Decomposing and simplifying the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool-a module from the Taiwan-specific calculator

The Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX®) is a widely utilized country-specific calculator for identifying individuals with high fracture risk; its score is calculated from 12 variables, but its formulation is not publicly disclosed. We aimed to decompose and simplify the FRAX® by utilizing a nationwide community survey database as a reference module for creating a local assessment tool for osteoporotic fracture community screening in any country. Participants (n = 16384; predominantly women (75%); mean age = 64.8 years) were enrolled from the Taiwan OsteoPorosis Survey, a nationwide cross-sectional community survey collected from 2008 to 2011. We identified 11 clinical risk factors from the health questionnaires. BMD was assessed via dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry in a mobile DXA vehicle, and 10-year fracture risk scores, including major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) and hip fracture (HF) risk scores, were calculated using the FRAX®. The mean femoral neck BMD was 0.7 ± 0.1 g/cm2, the T-score was -1.9 ± 1.2, the MOF was 8.9 ± 7.1%, and the HF was 3.2 ± 4.7%. Following FRAX® decomposition with multiple linear regression, the adjusted R2 values were 0.9206 for MOF and 0.9376 for HF when BMD was included and 0.9538 for MOF and 0.9554 for HF when BMD was excluded. The FRAX® demonstrated better prediction for women and younger individuals than for men and elderly individuals after sex and age stratification analysis. Excluding femoral neck BMD, age, sex, and previous fractures emerged as 3 primary clinical risk factors for simplified FRAX® according to the decision tree analysis in this study population. The adjusted R2 values for the simplified country-specific FRAX® incorporating 3 premier clinical risk factors were 0.8210 for MOF and 0.8528 for HF. After decomposition, the newly simplified module provides a straightforward formulation for estimating 10-year fracture risk, even without femoral neck BMD, making it suitable for community or clinical osteoporotic fracture risk screening.

Patients' preferences for fracture risk communication: the Risk Communication in Osteoporosis (RICO) study

The RICO study indicated that most patients would like to receive information regarding their fracture risk but that only a small majority have actually received it. Patients globally preferred a visual presentation of fracture risk and were interested in an online tool showing the risk.

PURPOSE

The aim of the Risk Communication in Osteoporosis (RICO) study was to assess patients' preferences regarding fracture risk communication.

METHODS

To assess patients' preferences for fracture risk communication, structured interviews with women with osteoporosis or who were at risk for fracture were conducted in 11 sites around the world, namely in Argentina, Belgium, Canada at Hamilton and with participants from the Osteoporosis Canada Canadian Osteoporosis Patient Network (COPN), Japan, Mexico, Spain, the Netherlands, the UK, and the USA in California and Washington state. The interviews used to collect data were designed on the basis of a systematic review and a qualitative pilot study involving 26 participants at risk of fracture.

RESULTS

A total of 332 women (mean age 67.5 ± 8.0 years, 48% with a history of fracture) were included in the study. Although the participants considered it important to receive information about their fracture risk (mean importance of 6.2 ± 1.4 on a 7-point Likert scale), only 56% (i.e. 185/332) had already received such information. Globally, participants preferred a visual presentation with a traffic-light type of coloured graph of their FRAX® fracture risk probability, compared to a verbal or written presentation. Almost all participants considered it important to discuss their fracture risk and the consequences of fractures with their healthcare professionals in addition to receiving information in a printed format or access to an online website showing their fracture risk.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a significant communication gap between healthcare professionals and patients when discussing osteoporosis fracture risk. The RICO study provides insight into preferred approaches to rectify this communication gap.

Effectiveness of romosozumab in patients with osteoporosis at high fracture risk: a Japanese real-world study

INTRODUCTION

To describe the real-world use of romosozumab in Japan, we conducted a chart review of > 1000 Japanese patients with osteoporosis (OP) at high risk of fracture, across multiple medical institutions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Treatment-naïve and prior OP-treatment patients who received romosozumab for 12 months followed by ≥ 6 months of sequential OP treatment were included. The primary objective described the baseline demographics and clinical characteristics; secondary objectives evaluated changes in bone mineral density (BMD) and bone turnover markers in all patients and effectiveness of romosozumab in a sub-group of treatment-naïve patients using the fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX®).

RESULTS

Of the 1027 patients (92.4% female), 45.0% were treatment-naïve. The mean ± SD age of treatment-naïve versus prior OP-treatment patients was 76.8 ± 8.5 and 77.1 ± 8.5 years. The most frequent prior OP treatment was bisphosphonates (45.0%). Romosozumab treatment for 12 months increased BMD at the lumbar spine in all groups; the median percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD was higher in the treatment-naïve (13.4%) versus prior OP-treatment group (bisphosphonates [9.2%], teriparatide [11.3%], denosumab [DMAb, 4.5%]). DMAb, bisphosphonates, or teriparatide after romosozumab maintained the BMD gains at all skeletal sites at month 18 in treatment-naïve patients. Most treatment-naïve patients were at high risk of fracture, BMD increased consistently with romosozumab regardless of the baseline fracture risk assessed by FRAX.

CONCLUSION

This large-scale, multicenter chart review provides clinically relevant insights into the profiles of patients initiating romosozumab, effectiveness of real-world romosozumab use, and sequential therapy in Japanese patients at high risk of fracture.

Dual Energy X-ray Absorptiometry: Radiographer'S Role in Assessing Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) Questionnaire Variables

BACKGROUND

The FRAX® algorithm is a tool used to calculate the 10-year probability of fracture in patients with osteoporosis and is based the assessment of several risk factors. We assessed the performance and accuracy of the completion of the FRAX® anamnestic questionnaire by the radiographer without impact on the clinical workflow.

METHODOLOGY

We evaluated the accuracy of fracture risk calculation by the radiographer using the FRAX® algorithm before and after specific training. A total of 100 women were enrolled in the study. The radiographer preliminarily administered the FRAX® questionnaire to all subjects before the execution of the DXA examination. After the end of the examination, a radiologist administered the questionnaire to the patient. Women were divided into two groups: group A (pre-training) and group B (post-training). The radiographer in group A completed the FRAX® questionnaire for the patients before training. For group B, the same radiographer completed the FRAX® questionnaire after training. The results of the FRAX® questionnaire completed by radiographer were compared with that completed by the referring physician.

RESULTS

Before training, radiographer's accuracy ranged from 92% (question 7, alcohol consumption) to 36% (question 6, secondary osteoporosis). After training, accuracy values improved substantially, ranging from 100% to 92%. Analysis of the absolute values of FRAX® showed that in the pre-training group data tended to be overestimated by the radiographer, with both major and fractures probabilities being significantly higher when assessed by the radiographer (12% and 5.8%, respectively). After the training, there was a marked decrease in the variation between the FRAX® data calculated by the radiographer and the radiologist.

CONCLUSIONS

The accuracy of fracture risk calculation by the radiographer using the FRAX® algorithm is significantly improved after a specific training period. This study demonstrates the importance of dedicated training radiographers on the FRAX® algorithm.

