The association of FRAX with predictors of falls in the assessment of postmenopausal osteoporosis in Turkey: the fracture study of Turkey (FRACT study).

Although FRAX is used for fracture risk evaluation, this tool does not include balance and fall risk. The association between the predictors of falls and high FRAX scores we found in this study suggests that risk indicators for falls may add substantial value to FRAX by improving fracture risk prediction. PURPOSE: This observational, descriptive, and cross-sectional study aimed to assess the fall risk predictors and explore their association with FRAX in Turkish patients with postmenopausal osteoporosis. METHODS: Two hundred and nine (209) women with postmenopausal osteoporosis referred to the Fracture Liaison Service (FLS) at Istanbul University-Cerrahpasa were enrolled in the FRACT study (The Fracture Study of Turkey). Clinical risk factors were assessed using the FRAX tool. Tandem stance, Tandem walking, Timed up and go (TUG), and Chair stand tests were performed to assess balance and fall risk. RESULTS: Among patients with a mean age of 67.6 (± 9.7) years, 66 patients (31.6%) had osteoporosis without fractures and 143 patients (68.4%) had fragility fractures. The proportion of patients with poor performance of fall prediction tests was significantly higher in patients with a fragility fracture than those with osteoporosis alone. There was an inverse relationship between dynamic balance tests and the reported number of prior falls in the past year. FRAX score was higher in patients with impaired Tandem stance, Tandem walking, and TUG tests (p = 0.008, p = 0.035, p = 0.001, respectively). CONCLUSION: Assessment of fall risk predictors should be one of the major pillars in the physical evaluation of osteoporotic patients in the FLS setting. FRAX is a useful tool to determine the fracture risk of patients with both static and dynamic balance impairments. Combining balance assessment with FRAX may be an important step to optimize osteoporosis risk assessment.

Bisphosphonate alternative regimens for the prevention of osteoporotic fragility fractures: BLAST-OFF, a mixed-methods study.

Background: Bisphosphonates are a class of medication commonly used to treat osteoporosis. Alendronate is recommended as the first-line treatment; however, long-term adherence (both treatment compliance and persistence) is poor. Alternative bisphosphonates are available, which can be given intravenously and have been shown to improve long-term adherence. However, the most clinically effective and cost-effective alternative bisphosphonate regimen remains unclear. What is the most cost-effective bisphosphonate in clinical trials may not be the most cost-effective or acceptable to patients in everyday clinical practice. Objectives: 1. Explore patient, clinician and stakeholder views, experiences and preferences of alendronate compared to alternative bisphosphonates. 2. Update and refine the 2016 systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis of bisphosphonates, and estimate the value of further research into their benefits. 3. Undertake stakeholder/consensus engagement to identify important research questions and further rank research priorities. Methods: The study was conducted in two stages, stages 1A and 1B in parallel, followed by stage 2: • Stage 1A - we elicited patient and healthcare experiences to understand their preferences of bisphosphonates for the treatment of osteoporosis. This was undertaken by performing a systematic review and framework synthesis of qualitative studies, followed by semistructured qualitative interviews with participants. • Stage 1B - we updated and expanded the existing Health Technology Assessment systematic review and clinical and cost-effectiveness model, incorporating a more comprehensive review of treatment efficacy, safety, side effects, compliance and long-term persistence. • Stage 2 - we identified and ranked further research questions that need to be answered about the effectiveness and acceptability of bisphosphonates. Results: Patients and healthcare professionals identified a number of challenges in adhering to bisphosphonate medication, balancing the potential for long-term risk reduction against the work involved in adhering to oral alendronate. Intravenous zoledronate treatment was generally more acceptable, with such regimens perceived to be more straightforward to engage in, although a portion of patients taking alendronate were satisfied with their current treatment. Intravenous zoledronate was found to be the most effective, with higher adherence rates compared to the other bisphosphonates, for reducing the risk of fragility fracture. However, oral bisphosphonates are more cost-effective than intravenous zoledronate due to the high cost of zoledronate administration in hospital. The importance of including patients and healthcare professionals when setting research priorities is recognised. Important areas for research were related to patient factors influencing treatment selection and effectiveness, how to optimise long-term care and the cost-effectiveness of delivering zoledronate in an alternative, non-hospital setting. Conclusions: Intravenous zoledronate treatment was generally more acceptable to patients and found to be the most effective bisphosphonate and with greater adherence; however, the cost-effectiveness relative to oral alendronate is limited by its higher zoledronate hospital administration costs. Future work: Further research is needed to support people to make decisions influencing treatment selection, effectiveness and optimal long-term care, together with the clinical and cost-effectiveness of intravenous zoledronate administered in a non-hospital (community) setting. Limitations: Lack of clarity and limitations in the many studies included in the systematic review may have under-interpreted some of the findings relating to effects of bisphosphonates. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN10491361. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR127550) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 21. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Bisphosphonates are drug treatments commonly used to treat osteoporosis. Alendronate is the most used and is taken by mouth, weekly at a specific time of the week, which can be challenging. Less than one in four people continue this treatment beyond 2 years. Alternative bisphosphonates are available, which vary in frequency and how they are administered. The most acceptable and best value-for-money regimen is unclear. Our aim was to determine how effective alternative bisphosphonates are compared to alendronate at preventing fractures and whether reduction in fracture risk was achieved at a reasonable financial cost, but acceptable to patients. The study was conducted in two stages, stages 1A and 1B in parallel, followed by stage 2: Stage 1A: a review of the published evidence on patients' and doctors' views, experiences and preferences regarding different bisphosphonate treatment regimens, followed by interviews with patients and healthcare professionals. Stage 1B: an update of an existing study on how effective bisphosphonates are in preventing fragility fractures caused by osteoporosis and whether they are good value for money. Stage 2: identification of questions that need to be answered about the effectiveness and acceptability of bisphosphonate treatments. Taking bisphosphonate medication often involves quite a lot of effort by patients, particularly when taking alendronate tablets. A yearly infusion of zoledronate treatment was more acceptable, easier to engage with and the most effective treatment compared to alendronate. However, the cost of administering zoledronate in hospital made alendronate better value for money. Bisphosphonates are effective in reducing the risk of fracture, but 'continuing with treatment', particularly alendronate tablets, remains a challenge. A yearly infusion of zoledronate offers an acceptable and effective treatment, but further research is needed to support patients and healthcare professionals in making decisions about the various treatments, benefits and cost savings of administering zoledronate outside of hospital and in the community.

