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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Fragility fractures in lupus patients: Associated factors and comparison of four fracture risk assessment tools.

OBJECTIVE: Osteoporosis (OP) and fragility fractures (FF) are common comorbidities in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). This study aimed to (1) assess the prevalence of these conditions in a cohort of SLE patients (2) evaluate the risk factors associated with FF, and (3) compare the accuracy of four different FF risk assessment algorithms to determine which performs better in this specific rheumatologic population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study with SLE women who underwent bone mineral density assessment by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) within 3 months of their last visit. Conventional radiology methods were used to evaluate the presence of FF. The 10-year risk of osteoporotic fractures was estimated using four tools: DeFRA, FRAX (adjusted for GC dosage), GARVAN, and QFracture. The comparison of these computational tools was analyzed by the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. RESULTS: We analyzed 86 SLE patients with a median age of 56 years (IQR 12.1) and a median age at diagnosis of 34 years (IQR 17.2). The median T-score values at the femoral neck and lumbar spine were -1.6 (IQR 0.9) and -1.7 (IQR 1.1), respectively. Of the patients, 33 (38.4%) had OP, with 13 patients (15.1%) experiencing FF. Univariate analysis showed that the presence of FF was associated with thrombocytopenia (p = .01), hemolytic anemia (p = .0001), and the intake of cyclosporine A (p = .002), cyclophosphamide (p = .006), and rituximab (p = .001). The median 10-year risk of major FF for the four calculation tools were as follows: DeFRA 9.85 (IQR 8.6); FRAX GC 8.8 (IQR11.7); GARVAN 12 (IQR 8.2); QFracture 4.1 (IQR 5.8). We observed a significant correlation among all instruments evaluated (p < .0001); in particular, the best correlation was recorded between the FRAX GC and the DeFRA (r = 0.85). DeFRA was the best tool for this population with an AUC of 0.94 (p < .0001, CI 0.88-1). CONCLUSIONS: OP is a common comorbidity in SLE patients, even in younger patients. FF appears to be more frequent in patients with hematologic involvement. The comparison of the four algorithms shows that DeFRA is the most accurate tool and should be applied to SLE patients.

Costs of incident non-hip osteoporosis-related fractures in postmenopausal women from a payer perspective.

Osteoporosis-related fractures lead to high morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs among post-menopausal women. This study showed that incident non-hip osteoporosis-related fractures are frequent among women aged 50 + in Portugal, leading to excessive healthcare costs of €74 million per year, in a conservative scenario. PURPOSE: This study aimed to estimate the costs of incident non-hip osteoporosis-related fractures among postmenopausal women living in Portugal from a payer perspective. METHODS: The study includes women ≥ 50 years old who participated in the baseline assessment (2011-2013) and the first follow-up wave (2013-2015) of the Epidemiology of Chronic Diseases cohort, a Portuguese community-based longitudinal prospective study (n = 2,762). Incident non-hip osteoporosis-related fractures were defined as any self-reported low impact non-hip fractures since baseline. Healthcare resource utilization during the year following fracture was obtained from an informal panel of experts. The amounts of resources used were multiplied by the national tariffs practiced in the National Health Service (NHS) to obtain the cost per patient in the year following a wrist, vertebral, or other site fracture, which was subsequently multiplied by the estimated annual number of incident fractures to obtain the total annual cost of incident non-hip osteoporosis-related fractures among postmenopausal women. RESULTS: Each year approximately 5,000 wrist, 3,500 vertebral, and 39,000 other-site osteoporosis-related fractures occur in women aged 50 + in Portugal. Healthcare costs per patient in the year following fracture vary from €2,709.52 for vertebral fractures to €3,096.35 for other fractures. Non-hip incident osteoporosis-related fractures among 50 + women cost approximately €74 million per year. Among all healthcare services, physiotherapy represents the bulk of costs. CONCLUSIONS: This study pinpoints the relevance of preventing non-hip osteoporosis-related fractures, as these cost about €74 million per year in direct healthcare costs, a substantial impact on the budget of the Portuguese NHS.

