[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.

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.

Assessment for bone health in patients with differentiated thyroid carcinoma after postoperative thyroid-stimulating hormone suppression therapy: a new fracture risk assessment algorithm.

Purpose: The fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX) is used to assess the 10-year risk of major site and hip fractures; however, whether this tool can be applied to patients receiving levothyroxine-based thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) suppressive therapy for postoperative differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC) patients is yet to be clarified. Methods and design: A total of 64 patients with DTC following thyroidectomy and oral levothyroxine for TSH suppression therapy and 30 gender- and age-matched controls were collected. The fracture risk was compared between the affected groups with different TSH levels. FRAX was used to calculate the fracture risk with and without bone mineral density (BMD). The TSH level was converted to an age-weighted score to estimate the fracture risk of postoperatively differentiated thyroid cancer patients. The sensitivity, specificity, and area under the AUC curve of the traditional FRAX and the new algorithm for osteoporosis diagnosis were compared. The dual-energy X-ray bone mineral density measurement T score was used as the gold standard to diagnose osteoporosis. Results: There were 24 patients in the T ≥ -1-2.5 group, 23 in the -2.5 < T < -1 group, and 17 in the T ≤ -2.5 group. The T score of BMD in the disease group was significantly lower than that in the control group (p < 0.05). The risk of MOF and hip fracture without a T score were significantly different under various TSH levels (p < 0.05). The area under the curve (AUC) of FRAX without BMD for predicting major osteoporotic fractures (PMOF) and major hip fractures (PHF) was 0.694 and 0.683, respectively. The cutoff values were 2.15% and 0.25%, respectively. The AUC of FRAX with BMD for PMOF and PHF was 0.976 and 0.989, respectively, and the cutoff values were 4.15% and 1.1%, respectively. The AUC of FRAX without BMD for PMOF and PHF was 0.708 and 0.72, respectively, and the cutoff values were 5.5% and 1.55%, respectively. Conclusions: FRAX is suitable for postoperative DTC patients after TSH suppressive therapy. In the absence of BMD, TSH weighted by age can improve the specificity of FRAX in the diagnosis of osteoporosis in this population.

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

PURPOSE: Preventing fragility fractures by treating osteoporosis may reduce disability and mortality worldwide. Algorithms combining clinical risk factors with bone mineral density have been developed to better estimate fracture risk and possible treatment thresholds. This systematic review supported panel members of the Italian Fragility Fracture Guidelines in recommending the use of best-performant tool. The clinical performance of the three most used fracture risk assessment tools (DeFRA, FRAX, and FRA-HS) was assessed in at-risk patients. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched till December 2020 for studies investigating risk assessment tools for predicting major osteoporotic or hip fractures in patients with osteoporosis or fragility fractures. Sensitivity (Sn), specificity (Sp), and areas under the curve (AUCs) were evaluated for all tools at different thresholds. Quality assessment was performed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2; certainty of evidence (CoE) was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. RESULTS: Forty-three articles were considered (40, 1, and 2 for FRAX, FRA-HS, and DeFRA, respectively), with the CoE ranging from very low to high quality. A reduction of Sn and increase of Sp for major osteoporotic fractures were observed among women and the entire population with cut-off augmentation. No significant differences were found on comparing FRAX to DeFRA in women (AUC 59-88% vs. 74%) and diabetics (AUC 73% vs. 89%). FRAX demonstrated non-significantly better discriminatory power than FRA-HS among men. CONCLUSION: The task force formulated appropriate recommendations on the use of any fracture risk assessment tools in patients with or at risk of fragility fractures, since no statistically significant differences emerged across different prediction tools.

Improving Recognition of Fracture Risk in People with Human Immunodeficiency Virus: Performance and Model Contribution of Two Common Risk Assessment Tools.