Ten-year fracture risk in Japanese patients with myasthenia gravis: A comprehensive assessment using the fracture risk assessment tool.

BACKGROUND: Myasthenia gravis (MG) is an immune disorder that causes muscle weakness with an increasing prevalence, particularly among the elderly in Japan. Glucocorticoid treatment for MG is problematic for bone health because of reduced bone density and increased fracture risk. The fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX®) can estimate fracture risk, but its applicability in patients with MG remains uncertain. METHODS: A prospective cohort study was conducted on 54 patients with MG between April and July 2012. Bone mineral density (BMD) was measured, and FRAX® scores were calculated with and without BMD. We also adjusted FRAX® scores based on glucocorticoid dosage. Patients were monitored for major osteoporotic fractures (MOF) until June 2022. Statistical analyses included Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: The study group included 12 men and 42 women with a mean age of 62 years. Higher FRAX® scores correlated with increased fracture risk, particularly in the hip and lumbar regions. The 10-year fracture-free rate was significantly lower in the high-FRAX® score group. The FRAX® score using BMD is a significant predictor of MOF risk. The hazard ratio for FRAX® scores was 1.17 (95% CI 1.10-1.26). CONCLUSION: We demonstrated the effectiveness of the FRAX® tool in assessing fracture risk among patients with MG. High FRAX® scores correlated with increased fracture risk, emphasizing its importance. These findings support the incorporation of FRAX® assessment into clinical management to enhance patient care and outcomes. However, the small sample size and observational nature suggest a need for further research.

[Fragility Fractures: Preoperative assessment and optimisation]. / Fragilitätsfraktur beim geriatrischen Patienten: Präoperative Abklärung und Optimierung.

Fragility fractures are associated with high morbidity and mortality. An interdisciplinary collaboration and an individualized, patient-centered approach are essential to ensure an optimized preoperative period and to improve perioperative safety. Preoperative responsibilities of trauma surgery include in the first step the identification of fragility fractures and the necessity for geriatric involvement. Orthogeriatric co-management (OCM) focuses on the identification of the medical, functional and social needs of the patient. In the preoperative period attention is focussed on acute diseases in need of treatment that have a negative impact on the course of further treatment and the prevention of delirium.

Use of Fracture Risk Assessment Tool in clinical practice and Fracture Risk Assessment Tool future directions.

Fracture Risk Assessment Tool is a free, online fracture risk calculator which can be used to predict 10-year fracture risk for women and men over age 50 years. It incorporates seven clinical risk factors and bone density to give a 10-year risk of major osteoporotic fracture and hip fracture. This dynamic tool can be used with patients at the bedside to help guide treatment decisions. There are some limitations to Fracture Risk Assessment Tool, with the most central limitation being the fact that inputs are binary. Much research has been done to try to refine Fracture Risk Assessment Tool to allow for more accurate risk prediction, and this article describes the data for adjusting Fracture Risk Assessment Tool depending on the clinical scenario such as the dose of glucocorticoid use, presence of diabetes and others. Recently, the new FRAXplus tool has been developed to address many of these concerns and will likely replace the old Fracture Risk Assessment Tool in the future. At the current time, it is available in beta form.