Validating the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool Score in a US Population-Based Study of Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: The World Health Organization fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX) algorithm for risk prediction of major osteoporotic and hip fractures accounts for several risk factors, including rheumatoid arthritis (RA), since individuals with RA have an excess burden of fractures. FRAX has not been validated in population-based RA cohorts in the US. We aimed to determine the accuracy of FRAX predictions for individuals with RA in the US. METHODS: This retrospective population-based cohort study included residents of Olmsted County, Minnesota, who were followed until death, migration, or last medical record review. Each patient with RA (1987 American College of Rheumatology criteria met in 1980-2007, age 40-89 years) was matched 1:1 on age and sex to an individual without RA from the same underlying population. Ten-year predictions for major osteoporotic and hip fractures were estimated using the FRAX tool. Fractures were ascertained through follow-up, truncated at 10 years. Standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) and 95% CI were calculated to compare observed and predicted fractures. RESULTS: The study included 662 patients with RA and 658 non-RA comparators (66.8% vs 66.9% female and a mean age of 60.6 vs 60.5 years, respectively). Among patients with RA, 76 major osteoporotic fractures and 21 hip fractures were observed during follow-up (median follow-up: 9.0 years) compared to 67.0 predicted major osteoporotic fractures (SIR 1.13, 95% CI 0.91-1.42) and 23.3 predicted hip fractures (SIR 0.90, 95% CI 0.59-1.38). The observed and predicted major osteoporotic and hip fracture risks were similar for patients with RA and non-RA comparators. CONCLUSION: The FRAX tool is an accurate method for estimating major osteoporotic and hip fracture risk in patients with RA.

Mortality among older adults with osteoporotic vertebral fracture.

We evaluated whether older adults who received kyphoplasty had reduced risk of mortality compared to those who did not. In unmatched analyses, those receiving kyphoplasty were at reduced risk of death but after matching on age and medical complications, patients who received kyphoplasty were at increased risk of death. PURPOSE: In previous observational studies, kyphoplasty for treatment of osteoporotic vertebral fractures has been associated with decreased mortality compared to conservative management. The purpose of this research was to determine whether older adults who received kyphoplasty had reduced risk of mortality compared to matched patients who did not. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of US Medicare enrollees with osteoporotic vertebral fractures between 2017-2019 comparing patients who underwent kyphoplasty to those who did not. We identified 2 control groups a priori: 1) non-augmented patients who met inclusion criteria (group 1); 2) propensity-matched patients on demographic and clinical variables (group 2). We then identified additional control groups using matching for medical complications (group 3) and age + comorbidities (group 4). We calculated hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) associated with mortality. RESULTS: A total of 235,317 patients (mean (± standard deviation) age 81.1 ± 8.3 years; 85.8% female) were analyzed. In the primary analyses, those who received kyphoplasty were at reduced risk of death compared to those who did not: adjusted HR (95% CI) in group 1 = 0.84 (0.82, 0.87); and in group 2 = 0.88 (0.85, 0.91). However, in post hoc analyses, patients who received kyphoplasty were at increased risk of death: adjusted HR (95% CI) in group 3 = 1.32 (1.25, 1.41) and 1.81 (1.58, 2.09) in group 4. CONCLUSION: An apparent benefit of kyphoplasty on mortality among patients with vertebral fractures was not present after rigorous propensity matching, illustrating the importance of comparing similar individuals when evaluating observational data.

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.

Prevalence of osteoporosis and incidence of related fractures in developed economies in the Asia Pacific region: a systematic review.