Current guidelines recommend screening people with HIV (PWH) for bone disease using predictive tools developed for the general population, although data on PWH are scarce. In this study, we assessed the performance of FRAX and QFracture scoring systems to predict the occurrence of fragility fractures in a prospective cohort of 17,671 adults with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) included in the HIV/AIDS research network (CoRIS) in Spain. The survival estimates of fragility fractures during follow-up were calculated and FRAX and QFracture scores were computed at cohort inclusion. For both tools, discriminatory measures and the observed-to-expected (O/E) ratios were assessed. During a follow-up time of 42,411.55 person-years, 113 fragility fractures were recorded. Areas under the curve were 0.66 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.61-0.71] for FRAX and 0.67 (95% CI 0.62-0.73) for QFracture for major osteoporotic fractures, and 0.72 (95% CI 0.57-0.88) and 0.81 (95% CI 0.68-0.95) for hip fracture, respectively. The O/E was 1.67 for FRAX and 5.49 for QFracture for major osteoporotic fractures, and 11.23 for FRAX and 4.87 for QFracture for hip fractures. Moreover, O/E raised as the risk increased for both tools and in almost all age groups. When using the recommended assessment thresholds, <6% and 10% of major osteoporotic and hip fractures would have been identified, respectively. In conclusion, FRAX and QFracture displayed acceptable discrimination, although both tools significantly underestimated the risk of fragility fractures in PWH. The recommended assessment thresholds may not be appropriate for this population as they were unable to identify individuals with fragility fractures during follow-up.

Should vertebral fracture assessment be performed in Fracture Liaison Service patients with non-vertebral fracture?

Prior non-vertebral fractures, except of the ankle, are associated with increased likelihood of vertebral fracture. As knowledge of vertebral fracture presence may alter care, vertebral fracture assessment (VFA) is indicated in patients with prior fracture. INTRODUCTION: Vertebral fractures are often unappreciated. It was recently advocated that all Fracture Liaison Service (FLS) patients have densitometric VFA performed. We evaluated the likelihood of vertebral fracture identification with VFA in patients with prior fracture using the Manitoba Bone Density database. METHODS : VFA was performed in patients with T-scores below - 1.5 and age 70 + (or younger with height loss or glucocorticoid use) obtaining bone densitometry in Manitoba from 2010 to 2018. Those with prior clinical vertebral fracture, pathologic fracture, or uninterpretable VFA were excluded. Vertebral fractures were identified using the modified ABQ method. Health records were assessed for non-vertebral fracture (excluding head, neck, hand, foot) diagnosis codes unassociated with trauma prior to DXA. Multivariable odds ratios (ORs) for vertebral fracture were estimated without and with adjustment for age, sex, body mass index, ethnicity, area of residence, income level, comorbidity score, diabetes mellitus, falls in the last year, glucocorticoid use, and lowest BMD T-score. RESULTS: The study cohort consisted of 12,756 patients (94.4% women) with mean (SD) age 75.9 (6.8) years. Vertebral fractures were identified in 1925 (15.1%) overall. Vertebral fractures were significantly more likely (descending order) in those with prior pelvis, hip, humerus, other sites, and forearm, but not ankle fracture. There was modest attenuation with covariate adjustment but statistical significance was maintained. CONCLUSIONS: Prior hip, humerus, pelvis, forearm, and other fractures are associated with an increased likelihood of previously undiagnosed vertebral fracture, information useful for risk stratification and monitoring. These data support recommending VFA in FLS patients who are age 70 + with low BMD.

Comparison of Trabecular Bone Score-Adjusted Fracture Risk Assessment (TBS-FRAX) and FRAX Tools for Identification of High Fracture Risk among Taiwanese Adults Aged 50 to 90 Years with or without Prediabetes and Diabetes.