Methods for Refining the FRAX® Tool in Patients with Low Bone Density to Help Improve the Accuracy of Osteoporotic Fracture Risk PredictionMany patients who have low bone density develop fragility fractures, even those whose bone density is not yet within the osteoporosis range. Thus, in patients with low bone density, the health care team should estimate the risk of fracture to decide which patients should take medications to prevent fractures. Factors such as age, body mass index, steroid use, family history and other clinical factors can influence the fracture risk, in addition to bone density. There is an online calculator called the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX®) which allows patients and doctors to integrate these risk factors with bone density in order to estimate the 10 year risk of osteoporotic fractures. FRAX® asks a series of yes/no questions about the patient's risks for fracture, and also takes into account the patient's country of residence, age, gender, race and bone density at the femur neck. However, there are some important limitations of this calculator. For example, we think that steroid medications increase the risk of fractures, and the higher the dose, the higher the risk of fractures. However, FRAX® only allows a "yes" or "no" input to the steroid use question. This paper aims to descibe methods for refining the FRAX® calculation to make the fracture risk prediction more accurate. For example, it describes a mathematical adjustment to FRAX® to account for the dose of steroids used. It also reviews methods for FRAX® adjustment for diabetes type 1 and 2, and severity of rheumatoid arthritis, among other considerations. Importantly, there is a new FRAX® tool that is currently in beta testing which will also further refine the accuracy of fracture risk prediction.

Challenges of fracture risk assessment in Asian and Black women.

OBJECTIVES: Bone mineral density (BMD) and fracture risk calculators (eg, the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool [FRAX]) guide primary prevention care in postmenopausal women. BMD scores use non-Hispanic White (NHW) reference data for T-score classification, whereas FRAX incorporates BMD, clinical risk factors, and population differences when calculating risk. This study compares findings among Asian, Black, and NHW women who underwent osteoporosis screening in a US health care system. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cross-sectional study. METHODS: Asian, Black, and NHW women aged 65 to 75 years who underwent BMD testing (with no recent fracture, osteoporosis therapy, metastatic cancer, multiple myeloma, metabolic bone disorders, or kidney replacement therapy) were compared across the following measures: femoral neck BMD (FN-BMD) T-score (normal ≥ -1, osteoporosis ≤ -2.5), high FRAX 10-year hip fracture risk (FRAX-Hip ≥ 3%), FRAX risk factors, and diabetes status. RESULTS: Among 3640 Asian women, 23.8% had osteoporosis and 8.7% had FRAX-Hip scores of at least 3% (34.5% among those with osteoporosis). Among 11,711 NHW women, 12.3% had osteoporosis and 17.2% had FRAX-Hip scores of at least 3% (84.8% among those with osteoporosis). Among 1711 Black women, 68.1% had normal FN-BMD, 4.1% had BMD-defined osteoporosis, and 1.8% had FRAX-Hip scores of at least 3% (32.4% among those with osteoporosis). Fracture risk factors differed by group. Diabetes was 2-fold more prevalent in Black and Asian (35% and 36%, respectively) vs NHW (16%) women. CONCLUSIONS: A large subset of Asian women have discordant BMD and FRAX scores, presenting challenges in osteoporosis management. Furthermore, FN-BMD and especially FRAX scores identified few Black women at high fracture risk warranting treatment. Studies should examine whether fracture risk assessment can be optimized in understudied racial minority populations, particularly when findings are discordant.

Age-dependent FRAX-based assessment and intervention thresholds for therapeutic decision making in osteoporosis in the Malaysian population.