Robust data on osteoporosis in the Asia Pacific region could improve healthcare decision-making. Osteoporosis affects 10-30% of women aged 40 + , and up to 10% of men in 7 developed economies in Asia Pacific. Fractures affect 500-1000 adults aged 50 + per 100,000 person-years. Policymakers and clinicians must address this problem. PURPOSE: Osteoporosis and associated fractures result in considerable morbidity, loss of productivity, early mortality, and increased healthcare expenses. Many countries in the Asia Pacific (AP) region, especially middle- and higher-income economies, are faced with aging and increasingly sedentary populations. It is critical to consolidate and analyze the available information on the prevalence and incidence of the disease in these countries. METHODS: We systematically reviewed articles and gray literature for Australia, China, Hong Kong, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan. We searched PubMed, ScienceDirect, JSTOR, Cochrane, Google Scholar, and other databases for data published 2009-2018. We included articles with prevalence or incidence estimates for adults with osteoporosis or related fractures. RESULTS: All locations had data available, but of widely varying quantity and quality. Most estimates for osteoporosis prevalence ranged from 10 to 30% for women ages 40 and older, and up to 10% for men. Osteoporotic fracture incidence typically ranged between 500 and 1000 per 100,000 person-years among adults aged 50 and older. Both outcomes typically increased with age and were more common among women. CONCLUSION: Osteoporosis and associated fractures affect significant portions of the adult population in developed economies in the AP region. Governments and healthcare systems must consider how best to prevent and diagnose osteoporosis, and manage affected individuals, to reduce healthcare costs and mortality associated with fractures.

Real-World Management of Patients With Osteoporosis at Very High Risk of Fracture.

INTRODUCTION: Lack of consideration for risk-based assessments that inform osteoporosis treatment decisions may contribute to disease burden. In this study, we examined the prevalence of patients at very high risk of fracture and evaluated real-world treatment practices for these patients. METHODS: This retrospective observational cohort study used real-world data linked to commercial and Medicare medical claims from Symphony Health PatientSource. Patients 50 years and older with osteoporosis (determined by the presence of a diagnosis code) and at very high risk of fracture according to the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) and American College of Endocrinology (ACE) (AACE/ACE) 2020 guidelines between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2018, were included. The number and proportion of patients treated with any osteoporosis medication were evaluated. RESULTS: Of the 10,739,286 patients with osteoporosis, 5,078,111 (47.3%) were identified as meeting the AACE criteria for very high risk of fracture and were selected for the analysis. Most (5,033,106 [99.1%]) had a high risk of falls and/or a history of falls resulting in injury. Among the 1,667,794 patients (32.8%) eligible for treatment, 280,777 (16.8%) received treatment. Of these, 63.6% received alendronate, an alternative therapy, and 21.2% received a risk-based guideline-recommended medicine (teriparatide, zoledronic acid, denosumab, abaloparatide, or romosozumab). A greater proportion of men were untreated, 161,978 (90.5) compared with 1,185,003 women (81.8). DISCUSSION: Most patients at very high risk of fracture remain untreated. Most of those treated do not receive the appropriate recommended treatments for patients at high risk. Risk-based treatment decisions may allow for more appropriate medication selection.

The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of clinical fracture-risk assessment tools in reducing future osteoporotic fractures among older adults: a structured scoping review.

This scoping review described the use, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of clinical fracture-risk assessment tools to prevent future osteoporotic fractures among older adults. Results show that the screening was not superior in preventing all osteoporosis-related fractures to usual care. However, it positively influenced participants' perspectives on osteoporosis, may have reduced hip fractures, and seemed cost-effective. PURPOSE: We aim to provide a synopsis of the evidence about the use of clinical fracture-risk assessment tools to influence health outcomes, including reducing future osteoporotic fractures and their cost-effectiveness. METHODS: We followed the guidelines of Arksey and O'Malley and their modifications. A comprehensive search strategy was created to search CINAHL, Medline, and Embase databases until June 29, 2021, with no restrictions. We critically appraised the quality of all included studies. RESULTS: Fourteen studies were included in the review after screening 2484 titles and 68 full-text articles. Four randomized controlled trials investigated the effectiveness of clinical fracture-risk assessment tools in reducing all fractures among older women. Using those assessment tools did not show a statistically significant reduction in osteoporotic fracture risk compared to usual care; however, additional analyses of two of these trials showed a trend toward reducing hip fractures, and the results might be clinically significant. Four studies tested the impact of screening programs on other health outcomes, and participants reported positive results. Eight simulation studies estimated the cost-effectiveness of using these tools to screen for fractures, with the majority showing significant potential savings. CONCLUSION: According to the available evidence to date, using clinical fracture-risk assessment screening tools was not more effective than usual care in preventing all osteoporosis-related fractures. However, using those screening tools positively influenced women's perspectives on osteoporosis, may have reduced hip fracture risk, and could potentially be cost-effective. This is a relatively new research area where additional studies are needed.