Background and Objectives: The burden of osteoporosis is projected to increase. Identification and prompt intervention for osteoporotic fractures are important. Adjusting the Fracture Risk Assessment (FRAX®) tool with trabecular bone score (TBS) could improve risk prediction. However, little is known about whether TBS-adjusted FRAX® would change the proportion of individuals qualified for osteoporosis intervention. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to compare the proportions of Taiwanese adults who qualified for intervention, according to the FRAX® and TBS-adjusted FRAX®, with stratification by sex, age group, and glucose regulation status. Materials and Methods: A medical record review on adults 50−90 years who had undergone a general health examination in a regional hospital in Taiwan was conducted. FRAX® and TBS-adjusted FRAX® were calculated. FRAX® cut-points of ≥ 20% for major osteoporotic fracture and ≥3% for hip fracture were adopted to identify individuals qualified for osteoporosis intervention. Individuals were classified as prediabetes and diabetes if their HbA1c was 5.7−6.4% and >6.4%, respectively. Results: A total of 8098 individuals with a mean age of 61.0 years were included. The proportion of men qualified for intervention for hip fracture was significantly lower according to TBS-adjusted FRAX® (17.2%) compared with FRAX® (20.7%) (p < 0.001), with a similar pattern across all three age groups and in those with prediabetes. In contrast, the proportion of women qualified for intervention for major osteoporotic fracture was significantly higher according to TBS-adjusted FRAX® (4.6%) compared with FRAX® (3.7%) (p < 0.001), particularly among those with prediabetes 60−69 years. Conclusions: TBS-adjusted FRAX® led to small but significant changes in the proportions of individuals qualified for intervention in specific age groups and glucose regulation status.

Risk assessment tools for osteoporosis and fractures in 2022.

Osteoporosis is one of the frequently encountered non-communicable diseases in the world today. Several hundred million people have osteoporosis, with many more at risk. The clinical feature is a fragility fracture (FF), which results in major reductions in the quality and quantity of life, coupled with a huge financial burden. In recognition of the growing importance, the World Health Organisation established a working group 30 years ago tasked with providing a comprehensive report to understand and assess the risk of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women. Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is the most widely endorsed technology for assessing the risk of fracture or diagnosing osteoporosis before a fracture occurs, but others are available. In clinical practice, important distinctions are essential to optimise the use of risk assessments. Traditional tools lack specificity and were designed for populations to identify groups at higher risk using a 'one-size-fits-all' approach. Much has changed, though the purpose of risk assessment tools remains the same. In 2022, many tools are available to aid the identification of those most at risk, either likely to have osteoporosis or suffer the clinical consequence. Modern technology, enhanced imaging, proteomics, machine learning, artificial intelligence, and big data science will greatly advance a more personalised risk assessment into the future. Clinicians today need to understand not only which tool is most effective and efficient for use in their practice, but also which tool to use for which patient and for what purpose. A greater understanding of the process of risk assessment, deciding who should be screened, and how to assess fracture risk and prognosis in older men and women more comprehensively will greatly reduce the burden of osteoporosis for patients, society, and healthcare systems worldwide. In this paper, we review the current status of risk assessment, screening and best practice for osteoporosis, summarise areas of uncertainty, and make some suggestions for future developments, including a more personalised approach for individuals.

Assessment of Serum sRANKL, sRANKL/OPG Ratio, and Other Bone Turnover Markers with the Estimated 10-Year Risk of Major and Hip Osteoporotic Fractures in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Cross-Sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: Fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX) index was developed for estimating of the 10-year risk of major or hip osteoporotic fracture. To date, there is insufficient information regarding the correlation between FRAX and serum bone turnover markers (BTMs), such as soluble ligand of receptor activator of nuclear factor-κB (sRANKL), osteoprotegerin (OPG), and other molecules related with secondary osteoporosis in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Therefore, this study is aimed at assessing the correlation between the FRAX and serum levels of sRANKL, OPG, sRANKL/OPG ratio, Dickkopf-1 (DKK-1), and sclerostin (SOST) in RA. METHODS: Cross-sectional study included 156 postmenopausal women with RA. Bone mineral density (BMD) was measured at lumbar spine (L1-L4) and total hip using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). RA patients were divided into (A) RA + osteoporosis and (B) RA without osteoporosis. FRAX scores were calculated including the total hip BMD. Serum sRANKL, OPG, DKK-1, and SOST levels were measured by ELISA. Pearson tests were used for assessing the correlation between serum levels of these molecules and FRAX scores in RA. RESULTS: The RA + osteoporosis group had elevated sRANKL levels (p = 0.005), higher sRANKL/OPG ratio (p = 0.017), decreased DKK-1 (p = 0.028), and lower SOST levels (p < 0.001). Low total hip BMD correlated with high sRANKL (p = 0.001) and sRANKL/OPG ratio (p = 0.005). Total hip and lumbar spine BMD correlated with DKK-1 (p = 0.009 and p = 0.05, respectively) and SOST levels (p < 0.001 and p < 0.001, respectively). Higher sRANKL levels and sRANKL/OPG ratio correlated with estimated 10-year risk of a major osteoporotic fractures (p = 0.003 and p = 0.003, respectively) and hip fracture (p = 0.002 and p = 0.006, respectively). High serum SOST levels were associated with a low estimated 10-year risk of a major osteoporotic fracture (p = 0.003) and hip fracture (p = 0.009). CONCLUSION: High sRANKL levels and sRANKL/OPG ratio can be useful to detect a subgroup of RA patients who has an increased 10-year risk of major and hip osteoporotic fractures.