Fracture risk stratification is crucial in countries with limited access to bone density measurement. 24.8% women were in the high-risk category while 30.4% were in the low-risk category. In the intermediate risk group, after recalculation of fracture risk with bone density, 38.3% required treatment. In more than half, treatment decisions can be made without bone density. PURPOSE: We aimed to examine the role of age-dependent intervention thresholds (ITs) applied to the Fracture Risk Assessment (FRAX) tool in therapeutic decision making for osteoporosis in the Malaysian population. METHODS: Data were collated from 1380 treatment-naïve postmenopausal women aged 40-85 years who underwent bone mineral density (BMD) measurements for clinical reasons. Age-dependent ITs, for both major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) and hip fracture (HF), were calculated considering a woman with a BMI of 25 kg/m2, aged between 40 and 85years, with a prior fragility fracture, sans other clinical risk factors. Those with fracture probabilities equal to or above upper assessment thresholds (UATs) were considered to have high fracture risk. Those below the lower assessment thresholds (LATs) were considered to have low fracture risk. RESULTS: The ITs of MOF and HF ranged from 0.7 to 18% and 0.2 to 8%, between 40 and 85years. The LATs of MOF ranged from 0.3 to 11%, while those of HF ranged from 0.1 to 5.2%. The UATs of MOF and HF were 0.8 to 21.6% and 0.2 to 9.6%, respectively. In this study, 24.8% women were in the high-risk category while 30.4% were in the low-risk category. Of the 44.8% (n=618) in the intermediate risk group, after recalculation of fracture risk with BMD input, 38.3% (237/618) were above the ITs while the rest (n=381, 61.7%) were below the ITs. Judged by the Youden Index, 11.5% MOF probability which was associated with a sensitivity of 0.62 and specificity of 0.83 and 4.0% HF probability associated with a sensitivity of 0.63 and a specificity 0.82 were found to be the most appropriate fixed ITs in this analysis. CONCLUSION: Less than half of the study population (44.8%) required BMD for osteoporosis management when age-specific assessment thresholds were applied. Therefore, in more than half, therapeutic decisions can be made without BMD based on these assessment thresholds.

Androgen deprivation therapy-related fracture risk in prostate cancer: an insurance claims database study in Japan.

INTRODUCTION: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is widely used for the treatment of prostate cancer. ADT is associated with reduced bone density leading to an increased risk of osteoporotic fracture. The objective of this retrospective cohort study was to quantify fracture risk in men treated with ADT for prostate cancer in real-world practice in Japan. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were extracted from the Japanese Medical Data Vision (MDV) database. Men initiating ADT for treatment of prostate cancer between April 2010 and March 2021 were identified and matched to a cohort of prostate cancer patients not taking ADT using a propensity score. Fracture rates were estimated by a cumulative incidence function and compared between cohorts using a Cox cause-specific hazard model. Information was extracted on demographics, comorbidities and bone densitometry. RESULTS: 30,561 men with PC starting ADT were matched to 30,561 men with prostate cancer not treated with ADT. Following ADT initiation, <5% of men underwent bone densitometry. Prescription of ADT was associated with an increased fracture risk compared to not taking ADT (adjusted hazard ratio: 1.63 [95% CI 1.52-1.75]). CONCLUSION: ADT is associated with a 1.6-fold increase in the risk of osteoporotic fracture in men with prostate cancer. Densitometry in this population is infrequent and monitoring urgently needs to be improved in order to implement effective fracture prevention.

Simplified S1 Vertebral Bone Quality Score in the Assessment of Patients with Vertebral Fragility Fractures.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of the S1 vertebral bone quality (VBQ) score in assessing bone quality among patients with vertebral fragility fractures (VFF). Additionally, whether the combination of S1 VBQ and Hounsfield unit (HU) values improves the predictive accuracy of VFF. METHODS: Using lumbar noncontrast computed tomography and T1-weighted magnetic resonance imaging, we measured L1 HU values, S1 VBQ, and L1-L4 VBQ. To assess their predictive performance for VFF, we constructed receiver operating characteristic curves. We also compared the diagnostic efficacy of HU values with that of S1 VBQ and L1--L4 VBQ values for the joint diagnosis of VFF. The Delong test was used to compare the value of individual or combined predictions of VFF. RESULTS: In comparison to the nonfracture group, all patients exhibited markedly elevated S1 VBQ and L1--L4 VBQ and notably reduced HU values (P < 0.001). Multivariate analysis revealed that elevated S1 VBQ, increased L1--L4 VBQ, and decreased HU values independently correlated with VFF development. The areas under the curve for VFF prediction were 0.806 for S1 VBQ, 0.799 for L1--L4 VBQ, and 0.820 for HU values. According to the Delong test, the combination of HU values with S1 VBQ/L1--L4 VBQ significantly improved the diagnostic accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: The simplified S1 VBQ is a valuable tool for predicting the occurrence of VFF and can be used as an alternative to the L1--L4 VBQ. In addition, the combination of S1 VBQ and HU values can significantly improve the predictive value of VFF.

Improving morbidity and mortality in hip fragility fractures.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Hip fragility fractures (HFF) carry high morbidity and mortality for patients and will increase in frequency and in proportion to the average patient age. Provision of effective, timely care for these patients can decrease their morbidity and mortality and reduce the large burden they place on the healthcare system. RECENT FINDINGS: There are associative relationships between prefracture frailty, postoperative delirium and increased morbidity and mortality. The use of a multidisciplinary approach to HFF care has shown improved outcomes in care with focus on modifiable factors including admission to specialty care floor, use of peripheral nerve blocks preoperatively and Anesthesia and Physical Therapy involvement in the care team. Peripheral nerve blocks including pericapsular nerve group (PENG) blocks have shown benefit in lowering morbidity and mortality. SUMMARY: HFF are associated with >40% chance of continued pain and inability to return to prefracture functional status at 1 year as well as >30% mortality at 2 years. In this opinion piece, we will discuss how a multidisciplinary approach that includes Anesthesia as well as utilization of peripheral nerve blocks can help to lessen postoperative issues and improve recovery.