Osteoporosis and Fragility Fractures in Patients with Liver Cirrhosis: Usefulness of FRAX® as a Screening Tool

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to assess the prevalence of osteoporosis and fragility fractures in patients with liver cirrhosis (LC) and determine the associated risk factors, evaluating the usefulness of FRAX® as a screening method to identify patients at a higher risk of fracture.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional study. Demographic, clinical, and analytical data were collected in a randomized sample of LC patients attending the Hepatology Department of a university hospital. We assessed the absolute risk of fracture at 10 years (FRAX®) and based on the bone mineral density (BMD), the presence of morphometric vertebral fracture with a vertebral fracture assessment (VFA), or a thoracic and lumbar X-ray and bone microarchitecture with a trabecular bone score (TBS).

RESULTS

Ninety-two patients were included (71% male); the mean age was 63 ± 11.3 years. The main etiology of LC was alcoholism (52.2%), and most patients were Child-Pugh A (80.4%), with a mean model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score of 10.1 ± 3.6. Sixteen patients (17.4%) had osteoporosis, and fifty-four (58.7%) had osteopenia. Eight patients (8.7%) had suffered at least one fragility fracture. The absolute risk of a major fracture according to FRAX without the BMD was 5.7 ± 4.5%. Risk factors associated with osteoporosis were age and the female sex. BMI > 30 was a protective factor. A FRAX cut-off point for a major fracture > 6.6% had a sensitivity of 69% and a specificity of 85% for a diagnosis of osteoporosis.

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of osteoporosis and fractures in patients with LC is high, particularly in older women. FRAX® may be a useful method to identify candidates for bone densitometry. A FRAX value below 6.6% without the BMD can avoid unnecessary testing.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

Study design: Retrospective cohort study.

MEASURES

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Selection for treatment of patients at high risk of fracture by the short versus long term prediction models - data from the Belgian FRISBEE cohort

Our imminent model was less sensitive but more selective than FRAX® in the choice of treatment to prevent imminent fractures. This new model decreased NNT by 30%, which could reduce the treatment costs. In the Belgian FRISBEE cohort, the effect of recency further decreased the selectivity of FRAX®.

PURPOSE

We analyzed the selection for treatment of patients at high risk of fracture by the Belgian FRISBEE imminent model and the FRAX® tool.

METHODS

We identified in the FRISBEE cohort subjects who sustained an incident MOF (mean age 76.5 ± 6.8 years). We calculated their estimated 10-year risk of fracture using FRAX® before and after adjustment for recency and the 2-year probability of fracture using the FRISBEE model.

RESULTS

After 6.8 years of follow-up, we validated 480 incident and 54 imminent MOFs. Of the subjects who had an imminent fracture, 94.0% had a fracture risk estimated above 20% by the FRAX® before correction for recency and 98.1% after adjustment, with a specificity of 20.2% and 5.9%, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of the FRISBEE model at 2 years were 72.2% and 55.4%, respectively, for a threshold of 10%. For these thresholds, 47.3% of the patients were identified at high risk in both models before the correction, and 17.2% of them had an imminent MOF. The adjustment for recency did not change this selection. Before the correction, 34.2% of patients were selected for treatment by FRAX® only, and 18.8% would have had an imminent MOF. This percentage increased to 47% after the adjustment for recency, but only 6% of those would suffer a MOF within 2 years.

CONCLUSION

In our Belgian FRISBEE cohort, the imminent model was less sensitive but more selective in the selection of subjects in whom an imminent fracture should be prevented, resulting in a lower NNT. The correction for recency in this elderly population further decreased the selectivity of FRAX®. These data should be validated in additional cohorts before using them in everyday practice.

The clinician's guide to prevention and treatment of osteoporosis

Osteoporosis is the most common metabolic bone disease in the USA and the world. It is a subclinical condition until complicated by fracture(s). These fractures place an enormous medical and personal burden on individuals who suffer from them and take a significant economic toll. Any new fracture in an adult aged 50 years or older signifies imminent elevated risk for subsequent fractures, particularly in the year following the initial fracture. What a patient perceives as an unfortunate accident may be seen as a sentinel event indicative of bone fragility and increased future fracture risk even when the result of considerable trauma. Clinical or subclinical vertebral fractures, the most common type of osteoporotic fractures, are associated with a 5-fold increased risk for additional vertebral fractures and a 2- to 3-fold increased risk for fractures at other sites. Untreated osteoporosis can lead to a vicious cycle of recurrent fracture(s), often resulting in disability and premature death. In appropriate patients, treatment with effective antifracture medication prevents fractures and improves outcomes. Primary care providers and medical specialists are critical gatekeepers who can identify fractures and initiate proven osteoporosis interventions. Osteoporosis detection, diagnosis, and treatment should be routine practice in all adult healthcare settings. The Bone Health and Osteoporosis Foundation (BHOF) - formerly the National Osteoporosis Foundation - first published the Clinician's Guide in 1999 to provide accurate information on osteoporosis prevention and treatment. Since that time, significant improvements have been made in diagnostic technologies and treatments for osteoporosis. Despite these advances, a disturbing gap persists in patient care. At-risk patients are often not screened to establish fracture probability and not educated about fracture prevention. Most concerning, the majority of highest risk women and men who have a fracture(s) are not diagnosed and do not receive effective, FDA-approved therapies. Even those prescribed appropriate therapy are unlikely to take the medication as prescribed. The Clinician's Guide offers concise recommendations regarding prevention, risk assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women and men aged 50 years and older. It includes indications for bone densitometry as well as fracture risk thresholds for pharmacologic intervention. Current medications build bone and/or decrease bone breakdown and dramatically reduce incident fractures. All antifracture therapeutics treat but do not cure the disease. Skeletal deterioration resumes sooner or later when a medication is discontinued-sooner for nonbisphosphonates and later for bisphosphonates. Even if normal BMD is achieved, osteoporosis and elevated risk for fracture are still present. The diagnosis of osteoporosis persists even if subsequent DXA T-scores are above - 2.5. Ongoing monitoring and strategic interventions will be necessary if fractures are to be avoided. In addition to pharmacotherapy, adequate intake of calcium and vitamin D, avoidance of smoking and excessive alcohol intake, weight-bearing and resistance-training exercise, and fall prevention are included in the fracture prevention armamentarium. Where possible, recommendations in this guide are based on evidence from RCTs; however, relevant published data and guidance from expert clinical experience provides the basis for recommendations in those areas where RCT evidence is currently deficient or not applicable to the many osteoporosis patients not considered for RCT participation due to age and morbidity.