Development and validation of a one year predictive model for secondary fractures in osteoporosis.

The number of osteoporosis-related fractures in the United States is no longer declining. Existing risk-based assessment tools focus on long-term risk. Payers and prescribers need additional tools to identify patients at risk for imminent fracture. We developed and validated a predictive model for secondary osteoporosis fractures in the year following an index fracture using administrative medical and pharmacy claims from the Optum Research Database and Symphony Health, PatientSource. Patients ≥50 years with a case-qualifying fracture identified using a validated claims-based algorithm were included. Logistic regression models were created with binary outcome of a second fracture versus no second fracture within a year of index fracture, with the goal of predicting second fracture occurrence. In the Optum Research Database, 197,104 patients were identified with a case-qualifying fracture (43% commercial, 57% Medicare Advantage). Using Symphony data, 1,852,818 met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Average patient age was 70.09 (SD = 11.09) and 71.28 (SD = 14.24) years in the Optum Research Database and Symphony data, respectively. With the exception of history of falls (41.26% vs 18.74%) and opioid use (62.80% vs 46.78%), which were both higher in the Optum Research Database, the two populations were mostly comparable. A history of falls and steroid use, which were previously associated with increased fracture risk, continue to play an important role in secondary fractures. Conditions associated with bone health (liver disease), or those requiring medications that impact bone health (respiratory disease), and cardiovascular disease and stroke-which may share etiology or risk factors with osteoporosis fractures-were also predictors of imminent fractures. The model highlights the importance of assessment of patient characteristics beyond bone density, including patient comorbidities and concomitant medications associated with increased fall and fracture risk, in alignment with recently issued clinical guidelines for osteoporosis treatment.

Challenges and Opportunities for Osteoporosis Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

PURPOSE: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has both directly and indirectly affected osteoporosis diagnosis and treatment throughout the world. METHODS: This mini-review summarizes the available evidence regarding the effects of COVID-19, its treatment, and the consequences of the pandemic itself on bone health. Additionally, we review evidence and expert recommendations regarding putative effects of osteoporosis medications on COVID-19 outcomes and vaccine efficacy and summarize recommendations for continuation of osteoporosis treatment during the pandemic. RESULTS: The use of standard screening procedures to assess for osteoporosis and fracture risk declined dramatically early in the pandemic, while rates of fragility fractures were largely unchanged. COVID-19, its treatments, and public health measures to prevent viral spread are each likely to negatively affect bone health. Osteoporosis treatments are not known to increase risk of adverse events from COVID-19, and preclinical data suggest possible beneficial effects of some therapies. Vitamin D deficiency is clearly associated with adverse outcomes from COVID-19, but it remains unclear whether vitamin D supplementation may improve outcomes. Osteoporosis treatment should be continued whenever possible, and recommendations for substituting therapies, if required, are available. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic has decreased screening and disrupted treatment for osteoporosis. Osteoporosis medications are safe and effective during the pandemic and should be continued whenever possible. Further studies are needed to fully understand the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on long-term bone health.

