Hyperglycaemia, diabetes and risk of fragility fractures: observational and Mendelian randomisation studies.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Fragility fractures may be a complication of diabetes, partly caused by chronic hyperglycaemia. We hypothesised that: (1) individuals with hyperglycaemia and diabetes have increased risk of fragility fracture; (2) hyperglycaemia is causally associated with increased risk of fragility fracture; and (3) diabetes and fragility fracture jointly associate with the highest risk of all-cause mortality. METHODS: In total, 117,054 individuals from the Copenhagen City Heart Study and the Copenhagen General Population Study (the Copenhagen studies) and 390,374 individuals from UK Biobank were included for observational and one-sample Mendelian randomisation (MR) analyses. Fragility fractures were defined as fractures at the hip, spine and arm (humerus/wrist), collected from national health registries. Summary data for fasting glucose and HbA1c concentrations from 196,743 individuals in the Meta-Analyses of Glucose and Insulin-related traits Consortium (MAGIC) were combined with data on fragility fractures from the Copenhagen studies in two-sample MR analyses. RESULTS: Higher fasting and non-fasting glucose and HbA1c concentrations were associated with higher risk of any fragility fracture (p<0.001). Individuals with vs without diabetes had HRs for fragility fracture of 1.50 (95% CI 1.19, 1.88) in type 1 diabetes and 1.22 (1.13, 1.32) in type 2 diabetes. One-sample MR supported a causal association between high non-fasting glucose concentrations and increased risk of arm fracture in the Copenhagen studies and UK Biobank combined (RR 1.41 [1.11, 1.79], p=0.004), with similar results for fasting glucose and HbA1c in two-sample MR analyses (ORs 1.50 [1.03, 2.18], p=0.03; and 2.79 [1.12, 6.93], p=0.03, respectively). The corresponding MR estimates for any fragility fracture were 1.18 (1.00, 1.41), p=0.06; 1.36 (0.89, 2.09), p=0.15; and 2.47 (0.95, 6.43), p=0.06, respectively. At age 80 years, cumulative death was 27% in individuals with fragility fracture only, 54% in those with diabetes only, 67% in individuals with both conditions and 17% in those with neither. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Hyperglycaemia and diabetes are risk factors for fragility fracture and one- and two-sample MR analyses supported a causal effect of hyperglycaemia on arm fractures. Diabetes and previous fragility fracture jointly conferred the highest risk of death in the general population.

A rare homozygous variant in TERT gene causing variable bone marrow failure, fragility fractures, rib anomalies and extremely short telomere lengths with high serum IgE.

By whole exome sequencing, we identified a homozygous c.2086 C→T (p.R696C) TERT mutation in patients who present with a spectrum of variable bone marrow failure (BMF), raccoon eyes, dystrophic nails, rib anomalies, fragility fractures (FFs), high IgE level, extremely short telomere lengths (TLs), and skewed numbers of cytotoxic T cells with B and NK cytopenia. Haploinsufficiency in the other family members resulted in short TL and osteopenia. These patients also had the lowest bone mineral density Z-score compared to other BMF-patients. Danazol/zoledronic acid improved the outcomes of BMF and FFs. This causative TERT variant has been observed in one family afflicted with dyskeratosis congenita (DC), and thus, we also define a second report and new phenotype related to the variant which should be suspected in severe cases of DC with co-existent BMF, FFs, high IgE level and rib anomalies.

Examining treatment targets and equity in bone-active medication use within secondary fracture prevention: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: This systematic review seeks to evaluate the proportion of fragility fracture patients screened in secondary fracture prevention programs who were indicated for pharmacological treatment, received prescriptions for bone-active medications, and initiated the prescribed medication. Additionally, the study aims to analyze equity in pharmacological treatment by examining equity-related variables including age, sex, gender, race, education, income, and geographic location. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review to ascertain the proportion of fragility fracture patients indicated for treatment who received prescriptions and/or initiated bone-active medication through secondary fracture prevention programs. We also examined treatment indications reported in studies and eligibility criteria to confirm patients who were eligible for treatment. To compute the pooled proportions for medication prescription and initiation, we carried out a single group proportional meta-analysis. We also extracted the proportions of patients who received a prescription and/or began treatment based on age, sex, race, education, socioeconomic status, location, and chronic conditions. RESULTS: This review included 122 studies covering 114 programs. The pooled prescription rate was 77%, and the estimated medication initiation rate was 71%. Subgroup analysis revealed no significant difference in treatment initiation between the Fracture Liaison Service and other programs. Across all studies, age, sex, and socioeconomic status were the only equity variables reported in relation to treatment outcomes. CONCLUSION: Our systematic review emphasizes the need for standardized reporting guidelines in post-fracture interventions. Moreover, considering equity stratifiers in the analysis of health outcomes will help address inequities and improve the overall quality and reach of secondary fracture prevention programs.

