Non-participation in systematic screening for osteoporosis-the ROSE trial

Ten-year follow-up of fracture risk in a systematic population-based screening program: the risk-stratified osteoporosis strategy evaluation (ROSE) randomised trial

Background

Osteoporotic fractures pose a growing public health concern. Osteoporosis is underdiagnosed and undertreated, highlighting the necessity of systematic screening programs. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a two-step population-based osteoporotic screening program.

Methods

This ten-year follow-up of the Risk-stratified Osteoporosis Strategy Evaluation (ROSE) randomized trial tested the effectiveness of a screening program utilizing the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) for major osteoporotic fractures (MOF) to select women for dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scan following standard osteoporosis treatment. Women residing in the Region of Southern Denmark, aged 65-80, were randomised (single masked) into a screening or a control group by a computer program prior to inclusion and subsequently approached with a mailed questionnaire. Based on the questionnaire data, women in the screening group with a FRAX value ≥15% were invited for DXA scanning. The primary outcome was MOF derived from nationwide registers. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01388244, status: Completed.

Findings

All randomised women were included February 4, 2010-January 8, 2011, the same day as approached to participate. During follow-up, 7355 MOFs were observed. No differences in incidences of MOF were identified, comparing the 17,072 women in the screening group with the 17,157 controls in the intention-to-treat analysis (IRR 1.01, 0.95; 1.06). However, per-protocol, women DXA-scanned exhibited a 14% lower incidence of MOF (IRR 0.86, 0.78; 0.94) than controls with a FRAX value ≥15%. Similar trends were observed for hip fractures, all fractures, and mortality.

Interpretation

While the ROSE program had no overall effect on osteoporotic fracture incidence or mortality it showed a preventive effect for women at moderate to high risk who underwent DXA scans. Hence the overall effect might have been diluted by those who were not at an intervention level threshold risk or those who did not show up for DXA. Using self-administered questionnaires as screening tools may be inefficient for systematic screening due to the low and differential screening uptake.

Funding

INTERREG and the Region of Southern Denmark.

Women over 50 who use alcohol and their engagement with primary and preventative health services: a narrative review using a systematic approach

BACKGROUND

Women who are over 50 years are drinking alcohol in higher quantities and more frequently than in previous decades. Good engagement with primary care is crucial for women's physical and psychological health, particularly if they use alcohol. However, there is little known about the alcohol use of women over 50 and their use of primary care.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted on six databases; CINAHL, Medline, PsycINFO, Academic Search Complete, EMBASE and Web of Science to identify literature on primary health care engagement of women 50 years and older (50+) who use alcohol. Titles and abstracts were reviewed and full texts were independently reviewed by two researchers. A narrative review, critical appraisal and synthesis of the eligible studies produced common themes and key findings.

RESULTS

After excluding 3822 articles, 13 articles were deemed eligible for the review. For this age group (50+), findings were: 1) women who drink heavily were less likely than men to attend General Practitioners (GPs), moderate drinkers were more likely than abstainers to attend mammogram screening, 2) GPs were less likely to ask questions or discuss alcohol with women than with men, 3) GPs offered less advice on alcohol to women than to men, and 4) less women than men received alcohol screening from their GP.

DISCUSSION

While women 50+ are drinking more, their alcohol use is underreported and insufficiently provided for in primary health. As women's life expectancy increases, improved GP engagement will benefit women's health and reduce future healthcare costs.

Screening for the primary prevention of fragility fractures among adults aged 40 years and older in primary care: systematic reviews of the effects and acceptability of screening and treatment, and the accuracy of risk prediction tools

BACKGROUND

To inform recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care, we reviewed evidence on the benefits, harms, and acceptability of screening and treatment, and on the accuracy of risk prediction tools for the primary prevention of fragility fractures among adults aged 40 years and older in primary care.