Direct costs of common osteoporotic fractures (Hip, Vertebral and Forearm) in Iran.

BACKGROUND: Osteoporotic fractures impose significant costs on society. The objective of this study was to estimate the direct costs of the hip, vertebral, and forearm fractures in the first year after fracture incidence in Iran. METHODS: We surveyed a sample of 300 patients aged over 50 years with osteoporotic fractures (hip, vertebral, and forearm) admitted to four hospitals affiliated to Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Iran, during 2017 and were alive six months after the fracture. Inpatient cost data were obtained from the hospital patient records. Using a questionnaire, the data regarding outpatient costs were collected through a phone interview with patients at least six months after the fracture incidence. Direct medical and non-medical costs were estimated from a societal perspective. All costs were converted to the US dollar using the average exchange rate in 2017 (1USD = IRR 34,214) RESULTS: The mean ± standard deviation (SD) age of the patient was 69.83 ± 11.25 years, and 68% were female. One hundred and seventeen (39%) patients had hip fractures, 56 (18.67%) patients had vertebral fractures, and 127 (42.33%) ones had forearm fractures. The mean direct cost (medical and non-medical) during the year after hip, vertebral and forearm fractures were estimated at USD5,381, USD2,981, and USD1,209, respectively. CONCLUSION: The direct cost of osteoporotic fracture in Iran is high. Our findings might be useful for the economic evaluation of preventive and treatment interventions for osteoporotic fractures as well as estimating the economic burden of osteoporotic fractures in Iran.

Part I: Which Child with a Chronic Disease Needs Bone Health Monitoring?

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW: Underlying conditions which adversely affect skeletal strength are one of the most common reasons for consultations in pediatric bone health clinics. The diseases most frequently linked to fragility fractures include leukemia and other cancers, inflammatory disorders, neuromuscular disease, and those treated with osteotoxic drugs (particularly glucocorticoids). The decision to treat a child with secondary osteoporosis is challenged by the fact that fractures are frequent in childhood, even in the absence of risk factors. Furthermore, some children have the potential for medication-unassisted recovery from osteoporosis, obviating the need for bisphosphonate therapy. RECENT FINDINGS: Over the last decade, there have been important advances in our understanding of the skeletal phenotypes, fracture frequencies, and risk factors for bone fragility in children with underlying disorders. With improved knowledge about the importance of fracture characteristics in at-risk children, there has been a shift away from a bone mineral density (BMD)-centric definition of osteoporosis in childhood, to a fracture-focused approach. As a result, attention is now drawn to the early identification of fragility fractures, which includes asymptomatic vertebral collapse. Furthermore, even a single, long bone fracture can represent a major osteoporotic event in an at-risk child. Fundamental biological principles of bone strength development, and the ways in which these go awry in chronic illnesses, form the basis for monitoring and diagnosis of osteoporosis in children with underlying conditions. Overall, the goal of monitoring is to identify early, rather than late, signs of osteoporosis in children with limited potential to undergo medication-unassisted recovery. These are the children who should undergo bisphosphonate therapy, as discussed in part 1 (monitoring and diagnosis) and part 2 (recovery and the decision to treat) of this review.

Cost-effectiveness of Screening for Osteoporosis in Older Men With a History of Falls.