Bisphosphonate Use for Glucocorticoid-Induced Osteoporosis in Elderly Patients with Immune Thrombocytopenia Receiving Prolonged Steroid Therapy: A Single Institute Retrospective Study

Prednisolone, used as a standard initial treatment for immune thrombocytopenia (ITP), is an important risk factor for osteoporosis. To investigate the prevention of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIO) in elderly ITP patients receiving prolonged steroid therapy, associations between GIO prevention and the real-world data of score changes of a dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scan, FRAX® and the Garvan tool during the initial loading of prednisolone were examined. In our institute, 22 ITP patients aged ≥ 70 years received 0.5−1.0 mg/kg prednisolone for 2−3 weeks as the initial ITP treatment between 2014 and 2021. The femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD) measured by DXA scan was entered into FRAX® to define the risk-adapted approach to bisphosphonate during the initial loading of prednisolone. Bisphosphonate was administered according to <−1.0 femoral neck BMD T-score measured by DXA scan. Worse scores of FRAX® and the Garvan tool were associated with bisphosphonate use for short-term fracture prevention in primary GIO; however, there were no incidents of fracture or significant differences in probabilities determined by FRAX® and the Garvan tool. During the initial loading of prednisolone, prescribing bisphosphonate might prevent the reduction in BMD in elderly patients with ITP receiving prolonged steroid therapy.

Troubling Aspects of the Trabecular Bone Score Adjustment for the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX®)

The Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX®) is widely used to estimate the 10-year risk of hip fracture and major osteoporotic fracture (MOF, defined as a hip, humerus, wrist, or clinical vertebral fracture). In 2015, McCloskey and colleagues published an adjustment to FRAX® based on the trabecular bone score (TBS). In 2017, the adjustment was updated to use a different calculation for MOF when TBS was measured by Hologic in people assigned male sex at birth. However, this update occurred only on the website hosting FRAX® adjusted for TBS without any corresponding publication of the details of this update or its derivation or validation. In addition to this unpublished update, FRAX® adjusted for TBS also gives impossible results in certain situations, manifesting most clearly in people above a certain age who are at high 10-year risk. Further still, there are inexplicable divergences in the 10-year estimates of hip fracture between the equations published in 2015 and the estimates one obtains if using the website version, which manifest most clearly in people over 80 years old, even at lower 10-year risks. We call on the authors of the TBS adjustment to help the users of FRAX® and FRAX® adjusted for TBS by addressing these matters.

Prevalence and predictors of asymptomatic vertebral fracture in patients with end-stage renal disease

Objective

This study aimed to investigate the prevalence and predictors of asymptomatic vertebral fracture in patients with end-stage renal disease undergoing hemodialysis.

Methods

This cross-sectional study included 80 patients with end-stage renal disease undergoing hemodialysis. Medical history, Fracture Risk Assessment Tool and anteroposterior and lateral radiographs of the thoracolumbar and lumbosacral spine were obtained. Vertebral fractures were identified using the Genant semiquantitative assessment.

Results

Radiography demonstrated asymptomatic vertebral fracture in 22 patients (27.5%). FRAX® results for major osteoporotic fracture (area under the curve, 0.64) and hip fracture (area under the curve, 0.62) were able to discriminate patients with prevalent asymptomatic vertebral fracture. A multivariate analysis demonstrated that a 1-year average corrected calcium (odds ratio, 0.38), steroid use (odds ratio, 8.99), and a serum albumin concentration <25 g/dL (odds ratio, 28.82) significantly predicted prevalent asymptomatic vertebral fracture (clinical model; area under the curve, 0.82). Combining the 1-year average corrected calcium and serum albumin concentration <25 g/dL with FRAX® results for major osteoporotic fracture (area under the curve, 0.78) and FRAX® results for hip (area under the curve, 0.75) produced a significantly greater area under the curve value to predict fracture when compared with FRAX® result for major osteoporotic fracture and FRAX® result for hip (P = 0.022).

Conclusion

Asymptomatic vertebral fracture is prevalent. FRAX® results for major osteoporotic fracture and hip provided lower ability in predicting asymptomatic vertebral facture when compared to the clinical model. Combining a 1-year average corrected calcium and serum albumin concentration <25 g/dL with FRAX® result for major osteoporotic fracture or hip improved the model's performance and provided comparable area under the curve to the clinical model.

A pilot screening study for low bone mass in Singaporean women using years since menopause and BMI

OBJECTIVE

Current risk assessment tools for osteoporosis have inconsistent performance across different cohorts, making them difficult for clinical practice. This study aimed to evaluate a simple screening index comprising years since menopause (YSM) and body mass index (BMI) that identifies postmenopausal Singaporean women with a greater likelihood of low bone mass.

METHODS

The study used data from 188 treatment-naïve postmenopausal women. The associations between low bone mass and different demographic variables, including age, YSM and BMI, were assessed using multivariable logistic regression. Diagnostic performance of the calculated screening index was compared to the Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool for Asians (OSTA) and the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX^®).

RESULTS

YSM and BMI were significantly associated with low bone mass. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curves was 0.803 for the screening index, 0.759 for the OSTA, 0.683 for the FRAX^® (major osteoporotic fracture probability [MOFP]) and 0.647 for the FRAX^® (hip fracture probability [HFP]). Non-parametric Spearman's correlation between the screening index and the other models was 0.857 with the OSTA score, 0.694 with the FRAX^® (HFP) and 0.565 with the FRAX^® (MOFP) (p < 0.0005).

CONCLUSIONS

The diagnostic performance of the screening index comprising YSM and BMI was equivalent to the OSTA and the FRAX^®. A risk chart was developed for clinicians to identify and recommend subjects for a further dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry scan. Validation of this model in larger and more diverse cohorts is required.

Efficacy of teriparatide compared with risedronate on FRAX®-defined major osteoporotic fractures: results of the VERO clinical trial

FRAX^® calculates the 10-year probability of major osteoporotic fractures (MOF), which are considered to have a greater clinical impact than other fractures. Our results suggest that, in postmenopausal women with severe osteoporosis, those treated with teriparatide had a 60% lower risk of FRAX^®-defined MOF compared with those treated with risedronate.

INTRODUCTION

The VERO trial was an active-controlled fracture endpoint clinical trial that enrolled postmenopausal women with severe osteoporosis. After 24 months, a 52% reduction in the hazard ratio (HR) of clinical fractures was reported in patients randomized to teriparatide compared with risedronate. We examined fracture results restricted to FRAX^®-defined major osteoporotic fractures (MOF), which include clinical vertebral, hip, humerus, and forearm fractures.

METHODS

In total, 1360 postmenopausal women (mean age 72.1 years) were randomized to receive subcutaneous daily teriparatide (20 μg) or oral weekly risedronate (35 mg). Patient cumulative incidence of ≥ 1 FRAX^®-defined MOF and of all clinical fractures were estimated by Kaplan-Meier analyses, and the comparison between treatments was based on the stratified log-rank test. Additionally, an extended Cox model was used to estimate HRs at different time points. Incidence fracture rates were estimated at each 6-month interval.

