Performance of FRAX in older adults with frailty: the Framingham Heart Study.

We compared the performance of FRAX according to frailty status in 3554 individuals from the Framingham Study. During 10-year follow-up, 6.9% and 3.0% of participants with and without frailty experienced MOF. Discrimination profiles were lower in participants with frailty compared to those without, but they improved when FRAX included BMD. INTRODUCTION: Frailty increases fracture risk. FRAX was developed to predict fractures but never validated in individuals with frailty. We aimed to compare the predictive performance of FRAX (v4.3) in individuals with and without frailty. METHODS: We conducted a cohort study using the Framingham Heart Study. Frailty was defined by the Fried phenotype. Major osteoporotic fractures (MOF) were ascertained from medical records during 10-year follow-up. To evaluate discrimination and calibration of FRAX, we calculated the area-under-the-receiver-operating characteristics curves (AUC) using logistic regression models and observed-to-predicted fracture probabilities. Analyses were stratified by frailty status. RESULTS: Frailty was present in 550/3554 (15.5%) of participants. Participants with frailty were older (81.1 vs. 67.6 years), female (68.6% vs. 55.1%), and had greater mean FRAX scores (MOF: 15.9% vs. 10.1%) than participants without frailty. During follow-up, 38 participants with frailty (6.9%) and 91 without (3.0%) had MOFs. The AUC for FRAX (without BMD) was lower in participants with frailty (0.584; 95% CI 0.504-0.663) compared to those without (0.695; 95% CI 0.649-0.741); p value = 0.02. Among participants with frailty, the AUC improved when FRAX included BMD (AUC 0.658, p value < 0.01). FRAX overestimated MOF risk, with larger overestimations in individuals without frailty. Performance of FRAX for hip fracture was similar. CONCLUSION: FRAX may have been less able to identify frail individuals at risk for fracture, as compared with individuals without frailty, unless information on BMD is available. This suggests that BMD captures features important for fracture prediction in frail persons. Future fracture prediction models should be developed among persons with frailty.

An electronic health record (EHR)-based risk calculator can predict fractures comparably to FRAX: a proof-of-concept study.

Information in the electronic health record (EHR), such as diagnoses, vital signs, utilization, medications, and laboratory values, may predict fractures well without the need to verbally ascertain risk factors. In our study, as a proof of concept, we developed and internally validated a fracture risk calculator using only information in the EHR. PURPOSE: Fracture risk calculators, such as the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool, or FRAX, typically lie outside the clinician workflow. Conversely, the electronic health record (EHR) is at the center of the clinical workflow, and many variables in the EHR could predict fractures without having to verbally ascertain FRAX risk factors. We sought to evaluate the utility of EHR variables to predict fractures and, as a proof of concept, to create an EHR-based fracture risk model. METHODS: Routine clinical data from 24,189 subjects presenting to primary care from 2010 to 2018 was utilized. Major osteoporotic fractures (MOFs) were captured by physician diagnosis codes. Data was split into training (n = 18,141) and test sets (n = 6048). We fit Cox regression models for candidate risk factors in the training set, and then created a global model using a backward stepwise approach. We then applied the model to the test set and compared the discrimination and calibration to FRAX. RESULTS: We found variables related to vital signs, utilization, diagnoses, medications, and laboratory values to be associated with incident MOF. Our final model included 19 variables, including age, BMI, Parkinson's disease, chronic kidney disease, and albumin levels. When applied to the test set, we found the discrimination (AUC 0.73 vs. 0.70, p = 0.08) and calibration were comparable to FRAX. CONCLUSION: Routinely collected data in EHR systems can generate adequate fracture predictions without the need to verbally ascertain fracture risk factors. In the future, this could allow for automated fracture prediction at the point of care to improve osteoporosis screening and treatment rates.

Race-specific FRAX models are evidence-based and support equitable care: a response to the ASBMR Task Force report on Clinical Algorithms for Fracture Risk.

