Refracture following vertebral fragility fracture when bone fragility is not recognized: summarizing findings from comparator arms of randomized clinical trials

PURPOSE

Since vertebral fragility fractures (VFFs) might increase the risk of subsequent fractures, we evaluated the incidence rate and the refracture risk of subsequent vertebral and non-vertebral fragility fractures (nVFFs) in untreated patients with a previous VFF.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library up to February 2022 for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that analyzed the occurrence of subsequent fractures in untreated patients with prior VFFs. Two authors independently extracted data and appraised the risk of bias in the selected studies. Primary outcomes were subsequent VFFs, while secondary outcomes were further nVFFs. The outcome of refracture within ≥ 2 years after the index fracture was measured as (i) rate, expressed per 100 person-years (PYs), and (ii) risk, expressed in percentage.

RESULTS

Forty RCTs met our inclusion criteria, ranging from medium to high quality. Among untreated patients with prior VFFs, the rate of subsequent VFFs and nVFFs was 12 [95% confidence interval (CI) 9-16] and 6 (95% CI 5-8%) per 100 PYs, respectively. The higher the number of previous VFFs, the higher the incidence. Moreover, the risk of VFFs and nVFFs increased within 2 (16.6% and 8%) and 4 years (35.1% and 17.4%) based on the index VFF.

CONCLUSION

The highest risk of subsequent VFFs or nVFFs was already detected within 2 years following the initial VFF. Thus, prompt interventions should be designed to improve the detection and treatment of VFFs, aiming to reduce the risk of future FFs and properly implement secondary preventive measures.

A systematic review on the performance of fracture risk assessment tools: FRAX, DeFRA, FRA-HS

PURPOSE

Preventing fragility fractures by treating osteoporosis may reduce disability and mortality worldwide. Algorithms combining clinical risk factors with bone mineral density have been developed to better estimate fracture risk and possible treatment thresholds. This systematic review supported panel members of the Italian Fragility Fracture Guidelines in recommending the use of best-performant tool. The clinical performance of the three most used fracture risk assessment tools (DeFRA, FRAX, and FRA-HS) was assessed in at-risk patients.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched till December 2020 for studies investigating risk assessment tools for predicting major osteoporotic or hip fractures in patients with osteoporosis or fragility fractures. Sensitivity (Sn), specificity (Sp), and areas under the curve (AUCs) were evaluated for all tools at different thresholds. Quality assessment was performed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2; certainty of evidence (CoE) was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.

RESULTS

Forty-three articles were considered (40, 1, and 2 for FRAX, FRA-HS, and DeFRA, respectively), with the CoE ranging from very low to high quality. A reduction of Sn and increase of Sp for major osteoporotic fractures were observed among women and the entire population with cut-off augmentation. No significant differences were found on comparing FRAX to DeFRA in women (AUC 59-88% vs. 74%) and diabetics (AUC 73% vs. 89%). FRAX demonstrated non-significantly better discriminatory power than FRA-HS among men.

CONCLUSION

The task force formulated appropriate recommendations on the use of any fracture risk assessment tools in patients with or at risk of fragility fractures, since no statistically significant differences emerged across different prediction tools.

The integrated structure of care: evidence for the efficacy of models of clinical governance in the prevention of fragility fractures after recent sentinel fracture after the age of 50 years

Randomized clinical trials and observational studies on the implementation of clinical governance models, in patients who had experienced a fragility fracture, were examined. Literature was systematically reviewed and summarized by a panel of experts who formulated recommendations for the Italian guideline.

PURPOSE

After experiencing a fracture, several strategies may be adopted to reduce the risk of recurrent fragility fractures and associated morbidity and mortality. Clinical governance models, such as the fracture liaison service (FLS), have been introduced for the identification, treatment, and monitoring of patients with secondary fragility fractures. A systematic review was conducted to evaluate the association between multidisciplinary care systems and several outcomes in patients with a fragility fracture in the context of the development of the Italian Guidelines.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were investigated up to December 2020 to update the search of the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies that analyzed clinical governance models in patients who had experienced a fragility fracture were eligible. Three authors independently extracted data and appraised the risk of bias in the included studies. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. Effect sizes were pooled in a meta-analysis using random-effects models. Primary outcomes were bone mineral density values, antiosteoporotic therapy initiation, adherence to antiosteoporotic medications, subsequent fracture, and mortality risk, while secondary outcomes were quality of life and physical performance.

RESULTS

Fifteen RCTs and 62 observational studies, ranging from very low to low quality for bone mineral density values, antiosteoporotic initiation, adherence to antiosteoporotic medications, subsequent fracture, mortality, met our inclusion criteria. The implementation of clinical governance models compared to their pre-implementation or standard care/non-attenders significantly improved BMD testing rate, and increased the number of patients who initiated antiosteoporotic therapy and enhanced their adherence to the medications. Moreover, the treatment by clinical governance model respect to standard care/non-attenders significantly reduced the risk of subsequent fracture and mortality. The integrated structure of care enhanced the quality of life and physical function among patients with fragility fractures.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on our findings, clinicians should promote the management of patients experiencing a fragility fracture through structured and integrated models of care. The task force has formulated appropriate recommendations on the implementation of multidisciplinary care systems in patients with, or at risk of, fragility fractures.

Assessing 5-year incidence rates and determinants of osteoporotic fractures in primary care

PURPOSE

To assess the gender and age-related 5-year incidence rates of osteoporotic fractures, and their related predictors, in a primary care setting.

METHODS

We obtained information from the Health Search-CSD Longitudinal Patients Database (HSD). This is an Italian General Practice data repository which comprises information given by computer-based patient records of a selected group of over 900 Primary Care Physicians (PCPs). We selected all patients aged 50 to 85 years, who were actively included into the PCP's list at the beginning of the enrolment period (1st January 2002-31st December 2003). We excluded individuals who were registered in the PCPs' list for less than 1 year before the entry date (Index date) into the cohort, as well as those who were diagnosed with Paget disease or malignant neoplasm. Participants were followed up until the occurrence of osteoporotic fracture, one of the exclusion criteria, or the end of the study period.

RESULTS

The 5-year rates (per 1000 person-years) of any osteoporotic fracture were 11.56 (95% C.I. 11.33 to 11.77) among females, and 4.91 (95% C.I. 4.75 to 5.07) among males. For hip fractures, the overall incidence rates were 3.23 (95% C.I. 3.11 to 3.34) among females and 1.21 (95% C.I. 1.12 to 1.28) among males, respectively. Advanced age, history of fracture, use of corticosteroids, rheumatoid arthritis, BMI<=20, presence of osteoporosis, gastrointestinal and chronic hepatic disease, depression, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, use of anticonvulsants and a higher number of co-medications, increased the risk of any osteoporotic fractures.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of primary care data confirms a higher incidence of osteoporotic fractures among females vs. males as well as in older individuals. Predictors of osteoporotic fractures were consistent with FRAX® algorithm. Given the clinical utility of a simple score for the assessment of absolute fracture risk among osteoporotic patients, its assessment and validation in the Italian HSD could potentially provide an applicable prediction tool.