Cost-Effectiveness of the Screening for the Primary Prevention of Fragility Hip Fracture in Spain Using FRAX®

The optimal cut-off values of FRAX without BMD for predicting osteoporosis fracture risk in the older adults at Nan, Thailand

Objectives

The World Health Organization developed the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) to assess the risk of having fragility fractures in the next 10 years. The FRAX tool is different by country, race, gender, and age. This study is a community-based study aiming to identify the optimal cut-off values of FRAX for the identification of older individuals who are at high risk of osteoporosis fractures in both genders.

Methods

This cross-sectional, analytic study was conducted by using health screening data of the older adults aged 60-90 living in the 3 biggest districts of Nan province, Thailand. Validity and optimal FRAX major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) and hip fracture (HF) cut-off values in both genders were determined.

Results

Of 36,042 older adults included in the study, 1624 older people had a history of fragility fractures. Older females were 3.2 and 2.5 times more likely to have fragility fractures and hip fractures than males, respectively. The optimal cut-off values of FRAX MOF for predicting fragility fractures were 3.0% for males and 6.3% for females. The optimal cut-off values of FRAX HF for predicting hip fractures were 1.1% for males and 3.3% for females.

Conclusions

A simple screening tool like the FRAX which is available in the annual health screening activities has the potential to be used to predict the risk of developing fragility fractures in rural areas of Thailand. Different cut-off values should be used in females and males because the risk of MOF and HF of both genders is significantly different.

The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of clinical fracture-risk assessment tools in reducing future osteoporotic fractures among older adults: a structured scoping review

This scoping review described the use, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of clinical fracture-risk assessment tools to prevent future osteoporotic fractures among older adults. Results show that the screening was not superior in preventing all osteoporosis-related fractures to usual care. However, it positively influenced participants' perspectives on osteoporosis, may have reduced hip fractures, and seemed cost-effective.

PURPOSE

We aim to provide a synopsis of the evidence about the use of clinical fracture-risk assessment tools to influence health outcomes, including reducing future osteoporotic fractures and their cost-effectiveness.

METHODS

We followed the guidelines of Arksey and O'Malley and their modifications. A comprehensive search strategy was created to search CINAHL, Medline, and Embase databases until June 29, 2021, with no restrictions. We critically appraised the quality of all included studies.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies were included in the review after screening 2484 titles and 68 full-text articles. Four randomized controlled trials investigated the effectiveness of clinical fracture-risk assessment tools in reducing all fractures among older women. Using those assessment tools did not show a statistically significant reduction in osteoporotic fracture risk compared to usual care; however, additional analyses of two of these trials showed a trend toward reducing hip fractures, and the results might be clinically significant. Four studies tested the impact of screening programs on other health outcomes, and participants reported positive results. Eight simulation studies estimated the cost-effectiveness of using these tools to screen for fractures, with the majority showing significant potential savings.

CONCLUSION

According to the available evidence to date, using clinical fracture-risk assessment screening tools was not more effective than usual care in preventing all osteoporosis-related fractures. However, using those screening tools positively influenced women's perspectives on osteoporosis, may have reduced hip fracture risk, and could potentially be cost-effective. This is a relatively new research area where additional studies are needed.

Executive summary: Italian guidelines for diagnosis, risk stratification, and care continuity of fragility fractures 2021

Background

Fragility fractures are a major public health concern owing to their worrying and growing burden and their onerous burden upon health systems. There is now a substantial body of evidence that individuals who have already suffered a fragility fracture are at a greater risk for further fractures, thus suggesting the potential for secondary prevention in this field.

Purpose

This guideline aims to provide evidence-based recommendations for recognizing, stratifying the risk, treating, and managing patients with fragility fracture. This is a summary version of the full Italian guideline.

Methods

The Italian Fragility Fracture Team appointed by the Italian National Health Institute was employed from January 2020 to February 2021 to (i) identify previously published systematic reviews and guidelines on the field, (ii) formulate relevant clinical questions, (iii) systematically review literature and summarize evidence, (iv) draft the Evidence to Decision Framework, and (v) formulate recommendations.

Results

Overall, 351 original papers were included in our systematic review to answer six clinical questions. Recommendations were categorized into issues concerning (i) frailty recognition as the cause of bone fracture, (ii) (re)fracture risk assessment, for prioritizing interventions, and (iii) treatment and management of patients experiencing fragility fractures. Six recommendations were overall developed, of which one, four, and one were of high, moderate, and low quality, respectively.

Conclusions

The current guidelines provide guidance to support individualized management of patients experiencing non-traumatic bone fracture to benefit from secondary prevention of (re)fracture. Although our recommendations are based on the best available evidence, questionable quality evidence is still available for some relevant clinical questions, so future research has the potential to reduce uncertainty about the effects of intervention and the reasons for doing so at a reasonable cost.

Screening and management of osteoporosis: a survey of knowledge, attitude and practice among primary care physicians in Malaysia

We surveyed primary care physicians in Malaysia for their knowledge, attitude and practice in screening and managing osteoporosis. We found a low level of screening and active management of osteoporosis in the primary care setting despite positive attitudes towards them. We advocate for the active management of osteoporosis at the primary care level.

INTRODUCTION

Prevention of osteoporotic fracture is important in primary healthcare for healthy ageing. Little is known about the knowledge, attitude, practice and barriers in the screening and managing osteoporosis among primary care doctors.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study, using an online pre-tested questionnaire after face and content validation, was conducted for primary care doctors from 1 June to 30 July 2021 across Malaysia. Pearson's chi-square test and logistic regression were employed.

RESULTS

A total of 350 primary care doctors in Malaysia, consisting of 113 (32.3%) family medicine specialists (FMS) and 237 (67.7%) medical officers, participated in this study. The mean ± SD score of osteoporosis knowledge was 50.46 ± 15.09 with minimum and maximum values of 0 and 83.64%, respectively. One hundred and ten (31.4%) respondents achieved a satisfactory overall knowledge score of ≥ 60%, 156 (44.6%) were confident in advising patients for initiation of anti-osteoporotic medication, and 243 (69.4%) perceived that bisphosphonate should be made available in health clinics. Only 97 (27.7%) practised osteoporosis screening. Inaccessibility of bone mineral densitometry (BMD) (90.6%), inadequate knowledge (87.7%) and inaccessibility of pharmacotherapy (87.1%) are perceived modifiable barriers to osteoporosis screening and management. Factors associated with a satisfactory knowledge of osteoporosis are designation as a family medicine specialist (AOR 3.034, p = 0.002), attendance at an osteoporosis management update course (AOR 2.095, p = 0.034) and the practice of osteoporosis screening for the elderly (AOR 2.767, p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Given the insufficient knowledge and low level of osteoporosis screening, there is a need for a national structured health programme to address the knowledge gap, increase screening practices and enhance accessibility to BMD and anti-osteoporosis medication in primary care.