Task Force on 'Clinical Algorithms for Fracture Risk' commissioned by the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) Professional Practice Committee has recommended that FRAX® models in the US do not include adjustment for race and ethnicity. This position paper finds that an agnostic model would unfairly discriminate against the Black, Asian and Hispanic communities and recommends the retention of ethnic and race-specific FRAX models for the US, preferably with updated data on fracture and death hazards. In contrast, the use of intervention thresholds based on a fixed bone mineral density unfairly discriminates against the Black, Asian and Hispanic communities in the US. This position of the Working Group on Epidemiology and Quality of Life of the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) is endorsed both by the IOF and the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO).

Establish and validate the reliability of predictive models in bone mineral density by deep learning as examination tool for women.

While FRAX with BMD could be more precise in estimating the fracture risk, DL-based models were validated to slightly reduce the number of under- and over-treated patients when no BMD measurements were available. The validated models could be used to screen for patients at a high risk of fracture and osteoporosis. PURPOSE: Fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX) is useful in classifying the fracture risk level, and precise prediction can be achieved by estimating both clinical risk factors and bone mineral density (BMD) using dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). However, DXA is not frequently feasible because of its cost and accessibility. This study aimed to establish the reliability of deep learning (DL)-based alternative tools for screening patients at a high risk of fracture and osteoporosis. METHODS: Participants were enrolled from the National Bone Health Screening Project of Taiwan in this cross-sectional study. First, DL-based models were built to predict the lowest T-score value in either the lumbar spine, total hip, or femoral neck and their respective BMD values. The Bland-Altman analysis was used to compare the agreement between the models and DXA. Second, the predictive model to classify patients with a high fracture risk was built according to the estimated BMD from the first step and the FRAX score without BMD. The performance of the model was compared with the classification based on FRAX with BMD. RESULTS: Approximately 10,827 women (mean age, 65.4 ± 9.4 years) were enrolled. In the prediction of the lumbar spine BMD, total hip BMD, femoral neck BMD, and lowest T-score, the root-mean-square error (RMSE) was 0.099, 0.089, 0.076, and 0.68, respectively. The Bland-Altman analysis revealed a nonsignificant difference between the predictive models and DXA. The FRAX score with femoral neck BMD for major osteoporotic fracture risk was 9.7% ± 6.7%, whereas the risk for hip fracture was 3.3% ± 4.6%. Comparison between the classification of FRAX with and without BMD revealed the accuracy rate, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of 78.8%, 64.6%, and 89.9%, respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), accuracy rate, PPV, and NPV of the classification model were 0.913 (95% confidence interval: 0.904-0.922), 83.5%, 71.2%, and 92.2%, respectively. CONCLUSION: While FRAX with BMD could be more precise in estimating the fracture risk, DL-based models were validated to slightly reduce the number of under- and over-treated patients when no BMD measurements were available. The validated models could be used to screen for patients at a high risk of fracture and osteoporosis.

Screening and management of osteoporosis: a survey of knowledge, attitude, and practice among healthcare professionals in Egypt-a study by the Egyptian Academy of Bone Health.

Secondary-level healthcare professionals, mainly rheumatologists and orthopedic surgeons, were invited to participate in an online survey questionnaire to assess knowledge and compliance with osteoporosis management guidelines and strategies, as well as self-reported quality of care. About 51% of the participants admit that they do not implement specific guidelines for the management of osteoporosis in their standard practice and depend on their experience and their clinical judgments. Moreover, although a good percentage (58%) had satisfactory knowledge levels in domains on the risk of osteoporotic fractures and investigations of osteoporosis, 47.5% of the participants did not score satisfactorily in questions on pharmacotherapy, especially for those patients at high risk for fractures. INTRODUCTION: A recently published study demonstrated a treatment gap among those eligible for osteoporosis therapy in Egypt of about 82.1% in postmenopausal women and 100% in men. The current survey aimed to address some of the factors that may contribute to this wide gap. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study of secondary care healthcare professionals (both physicians and orthopedic surgeons) who were invited to complete an online questionnaire, which gathered information about physicians' socio-demographic data, knowledge, and compliance with osteoporosis management guidelines and strategies, as well as self-reported quality of care. Additionally, a knowledge score was calculated for all the participants. RESULTS: A good percentage (58%) had a satisfactory knowledge level in domains on the risk of osteoporotic fractures and investigations of osteoporosis; however, 47.5% did not score satisfactorily in questions on pharmacotherapy, especially for those patients at high risk for fractures. CONCLUSIONS: This work has identified some of the barriers to implementing guidelines for osteoporosis and fragility fracture management. In the meantime, it highlights the urgency of intensifying efforts to develop the knowledge and attitude of the healthcare professionals dealing with this condition in Egypt.