The implications of competing risks and direct treatment disutility in cardiovascular disease and osteoporotic fracture: risk prediction and cost effectiveness analysis.

Background: Clinical guidelines commonly recommend preventative treatments for people above a risk threshold. Therefore, decision-makers must have faith in risk prediction tools and model-based cost-effectiveness analyses for people at different levels of risk. Two problems that arise are inadequate handling of competing risks of death and failing to account for direct treatment disutility (i.e. the hassle of taking treatments). We explored these issues using two case studies: primary prevention of cardiovascular disease using statins and osteoporotic fracture using bisphosphonates. Objectives: Externally validate three risk prediction tools [QRISK®3, QRISK®-Lifetime, QFracture-2012 (ClinRisk Ltd, Leeds, UK)]; derive and internally validate new risk prediction tools for cardiovascular disease [competing mortality risk model with Charlson Comorbidity Index (CRISK-CCI)] and fracture (CFracture), accounting for competing-cause death; quantify direct treatment disutility for statins and bisphosphonates; and examine the effect of competing risks and direct treatment disutility on the cost-effectiveness of preventative treatments. Design, participants, main outcome measures, data sources: Discrimination and calibration of risk prediction models (Clinical Practice Research Datalink participants: aged 25-84 years for cardiovascular disease and aged 30-99 years for fractures); direct treatment disutility was elicited in online stated-preference surveys (people with/people without experience of statins/bisphosphonates); costs and quality-adjusted life-years were determined from decision-analytic modelling (updated models used in National Institute for Health and Care Excellence decision-making). Results: CRISK-CCI has excellent discrimination, similar to that of QRISK3 (Harrell's c = 0.864 vs. 0.865, respectively, for women; and 0.819 vs. 0.834, respectively, for men). CRISK-CCI has systematically better calibration, although both models overpredict in high-risk subgroups. People recommended for treatment (10-year risk of ≥ 10%) are younger when using QRISK-Lifetime than when using QRISK3, and have fewer observed events in a 10-year follow-up (4.0% vs. 11.9%, respectively, for women; and 4.3% vs. 10.8%, respectively, for men). QFracture-2012 underpredicts fractures, owing to under-ascertainment of events in its derivation. However, there is major overprediction among people aged 85-99 years and/or with multiple long-term conditions. CFracture is better calibrated, although it also overpredicts among older people. In a time trade-off exercise (n = 879), statins exhibited direct treatment disutility of 0.034; for bisphosphonates, it was greater, at 0.067. Inconvenience also influenced preferences in best-worst scaling (n = 631). Updated cost-effectiveness analysis generates more quality-adjusted life-years among people with below-average cardiovascular risk and fewer among people with above-average risk. If people experience disutility when taking statins, the cardiovascular risk threshold at which benefits outweigh harms rises with age (≥ 8% 10-year risk at 40 years of age; ≥ 38% 10-year risk at 80 years of age). Assuming that everyone experiences population-average direct treatment disutility with oral bisphosphonates, treatment is net harmful at all levels of risk. Limitations: Treating data as missing at random is a strong assumption in risk prediction model derivation. Disentangling the effect of statins from secular trends in cardiovascular disease in the previous two decades is challenging. Validating lifetime risk prediction is impossible without using very historical data. Respondents to our stated-preference survey may not be representative of the population. There is no consensus on which direct treatment disutilities should be used for cost-effectiveness analyses. Not all the inputs to the cost-effectiveness models could be updated. Conclusions: Ignoring competing mortality in risk prediction overestimates the risk of cardiovascular events and fracture, especially among older people and those with multimorbidity. Adjustment for competing risk does not meaningfully alter cost-effectiveness of these preventative interventions, but direct treatment disutility is measurable and has the potential to alter the balance of benefits and harms. We argue that this is best addressed in individual-level shared decision-making. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42021249959. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: 15/12/22) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 4. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Before offering a medicine to prevent disease, prescribers must expect it to do more good than harm. This balance depends on how likely it is that the person will develop the disease we want to prevent. But people might first die for other reasons. We call this a 'competing risk'. In most cases, the mathematical tools we use to estimate the chance of developing a disease do not account for competing risks. Another problem is that, when weighing up the benefits and harms of medicines, we ignore the hassle they cause patients, even when they do not cause side effects. We used two examples: statins to prevent heart disease and bisphosphonates to prevent fractures. First, we assessed if existing tools get predictions wrong by not accounting for competing risks. We found that they exaggerate the chance of heart attacks and strokes. However, the exaggeration is greatest among people who would clearly benefit from preventative treatment. So it may not change treatment decisions much. The fracture prediction tool we studied was very inaccurate, exaggerating risk among older people, but underestimating risk among younger people. We made a new fracture risk prediction tool. It gave better predictions, but it was still inaccurate for people aged > 85 years and those with several health problems. Next, we asked people questions designed to put a number on the hassle that statins and bisphosphonates cause. Most people thought that taking either is inconvenient, but the hassle factor for bisphosphonates is bigger. Finally, we updated the mathematical models that the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence used when recommending statins and bisphosphonates. We worked out if competing risks and the hassle of taking medicines make a difference to results. Statins remain a good idea for almost everyone, unless they really hate the idea of taking them. But bisphosphonates would do more harm than good for anyone who agrees with the hassle factor we found.