METHODS

For screening effectiveness, accuracy of risk prediction tools, and treatment benefits, our search methods involved integrating studies published up to 2016 from an existing systematic review. Then, to locate more recent studies and any evidence relating to acceptability and treatment harms, we searched online databases (2016 to April 4, 2022 [screening] or to June 1, 2021 [predictive accuracy]; 1995 to June 1, 2021, for acceptability; 2016 to March 2, 2020, for treatment benefits; 2015 to June 24, 2020, for treatment harms), trial registries and gray literature, and hand-searched reviews, guidelines, and the included studies. Two reviewers selected studies, extracted results, and appraised risk of bias, with disagreements resolved by consensus or a third reviewer. The overview of reviews on treatment harms relied on one reviewer, with verification of data by another reviewer to correct errors and omissions. When appropriate, study results were pooled using random effects meta-analysis; otherwise, findings were described narratively. Evidence certainty was rated according to the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

We included 4 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 1 controlled clinical trial (CCT) for the benefits and harms of screening, 1 RCT for comparative benefits and harms of different screening strategies, 32 validation cohort studies for the calibration of risk prediction tools (26 of these reporting on the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool without [i.e., clinical FRAX], or with the inclusion of bone mineral density (BMD) results [i.e., FRAX + BMD]), 27 RCTs for the benefits of treatment, 10 systematic reviews for the harms of treatment, and 12 studies for the acceptability of screening or initiating treatment. In females aged 65 years and older who are willing to independently complete a mailed fracture risk questionnaire (referred to as "selected population"), 2-step screening using a risk assessment tool with or without measurement of BMD probably (moderate certainty) reduces the risk of hip fractures (3 RCTs and 1 CCT, n = 43,736, absolute risk reduction [ARD] = 6.2 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 9.0-2.8 fewer, number needed to screen [NNS] = 161) and clinical fragility fractures (3 RCTs, n = 42,009, ARD = 5.9 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 10.9-0.8 fewer, NNS = 169). It probably does not reduce all-cause mortality (2 RCTs and 1 CCT, n = 26,511, ARD = no difference in 1000, 95% CI 7.1 fewer to 5.3 more) and may (low certainty) not affect health-related quality of life. Benefits for fracture outcomes were not replicated in an offer-to-screen population where the rate of response to mailed screening questionnaires was low. For females aged 68-80 years, population screening may not reduce the risk of hip fractures (1 RCT, n = 34,229, ARD = 0.3 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 4.2 fewer to 3.9 more) or clinical fragility fractures (1 RCT, n = 34,229, ARD = 1.0 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 8.0 fewer to 6.0 more) over 5 years of follow-up. The evidence for serious adverse events among all patients and for all outcomes among males and younger females (<65 years) is very uncertain. We defined overdiagnosis as the identification of high risk in individuals who, if not screened, would never have known that they were at risk and would never have experienced a fragility fracture. This was not directly reported in any of the trials. Estimates using data available in the trials suggest that among "selected" females offered screening, 12% of those meeting age-specific treatment thresholds based on clinical FRAX 10-year hip fracture risk, and 19% of those meeting thresholds based on clinical FRAX 10-year major osteoporotic fracture risk, may be overdiagnosed as being at high risk of fracture. Of those identified as being at high clinical FRAX 10-year hip fracture risk and who were referred for BMD assessment, 24% may be overdiagnosed. One RCT (n = 9268) provided evidence comparing 1-step to 2-step screening among postmenopausal females, but the evidence from this trial was very uncertain. For the calibration of risk prediction tools, evidence from three Canadian studies (n = 67,611) without serious risk of bias concerns indicates that clinical FRAX-Canada may be well calibrated for the 10-year prediction of hip fractures (observed-to-expected fracture ratio [O:E] = 1.13, 95% CI 0.74-1.72, I² = 89.2%), and is probably well calibrated for the 10-year prediction of clinical fragility fractures (O:E = 1.10, 95% CI 1.01-1.20, I² = 50.4%), both leading to some underestimation of the observed risk. Data from these same studies (n = 61,156) showed that FRAX-Canada with BMD may perform poorly to estimate 10-year hip fracture risk (O:E = 1.31, 95% CI 0.91-2.13, I² = 