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.

Clinical utility of the fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX) in biopsy-confirmed coeliac disease.

BACKGROUND: People with coeliac disease (CD) are at increased risk of osteoporosis and fractures. Currently, baseline dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is recommended for all patients with newly diagnosed CD. We aimed to determine the prevalence of osteoporosis and the clinical utility of the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) in predicting major osteoporotic fractures (MOF) in patients with biopsy-proven CD. METHODS: We retrospectively collected data for consecutive adult patients with biopsy-proven CD between 2001 and 2015 who underwent DXA scanning within 1 year of diagnosis and were followed up for a minimum of 7 years. Fracture risk was assessed using FRAX scores, and the incidence of major osteoporotic fractures during the follow-up period was analysed. RESULTS: A total of 593 patients (median age 45.0 years, 68.5% female) were included. The prevalence of osteopenia and osteoporosis were 32.3% and 14.5%, respectively. Increasing age (OR 1.06, p < .0001), decreasing BMI (OR 0.90, p = .003), and higher baseline immunoglobulin A-tissue tissue transglutaminase titre (OR 1.04, p = .03) were significantly associated with increased risk of osteoporosis. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of the FRAX tool to predict MOF were 21.2%, 91.3%, 16.3%, 93.5%, respectively. A higher risk of fractures was associated with ongoing gluten exposure (OR 1.86, p = .02), previous fractures (OR 2.69, p = .005), and older age (OR 1.03, p < .0001). CONCLUSION: Osteoporosis is a common finding in patients with CD. The FRAX tool showed high specificity in predicting osteoporotic fractures and could be used to aid with patient selection for DXA scanning in some cases.

An overview of the use of the fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX) in osteoporosis.

FRAX®, a simple-to-use fracture risk calculator, was first released in 2008 and since then has been used increasingly worldwide. By calculating the 10-year probabilities of a major osteoporotic fracture and hip fracture, it assists clinicians when deciding whether further investigation, for example a bone mineral density measurement (BMD), and/or treatment is needed to prevent future fractures. In this review, we explore the literature around osteoporosis and how FRAX has changed its management. We present the characteristics of this tool and describe the use of thresholds (diagnostic and therapeutic). We also present arguments as to why screening with FRAX should be considered. FRAX has several limitations which are described in this review. This review coincides with the release of a version, FRAXplus, which addresses some of these limitations.

Fracture Risk with Modified FRAX in Men Living with HIV.

BACKGROUND: Aging of the HIV-infected population and prolonged use of ARTs, produced metabolic alterations, including increased fracture risk. FRAX is a validated, computer-based clinical fracture risk calculator which estimates 10-year risk of major fracture, and hip fracture. However may underestimate risk in HIV-infected individuals. Several experts recommend considering HIV a cause of secondary osteoporosis. METHODOLOGY: Were included 52 men living with HIV, classified as high, moderate and low risk using ABRASSO graphic tool. RESULTS: High risk prevalence found for major fracture and hip fracture were both 2 (4.2 %) using FRAX; while 10 (20.8 %) and 14 (29.2 %) using modified FRAX, respectively. Considering bone densitometry, 5 (12.8 %) were high risk for hip fracture and was noticed an increase in high risk major fracture from 4.2 % with FRAX to 5.1 % with FRAX considering bone densitometry. As for the low risk, 19 (39.6 %) for major fracture and 23 (47.9 %) for hip fracture with FRAX. While low risk modified FRAX were 0 (0 %) for major fracture and 8 (16.7 %) for hip fracture. It was also evidenced an association of high risk for major fracture and hip fracture with modified FRAX using Fisher's exact test [p=0.0273 (bilateral)]. CONCLUSION: It was concluded is recommended using modified FRAX for people living with HIV for better control and therapeutic decision-making about osteometabolic alterations provocated for the virus and ARTs.

