fracture risk at different skeletal sites. In prospective cohorts from more than 25 countries, baseline data on BMI were available in 398,610 women with an average age of 63 (range, 20-105) years and follow up of 2.2 million person-years during which 30,280 osteoporotic fractures (6457 hip fractures) occurred. Femoral neck BMD was measured in 108,267 of these women. Obesity (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m(2) ) was present in 22%. A majority of osteoporotic fractures (81%) and hip fractures (87%) arose in non-obese women. Compared to a BMI of 25 kg/m(2) , the hazard ratio (HR) for osteoporotic fracture at a BMI of 35 kg/m(2) was 0.87 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85-0.90). When adjusted for bone mineral density (BMD), however, the same comparison showed that the HR for osteoporotic fracture was increased (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.09-1.23). Low BMI is a risk factor for hip and all osteoporotic fracture, but is a protective factor for lower leg fracture, whereas high BMI is a risk factor for upper arm (humerus and elbow) fracture. When adjusted for BMD, low BMI remained a risk factor for hip fracture but was protective for osteoporotic fracture, tibia and fibula fracture, distal forearm fracture, and upper arm fracture. When adjusted for BMD, high BMI remained a risk factor for upper arm fracture but was also a risk factor for all osteoporotic fractures. The association between BMI and fracture risk is complex, differs across skeletal sites, and is modified by the interaction between BMI and BMD. At a population level, high BMI remains a protective factor for most sites of fragility fracture. The contribution of increasing population rates of obesity to apparent decreases in fracture rates should be explored.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Helena Johansson
- WHO Collaborating Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield, UK; Centre for Bone and Arthritis Research (CBAR) at the Sahlgrenska Academy, Institute of Medicine, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
49
|
Grigorie D, Sucaliuc A, Johansson H, Kanis JA, McCloskey E. FRAX-based intervention and assessment thresholds for osteoporosis in Romania. Arch Osteoporos 2013; 8:164. [PMID: 24390553 DOI: 10.1007/s11657-013-0164-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/07/2013] [Accepted: 10/23/2013] [Indexed: 02/03/2023]
Abstract
UNLABELLED We compared the utility of the current Romanian guidelines that recommend treatment in women with a T-score ≤-2.5 SD with a FRAX-based intervention threshold equivalent to women with a prior fragility fracture. Whereas the FRAX-based intervention threshold identified women at high fracture probability, the T-score threshold was less sensitive and decreased markedly with age. PURPOSE FRAX algorithm has been calibrated for Romania, but guidance is needed on how to apply fracture probabilities to clinical practice. METHODS The age-specific 10-year probabilities of a major osteoporotic fracture were calculated at two potential intervention thresholds. The first comprised the age-specific fracture probabilities associated with a femoral neck T-score of -2.5 SD, in line with Romanian guidelines. The second approach determined age-specific fracture probabilities that were equivalent to a woman with a prior fragility fracture, without bone mineral density (BMD). The parsimonious use of BMD was additionally explored by the computation of upper and lower assessment thresholds for BMD testing. RESULTS When a BMD T-score ≤-2.5 SD was used as an intervention threshold, FRAX probabilities in women aged 50 years were twofold higher than in women of the same age with an average BMD. The increase in risk associated with the BMD threshold decreased progressively with age such that, at the age of 80 years or more, a T-score of -2.5 SD was protective. The 10-year probability of a major osteoporotic fracture by age, equivalent to women with a previous fracture, rose from 5.3% at the age of 50 years to 13% at the age of 80 years and identified women at increased risk at all ages. CONCLUSION Intervention thresholds based on BMD alone do not effectively target women at high fracture risk, particularly in the elderly. In contrast, intervention thresholds based on fracture probabilities equivalent to a "fracture threshold" targets women at high fracture risk irrespective of age.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daniel Grigorie
- National Institute of Endocrinology, Carol Davila University of Medicine, 34-36 Aviatorilor Blvd., Bucharest, Romania,
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
50
|
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW There is an increasing recognition that the management of osteoporosis requires the characterization of fracture risk to be based on absolute risk rather than single measures such as bone mineral density (BMD). FRAX, the most widely used tool that incorporates clinical risk factors with or without BMD, was launched in 2008. This brief review addresses the development of FRAX since then and describes some of the issues that continue to be discussed as FRAX plays an increasing role in clinical practice. RECENT FINDINGS FRAX is a platform technology that will continue to develop. High-quality updated epidemiology of fracture and mortality can lead to recalibration of models. The addition of new risk factors is complex as the process requires validation in an international setting as well as a comprehensive assessment of how such new factors interact with the existing FRAX variables. Nonetheless, clinical interpretation can be enhanced by taking into account the potential adjustments of FRAX probabilities and several of these are described. SUMMARY FRAX is being incorporated in an increasing number of clinical guidelines, and assessment and intervention thresholds have been provided to instruct clinical decision-making. There is an increasing body of evidence that patients deemed at highest risk of fracture by FRAX, with or without the use of BMD, will overlap significantly with those identified by previous guidelines and will respond to appropriate osteoporosis therapy.
Collapse
|