92.7%), but is probably well calibrated for the 10-year prediction of clinical fragility fractures, with some underestimation of the observed risk (O:E 1.16, 95% CI 1.12-1.20, I² = 0%). The Canadian Association of Radiologists and Osteoporosis Canada Risk Assessment (CAROC) tool may be well calibrated to predict a category of risk for 10-year clinical fractures (low, moderate, or high risk; 1 study, n = 34,060). The evidence for most other tools was limited, or in the case of FRAX tools calibrated for countries other than Canada, very uncertain due to serious risk of bias concerns and large inconsistency in findings across studies. Postmenopausal females in a primary prevention population defined as <50% prevalence of prior fragility fracture (median 16.9%, range 0 to 48% when reported in the trials) and at risk of fragility fracture, treatment with bisphosphonates as a class (median 2 years, range 1-6 years) probably reduces the risk of clinical fragility fractures (19 RCTs, n = 22,482, ARD = 11.1 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 15.0-6.6 fewer, [number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome] NNT = 90), and may reduce the risk of hip fractures (14 RCTs, n = 21,038, ARD = 2.9 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 4.6-0.9 fewer, NNT = 345) and clinical vertebral fractures (11 RCTs, n = 8921, ARD = 10.0 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 14.0-3.9 fewer, NNT = 100); it may not reduce all-cause mortality. There is low certainty evidence of little-to-no reduction in hip fractures with any individual bisphosphonate, but all provided evidence of decreased risk of clinical fragility fractures (moderate certainty for alendronate [NNT=68] and zoledronic acid [NNT=50], low certainty for risedronate [NNT=128]) among postmenopausal females. Evidence for an impact on risk of clinical vertebral fractures is very uncertain for alendronate and risedronate; zoledronic acid may reduce the risk of this outcome (4 RCTs, n = 2367, ARD = 18.7 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 25.6-6.6 fewer, NNT = 54) for postmenopausal females. Denosumab probably reduces the risk of clinical fragility fractures (6 RCTs, n = 9473, ARD = 9.1 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 12.1-5.6 fewer, NNT = 110) and clinical vertebral fractures (4 RCTs, n = 8639, ARD = 16.0 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 18.6-12.1 fewer, NNT=62), but may make little-to-no difference in the risk of hip fractures among postmenopausal females. Denosumab probably makes little-to-no difference in the risk of all-cause mortality or health-related quality of life among postmenopausal females. Evidence in males is limited to two trials (1 zoledronic acid, 1 denosumab); in this population, zoledronic acid may make little-to-no difference in the risk of hip or clinical fragility fractures, and evidence for all-cause mortality is very uncertain. The evidence for treatment with denosumab in males is very uncertain for all fracture outcomes (hip, clinical fragility, clinical vertebral) and all-cause mortality. There is moderate certainty evidence that treatment causes a small number of patients to experience a non-serious adverse event, notably non-serious gastrointestinal events (e.g., abdominal pain, reflux) with alendronate (50 RCTs, n = 22,549, ARD = 16.3 more in 1000, 95% CI 2.4-31.3 more, [number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome] NNH = 61) but not with risedronate; influenza-like symptoms with zoledronic acid (5 RCTs, n = 10,695, ARD = 142.5 more in 1000, 95% CI 105.5-188.5 more, NNH = 7); and non-serious gastrointestinal adverse events (3 RCTs, n = 8454, ARD = 64.5 more in 1000, 95% CI 26.4-13.3 more, NNH = 16), dermatologic adverse events (3 RCTs, n = 8454, ARD = 15.6 more in 1000, 95% CI 7.6-27.0 more, NNH = 64), and infections (any severity; 4 RCTs, n = 8691, ARD = 1.8 more in 1000, 95% CI 0.1-4.0 more, NNH = 556) with denosumab. For serious adverse events overall and specific to stroke and myocardial infarction, treatment with bisphosphonates probably makes little-to-no difference; evidence for other specific serious harms was less certain or not available. There was low certainty evidence for an increased risk for the rare occurrence of atypical femoral fractures (0.06 to 0.08 more in 1000) and osteonecrosis of the jaw (0.22 more in 1000) with bisphosphonates (most evidence for alendronate). The evidence for these rare outcomes and for rebound fractures with denosumab was very uncertain. Younger (lower risk) females have high willingness to be screened. A minority of postmenopausal females at increased risk for fracture may accept treatment. Further, there is large heterogeneity in the level of risk at which patients may be accepting of initiating treatment, and treatment effects appear to be overestimated.