Vertebral fracture severity assessment on anteroposterior radiographs with a new semi-quantitative technique.

We developed a new tool to assess the severity of osteoporotic vertebral fracture using radiographs of the spine. Our technique can be used in patient care by helping to stratify patients with osteoporotic vertebral fractures into appropriate treatment pathways. It can also be used for research purposes. PURPOSE: The aim of our study was to propose a semi-quantitative (SQ) grading scheme for osteoporotic vertebral fracture (OVF) on anteroposterior (AP) radiographs. METHODS: On AP radiographs, the vertebrae are divided into right and left halves, which are graded (A) vertical rectangle, (B) square, (C) traverse rectangle, and (D) trapezoid; whole vertebrae are graded (E) transverse band or (F) bow-tie. Type A and B were compared with normal and Genant SQ grade 1 OVF, Type C and D with grade 2 OVF, and Type E and F with grade 3 OVF. Spine AP radiographs and lateral radiographs of 50 females were assessed by AP radiographs SQ grading. After training, an experienced board-certified radiologist and a radiology trainee assessed the 50 AP radiographs. RESULTS: The height-to-width ratio of the half vertebrae varied 1.32-1.48. On lateral radiographs, 84 vertebrae of the 50 patients had OVFs (38 grade 1, 24 grade 2, and 22 grade 3). On AP radiographs, the radiologist correctly assigned 84.2%, 91.7%, and 77.2% and the trainee correctly assigned 68.4%, 79.2%, and 81.8% of grade 1, 2, and 3 OVFs, respectively. Compared with lateral radiographs, the radiologist had a weighted Kappa of 0.944 including normal vertebrae and 0.883 not including normal vertebrae, while the corresponding Kappa values for the trainee were 0.891 and 0.830, respectively. CONCLUSION: We propose a new semi-quantitative grading system for vertebral fracture severity assessment on AP spine radiographs.

Comparison of the cost-effectiveness of sequential treatment with abaloparatide in US men and women at very high risk of fractures.

BACKGROUND: Osteoporotic-related fractures represent an increasing burden to patients, health care systems and society. AIMS: This study estimated cost-effectiveness of sequential treatment with abaloparatide (ABL) followed by alendronate (ALN) compared to relevant alternative strategies in US men and women aged 50 to 80 years at very high fracture risk (bone mineral density T-score ≤ - 2.5 and a recent fracture). METHODS: A lifetime Markov-based microsimulation model was used to estimate healthcare costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Comparators were sequential treatment with unbranded teriparatide (TPTD)/ALN, generic ALN monotherapy, and no treatment. Analyses were conducted based on initial fracture site (hip, vertebral, or any fracture) and treatment efficacy data (derived from clinical trials or a recent network meta-analysis). RESULTS: From all analyses completed, sequential ABL/ALN demonstrated more QALYs for lower healthcare costs versus unbranded TPTD/ALN. No treatment was dominated (higher costs for less QALYs) versus ALN monotherapy. Sequential ABL/ALN resulted in favorable cost-effectiveness (at US threshold of $150,000/QALY) versus generic ALN monotherapy in men aged ≥ 50 years with any fracture type, women aged ≥ 65 years with any fracture type, and women aged ≥ 55 years having a hip or vertebral fracture. DISCUSSION: Similar cost-effectiveness of sequential ABL/ALN versus unbranded TPTD/ALN, ALN monotherapy, and no treatment was observed in both US men and women at very high fracture risk, with a moderate improvement in cost-effectiveness in men versus women and in patients with a hip or vertebral fracture. CONCLUSIONS: Sequential therapy with ABL/ALN was cost-effective in US men and women at very high risk of fractures.

Evaluation of costs, osteoporosis treatment, and re-fractures in German collaborative orthogeriatric care after fragility fractures.