Importance: Falls and osteoporosis share the potential clinical end point of fractures among older patients. To date, few fall prevention guidelines incorporate screening for osteoporosis to reduce fall-related fractures. Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of screening for osteoporosis using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) followed by osteoporosis treatment in older men with a history of falls. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this economic evaluation, a Markov model was developed to simulate the incidence of major osteoporotic fractures in a hypothetical cohort of community-dwelling men aged 65 years who had fallen at least once in the past year. Data sources included literature published from January 1, 1946, to July 31, 2020. The model adopted a societal perspective, a lifetime horizon, a 1-year cycle length, and a discount rate of 3% per year for both health benefits and costs. The analysis was designed and conducted from October 1, 2019, to September 30, 2020. Interventions: Screening with DXA followed by treatment for men diagnosed with osteoporosis compared with usual care. Main Outcomes and Measures: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), measured by cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Results: Among the hypothetical cohort of men aged 65 years, the screening strategy had an ICER of $33 169/QALY gained and was preferred over usual care at the willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000/QALY gained. The number needed to screen to prevent 1 hip fracture was 1876; to prevent 1 major osteoporotic fracture, 746. The screening strategy would become more effective and less costly than usual care for men 77 years and older. The ICER for the screening strategy did not substantially change across a wide range of assumptions tested in all other deterministic sensitivity analyses. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50 000/QALY gained, screening was cost-effective in 56.0% of simulations; at $100 000/QALY gained, 90.8% of simulations; and at $200 000/QALY gained, 99.6% of simulations. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that for older men who have fallen at least once in the past year, screening with DXA followed by treatment for those diagnosed with osteoporosis is a cost-effective use of resources. Fall history could be a useful cue to trigger assessment for osteoporosis in men.

Circulating MicroRNAs as Novel Biomarkers for Osteoporosis and Fragility Fracture Risk: Is There a Use in Assessment Risk?

Osteoporosis is a multifactorial skeletal disease that is associated with both bone mass decline and microstructure damage. The fragility fractures-especially those affecting the femur-that embody the clinical manifestation of this pathology continue to be a great medical and socioeconomic challenge worldwide. The currently available diagnostic tools, such as dual energy X-ray absorptiometry, Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) score, and bone turnover markers, show limited specificity and sensitivity; therefore, the identification of alternative approaches is necessary. As a result of their advantageous features, such as non-invasiveness, biofluid stability, and easy detection, circulating cell-free miRs are promising new potential biomarkers for the diagnosis of osteoporosis and low-traumatic fracture risk assessment. However, due to the absence of both standardized pre-analytical, analytical, and post-analytical protocols for their measurement and universally accepted guidelines for diagnostic use, their clinical utility is limited. The aim of this review was to record all the data currently available in the literature concerning the use of circulating microRNAs as both potential biomarkers for osteoporosis diagnosis and fragility fracture risk evaluation, and group them according to the experimental designs, in order to support a more conscious choice of miRs for future research in this field.

High Circulating Sphingosine 1-Phosphate is a Risk Factor for Osteoporotic Fracture Independent of Fracture Risk Assessment Tool.

Circulating sphingosine 1-phosphate (S1P) levels may be a biomarker for osteoporotic fracture (OF). This study assessed whether the addition of S1P levels to the fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX) could improve predictability of OF risk. Plasma S1P concentrations and FRAX variables were measured in 81 subjects with and 341 subjects without OF. S1P levels were higher in subjects with than those without OF (3.11 ± 0.13 µmol/L vs. 2.65 ± 0.61 µmol/L, P = 0.001). Higher S1P levels were associated with a higher likelihood of OF (odds ratio [OR] = 1.33, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.05-1.68), even after adjusting for FRAX probabilities. Compared with the lowest S1P tertile, subjects in the middle (OR = 3.37, 95% CI = 1.58-7.22) and highest (OR = 3.65, 95% CI = 1.66-8.03) S1P tertiles had higher rates of OF after adjustment. The addition of S1P levels to FRAX probabilities improved the area under the receiver-operating characteristics curve (AUC) for OF, from 0.708 to 0.769 (P = 0.013), as well as enhancing category-free net reclassification improvement (NRI = 0.504, 95% CI = 0.271-0.737, P < 0.001) and integrated discrimination improvement (IDI = 0.044, 95% CI = 0.022-0.065, P < 0.001). Adding S1P levels to FRAX probabilities especially in 222 subjects with osteopenia having a FRAX probability of 3.66-20.0% markedly improved the AUC for OF from 0.630 to 0.741 (P = 0.012), as well as significantly enhancing category-free NRI (0.571, 95% CI = 0.221-0.922, P = 0.001) and IDI (0.060, 95% CI = 0.023-0.097, P = 0.002). S1P is a consistent and significant risk factor of OF independent of FRAX, especially in subjects with osteopenia and low FRAX probability.