RESULTS

After 24 months, 16 (2.6%) patients in the teriparatide group had ≥ 1 low trauma FRAX^®-defined MOF compared with 40 patients (6.4%) in the risedronate group (HR 0.40; 95% CI 0.23-0.68; p = 0.001). Clinical vertebral and radius fractures were the most frequent FRAX^®-defined MOF sites. The largest difference in incidence rates of both FRAX^®-defined MOF and all clinical fractures between treatments occurred during the 6- to 12-month period. There was a statistically significant reduction in fractures between groups as early as 7 months for both categories of clinical fractures analyzed.

CONCLUSION

In postmenopausal women with severe osteoporosis, treatment with teriparatide was more efficacious than risedronate, with a 60% lower risk of FRAX^®-defined MOF during the 24-month treatment period. Fracture risk was statistically significantly reduced at 7 months of treatment.

CLINICAL TRIAL INFORMATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01709110 EudraCT Number: 2012-000123-41.

Bone health assessment in clinical practice is infrequenty performed in patients with chronic pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

Chronic pancreatitis (CP) patients have a high prevalence of osteoporotic fractures. In addition to prevalence of osteoporotic fractures, we evaluated how often bone health is assessed by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) in clinical practice, and the performance of Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX®) in predicting fracture risk in CP patients.

METHODS

Medical records of CP patients age ≥40 years prospectively enrolled in the North American Pancreatitis Study 2 (NAPS2) from the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center from 2000 to 2014 were retrospectively reviewed to gather additional relevant data before, at, and after enrollment until December 2016. We determined if patients underwent DXA, compared their observed prevalence of fractures with published data from two large US studies based on administrative data, and their predicted fracture risk with US population based on FRAX®.

RESULTS

Only 21% (49/239) patients were evaluated by DXA during their care. The observed cumulative prevalence of fragility fractures in NAPS2 CP patients (9.2%, 95% confidence interval 5.9-13.6) was significantly greater than in controls (1.46% and 2.16%, p ≤ 0.001 for each comparison) and CP patients (4.66%, and 5.13%, p < 0.005 for each comparison) in the two US administrative data studies. The FRAX® 10-year probability of major osteoporotic fracture of ≥20% (5.1% vs. 8.3%, p > 0.05) and for hip fracture of ≥3% (19.6% vs. 18.9%, p > 0.05) in NAPS2 CP patients did not differ from the US population.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite their high risk of fragility fractures, bone health is infrequently assessed in CP patients. FRAX® may not adequately predict fracture risk in CP patients.

FRAX® with or without BMD and TBS predicts fragility fractures in community-dwelling rural southern Indian postmenopausal women

This study from southern India showed that FRAX® with or without BMD or TBS predicted fragility vertebral fractures at a cut-off of ≥ 9% for major osteoporotic fracture and ≥ 2.5% for hip fracture with sensitivities of 77-88% and specificities of 55-72%.

PURPOSE

There is limited information available with regard to utility of Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX® tool) in predicting fragility fractures in Indian postmenopausal women. We studied the performance of 3 categories: FRAX® (without BMD), FRAX® (with BMD), and FRAX® (with BMD and TBS) in predicting fragility vertebral fractures in rural postmenopausal women.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

It was a cross-sectional study conducted at a south Indian tertiary care center. Rural postmenopausal women (n = 301) were recruited by simple random sampling. The risk for major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) and hip fracture (HF) was calculated individually for the 3 categories. The BMD (at lumbar spine and femoral neck) and vertebral fractures were assessed by a DXA (dual energy X-ray absorptiometry) scanner and TBS by TBS iNsight software. ROC curves were constructed, and area under curve (AUC), sensitivity and specificity of FRAX® scores, which would best predict prevalent vertebral fractures (moderate to severe), was computed.

RESULTS

The mean (SD) age was 65.6(5.1) years. The prevalence of osteoporosis at spine was 45%, and femoral neck was 32.6%. Moderate to severe vertebral fractures was seen in 29.2% of subjects. The performance of all 3 categories for FRAX® (MOF) and FRAX® (HF) were good (AUC was 0.798, 0.806, and 0.800, respectively, for MOF) at a cut-off score of ≥ 9, and at a cut-off of ≥ 2.5 for HF, it was 0.818, 0.775, and 0.770, respectively. At these cut-offs, sensitivities were 77-89%, and specificities were 55-72% for predicting prevalent vertebral fractures.

CONCLUSION

All three categories of FRAX® showed good performance in predicting fractures in Indian postmenopausal women. Thus, it may be utilized for decision regarding treatment and referral for osteoporosis.

EPISER2016 study

OBJECTIVES

To analyse the risk of fracture calculated by FRAX® and the frequency of high risk of fracture in the general population in Spain.

METHODS

EPISER2016 is a multicentre cross-sectional population-based study of the prevalence of rheumatic diseases in the adult population in Spain. 3,154 subjects aged ≥40 years (1,184 men and 1,970 women) were selected by stratified random sampling. The questions related to fracture risk factors were asked by telephone survey. The risk of major osteoporotic fracture (MOFR) and hip fracture (HFR) were calculated with the Spanish version of the FRAX® tool, without the inclusion of bone mineral density. To define high fracture risk, the MOFR≥20%, MOFR≥10%, MOFR≥7.5% and HFR≥3% thresholds were used.

RESULTS

The median (interquartile range) of the MOFR was 2.61% (1.55-6.34%) in women and 1.67% (1.15-2.87%) in men, whereas that of the HFR was 0.39% (0.14-1.86%) and 0.18% (0.07-0.77%); 3.83% of women and no men had a MOFR≥20%; 15.71% and 1.14% had a MOFR≥10%; 20.62% and 2.21%, a MOFR≥7.5%; and 19.27% and 8.05%, an HFR≥3%. In women aged 65 and over, the HFR was high in 58.09%.

CONCLUSIONS

EPISER2016 enabled us to establish the risk of fracture calculated by FRAX® and the prevalence of high risk of fracture in the general population according to the different thresholds used in Spain.

Systematic screening using FRAX® leads to increased use of, and adherence to, anti-osteoporosis medications: an analysis of the UK SCOOP trial

In the large community-based SCOOP trial, systematic fracture risk screening using FRAX^® led to greater use of AOM and greater adherence, in women at high fracture risk, compared with usual care.

INTRODUCTION

In the SCreening of Older wOmen for Prevention of fracture (SCOOP) trial, we investigated the effect of the screening intervention on subsequent long-term self-reported adherence to anti-osteoporosis medications (AOM).

METHODS

SCOOP was a primary care-based UK multicentre trial of screening for fracture risk. A total of 12,483 women (70-85 years) were randomised to either usual NHS care, or assessment using the FRAX^® tool ± dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), with medication recommended for those found to be at high risk of hip fracture. Self-reported AOM use was obtained by postal questionnaires at 6, 12, 24, 36, 48 and 60 months. Analysis was limited to those who initiated AOM during follow-up. Logistic regression was used to explore baseline determinants of adherence (good ≥ 80%; poor < 80%).