Developing fracture liaison service framework based on comparative analysis and scoping review.

This research conducts a comparative analysis and scoping review of 105 studies in the field of Fracture Liaison Service (FLS). The resulting two-dimensional framework represents a significant step toward FLS implementation. PURPOSE: The primary goal is to review interventions in real world settings in order to provide the FLS framework that specifies the essential elements of its implementation and offers different perspectives on that. METHOD: This study encompasses two phases: a comparative analysis of existing FLS models, including "Capture the Fracture," "5IQ," and "Ganda," and a scoping review from 2012 to 2022 in PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, ProQuest, and IEEE databases limited to publications in English. RESULTS: The resulting model of comparative analysis identifies patient identification, investigation, intervention and integration or continuity of care as the four main stages of FLS. Additionally, the elements of quality and information span across all stages. Following comparative analysis, the framework is designed to be used for content analysis of the included studies in the scoping review. The intersection of columns (Who, Where, When, What, How, Quality) with rows (Identification, Investigation, Intervention, and continuity of care) yields a set of questions, answered in tabular form based on the scoping review. CONCLUSION: The framework offers potential benefits in facilitating the adoption of effective approaches for FLS implementation. It is recommended to undertake an in-depth review of each of these components in order to uncover novel and innovative approaches for improving their implementation.

Undiagnosed vertebral fragility fractures in patients with distal radius fragility fractures: an opportunity for prevention of morbimortality in osteoporotic patients in developing countries.

Our study investigates vertebral fractures in individuals with distal radius fractures. Among 512 patients, 41.21% had vertebral fractures, predominantly in the lumbar spine. These findings highlight the importance of screening for vertebral fractures in this population, informing early intervention strategies to mitigate risks associated with osteoporosis. PURPOSE: This study's main goal was to look into the frequency, location, kind, and severity of asymptomatic vertebral fragility fractures (VFF) in people who had fractures of the fragility of the distal radius. Although VFF is frequently misdiagnosed, it is linked to higher mortality, morbidity, and hip fracture risk. The study also attempted to investigate the relationship between VFF and certain demographic and lifestyle factors, as well as FRAX data, in this patient population. METHODS: Between January, 2021, and January, 2022, individuals with low-energy distal radial fractures who presented to the emergency room of tertiary care hospital of Karachi, Pakistan, were the subject of a cross-sectional study and were 45 years of age or older except those who fitted the exclusion criteria (n = 208). The thoracic and/or lumbar spine was imaged using radiology, and information on demographics, way of life, and FRAX (Fracture Risk Assessment Tool) was gathered. Using the Genant semiquantitative approach, an impartial and blinded orthopaedist identified VF in the images and determined their severity. SPSS version 20 was used to analyse the data. RESULTS: Two hundred eleven (41.21%) of them were found to have radiographic VFF and only 12 (2.34%) of the 512 patients who were tested were getting osteoporotic therapy. The thoracic spine (32.7%), followed by the lumbar spine (43.12%), was the area most frequently afflicted. In 24.17% of the patients, multiple fractures of the thoracolumbar spine were found. The wedge form (54.5%), followed by biconcave (30.81%) and crush (14.7%), was the most prevalent VFF type. The majority of detected VFF were rated as having a 25-40% height loss (64.9%) then severe (> 40%) fractures (35.1%), according to the Genant grading method. Notably, there were no variations in smoking, drinking, BMI, or FRAX score between patients with and without VFF that were statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Based on our study's findings, it is clear that osteoporotic vertebral fragility fractures occur in almost half of individuals with distal radius fractures. The lumbar spine is notably the most affected region, predominantly with wedge fractures. Given the high prevalence of asymptomatic vertebral fragility fractures (VFF), proactive measures are necessary to mitigate associated risks. Prioritising comprehensive fall risk assessments for these patients and interventions to enhance bone mineral density and strength are crucial. Early identification of asymptomatic VFF enables timely intervention, optimising patient care and minimising the risk of complications in this vulnerable population.