CONCLUSION

An offer of 2-step screening with risk assessment and BMD measurement to selected postmenopausal females with low prevalence of prior fracture probably results in a small reduction in the risk of clinical fragility fracture and hip fracture compared to no screening. These findings were most applicable to the use of clinical FRAX for risk assessment and were not replicated in the offer-to-screen population where the rate of response to mailed screening questionnaires was low. Limited direct evidence on harms of screening were available; using study data to provide estimates, there may be a moderate degree of overdiagnosis of high risk for fracture to consider. The evidence for younger females and males is very limited. The benefits of screening and treatment need to be weighed against the potential for harm; patient views on the acceptability of treatment are highly variable.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO): CRD42019123767.

Utilizing Graphical Analysis of Chest Radiographs for Primary Screening of Osteoporosis

Background and Objectives: Osteoporosis is a major risk of fractures, harming patients’ quality of life. Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), which can detect osteoporosis early, is too expensive to be conducted on a regular basis. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate a screening method using chest radiographs developed in Japan applied to another population. Materials and Methods: Fifty-five patients who had a chest radiograph and DXA and applied within three months of each test were recruited from the patient database of Semmelweis University (Budapest, Hungary). Graphical analysis of the chest radiographs was conducted to identify the ratio of the cortical bone in the clavicle of each patient. Two researchers performed the analysis, and multiple regression was conducted to determine the bone mineral density of each patient provided by DXA. Results: The Pearson correlation between two examiners’ determinations of the cortical bone ratio was 0.769 (p < 0.001). The multiple regression model proved to be statistically significant in identifying osteoporosis, but the model adopted for the Hungarian population was different compared to the Japanese population. Conclusions: This simple, economic Japanese graphical analysis method for chest radiographs may be feasible in detecting osteoporosis. Further studies with a larger population of patients with greater variety of ethnicity would be of value in improving the accuracy of this model.

Patients undergoing surgical treatment for low-energy distal radius fractures are more likely to receive a referral and participate in a fracture liaison service program

INTRODUCTION

Patients often do not receive osteoporosis screening after a low-energy distal radius fracture (DRF). The effect of osteoporosis on the healing of DRFs remains a debate, and it is unclear if surgical treatment of this injury affects the referral and participation rates in a fracture liaison service (FLS) program. The purpose of this study is to report on a large cohort of low-energy DRFs and identify demographic, clinical, and treatment factors that affect referral and participation rates in an FLS program.

METHODS

A retrospective review identified patients over 50 years old who sustained a low-energy DRF between 2013 and 2018. Patients with high-energy or unknown injury mechanisms were excluded. The primary outcome was the effect of DRF surgical treatment on referral and participation rates in an FLS program. Secondary outcomes included patient demographic and clinical characteristic effects on referral and participation rates in an FLS program.

RESULTS

In total, 950 patients met inclusion criteria. Two hundred thirty patients (24.2%) were referred and 149 (15.7%) participated in the FLS program. Patients who underwent surgery were more likely to be referred to the FLS (OR 1.893, CI 1.403-2.555, p < 0.001) and participate in the FLS program (OR 2.47, CI 1.723-3.542, p < 0.001) compared to patients who received non-operative treatment of their DRF.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who undergo surgical treatment of a low-energy DRF are more likely to be referred and participate in a FLS program. Further study is needed to identify why surgical treatment may affect referral and participation rates.

Race and Age Impact Osteoporosis Screening Rates in Women Prior to Hip Fracture

Bone mineral density screening and clinical risk factors are important to stratify individuals for increased risk of fracture. In a population with no history of fractures or baseline bone density measurement, black women were less likely to be screened than white counterparts prior to hip fracture.

PURPOSE

To evaluate overall BMD (bone mineral density) screening rates within two years of hip fracture and to identify any disparities for osteoporosis screening or treatment in a female cohort who were eligible for screening under insurance and national recommendations.

METHODS

Data were obtained from 1,109 female patients listed in the Research Action for Health Network (REACHnet) database, which consists of multiple health partner systems in Louisiana and Texas. Patients < 65 years old or with a history of hip fracture or osteoporosis diagnosis, screening or treatment more than 2 years before hip fracture were removed.