RESULTS

The mean (SD) age of participants was 75.6 (4.2) years, with 6233 randomised to screening and 6250 to the control group. Of those participants identified at high fracture risk in the screening group, 38.2% of those on treatment at 6 months were still treated at 60 months, whereas the corresponding figure for the control group was 21.6%. Older age was associated with poorer adherence (OR per year increase in age 0.96 [95% CI 0.93, 0.99], p = 0.01), whereas history of parental hip fracture was associated with greater rate adherence (OR 1.67 [95% CI 1.23, 2.26], p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Systematic fracture risk screening using FRAX^® leads to greater use of AOM and greater adherence, in women at high fracture risk, compared with usual care.

[10-year risk of fractures (FRAX) in people with diabetes type 2]

AIM

To study indicators of bone mineral densit (BMD) and trabecular bone score (TBS) and to reveal the 10-year fracture risk (FRAX®) taking into account the data obtained in persons with type 2 diabetes (DM2).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A clinical study of the type of case - control. The study included 122 people with and without DM2. All persons were: questionnaires, anthropometry, densitometry, determination of TBS and fracture risk on the FRAX®.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Persons with DM2 who underwent a fracture had lower T-score values in all areas except the spine, unlike those with DM2, but without fracture. However, persons with DM2 had a fracture at high values of T-score in vertebrae and hips in comparison with persons without DM. Using the TBS, we did not get a significant difference in any of the examined groups. We also found no differences in the risk of recurrent fractures among women with and without DM2 using FRAX® without densitometry and FRAX® adjusted for TBS. The values of FRAX® by T-score in the group of persons with DM with fractures were significantly lower (p=0.029 for major fractures, p=0.024 for hip fractures) than in persons without DM with fractures.

CONCLUSION

Persons with DM2 and fractures have higher BMD values, lower than the FRAX fracture risk values adjusted for the T-score, do not differ significantly in TBS, which determines the difficulties in diagnosis, the need to find additional methods for early diagnosis of increased fracture risk in patients with DM2.

Does Trabecular Bone Score (TBS) improve the predictive ability of FRAX® for major osteoporotic fractures according to the Japanese Population-Based Osteoporosis (JPOS) cohort study?

This study examined whether bone microarchitecture determined by Trabecular Bone Score (TBS) is associated with the risk of major osteoporotic fractures independent of FRAX^® in Japanese women. Participants included 1541 women aged ≥ 40 at baseline. Major osteoporotic fractures during a 10-year follow-up period were documented by the Japanese Population-based Osteoporosis Cohort Study. TBS and areal bone mineral density (aBMD) were calculated for the same spinal regions at baseline. To compare the predictive ability of FRAX^® model when used alone versus in combination with TBS, Akaike information criterion (AIC), the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), net reclassification improvement (NRI), and integrated discrimination improvement (IDI) were calculated. We identified 67 events of major osteoporotic fractures. The skeletal sites of the first fracture event were as follows: hip (11), vertebrae (13), radius (42), and humerus (1). The model incorporating FRAX^® [1.35 (95% CI 1.09-1.67) for 1 standard deviation (SD) increase] with TBS [1.46 (95% CI 1.08-1.98) for 1 SD decrease] demonstrated better fit compared to a model consisting of FRAX alone (AIC 528.6 vs 532.7). NRI values for classification accuracy showed significant improvements in the FRAX^® and TBS model, as compared to FRAX^® alone [0.299 (95% CI 0.056-0.541)]. However, there were no significant differences in AUC or IDI between these models. The TBS score is associated with a risk of major osteoporotic fracture independent of FRAX^® score obtained with or without BMD values among Japanese women during a 10-year follow-up period.

Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX®) Results Calculated With and Without Bone Mineral Density Values for the Evaluation of Fracture Risk in Postmenopausal Women With Osteopenia

The aim of this study was to evaluate the agreement between fracture risk predictions based on calculations made with and without bone mineral density (BMD) values using the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX®) in Turkish postmenopausal women with osteopenia and to compare the treatment recommendations. This descriptive, cross-sectional study included postmenopausal women aged 50-79 yr with a diagnosis of osteoporosis who were not receiving any treatment. A questionnaire was administered to the participants face-to-face to obtain sociodemographic characteristics, medical history, and fracture history. Fracture risk was calculated with FRAX® separately with and without BMD. The study included 230 postmenopausal patients with osteopenia. The mean age of the patients was determined as 63.16 ± 7.59 yr, and the mean body mass index was 30.61 ± 5.02. The intraclass correlation coefficient values of the 10-yr major osteoporotic (MO) fracture and hip fracture score agreement with FRAX® with and without BMD were mean 0.486 and 0.462, respectively. The risk of MO fracture with an intervention threshold of ≥20 was determined in 227/230 patients (98.7%), and the risk of hip fracture with treatment recommendations of ≥3 was determined in 204/230 patients (88.7%). Treatment recommendations in patients with no fracture history and secondary osteoporosis were 100% for MO fracture and 94.7% (123/130) for hip fracture risk. The treatment recommendation rates of FRAX® with and without BMD were similar for the majority of postmenopausal women with osteopenia. The agreement between the values was of a moderate level. When patients with a fracture history and secondary osteoporosis were excluded, the agreement increased. Even though values with BMD are of basic importance for medical treatment in postmenopausal women, the use of measurements evaluating fracture risk, such as FRAX® without BMD, could be useful in postmenopausal women with osteopenia.

The utility of FRAX® in predicting bone fractures in patients with chronic kidney disease on hemodialysis: a two-year prospective multicenter cohort study

We assessed the FRAX® method in 718 hemodialyzed patients in estimating increased risk of bone major and hip fractures. Over two prospective years, statistical analysis showed that FRAX® enables a better assessment of bone major fracture risk in these patients than any of its components and other risk factors considered in the analysis.

INTRODUCTION

Despite the generally increased risk of bone fractures among patients with end-stage renal disease, no prediction models for identifying individuals at particular risk have been developed to date. The goal of this prospective, multicenter observational study was to assess the usefulness of the FRAX® method in comparison to all its elements considered separately, selected factors associated with renal disease and the history of falls, in estimating increased risk of low-energy major bone and hip fractures in patients undergoing chronic hemodialysis.

METHODS

The study included a total of 1068 hemodialysis patients, who were followed for 2 years, and finally, 718 of them were analyzed. The risk analysis included the Polish version of the FRAX® calculator (without bone mineral density), dialysis vintage, mineral metabolism disorders (serum calcium, phosphate, and parathyroid hormone), and the number of falls during the last year before the study.

RESULTS

Over 2 years, low-energy 30 major bone fractures were diagnosed and 13 of hip fractures among them. Area under the curve for FRAX® was 0.76 (95% CI 0.69-0.84) for major fractures and 0.70 (95% CI 0.563-0.832) for hip fractures. The AUC for major bone fractures was significantly higher than for all elements of the FRAX® calculator. In logistic regression analysis FRAX® was the strongest independent risk factor of assessment of the major bone fracture risk.

CONCLUSIONS

FRAX® enables a better assessment of major bone fracture risk in ESRD patients undergoing hemodialysis than any of its components and other risk factors considered in the analysis.