Fracture Risk Assessment Tool May Not Indicate Bone Fragility in Women With Type 2 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes carries a known risk of bone fracture despite high bone mineral density (BMD). The fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX) predicts the 10-year major osteoporotic fracture risk and hip fracture risk. We investigated the effects of clinical parameters on the FRAX score and evaluated the validity of FRAX for evaluating current bone fragility in diabetes subjects. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-seven thousand, three hundred eighty-nine Japanese women participated in the Chiba bone survey, a population-based, multicenter, cross-sectional study of postmenopausal osteoporosis; we estimated FRAX scores without BMD and compared scores between subjects with and without type 2 diabetes. RESULTS: Mean FRAX major osteoporotic fracture risk was significantly higher in the diabetes group. A multiple regression model demonstrated some clinical parameters that affected the FRAX score and, after adjusting for such parameters, the FRAX score was not significantly different between the diabetes and nondiabetes groups, although the type 2 diabetes rate was significantly higher in subjects with a fracture in the past 5 years, which reflected current bone fragility. After adjusting for clinical parameters, the diabetes rate remained significantly higher in subjects with a fracture in the past 5 years, confirming that type 2 diabetes influences current bone fragility. Our study demonstrated that type 2 diabetes truly carries a risk of bone fracture, but adjusted FRAX major osteoporotic fracture risk is not significantly different between subjects with and without type 2 diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: The FRAX major osteoporotic fracture risk without BMD does not correctly indicate current bone fragility in Japanese middle-aged women with type 2 diabetes.

Long-term cost-effectiveness of screening for fracture risk in a UK primary care setting: the SCOOP study.

Community-based screening and treatment of women aged 70-85 years at high fracture risk reduced fractures; moreover, the screening programme was cost-saving. The results support a case for a screening programme of fracture risk in older women in the UK. INTRODUCTION: The SCOOP (screening for prevention of fractures in older women) randomized controlled trial investigated whether community-based screening could reduce fractures in women aged 70-85 years. The objective of this study was to estimate the long-term cost-effectiveness of screening for fracture risk in a UK primary care setting compared with usual management, based on the SCOOP study. METHODS: A health economic Markov model was used to predict the life-time consequences in terms of costs and quality of life of the screening programme compared with the control arm. The model was populated with costs related to drugs, administration and screening intervention derived from the SCOOP study. Fracture risk reduction in the screening arm compared with the usual management arm was derived from SCOOP. Modelled fracture risk corresponded to the risk observed in SCOOP. RESULTS: Screening of 1000 patients saved 9 hip fractures and 20 non-hip fractures over the remaining lifetime (mean 14 years) compared with usual management. In total, the screening arm saved costs (£286) and gained 0.015 QALYs/patient in comparison with usual management arm. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis suggests that a screening programme of fracture risk in older women in the UK would gain quality of life and life years, and reduce fracture costs to more than offset the cost of running the programme.

Automated opportunistic osteoporotic fracture risk assessment using computed tomography scans to aid in FRAX underutilization.

Methods for identifying patients at high risk for osteoporotic fractures, including dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA)1,2 and risk predictors like the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX)3-6, are underutilized. We assessed the feasibility of automatic, opportunistic fracture risk evaluation based on routine abdomen or chest computed tomography (CT) scans. A CT-based predictor was created using three automatically generated bone imaging biomarkers (vertebral compression fractures (VCFs), simulated DXA T-scores and lumbar trabecular density) and CT metadata of age and sex. A cohort of 48,227 individuals (51.8% women) aged 50-90 with available CTs before 2012 (index date) were assessed for 5-year fracture risk using FRAX with no bone mineral density (BMD) input (FRAXnb) and the CT-based predictor. Predictions were compared to outcomes of major osteoporotic fractures and hip fractures during 2012-2017 (follow-up period). Compared with FRAXnb, the major osteoporotic fracture CT-based predictor presented better receiver operating characteristic area under curve (AUC), sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV) (+1.9%, +2.4% and +0.7%, respectively). The AUC, sensitivity and PPV measures of the hip fracture CT-based predictor were noninferior to FRAXnb at a noninferiority margin of 1%. When FRAXnb inputs are not available, the initial evaluation of fracture risk can be done completely automatically based on a single abdomen or chest CT, which is often available for screening candidates7,8.