Fracture liaison service-a multidisciplinary approach to osteoporosis management.

A fracture liaison service is a systems-level multidisciplinary approach designed to reduce subsequent fracture risk in patients who recently sustained fragility fractures. It is estimated that one in three women and one in five men over the age of 50 years old have osteoporosis. Nonetheless, only 9 to 20% of patients who sustain an initial fragility fracture eventually receive any osteoporosis treatment. With the aim of preventing subsequent fractures, a fracture liaison service (FLS) works through identifying patients presenting with fragility fractures to the hospital and providing them with easier access to osteoporosis care through referrals for bone health and fracture risk assessment and recommendation or initiation of osteoporosis treatment. Currently, there are four major types of FLS models ranging from services that only identify at-risk patients and inform and educate the patient but take no further part in communicating their findings to other stakeholders in patients' care, to services that identify, investigate, and initiate treatment at the other end of the spectrum. In this article, we review the benefits, challenges, and outcomes of FLS in the American healthcare system with further exploration of the roles each member of the multidisciplinary team can play in improving patients' bone health.

Prior fragility fractures are associated with a higher risk of 8-year complications following total shoulder arthroplasty.

Patients who sustain fragility fractures prior to total shoulder arthroplasty have significantly higher risk for bone health-related complications within 8 years of procedure. Identification of these high-risk patients with an emphasis on preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative bone health optimization may help minimize these preventable complications. PURPOSE: As the population ages, more patients with osteoporosis are undergoing total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA), including those who have sustained a prior fragility fracture. Sustaining a fragility fracture before TSA has been associated with increased risk of short-term revision rates, periprosthetic fracture (PPF), and secondary fragility fractures but long-term implant survivorship in this patient population is unknown. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to characterize the association of prior fragility fractures with 8-year risks of revision TSA, periprosthetic fracture, and secondary fragility fracture. METHODS: Patients aged 50 years and older who underwent TSA were identified in a large national database. Patients were stratified based on whether they sustained a fragility fracture within 3 years prior to TSA. Patients who had a prior fragility fracture (7631) were matched 1:1 to patients who did not based on age, gender, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), smoking, obesity, diabetes mellitus, and alcohol use. Kaplan-Meier and Cox Proportional Hazards analyses were used to observe the cumulative incidences of all-cause revision, periprosthetic fracture, and secondary fragility fracture within 8 years of index surgery. RESULTS: The 8-year cumulative incidence of revision TSA (5.7% vs. 4.1%), periprosthetic fracture (3.8% vs. 1.4%), and secondary fragility fracture (46.5% vs. 10.1%) were significantly higher for those who had a prior fragility fracture when compared to those who did not. On multivariable analysis, a prior fragility fracture was associated with higher risks of revision (hazard ratio [HR], 1.48; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.24-1.74; p < 0.001), periprosthetic fracture (HR, 2.98; 95% CI, 2.18-4.07; p < 0.001) and secondary fragility fracture (HR, 8.39; 95% CI, 7.62-9.24; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Prior fragility fracture was a significant risk factor for revision, periprosthetic fracture, and secondary fragility fracture within 8 years of primary TSA. Identification of these high-risk patients with an emphasis on preoperative and postoperative bone health optimization may help minimize these complications. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

A comparison of foot fractures relative to other fragility fractures: a review and analysis of the American Orthopaedic Association's Own the Bone Database.