RESULTS

Only 223 (20.1%) females were screened within the two years prior to hip fracture. Additionally, only 23 (10%) of the screened patients received treatment, despite 187 (86.6%) patients being diagnosed with osteoporosis or osteopenia. Screening rates reached a maximum of 27.9% in the 75-80 age group, while the 90 + age group had the lowest screening rates of 12%. We found a quadratic relationship between age and screening rates, indicating that the screening rate increases in age until age 72 and then decreases starkly. After adjusting for potential confounders, we found that black patients had significantly decreased screening rates compared to white patients (adjusted OR = .454, 95% CI = .227-.908, p value = .026) which held in general and for patient ages 65-97.

CONCLUSION

Despite national recommendations, overall BMD screening rates among women prior to hip fracture are low. If individuals are not initially screened when eligible, they are less likely to ever be screened prior to fracture. Clinicians should address racial disparities by recommending more screening to otherwise healthy black patients above the age of 65. Lastly, treatment rates need to increase among those diagnosed with osteoporosis since all patients went on to hip fracture.

Delivering fracture prevention services to rural US veterans through telemedicine: a process evaluation

An informatics-driven population bone health clinic was implemented to identify, screen, and treat rural US Veterans at risk for osteoporosis. We report the results of our implementation process evaluation which demonstrated BHT to be a feasible telehealth model for delivering preventative osteoporosis services in this setting.

PURPOSE

An established and growing quality gap in osteoporosis evaluation and treatment of at-risk patients has yet to be met with corresponding clinical care models addressing osteoporosis primary prevention. The rural bone health tea m (BHT) was implemented to identify, screen, and treat rural Veterans lacking evidence of bone health care and we conducted a process evaluation to understand BHT implementation feasibility.

METHODS

For this evaluation, we defined the primary outcome as the number of Veterans evaluated with DXA and a secondary outcome as the number of Veterans who initiated prescription therapy to reduce fracture risk. Outcomes were measured over a 15-month period and analyzed descriptively. Qualitative data to understand successful implementation were collected concurrently by conducting interviews with clinical personnel interacting with BHT and BHT staff and observations of BHT implementation processes at three site visits using the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) framework.

RESULTS

Of 4500 at-risk, rural Veterans offered osteoporosis screening, 1081 (24%) completed screening, and of these, 37% had normal bone density, 48% osteopenia, and 15% osteoporosis. Among Veterans with pharmacotherapy indications, 90% initiated therapy. Qualitative analyses identified barriers of rural geography, rural population characteristics, and the infrastructural resource requirement. Data infrastructure, evidence base for care delivery, stakeholder buy-in, formal and informal facilitator engagement, and focus on teamwork were identified as facilitators of implementation success.

CONCLUSION

The BHT is a feasible population telehealth model for delivering preventative osteoporosis care to rural Veterans.

Long-term cost-effectiveness of screening for fracture risk in a UK primary care setting: the SCOOP study

Community-based screening and treatment of women aged 70-85 years at high fracture risk reduced fractures; moreover, the screening programme was cost-saving. The results support a case for a screening programme of fracture risk in older women in the UK.

INTRODUCTION

The SCOOP (screening for prevention of fractures in older women) randomized controlled trial investigated whether community-based screening could reduce fractures in women aged 70-85 years. The objective of this study was to estimate the long-term cost-effectiveness of screening for fracture risk in a UK primary care setting compared with usual management, based on the SCOOP study.

METHODS

A health economic Markov model was used to predict the life-time consequences in terms of costs and quality of life of the screening programme compared with the control arm. The model was populated with costs related to drugs, administration and screening intervention derived from the SCOOP study. Fracture risk reduction in the screening arm compared with the usual management arm was derived from SCOOP. Modelled fracture risk corresponded to the risk observed in SCOOP.

RESULTS

Screening of 1000 patients saved 9 hip fractures and 20 non-hip fractures over the remaining lifetime (mean 14 years) compared with usual management. In total, the screening arm saved costs (£286) and gained 0.015 QALYs/patient in comparison with usual management arm.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis suggests that a screening programme of fracture risk in older women in the UK would gain quality of life and life years, and reduce fracture costs to more than offset the cost of running the programme.

New Developments in Fracture Risk Assessment for Current Osteoporosis Reports

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Identifying individuals at high fracture risk can be used to target those likely to derive the greatest benefit from treatment. This narrative review examines recent developments in using specific risk factors used to assess fracture risk, with a focus on publications in the last 3 years.