Declining trend in osteoporosis management and screening following vertebral compression fractures - a national analysis of commercial insurance and medicare advantage beneficiaries.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Despite the increasing national incidence, osteoporosis and its associated comanagement, often remain an overlooked issue in the orthopedic world. Screening and associated management of osteoporosis is often only considered by providers when patients present with multiple fragility fractures. Current evidence with regard to the trends in screening and medical comanagement/antiosteoporotic therapy of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (VCFs) remains limited. PURPOSE: To understand trends, costs, and clinical impact associated the utilization of antiosteoporotic medication and screening with the 1 year following occurrences of sentinel/primary osteoporotic VCFs. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective review of 2008-2015Q3 Humana Administrative Claims (HAC) database. PATIENT SAMPLE: The 2008-2015Q3 HAC database was queried using International Classification of Diseases 9th Edition (ICD-9) diagnosis codes 805.2 and 805.4 to identify patients with primary closed osteoporotic thoracolumbar VCFs. Patients with a concurrent diagnosis of trauma and/or malignancy were excluded. Patients experiencing a fragility fracture of the hip, distal radius or proximal humerus, and/or those already on osteoporotic medications within the year before the VCF were excluded to prevent an overlap in the screening and/or antiresorptive medication rates. Finally, only those patients who had complete 2-year follow-up data were analyzed. OUTCOME MEASURES: To understand trends over time in the utilization of medication for osteoporosis and screening within 1 year following sentinel VCFs. The study also aimed to report per-prescription and per-patient average costs associated with different antiosteoporotic medications. As secondary objectives, we also assessed (1) risk factors associated with not receiving antiosteoporotic medication within the year following sentinel VCFs and (2) differences in rates of experiencing a secondary fragility fracture of vertebrae, hip, distal radius, and proximal humerus between patients who received medication following the sentinel VCF versus those who did not receive any medication. RESULTS: A total of 6,464 primary osteoporotic VCFs were retrieved from the database. A majority of the VCFs were seen in females (N=5,199; 80.4%). Only 28.8% (N=1,860) patients received some form of medication for osteoporosis medication in the year following the VCF. Over a 6-year interval, treatment with medication for osteoporosis declined from 38% in 2008 to 24% in 2014. The average cost of antiosteoporotic treatment per patient was $1,511. The most commonly prescribed treatment and associated average cost/patient was alendronate sodium (N=1,239; 66.6% to $120/patient). The most costly prescribed treatment was Forteo (N=177; 2.7%) with an average cost/patient of $12,074 and cost/injection being $2,373. Only 36.7% (N=2,371) received a dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry/bone density scan in the year following the VCF with an average cost/patient of $76. Risk factors associated with no prescription of medication for osteoporosis within 1 year of VCF were male gender (odds ratio [OR] 1.17 [95% confidence interval {CI} 1.01-1.35]; p=.027), history of cerebrovascular accident/stroke (OR 1.56 [95% CI 1.08-2.32]; p=.022), history of diabetes mellitus (OR 1.28 [95% CI 1.04-1.58]; p=.023). Of note, patients in the West versus Midwest (OR 1.26 [95% CI 1.04-1.51]; p=.016) and commercial insurance beneficiaries (OR 1.95 [95% CI 1.08-3.52]; p=.027) were more likely to receive antiosteoporotic medication. Patients who were placed on antiosteoporotic medication were significantly less likely to suffer a second fragility fracture compared with patients that did not receive medication (OR 0.27 [95% CI 0.24-0.31]; p=.033). CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of patients starting antiosteoporotic medication within a year after a VCF remains low (28.8%). Furthermore, a declining trend of antiosteoporotic medication prescription was noted over time. Providers who care for patients with sentinel VCFs need to be more diligent in their efforts to diagnose and treat the underlying osteoporosis to reduce the burden of future fragility fractures.