Prospective risk of osteoporotic fractures in patients with advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Despite the high prevalence of osteoporosis in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients, the fracture risk prediction tools are not routinely undertaken in the management of COPD. We quantified fracture risk using a validated risk prediction tool (Fracture Risk Assessment (FRAX®)) and determined potential bone-protection treatment needs in patients with advanced COPD. The 10-year probability of major osteoporotic or hip fracture was calculated using the FRAX tool in a cohort of patients attending a hospital complex COPD service. Patients were identified to be at low, intermediate and high risk based on their FRAX scores, in accordance with the National Osteoporosis Guideline Group recommendations, to assess the number of patients requiring bone mineral density (BMD) testing or bone protection therapy. Two hundred forty-seven patients [mean (standard deviation (SD)) age 66 (9.1) years, 26% current smokers, 40% women and median (interquartile range (IQR)) Medical Research Council (MRC) breathlessness scale 4 (0)] had a 10-year probability of 9.5% (6.1) and 3.8% (4.6) for major osteoporotic and hip fractures, respectively. Thirty-six percentage of patients were identified to be at intermediate risk of developing fragility fracture, requiring BMD assessment, while 9% were at high risk, requiring treatment. Thirty-two percentage of high-risk patients were on bisphosphonates. The FRAX score can be used to assess the fracture risk within the COPD cohort and assist with decision-making about BMD measurement and provision of bone protection therapy.

The epidemiology of osteoporosis in Italian postmenopausal women according to the National Bone Health Alliance (NBHA) diagnostic criteria: a multicenter cohort study

PURPOSE

The study was aimed at evaluating the prevalence of osteoporosis, defined by BMD and the National Bone Health Alliance (NBHA) criteria, and the prevalence of clinical risk factors for fractures in Italian postmenopausal women.

METHODS

This is a cross-sectional, multicenter, cohort study evaluating 3247 postmenopausal women aged ≥ 50 and older in different areas of Italy in the period 2012-2014. All the participants were evaluated as far as anthropometrics; questionnaires for FRAX^® and DeFRA calculation were administered and bone mineral density was measured at lumbar spine, femoral neck and total hip by DXA.

RESULTS

The prevalence of osteoporosis, as assessed by BMD and NBHA criteria was 36.6 and 57%, respectively. Mean ± SD values of FRAX^® and DeFRA were: 10.2 ± 7.3 and 11 ± 9.4 for major fractures, and 3.3 ± 4.9 and 3.9 ± 5.9 for hip fractures, respectively. Among clinical risk factors for fracture, the presence of previous fracture, particularly non-spine/non-hip fracture, parental history of hip fracture and current smoking were the most commonly observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study showed that more that the half of postmenopausal women aged 50 and older in Italy has osteoporosis on the basis of the NBHA criteria. There is a relevant high risk of femur fracture, as assessed by the FRAX^® and DeFRA and previous fracture, parental history of hip fracture and current smoking are the most common risk factors. The data should be considered particularly in relation to the need to increase prevention strategies on modifiable risk factors and therapeutic intervention.

Cost-utility analysis of fracture risk assessment using microRNAs compared with standard tools and no monitoring in the Austrian female population

BACKGROUND

Osteoporosis poses an immense burden to the society in terms of morbidity, mortality and financial cost. To reduce this burden, it is essential to accurately assess the individual patient's fracture risk and, where indicated, to initiate appropriate treatment that reduces fracture probability. Current screening and monitoring approaches include utilization of FRAX®, a web-based country-specific fracture risk assessment tool, and bone mineral density measurement by Dual Energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DXA). Recently, microRNAs have been recognized as important regulators of bone physiology and potential biomarkers for fracture risk assessment and monitoring. A fracture risk assessment tool based on microRNAs (osteomiR™ test) is currently being developed. The aim of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of fracture risk screening, monitoring, and resulting treatment decisions for the Austrian female population using the osteomiR™ test compared with DXA, with FRAX®, or with no screening/monitoring.

METHODS

A cost-utility-model was developed to simulate long-term consequences of Austrian women from age 50 over lifetime or death with respect to osteoporosis. Markov-modelling techniques were used to calculate health state transitions of fracture incidence according to risk groups (high, intermediate, low). High-risk patients receive medical treatment. Probabilities were derived via systematic-literature-review; direct costs (2015, €) from published sources from the payer's perspective. Results evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) for osteomiR™ against the comparators, gains or losses of fractures, life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and direct costs. QALYs, life years (LYs) and costs were discounted (3% p.a).

RESULTS

Fracture risk assessment and monitoring using the osteomiR™ test reduces fracture incidence compared with no monitoring, DXA alone, or FRAX® alone. In the per-patient analysis, the ICER/QALY of osteomiR™ vs. no-monitoring was 13,103 €, vs. FRAX® 37,813 €, and vs. DXA -19,605 €, indicating that costs can be saved while gaining QALYs. Considering the total cohort over lifetime, the osteomiR™ test can avoid 57,919 fractures compared with DXA, 31,285 fractures compared with FRAX® and 133,394 fractures compared with no monitoring. Sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of these findings.

CONCLUSION

Fracture risk assessment and monitoring using the osteomiR™ test dominates DXA-strategy and constitutes a cost-effective alternative to FRAX®, and no-monitoring, respectively.

Evaluation of clinical risk factors for osteoporosis and applicability of the FRAX tool in Joinville City, Southern Brazil

Clinical risk factors for fracture in Southern Brazil are similar to those used in Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX®). Age-dependent intervention thresholds had higher accuracy than a fixed cut-off point.

INTRODUCTION

Access to bone mineral density testing is wanted for a large part of the Brazilian population. The FRAX® has an option to calculate the risk of fracture without this costly evaluation but relies on the clinical risk factors (CRFs) identified in the source cohorts used to generate FRAX.

OBJECTIVE

The aims of this study were to determine whether the CRFs used in FRAX are also risk indicators for individuals in Southern Brazil and to evaluate possible intervention thresholds for treatment in Brazil.

METHODS

We determined the CRFs for hip fractures in women and men aged 50 years and more with a hip fracture and controls in Joinville, Southern Brazil (April 1, 2010, and March 31, 2012). For intervention thresholds, we determined the accuracy of using the fixed thresholds of National Osteoporosis Foundation (NOF), USA, compared with the age-dependent thresholds of the National Osteoporosis Guideline Group (NOGG), UK.

RESULTS

CRFs that were significant for hip fracture were very similar to FRAX, apart from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and malabsorptive intestinal disease. FRAX based on the NOGG and NOF models had an accuracy of 64.2 and 58.7%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

CRFs used in FRAX® were similar to those in the Southern Brazil. The NOGG model seems to be more accurate to discriminate patients with increased fracture risk in this population compared to the NOF model, but not significantly.