RECENT FINDINGS

There is expanding evidence for the recognition of individual clinical risk factors and clinical use of composite scores in the general population. Unfortunately, enthusiasm is dampened by three pragmatic randomized trials that raise questions about the effectiveness of widespread population screening using clinical fracture prediction tools given suboptimal participation and adherence. There have been refinements in risk assessment in special populations: men, patients with diabetes, and secondary causes of osteoporosis. New evidence supports the value of vertebral fracture assessment (VFA), high resolution peripheral quantitative CT (HR-pQCT), opportunistic screening using CT, skeletal strength assessment with finite element analysis (FEA), and trabecular bone score (TBS). The last 3 years have seen important developments in the area of fracture risk assessment, both in the research setting and translation to clinical practice. The next challenge will be incorporating these advances into routine work flows that can improve the identification of high risk individuals at the population level and meaningfully impact the ongoing crisis in osteoporosis management.

Population-Based Osteoporosis Primary Prevention and Screening for Quality of Care in Osteoporosis, Current Osteoporosis Reports

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Despite the high prevalence and impact of osteoporosis, screening and treatment rates remain low, with few women age 65 years and older utilizing osteoporosis screening for primary prevention.

RECENT FINDINGS

This review examines opportunities and challenges related to primary prevention and screening for osteoporosis at the population level. Strategies on how to identify individuals at high fracture risk and target them for treatment have lagged far behind other developments in the osteoporosis field. Most osteoporosis quality improvement strategies have focused on patients with recent or prior fracture (secondary prevention), with limited attention to individuals without prior fracture. For populations without prior fracture, the only quality improvement strategy for which meta-analysis demonstrated significant improvement in osteoporosis care was patient self-scheduling of DXA plus education Much more work is needed to develop and validate effective primary screening and prevention strategies and translate these into high-quality guidelines.

Insight into the possible role of miR-214 in primary osteoporosis via osterix

Osteoporosis is a bone disease characterized by chronic pain and recurrent fractures. Osterix is a transcription factor regulating bone formation. miR-214 was found to have a role in skeletogenesis. Our goal was to investigate the possible role of miR-214 in primary osteoporosis through osterix. Their expression was determined in bone samples obtained from primary osteoporotic patients (n = 26) and age- and sex-matched controls (n = 14). Additionally, their expression was correlated to the laboratory and clinical parameters of the study participants. Differential expression of osterix and miR-214 was detected in the osteoporotic group compared to controls. While miR-214 was significantly higher, osterix was significantly lower. In primary osteoporotic patients, relative quantification value of osterix was positively correlated with sex, body mass index, and ionized calcium and negatively correlated with miR-214 and C-reactive protein. Thus, the role of miR-214 in primary osteoporosis could be through inhibiting osterix expression in bones and therefore both miR-214 and osterix could be targets for future therapeutic intervention.

Administrative healthcare data applied to fracture risk assessment

Fracture risk scores generated from population-based administrative healthcare data showed comparable or better discrimination than the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) scores computed without bone mineral density for predicting incident major osteoporotic fracture. Administrative data may be useful to identify individuals at high fracture risk at the population level.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the discrimination of fracture risk scores defined using inputs available from administrative data for predicting incident major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) and hip fracture (HF) alone.

METHODS

Using the Manitoba Bone Mineral Density (BMD) Database (1997-2013), we identified 61,041 individuals aged 50 years or older with healthcare coverage following their first BMD test. We calculated two-modified FRAX)scores based on administrative data: FRAX-A and FRAX-A⁺. The FRAX-A modification used all FRAX inputs, except for BMD, body mass index, and parental HF, while the FRAX-A⁺ modification using all FRAX-A inputs plus a comorbidity score, number of hospitalizations in the 3 years prior to the BMD test, depression diagnosis, and dementia diagnosis. FRAX scores computed with BMD (i.e., FRAX [BMD]) and without BMD (i.e., FRAX [no-BMD]) were the comparators.