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.

Fracture Risk Assessment Tool-Based Screening for Osteoporosis in Older Adults in Resource-Limited Settings.

PURPOSE: Osteoporosis is a pressing public health concern among older adults, contributing to substantial mortality and morbidity rates. Low- to middle-income countries (LMICs) often grapple with limited access to dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), the gold standard for early osteoporosis detection. This study aims to assess the performance of the FRAX® score as a population-wide screening tool for predicting osteoporosis risk, rather than fracture, in individuals aged 50 and above within an LMIC context. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study (n=864) assessed the performance of the FRAX® score for predicting osteoporosis risk using comparative c-statistics from Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves. Hazard ratios (HR) and 95 % confidence intervals (CI) were calculated, with p-values <0.05 indicating statistically significant. RESULTS: The 10-year FRAX® probability for hip fracture, calculated without bone mass density (BMD), exhibited significantly superior performance compared to the 10-year FRAX® probability for major fracture in predicting osteoporosis risk (AUROC: 0.71 versus 0.67, p<0.001). Within 2 to 10 years of follow-up, the 10-year FRAX® probability for hip fracture showed both greater predictive performance and net benefit in the decision curve compared to the FRAX® 10-year probability for major fracture. A newly established cutoff of 1.9 % yielded a negative predictive value of 92.9 % (95 %CI: 90.4-94.8 %) for the 10-year FRAX® probability for hip fracture. CONCLUSION: The 10-year FRAX® probability for hip fracture estimated without BMD emerges as an effective 10-year screening tool for identifying osteoporosis risk in aged 50 and older, especially when confronted with limited access to DXA scans in LMICs. MINI ABSTRACT: The Fracture Risk Assessment Tool score performance as an osteoporosis screening tool was assessed in areas with limited dual-energy X-ray access. The hip fracture probability showed better performance than major fracture probability within 2 to 10 years. The tool emerges as effective for screening osteoporosis risk in individuals over 50.

Predictive role of FRAX© for postoperative proximal junctional kyphosis with vertebral fracture after adult spinal deformity surgery.

PURPOSE: To identify risk factors, including FRAX (a tool for assessing osteoporosis) scores, for development of proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK), defined as Type 2 in the Yagi-Boachie classification (bone failure), with vertebral fracture (VF) after surgery for symptomatic adult spinal deformity. METHODS: This was a retrospective, single institution study of 127 adults who had undergone corrective long spinal fusion of six or more spinal segments for spinal deformity and been followed up for at least 2 years. The main outcome was postoperative development of PJK with VF. Possible predictors of this outcome studied included age at surgery, BMI, selected radiographic measurements, bone mineral density, and 10-year probability of major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) as determined by FRAX. We also analyzed use of medications for osteoporosis. Associations between the selected variables and PJK with VF were assessed by the Mann-Whitney, Fishers exact, and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, and Kaplan-Meier analysis, as indicated. RESULTS: Forty patients (31.5%) developed PJK with VF postoperatively,73% of them within 6 months of surgery. Statistical analysis of the selected variables found that only a preoperative estimate by FRAX of a > 15% risk of MOF within 10 years, pelvic tilt > 30° at first standing postoperatively and lower instrumented level (fusion terminating at the pelvis) were significantly associated with development of PJK with VF. CONCLUSION: Preoperative assessment of severity of osteoporosis using FRAX provides an accurate estimate of risk of postoperative PJK with VF after surgery for adult spinal deformity.

Osteoporosis and cement usage in total hip arthroplasty.