Orthogeriatric co-management (OGCM) may provide benefits for geriatric fragility fracture patients in terms of more frequent osteoporosis treatment and fewer re-fractures. Yet, we did not find higher costs in OGCM hospitals for re-fractures or antiosteoporotic medication for most fracture sites within 12 months, although antiosteoporotic medication was more often prescribed. PURPOSE: Evidence suggests benefits of orthogeriatric co-management (OGCM) for hip fracture patients. Yet, evidence for other fractures is rare. The aim of our study was to conduct an evaluation of economic and health outcomes after the German OGCM for geriatric fragility fracture patients. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study was based on German health and long-term care insurance data. Individuals were 80 years and older, sustained a fragility fracture in 2014-2018, and were treated in hospitals certified for OGCM (ATZ group), providing OGCM without certification (OGCM group) or usual care (control group). Healthcare costs from payer perspective, prescribed medications, and re-fractures were investigated within 6 and 12 months. We used weighted gamma and two-part models and applied entropy balancing to account for the lack of randomization. All analyses were stratified per fracture site. RESULTS: We observed 206,273 patients within 12-month follow-up, of whom 14,100 were treated in ATZ, 133,353 in OGCM, and 58,820 in other hospitals. Total average inpatient costs per patient were significantly higher in the OGCM and particularly ATZ group for all fracture sites, compared to control group. We did not find significant differences in costs for re-fractures or antiosteoporotic medication for most fracture sites, although antiosteoporotic medication was significantly more often observed in the OGCM and particularly ATZ group for hip, pelvic, and humerus fractures. CONCLUSION: The observed healthcare costs were higher in ATZ and OGCM hospitals within 12 months. Antiosteoporotic medication was prescribed more often in both groups for most fracture sites, although the corresponding medication costs did not increase.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of fracture liaison services: a Markov model using Dutch real-world data.

This study assessed the lifetime cost-effectiveness of a fracture liaison service (FLS) compared to no-FLS in the Netherlands from a societal perspective and suggested that FLS was cost-effective in patients with a recent fracture aged 50 years and older. The implementation of FLS could lead to lifetime health-economic benefits. INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to investigate the lifetime cost-effectiveness of a fracture liaison service (FLS) compared to no-FLS in the Netherlands from a societal perspective and using real-world data. METHODS: Annual fracture incidence, treatment scenarios as well as treatment initiation in the years 2017-2019 were collected from a large secondary care hospital in the Netherlands. An individual-level, state transition model was designed to simulate lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Treatment pathways were differentiated by gender, presence of osteoporosis and/or prevalent vertebral fracture, and treatment status. Results were presented as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). Both one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: For patients with a recent fracture aged 50 years and older, the presence of an FLS was associated with a lifetime €45 higher cost and 0.11 additional QALY gained leading to an ICER of €409 per QALY gained, indicating FLS was cost-effective compared to no-FLS at the Dutch threshold of €20,000/QALY. The FLS remained cost-effectiveness across different age categories. Our findings were robust in all one-way sensitivity analyses, the higher the treatment initiation rate in FLS, the greater the cost-effective of FLS. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses revealed that FLS was cost-effective in 90% of the simulations at the threshold of €20,000/QALY, with women 92% versus men 84% by gender. CONCLUSION: This study provides the first health-economic analysis of FLS in the Netherlands, suggesting the implementation of FLS could lead to lifetime health-economic benefits.

Summary of best evidence for self-management in postoperative osteoporotic fracture patients.

Osteoporotic fracture as a serious complication of osteoporosis which is usually treated surgically, and its recovery is closely related to one's own behavior and lifestyle, and is a long-term, complex management process that often requires the individual to self-manage many health-related factors. OBJECTIVE: To gather and synthesize the most robust evidence regarding self-management in patients with postoperative osteoporotic fractures, in order to provide scientific, evidence-based guidance for clinical healthcare professionals to assist postoperative patients in self-management efforts, and to assist patients in optimizing their self-management practices and behavioral norms. METHODS: Based on the "6 S" pyramid model of evidence resources (System, Summaries, Synopses of synthesis, Syntheses, Synopses of studies, Studies), we searched the Up To Date, BMJ Best Practice, The Cochrane Library, Australian Joanna Briggs Institute JBI Evidence-Based Medicine Center Healthcare Database, National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), Guidelines International Network (GIN), National Guideline Clearinghouse (NGC) and Scottish Intercollegiate Guide lines Network (SIGN), MedPulse, Embase, PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, SinoMed, Chinese Medical Journal Full Text Database, CNKI, Wanfang Data Knowledge Service Platform, and VIP database, etc, The search period for clinical decision-making, systematic evaluation, clinical guidelines, evidence summaries and expert consensus on self-management of postoperative osteoporotic fracture patients, and it was from the establishment of the database to 18 February 2023. To ensure the quality of the literature, three researchers strictly screened the literature according to the literature inclusion and exclusion criteria, and two or more researchers independently evaluated the quality of the included literature, and extracted and integrated the relevant evidence. RESULTS: Thirteen documents were finally included, including 4 clinical practice guidelines, 5 expert consensus, 2 recommended practices, 1 systematic evaluation, and 1 clinical decision report. The research team summarized the evidence in 6 dimensions: multidisciplinary teamwork, management of daily living, management of treatment adherence, management of exercise, management of fall prevention and subsequent fracture, and management of emotions, and 33 pieces of evidence were extracted. CONCLUSION: The study summarized 33 best evidence of self-management in postoperative osteoporotic fracture patients, which provides a scientific and reasonable self-management program for postoperative patients, and also provides important reference and information for clinical healthcare professionals to provide more comprehensive and scientific self-management health education to patients.