Evidence regarding the risk factors and characteristics of those with foot fragility fractures compared to non-foot fragility fractures is limited. Foot fragility fracture patients are more likely to be younger female with a higher BMI. A foot fragility fracture is strongly predictive of a subsequent foot fragility fracture. PURPOSE: Osteoporosis can clinically result in fragility fractures. Evidence regarding the risk factors and characteristics of foot fragility fractures compared to non-foot fragility fractures is limited. The American Orthopaedic Association's Own the Bone (OTB) is a bone health initiative with a substantial dataset. The purpose of this study was to examine and compare characteristics of patients presenting with isolated foot fragility fracture to those with a non-foot fragility fracture. METHODS: Between January 2009 and March of 2022, 58,001 fragility fractures occurred that were included in this cohort. A total of 750 patients had foot fragility fracture(s) and 57,251 patients had a non-foot fragility fracture that included shoulder, arm, elbow, forearm, wrist, spine, ribs, pelvis, hip, thigh, knee, tibia/fibula, and ankle. Demographics, fracture history, bone health factors, medication history, and medication use for each patient were reported in the OTB database. This data was utilized in our secondary cohort comparative analysis of characteristics and the risk of future fractures between foot fragility fracture and non-foot fragility fracture groups. RESULTS: Foot fragility fracture patients have a significantly higher probability to be younger (66.9 years old), female (91.5%), and have a higher BMI (28.3 kg/m2) compared to non-foot fragility fracture (p < 0.0001) patients. Patients with a foot fragility fracture are nine times (OR = 9.119, CI = 7.44-11.18, p < 0.001) more likely to have had a prior foot fragility fracture. Young, female patients with a prior foot fragility fracture are at higher risk of a future foot fragility fracture, and this risk increased as BMI increased. CONCLUSIONS: Foot fragility fracture patients are more likely to be female and younger compared to patients with a non-foot fragility fracture. A foot fragility fracture is a sentinel event considering that a prior foot fragility fracture is strongly predictive of a subsequent foot fragility fracture. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 (retrospective cohort).

Outcomes After Implementation of a Fragility Fracture Pathway in Ground Level Falls.

INTRODUCTION: Fragility fractures occur due to low energy mechanisms and result in significant morbidity and mortality. This study reviews the implementation of a fragility fracture program at a level I trauma center. In this pathway, trauma surgery provides clearance followed by admission and management with medical service and orthopedic consultation for injuries which meet fragility fracture criteria. METHODS: This pathway, implemented in July 2021, includes patients with isolated fractures secondary to a low energy mechanism. We compared cohorts 2-ys before (PRE) and after (POS) pathway implementation. Demographics (age, sex, fracture location, injury severity score, American Society of Anesthesiologists score) and outcome data were collected and analyzed using between-subjects analyses. Measured outcomes included deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism, hospital mortality, disposition to hospice, nonoperative rate, unplanned intensive care unit admission, time to surgery (TTS), and length of stay (LOS). RESULTS: The study included n = 1137 patients (n = 564 PRE and n = 573 POS). POS patients had a higher injury severity score (P = 0.003) and different fracture location (P = 0.017), but no other demographics were different. Trauma admission decreased after implementation (P < 0.001; PRE: 21.5%, POS: 1.8%) with no differences in outcomes except increases in LOS (P < 0.001; PRE: 114 h, POS: 124 h) and TTS (P < 0.001; PRE: 15 h, POS: 18 h). CONCLUSIONS: Morbidity and mortality did not correlate with pathway implementation; however, TTS and LOS increased. Although TTS increased, it remained under the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgery 48-h recommendation. The TTS and LOS increases were potentially from COVID-19 or cohort demographic differences. Decreased trauma as admitting service demonstrates pathway adherence. These findings highlight the need for investigation to better understand fragility fracture pathways.

Serum biomarkers related to frailty predict negative outcomes in older adults with hip fracture.

PURPOSE: Hip fracture is a public health problem worldwide. Traditional prognostic models do not include blood biomarkers, such as those obtained by proteomics. This study aimed to investigate the relationships between serum inflammatory biomarkers and frailty in older adults with hip fracture as well as adverse outcomes at one and three months after discharge. METHODS: A total of 45 patients aged 75 or older who were admitted for hip fracture were recruited. At admission, a Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) was conducted, which included a frailty assessment using the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS). Blood samples were collected before surgery. Participants were followed up at one and three months after discharge. The levels of 45 cytokines were analyzed using a high-throughput proteomic approach. Binary logistic regression was used to determine independent associations with outcomes, such as functional recovery, polypharmacy, hospital readmission, and mortality. RESULTS: The results showed that IL-7 (OR 0.66 95% CI 0.46-0.94, p = 0.022) and CXCL-12 (OR 0.97 95% CI 0.95-0.99, p = 0.011) were associated with better functional recovery at three months after discharge, while CXCL-8 (OR 1.07 95% CI 1.01-1.14, p = 0.019) was associated with an increased risk of readmission. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that immunology biomarkers may represent useful predictors of clinical outcomes in hip fracture patients.

Refracture following vertebral fragility fracture when bone fragility is not recognized: summarizing findings from comparator arms of randomized clinical trials.