PURPOSE: Cement usage in total hip arthroplasty (THA) is increasingly common. However, osteoporosis-related fracture risk in cemented vs uncemented THA patients is poorly characterized. We aim to analyze the usage of metabolic bone care and osteoporosis fracture risk in cemented vs uncemented THA patients using FRAX and radiographic bone measurements. METHODS: Chart review on 250 THA patients was performed retrospectively. Demographics, FRAX scores, hip radiograph measurements, osteoporosis diagnosis, treatment and screening were compared between cemented and uncemented THA patients. Logistic regression model was used to analyze factors influencing cement usage. RESULTS: Cemented THA patients have significantly higher osteoporosis-related fracture risk as measured by FRAX major (20% vs 13%) and FRAX hip (8% vs 5%). There is no significant difference in osteoporosis treatment, vitamin D / calcium supplementation, or metabolic bone disease screening based on patients' cement status. Female sex and rheumatoid arthritis status significantly predict cement usage, but FRAX scores do not predict cement usage. Additionally, 50% (10/20) of patients with Dorr C classification were uncemented. CONCLUSION: Although some patients undergoing THA with high osteoporosis-related fracture risk were identified and cemented, some risk factors including poor proximal femur shape (by Dorr classification) and poor bone quality (as measured by FRAX score) were potentially overlooked. Cemented patients had an increased risk for fractures but did not receive appropriately increased osteoporosis screening or treatment. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Fracture prediction in rheumatoid arthritis: validation of FRAX with bone mineral density for incident major osteoporotic fractures.

OBJECTIVES: FRAX® uses clinical risk factors, with or without bone mineral density (BMD), to calculate 10-year fracture risk. Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a risk factor for osteoporotic fracture and a FRAX input variable. FRAX predates the current era of RA treatment. We examined how well FRAX predicts fracture in contemporary RA patients. METHODS: Administrative data from patients receiving BMD testing were linked to the Manitoba Population Health Research Data Repository. Observed cumulative 10-year Major Osteoporotic Fracture (MOF) probability was compared with FRAX-predicted 10-year MOF probability with BMD for assessing calibration. MOF risk stratification was assessed using Cox regression. RESULTS: RA patients (N = 2,099, 208 with incident MOF) and non-RA patients (N = 2,099, with 165 incident MOF) were identified. For RA patients, FRAX predicted 10-year risk was 13.2% and observed 10-year MOF risk was 13.2% (95% CI 11.6% to 15.1%). The slope of the calibration plot was 0.67 (95% CI 0.53-0. 81) in those with RA vs 0.98 (95% CI 0.61-1.34) in non-RA patients. Risk was overestimated in RA patients with high FRAX scores (>20%), but FRAX was well-calibrated in other groups. FRAX stratified risk in those with and without RA (hazard ratios 1.52, 95% 1.25-1.72 vs 2.00, 95% 1.73-2.31), with slightly better performance in the latter (p-interaction = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: FRAX predicts fracture risk in contemporary RA patients but may slightly overestimate risk in those already at high predicted risk. Thus, the current FRAX tool continues to be appropriate for fracture risk assessment in RA patients.

A summary of the Russian clinical guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis.

Key statements of the Russian clinical guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis are summarized. They were developed by a task force representing the key Russian professional associations involved in the management of osteoporosis and approved by the Russian Ministry of Health. PURPOSE: To summarize key statements of the Russian clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis. METHODS: The Russian clinical guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis were developed by a task force representing the key Russian professional associations involved in the management of osteoporosis: These comprised the Russian Association of Endocrinologists, the Russian Association for Osteoporosis, the Association of Rheumatologists of Russia, the Association of Orthopedic surgeons and Traumatologists of Russia, the Russian Association of Gynecologists-Endocrinologists, and the Russian Association of Gerontologists and Geriatrics. The guidelines are based on a systematic literature review and principles of evidence-based medicine and were compiled in accordance with the requirements for clinical recommendations developed by the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation. RESULTS: Key statements included in the Russian guidelines of osteoporosis approved by the Russian Ministry of Health in 2021 are summarized. The statements are graded based on levels of evidence and supported by short comments. The guidelines are focused on the current approach to screening, diagnosis, differential diagnosis, and treatment of osteoporosis. CONCLUSION: These guidelines are a practical tool for general practitioners, as well as medical specialists, primarily endocrinologists, rheumatologists, orthopedic surgeons, and other physicians who are involved in the management of patients with osteoporosis.