Understanding the long-term impact of incident osteoporotic fractures on healthcare utilization and costs in Korean postmenopausal women.

This study provides long-term evidence that healthcare resource utilization and costs of care in women who experienced incident osteoporotic fractures remained higher than those in women without fractures over a span of 5 years. These findings emphasize the importance of early diagnostics and treatment for osteoporosis. PURPOSE: To evaluate healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs of care over 5 years after the incident osteoporotic fractures (OF) in postmenopausal women. METHODS: We used data from the National Health Insurance Service databases 2011-2018. Women aged ≥ 50 years with incident OF (OF group) were matched to women without OF (non-OF group). HCRU (inpatient, outpatient, and emergency room [ER] visits) and costs of care (inpatient, outpatient, and ER visits) during the 5-year follow-up period were derived after propensity score matching (PSM). Additionally, we identified women with subsequent fractures within the first 2 years after the incident OF. RESULTS: After PSM, 47,238 OF and 134,813 non-OF women were identified. HCRU rates and costs of care were highest in the first year after OF and decreased substantially, but remained higher in the OF group during the entire follow-up period. The increase in cumulative HCRU rates over 5 years was highest in inpatient admissions with ER visits (138% higher in OF vs non-OF). The cumulative total costs over 5 years were 73% higher in the OF group than in the non-OF group, which was mostly driven by inpatient costs. Trends were similar for women with subsequent fractures, but they generally showed higher HCRU and costs than those in the total OF group. CONCLUSION: OF imposes a substantial and sustained economic burden on women, resulting in an approximately twofold increase in the cumulative cost over 5 years compared to women without fracture, which highlights the need for early diagnostics and treatment of osteoporosis.

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.

Intraoperative pain prediction of percutaneous kyphoplasty under local anesthesia by preoperative experimental pain assessment.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous kyphoplasty (PKP) is the preferred treatment for osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCF) Currently, the preoperative anesthesia methods for PKP are mainly local anesthesia and tracheal intubation general anesthesia. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether patient sensitivity to pain measured preoperatively could predict the patients' pain response during PKP treatment under local anesthesia, to facilitate the development of an optimal preoperative anesthesia plan for patients. METHODS: Fifty-five female patients diagnosed with osteoporotic single vertebral fracture who were treated with PKP under local anesthesia were selected. The patients' pain sensitivities, including pain threshold and pain tolerance threshold, were evaluated with a pain test device on the day before the operation in the ward. Heart rate (HR), mean arterial pressure (MAP), and blood oxygen saturation (SpO2) were recorded before anesthesia, post-anesthesia, after needle puncture, and after balloon dilatation. At the same time, blood was drawn at the above time points to determine the level of norepinephrine (NA) as an indicator of intraoperative pain stress response. The numerical rating scale (NRS) during surgery was recorded at the end of the surgery. RESULTS: The preoperative pain tolerance threshold of 55 surgical patients was correlated with the intraoperative NRS score (r=-0.768, P< 0.001), as well as with the preoperative and intraoperative changes in HR (r=-0.791, P< 0.001), MAP (r=-0.819, P< 0.001), and NA (r=-0.553, P< 0.001). Thus, the lower the preoperative pain tolerance threshold, the more severe the patient's response to pain during PKP treatment under local anesthesia, and the greater the hemodynamic changes. Consequently, the intraoperative experience becomes worse. However, there was no correlation between preoperative pain threshold and NRS scores (r=-0.069, P= 0.616) nor between the preoperative and intraoperative changes in HR (r= 0.103, P= 0.453), MAP (r= 0.086, P= 0.535), and NA (r=-0.058, P= 0.674). CONCLUSION: The results indicated that preoperative pain assessment could predict the level of pain response in OVCF patients during PKP surgery under local anesthesia.