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.

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.

Fracture Risk Assessment and Drug Holiday in a Real-Life Setting.

PURPOSE: Describe fracture risk assessment practices among physicians treating osteoporosis in a real-life setting. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study in a tertiary academic center. Inclusion criteria involved adults (aged ≥18 years) who received minimum adequate therapy (bisphosphates, raloxifene, or denosumab ≥ 3 years or teriparatide ≥ 18 months). Of 1,814 charts randomly selected and reviewed, 274 patients met the inclusion criteria. Risk stratification tools included fragility fractures, Dual-energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DXA), and fracture risk assessment using the FRAX tool. Fracture risk assessment was performed before therapy initiation (N= 274) and at the time of institution of the drug holiday (N=119). High-risk patients were defined as the presence of a fragility fracture, T-score ≤-2.5, or a high-risk score by FRAX calculation. FRAX scores were independently calculated by the research team for comparison and assessment purposes. RESULTS: Before initiation of therapy (N=274) versus upon starting a drug holiday (DH; N=119), 29.9% versus 3.4% had a history of fragility fractures (P<0.001), 58.8% versus 67.2% had a DXA scan performed (P>0.05), 10.5% versus 10.9% of physicians calculated a FRAX score (P>0.05), and 71.5% versus 66.4% were considered at high risk and eligible for therapy. A DXA scan was performed after DH in 40.2% of these patients and at least once in 95.3% of the entire cohort. CONCLUSION: The reporting of FRAX score in DXA scan reports may significantly increase its utilization in fracture risk assessment. We recommend comprehensive fracture risk assessment utilizing history of prevalent osteoporosis fractures, DXA assessment, and FRAX scoring.

Real-world effectiveness of anti-osteoporosis medications for the prevention of incident hip and clinical vertebral fractures in patients on long-term glucocorticoid therapy: A nationwide health insurance claims database study in Japan.

PURPOSE: Early initiation of anti-osteoporosis medications (AOMs) is recommended for patients on long-term glucocorticoid (GC) therapy. This study aimed to clarify the real-world effectiveness of AOMs against incident hip and vertebral fractures in patients undergoing GC therapy using the nationwide health insurance claims database of Japan (NDBJ). METHODS: Patients aged ≥50 years who were prescribed GC (≥5 mg/day prednisolone or equivalent) for ≥90 days and who were followed up regarding AOM prescription and hip and clinical vertebral fracture incidences for the subsequent 1080 days between 2012 and 2018 were selected from NDBJ. Associations of AOMs prescribed within 90 days since GC therapy initiation with hip or vertebral fracture risk were evaluated by Cox proportional hazards regression using propensity score inverse probability weighting (IPW) for receiving any AOM or individual AOMs. RESULTS: In total, 96,475 women and 98,385 men were included in the analysis; 38.0 % of women and 27.6 % of men received AOMs. Patients who received any AOM and those who received bisphosphonates or denosumab had a significantly lower risk of hip and clinical vertebral fractures than those who received no AOM in both sexes after propensity score IPW. Teriparatide was associated with an increased risk of both fractures in women and an increased risk of clinical vertebral fractures in men. Selection biases such as confounding by indication might have caused an underestimation of AOMs' protective effects. CONCLUSIONS: Bisphosphonates and denosumab were associated with a lower fracture incidence in patients on long-term GC therapy in real-world settings.

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.