Adjusting conventional FRAX estimates of fracture probability according to the number of prior falls in the preceding year.

A greater propensity to falling is associated with higher fracture risk. This study provides adjustments to FRAX-based fracture probabilities accounting for the number of prior falls. INTRODUCTION: Prior falls increase subsequent fracture risk but are not currently directly included in the FRAX tool. The aim of this study was to quantify the effect of the number of prior falls on the 10-year probability of fracture determined with FRAX®. METHODS: We studied 21,116 women and men age 40 years or older (mean age 65.7 ± 10.1 years) with fracture probability assessment (FRAX®), self-reported falls for the previous year, and subsequent fracture outcomes in a registry-based cohort. The risks of death, hip fracture, and non-hip major osteoporotic fracture (MOF-NH) were determined by Cox proportional hazards regression for fall number category versus the whole population (i.e., an average number of falls). Ten-year probabilities of hip fracture and major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) were determined according to the number of falls from the hazards of death and fracture incorporated into the FRAX model for the UK. The probability ratios (number of falls vs. average number of falls) provided adjustments to conventional FRAX estimates of fracture probability according to the number of falls. RESULTS: Compared with the average number of falls, the hazard ratios for hip fracture, MOF-NH and death were lower than unity in the absence of a fall history. Hazard ratios increased progressively with an increasing number of reported falls. The probability ratio rose progressively as the number of reported falls increased. Probability ratios decreased with age, an effect that was more marked the greater the number of prior falls. CONCLUSION: The probability ratios provide adjustments to conventional FRAX estimates of fracture probability according to the number of prior falls.

Fracture risk and assessment in adults with cancer.

Individuals with cancer face unique risk factors for osteoporosis and fractures. Clinicians must consider the additive effects of cancer-specific factors, including treatment-induced bone loss, and premorbid fracture risk, utilizing FRAX score and bone mineral densitometry when available. Pharmacologic therapy should be offered as per cancer-specific guidelines, when available, or local general osteoporosis guidelines informed by clinical judgment and patient preferences. Our objective was to review and summarize the epidemiologic burden of osteoporotic fracture risk and fracture risk assessment in adults with cancer, and recommended treatment thresholds for cancer treatment-induced bone loss, with specific focus on breast, prostate, thyroid, gynecological, multiple myeloma, and hematopoietic stem cell transplant. This narrative review was informed by PubMed searches to July 25, 2022, that combined terms for cancer, stem cell transplantation, fracture, bone mineral density (BMD), trabecular bone score, FRAX, Garvan nomogram or fracture risk calculator, QFracture, prediction, and risk factors. The literature informs that cancer can impact bone health in numerous ways, leading to both systemic and localized decreases in BMD. Many cancer treatments can have detrimental effects on bone health. In particular, hormone deprivation therapies for hormone-responsive cancers such as breast cancer and prostate cancer, and hematopoietic stem cell transplant for hematologic malignancies, adversely affect bone turnover, resulting in osteoporosis and fractures. Surgical treatments such as hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy for gynecological cancers can also lead to deleterious effects on bone health. Radiation therapy is well documented to cause localized bone loss and fractures. Few studies have validated the use of fracture risk prediction tools in the cancer population. Guidelines on cancer-specific treatment thresholds are limited, and major knowledge gaps still exist in fracture risk and fracture risk assessment in patients with cancer. Despite the limitations of current knowledge on fracture risk assessment and treatment thresholds in patients with cancer, clinicians must consider the additive effects of bone damaging factors to which these patients are exposed and their premorbid fracture risk profile. Pharmacologic treatment should be offered as per cancer-specific guidelines when available, or per local general osteoporosis guidelines, in accordance with clinical judgment and patient preferences.

The need to distinguish intervention thresholds and diagnostic thresholds in the management of osteoporosis.

This position paper of the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) and the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO) addresses the rationale for separate diagnostic and intervention thresholds in osteoporosis. We conclude that the current BMD-based diagnostic criteria for osteoporosis be retained whilst clarity is brought to bear on the distinction between diagnostic and intervention thresholds.

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.