Comparing self-perceived and estimated fracture risk by FRAX® of women with osteoporosis

In this study, we compared subjective fracture risks of Hungarian women with osteoporosis to FRAX®-based estimates. Patients with a previous fracture, parental hip fracture, low femoral T-score, higher age, and higher BMI were more likely to underestimate their risks. Patients also failed to associate risk factors with an increased risk of fractures.

PURPOSE

The main objectives were to explore associations between self-perceived 10-year fracture risks of women with osteoporosis (OP) and their risks calculated by the FRAX® algorithm and to identify determinants of the underestimation of risk.

METHODS

We carried out a cross-sectional study in 11 OP centers in Hungary and collected data on the risk factors considered by the FRAX® calculator. Patients estimated their subjective 10-year probability of any major osteoporotic and hip fracture numerically, in percentages and also on a visual analog scale (VAS). We compared subjective and FRAX® estimates and applied logistic regression to analyze the determinants of the underestimation of risk. Associations between risk factors and subjective risk were explored using linear probability models.

RESULTS

Nine hundred seventy-two OP patients were included in the analysis. Major OP and hip fracture risk by FRAX® were on average 20.1 and 10.5%, while subjective estimates were significantly higher, 30.0 and 24.7%, respectively. Correlations between FRAX® and subjective measures were very weak (r = 0.12-0.16). Underestimation of major OP fracture risk was associated with having had a single previous fracture (OR = 2.0), parental hip fracture (OR = 3.4), femoral T-score ≤-2.5 (OR = 4.2), higher age, body mass index, and better general health state. We did not find significant associations between subjective risk estimates and most of the risk factors except for previous fractures.

CONCLUSIONS

Hungarian OP patients fail to recognize most of the risk factors of fractures. Thus, education of patients about these risk factors would be beneficial especially for the elderly with a low femoral T-score and parental hip fracture history.

OS cohort study in Hong Kong

The association of trabecular bone score (TBS) with fracture risk and its added predictive value to FRAX® for clinical use have never been independently evaluated in a Chinese population. TBS may improve the predictive power of FRAX® for clinical use in older Chinese men.

INTRODUCTION

Trabecular bone score (TBS) of lumbar spine on Dual X-ray densitometry provides information on bone architecture. We therefore examined the additive value of TBS to FRAX® in predicting major osteoporotic fractures (MOFs) in older Chinese people.

METHODS

Four thousand community-dwelling Chinese men and women aged ≥65 years were followed up for fracture incidence for an average period of 9.94 and 8.82 years, respectively. At baseline, areal BMD of hip and lumbar spine were measured by DXA, TBS was estimated for the lumbar spine, and FRAX® for 10-year risk of MOFs (hip, clinical spine, shoulder, and wrist) was estimated. Cox regression model was used to evaluate the associations between TBS and FRAX® with the MOFs risk. The area under receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC), integrated discrimination improvement (IDI), and category-based net reclassification improvement (NRI) were applied to evaluate the improved prediction ability.

RESULTS

During the follow-up, 126 men and 215 women had at least one incident MOF. Each SD decrease in TBS was significantly associated with incident MOFs, with HR (95%CI) of 1.53 (1.30-1.80) and 1.40 (1.22-1.61) in men and women, respectively. TBS-adjusted FRAX® predicts better than FRAX® with a significantly increased AUC and IDI in men. Using specific intervention thresholds, TBS-adjusted FRAX® brings about 5 % overall correct reclassification for MOFs prediction than FRAX® in men. The increased correct MOFs risk classifications were not significant in older women.

CONCLUSIONS

TBS-adjusted FRAX® may improve the predictive power of FRAX® on MOFs for clinical use in older Chinese men.

Assessing fracture risk in early stage breast cancer patients treated with aromatase-inhibitors: An enhanced screening approach incorporating trabecular bone score

Introduction

Aromatase-inhibitors (AIs) are commonly used for treatment of patients with hormone-receptor positive breast carcinoma, and are known to induce bone density loss and increase the risk of fractures. The current standard-of-care screening tool for fracture risk is bone mineral density (BMD) by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). The fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX®) may be used in conjunction with BMD to identify additional osteopenic patients at risk of fracture who may benefit from a bone-modifying agent (BMA). The trabecular bone score (TBS), a novel method of measuring bone microarchitecture by DXA, has been shown to be an independent indicator of increased fracture risk. We report how the addition of TBS and FRAX®, respectively, to BMD contribute to identification of elevated fracture risk (EFR) in postmenopausal breast cancer patients treated with AIs.

Methods

100 patients with early stage hormone-positive breast cancer treated with AIs, no prior BMAs, and with serial DXAs were identified. BMD and TBS were measured from DXA images before and following initiation of AIs, and FRAX® scores were calculated from review of clinical records. EFR was defined as either: BMD ≤−2.5 or BMD between −2.5 and −1 plus either increased risk by FRAX® or degraded microstructure by TBS.

Results

At baseline, BMD alone identified 4% of patients with EFR. The addition of FRAX® increased detection to 13%, whereas the combination of BMD, FRAX® and TBS identified 20% of patients with EFR. Following AIs, changes in TBS were independent of changes in BMD. On follow-up DXA, BMD alone detected an additional 1 patient at EFR (1%), whereas BMD+ FRAX® identified 3 additional patients (3%), and BMD+FRAX®+TBS identified 7 additional patients (7%).

Conclusions

The combination of FRAX®, TBS, and BMD maximized the identification of patients with EFR. TBS is a novel assessment that enhances the detection of patients who may benefit from BMAs.

A combination of clinical balance measures and FRAX® to improve identification of high-risk fallers

Background

The FRAX® algorithm quantifies a patient’s 10-year probability of a hip or major osteoporotic fracture without taking an individual’s balance into account. Balance measures assess the functional ability of an individual and the FRAX® algorithm is a model that integrates the individual patients clinical risk factors [not balance] and bone mineral density. Thus, clinical balance measures capture aspects that the FRAX® algorithm does not, and vice versa. It is therefore possible that combining FRAX® and clinical balance measures can improve the identification of patients at high fall risk and thereby high fracture risk.

Our study aim was to explore whether there is an association between clinical balance measures and fracture prediction obtained from FRAX®.

Method

A cross-sectional study design was used where post hoc was performed on a dataset of 82 participants (54 to 89 years of age, mean age 71.4, 77 female), with a fall-related wrist-fracture between 2008 and 2012. Balance was measured by tandem stance, standing one leg, walking in the figure of eight, walking heel to toe on a line, walking as fast as possible for 30 m and five times sit to stand balance measures [tandem stance and standing one leg measured first with open and then with closed eyes] and each one analyzed for bivariate relations with the 10-year probability values for hip and major osteoporotic fractures as calculated by FRAX® using Spearman’s rank correlation test.

Results

Individuals with high FRAX® values had poor outcome in balance measures; however the significance level of the correlation differed between tests. Standing one leg eyes closed had strongest correlation to FRAX® (0.610 p = < 0.01) and Five times sit to stand was the only test that did not correlate with FRAX® (0.013).

