Comparison of fracture risk calculators in elderly fallers: a hospital-based cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: Elderly patients presenting with falls are known to carry an extremely high risk of future fragility fractures. Current osteoporosis guidelines recommend using fracture risk calculators such as FRAX, QFracture or Garvan to guide management. However, they differ considerably in their inputs and may therefore provide contrasting risk estimations in certain individuals. In this study, we compare these risk calculators in a high-risk cohort of elderly patients admitted to hospital with falls. DESIGN: Hospital-based cross-sectional study. SETTING: Secondary care, London, UK. PARTICIPANTS: Data from 120 consecutive elderly patients who had falls presenting to a single hospital over 4 months were collected. 10-year major and hip fracture risks were calculated using FRAX, QFracture and Garvan. 1-year major and hip fracture risks from QFracture were assessed against prospective incidence of fracture. RESULTS: Median 10-year major fracture risk was: FRAX 19.5%, QFracture 26.0%, Garvan 32.5%. Median 10-year hip fracture risk was: FRAX 9.6%, QFracture 21.1%, Garvan 6.5%. Correlation between FRAX and QFracture was r=0.672 for major, r=0.676 for hip fracture (both p<0.0001); FRAX and Garvan r=0.778 (p<0.0001) for major, r=0.128 (p=0.206) for hip fracture; QFracture and Garvan r=0.658 (p<0.0001) for major, r=0.318 (p<0.001) for hip fracture. QFracture 1-year predicted major and hip fracture rates were 1.8% and 1.2%, respectively, compared with actual rates of 2.1% and 0%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Although strong correlations between calculators were observed in the study cohort, there were differences of up to 13% between estimated risks. QFracture captured several elderly-specific inputs not considered by other calculators and so projected higher fracture risk than the other calculators. QFracture provided 1-year fracture risks that were comparable with the prospective observed fracture incidence in the cohort. This study has important clinical implications for the use of fracture risk calculators to guide treatment decisions, particularly in the high-risk cohort of elderly patients admitted to hospital following falls.

Correlation between CSF and blood neurofilament light chain protein: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the overall pooled correlation coefficient estimate between cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and blood neurofilament light (NfL) protein. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase and Web of Science for published articles, from their inception to 9 July 2019, according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. Studies reporting the correlation between CSF and blood NfL in humans were included. We conducted a random-effects meta-analysis to calculate the overall pooled correlation coefficient estimate, accounting for correlation technique and assay used. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic test. In sensitivity analyses, we calculated the pooled correlation coefficient estimate according to blood NfL assay: single-molecule array digital immunoassay (Simoa), electrochemiluminescence (ECL) assay or ELISA. RESULTS: Data were extracted from 36 articles, including 3961 paired CSF and blood NfL samples. Overall, 26/36 studies measured blood NfL using Simoa, 8/36 ECL, 1/36 ELISA and 1 study reported all three assay results. The overall meta-analysis demonstrated that the pooled correlation coefficient estimate for CSF and blood NfL was r=0.72. Heterogeneity was significant: I2=83%, p<0.01. In sensitivity analyses, the pooled correlation coefficient was similar for studies measuring blood NfL using Simoa and ECL (r=0.69 and r=0.68, respectively) but weaker for ELISA (r=0.35). CONCLUSION: Moderate correlations are demonstrated between CSF and blood NfL, especially when blood NfL was measured using Simoa and ECL. Given its high analytical sensitivity, Simoa is the preferred assay for measuring NfL, especially at low or physiological concentrations, and this meta-analysis supports its use as the current most advanced surrogate measure of CSF NfL. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019140469.