RESULTS

During a mean of 7 years of follow-up, we identified 5306 (8.7%) incident MOF and 1532 (2.5%) incident HF. The c-statistic for MOF associated with FRAX-A was lower than FRAX (BMD) (0.655 vs 0.675; P < 0.05) and comparable to FRAX (no-BMD) (0.654; P = 0.07). The c-statistic for MOF using FRAX-A⁺ (0.663) was lower than FRAX (BMD) but higher than FRAX (no-BMD) (both P < 0.05). For predicting incident HF, c-statistics associated with FRAX-A (0.762) and FRAX-A⁺ (0.767) were lower than FRAX (BMD) (0.789) and FRAX (no-BMD) (0.773; both P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

FRAX-A and FRAX-A⁺ showed comparable or better discrimination than FRAX without BMD for predicting incident MOF, but slightly lower discrimination for HF alone.

Socioeconomic status and risk of osteoporotic fractures and the use of DXA scans: data from the Danish population-based ROSE study

There is a need of studies exploring the link between socioeconomic status and DXA scans and osteoporotic fracture, which was the aim of the present study. No differences in socioeconomic status and risk of osteoporotic fractures were found. However, women with further/higher education and higher income are more often DXA-scanned.

INTRODUCTION

Lower socioeconomic status is known to be associated with a range of chronic conditions and with access to health care services. The link between socioeconomic status and the use of DXA scans and osteoporotic fracture, however, needs to be explored more closely. Therefore, the aim of this study was to examine the relationship between socioeconomic status and both DXA scan utilization and major osteoporotic fractures (MOF) using a population-based cohort of Danish women and national registers.

METHODS

The study included 17,155 women (65-81 years) sampled from the Risk-stratified Osteoporosis Strategy Evaluation study (ROSE). Information on socioeconomic background, DXA scans, and MOFs was retrieved from national registers. Competing-risk regression analyses were performed. Mean follow-up was 4.8 years.

RESULTS

A total of 4245 women had a DXA scan (24.7%) and 1719 (10.0%) had an incident MOF during follow-up. Analyses showed that women with basic education had a lower probability of undergoing DXA scans than women with further or higher education (greater than upper secondary education and vocational training education) (subhazard ratio (SHR) = 0.82; 95% CI 0.75-0.89, adjusted for age and comorbidity). Moreover, women with disposable income in the low and medium tertiles had a lower probability of undergoing DXA scans than women in the high-income tertile (SHR = 0.90; 95% CI 0.84-0.97 and SHR = 0.88, 95% CI 0.82-0.95, respectively, adjusted for age and comorbidity). No association between socioeconomic background and probability of DXA was found in adjusted analyses.

CONCLUSION

The study found no differences in risk of osteoporotic fractures depending on socioeconomic status. However, women with further or higher education as well as higher income are more often DXA-scanned.

Effectiveness of a two-step population-based osteoporosis screening program using FRAX: the randomized Risk-stratified Osteoporosis Strategy Evaluation (ROSE) study

The Risk-stratified Osteoporosis Strategy Evaluation (ROSE) study investigated the effectiveness of a two-step screening program for osteoporosis in women. We found no overall reduction in fractures from systematic screening compared to the current case-finding strategy. The group of moderate- to high-risk women, who accepted the invitation to DXA, seemed to benefit from the program.

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of the ROSE study was to investigate the effectiveness of a two-step population-based osteoporosis screening program using the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) derived from a self-administered questionnaire to select women for DXA scan. After the scanning, standard osteoporosis management according to Danish national guidelines was followed.

METHODS

Participants were randomized to either screening or control group, and randomization was stratified according to age and area of residence. Inclusion took place from February 2010 to November 2011. Participants received a self-administered questionnaire, and women in the screening group with a FRAX score ≥ 15% (major osteoporotic fractures) were invited to a DXA scan. Primary outcome was incident clinical fractures. Intention-to-treat analysis and two per-protocol analyses were performed.

RESULTS

A total of 3416 fractures were observed during a median follow-up of 5 years. No significant differences were found in the intention-to-treat analyses with 34,229 women included aged 65-80 years. The per-protocol analyses showed a risk reduction in the group that underwent DXA scanning compared to women in the control group with a FRAX ≥ 15%, in regard to major osteoporotic fractures, hip fractures, and all fractures. The risk reduction was most pronounced for hip fractures (adjusted SHR 0.741, p = 0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to an office-based case-finding strategy, the two-step systematic screening strategy had no overall effect on fracture incidence. The two-step strategy seemed, however, to be beneficial in the group of women who were identified by FRAX as moderate- or high-risk patients and complied with DXA.