Conclusion

This study showed that there is an association between clinical balance measures and FRAX®. Hence, the use of clinical balance measures and FRAX® in combination, might improve the identification of individuals with high risk of falls and thereby following fractures. Results enable healthcare providers to optimize treatment and prevention of fall-related fractures.

Trial registration

The study has been registered in Clinical Trials.gov, registration number NCT00988572.

Trabecular bone score may improve FRAX® prediction accuracy for major osteoporotic fractures in elderly Japanese men: the Fujiwara-kyo Osteoporosis Risk in Men (FORMEN) Cohort Study

FRAX® is widely used to evaluate fracture risk of individuals in clinical settings. However, FRAX® prediction accuracy is not sufficient, and improvement is desired. Trabecular bone score, a bone microarchitecture index, may improve FRAX® prediction accuracy for major osteoporotic fractures in community-dwelling elderly Japanese men.

INTRODUCTION

To improve fracture risk assessment in clinical settings, we evaluated whether the combination of FRAX® and Trabecular Bone Score (TBS) improves the prediction accuracy of major osteoporotic fractures (MOFs) in elderly Japanese men compared to FRAX® alone.

METHODS

Two thousand and twelve community-dwelling men aged ≥65 years completed the Fujiwara-kyo Osteoporosis Risk in Men (FORMEN) Baseline Study comprising lumbar spine (LS) and femoral neck areal bone mineral density (aBMD) measurements, and interviews regarding clinical risk factors required to estimate 10-year risk of MOF (hip, spine, distal forearm, and proximal humerus) using the Japanese version of FRAX® (v.3.8). TBS was calculated for the same vertebrae used for LS-aBMD with TBS iNsight software (v.2.1). MOFs that occurred during the follow-up period were identified by interviews or mail and telephone surveys. Prediction accuracy of a logistic model combining FRAX® score and TBS compared to FRAX® alone was evaluated by area under receiver-operating characteristic curves (AUCs), as well as category-free integrated discrimination improvement (IDI) and net reclassification improvement (NRI).

RESULTS

We identified 22 men with MOFs during 8140 person-years (PY) of follow-up among 1872 men; 67 men who suffered from fractures other than MOFs were excluded. Participants with MOFs had significantly lower TBS (p = 0.0015) and higher FRAX® scores (p = 0.0089) than those without. IDI and NRI showed significant improvements in reclassification accuracy using FRAX® plus TBS compared to FRAX® alone (IDI 0.006 (p = 0.0362), NRI 0.452 (p = 0.0351)), although no difference was observed in AUCs between the two.

CONCLUSIONS

TBS may improve MOF prediction accuracy of FRAX® for community-dwelling elderly Japanese men.

Fragility fracture: recent developments in risk assessment

More than half of older women who sustain a fragility fracture do not have osteoporosis by World Health Organization (WHO) bone mineral density (BMD) criteria; and, while BMD has been used to assess fracture risk for over 30 years, a range of other skeletal and nonskeletal clinical risk factors (CRFs) for fracture have been recognized. More than 30 assessment tools using CRFs have been developed, some predicting fracture risk and others low BMD alone. Recent systematic reviews have reported that many tools have not been validated against fracture incidence, and that the complexity of tools and the number of CRFs included do not ensure best performance with poor assessment of (internal or comparative) validity. Internationally, FRAX® is the most commonly recommended tool, in addition to QFracture in the UK, The Canadian Association of Radiologists and Osteoporosis Canada (CAROC) tool in Canada and Garvan in Australia. All tools estimate standard 10-year risk of major osteoporotic and 10-year risk of hip fracture: FRAX® is able to estimate fracture risk either with or without BMD, but CAROC and Garvan both require BMD and QFracture does not. The best evidence for the utility of these tools is in case finding but there may be future prospects for the use of 10-year fracture risk as a common currency with reference to the benefits of treatment, whether pharmacological or lifestyle. The use of this metric is important in supporting health economic analyses. However, further calibration studies will be needed to prove that the tools are robust and that their estimates can be used in supporting treatment decisions, independent of BMD.

Osteoporosis's Menopausal Epidemiological Risk Observation (O.M.E.R.O.) study

Osteoporosis (OP) and related fractures are well-known severe conditions affecting quality of life and life expectancy of postmenopausal women, with high economic costs in Europe. On behalf of The Italian Society of Gynecology and Obstetrics (Società Italiana di Ginecologia ed Ostetricia, SIGO), the Osteoporosis's Menopausal Epidemiological Risk Observation (O.M.E.R.O.) study, a national multicenter study on clinical risk factors of OP was organized, using FRAX® tool as a reference. Here, data from this study are presented, showing an important portion of Italian postmenopausal women affected by osteopenia/OP at high risk of fracture and the need to do prevention and/or treatment. Gynecologist can be a primary specialist in this important challenge.

Physicians' attitudes to contemporary issues on osteoporosis management in Korea

Background

In management of osteoporosis, several concerns here have been raised. The current issue included the utilization of dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and fracture-risk assessment (FRAX), screening of vitamin D deficiency and secondary osteoporosis, and long-term use of bisphosphonate and calcium supplements. There was no study on physicians' attitude on these current issues in Korea. Therefore, we investigated the physicians' attitude on these issues by survey.

Methods

We administered a 30-item questionnaire to all members of Korean Society for Bone and Mineral Research by email survey form. One hundred participants answered the questionnaire. The questionnaire included the questions about the physicians' attitude to current issues and the barriers to osteoporosis treatment in Korea.

Results

Most physicians used bone densitometry devices (99%) and, central DXA was the most accessible device (95%). Eighty-eight percent were aware of FRAX®, but among them, only 19.3% used it. The main reason for not using FRAX® was the lack of time in their proactive (76%). Screening for vitamin D status and secondary osteoporosis was performed by 59% and 52% of the respondents, respectively. The lack of awareness among patients and high costs of medication were perceived as the most important barriers to osteoporosis management in Korea.

Conclusions

This study provides physicians' perspective to the current issue for diagnostic and treatment of osteoporosis in Korea. To further improve osteoporosis management, educational programs for patients and doctors, and the improvement of reimbursement system should be considered in Korea.

When the FRAX(®) test is applied to controlled clinical trials

FRAX(®) is a computer-based algorithm developed by the World Health Organization Collaborating Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases in Sheffield (UK). This algorithm calculates fracture probability from easily obtained clinical risk factors in men and women: age, sex, body mass index and dichotomized variables comprising prior fragility fracture, parental history of hip fracture, current tobacco smoking, use of long-term oral glucocorticoid, rheumatoid arthritis, other causes of secondary osteoporosis and high alcohol consumption (femoral neck bone mineral density can be optionally input to enhance fracture risk prediction). The output of FRAX(®) is the 10-year probability of a major osteoporotic fracture (hip, clinical spine, humerus or wrist fracture) and the 10-year probability of hip fracture.Recently various Authors have re-evaluated the effectiveness of drugs approved for postmenopausal osteoporosis to test whether they are more effective in women with higher FRAX(®) probabilities.