PURPOSE: Since vertebral fragility fractures (VFFs) might increase the risk of subsequent fractures, we evaluated the incidence rate and the refracture risk of subsequent vertebral and non-vertebral fragility fractures (nVFFs) in untreated patients with a previous VFF. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library up to February 2022 for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that analyzed the occurrence of subsequent fractures in untreated patients with prior VFFs. Two authors independently extracted data and appraised the risk of bias in the selected studies. Primary outcomes were subsequent VFFs, while secondary outcomes were further nVFFs. The outcome of refracture within ≥ 2 years after the index fracture was measured as (i) rate, expressed per 100 person-years (PYs), and (ii) risk, expressed in percentage. RESULTS: Forty RCTs met our inclusion criteria, ranging from medium to high quality. Among untreated patients with prior VFFs, the rate of subsequent VFFs and nVFFs was 12 [95% confidence interval (CI) 9-16] and 6 (95% CI 5-8%) per 100 PYs, respectively. The higher the number of previous VFFs, the higher the incidence. Moreover, the risk of VFFs and nVFFs increased within 2 (16.6% and 8%) and 4 years (35.1% and 17.4%) based on the index VFF. CONCLUSION: The highest risk of subsequent VFFs or nVFFs was already detected within 2 years following the initial VFF. Thus, prompt interventions should be designed to improve the detection and treatment of VFFs, aiming to reduce the risk of future FFs and properly implement secondary preventive measures.

The experience of feeling old after a fragility fracture.

BACKGROUND: There has been little exploration of the effect of fragility fractures on patient perceptions of their age. The common assumption is that fractures "happen to old people". In individuals with a fragility fracture, our objective was to explore the experience of feeling old after sustaining a fragility fracture. METHODS: A secondary analysis of data from 145 community-dwelling women and men participating in six qualitative primary studies was conducted relying on a phenomenological approach. Participants were English-speaking, 45 years and older, who had sustained a recent fragility fracture or reported a history of previous fragility fractures. Data for the analysis included direct statements about feeling old as well any discussions relevant to age post-fracture. RESULTS: We highlight two interpretations based on how individuals with a history of fragility fracture talked about age: (1) Participants described feeling old post-fracture. Several participants made explicit statements about being "old". However, the majority of participants discussed experiences post-fracture that implied that they felt old and had resigned themselves to being old. This appeared to entail a shift in thinking and perception of self that was permanent and had become a part of their identity; and (2) Perceptions of increasing age after sustaining a fracture were reinforced by health care providers, family, and friends. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings challenge the notion that fractures "happen to old people" and suggest that fractures can make people feel old. Careful consideration of how bone health messages are communicated to patients post-fracture by health care providers is warranted. (Word Count: 248).

Circulating Hsa-miR499a-5p as markers in dysmobility syndrome patients: a new index for diagnosing dysmobility syndrome based on osteoporosis and predicting fracture risk.

BACKGROUND: Dysmobility syndrome based on osteoporosis (ODS) is a disease characterized by low bone mass and low muscle mass. Its features are high fracture and high fall risk. Falls and fractures are the most important factors affecting the quality of life and lifespan of ODS. However, there is no serum marker for the evaluation of ODS patients.Our previous studies have shown that the expression of circulating miRNA is stable and is a good marker for disease diagnosis. Therefore, this study aims to explore potential serum markers of ODS. METHODS: A total of 78 subjects were included in this study. The data including appendicular skeletal muscle mass index, bone mineral density, bone metabolism markers, and other relevant information were collected for analysis. Real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction was used to detect 19 miRNAs associated with muscle mass reduction. The correlation of quantitative data was analyzed by Pearson. The receiver operating characteristic curve was used to evaluate the performance of miRNA as a biomarker. RESULTS: In this study, we found that the muscle mass and strength of patients with ODS are significantly reduced and are negatively correlated with the risk of fracture. The hsa-miR-499a-5p is specifically downregulated in ODS, and is positively correlated with muscle mass and strength, and negatively correlated with the risk of fracture. Compared with muscle mass and strength, hsa-miR-499a-5p has better sensitivity and specificity as a diagnostic marker. CONCLUSION: hsa-miR-499a-5p is a potential serum biomarker for assessing muscle function and predicting fall or fracture risk in the ODS population.

Recommendations for the optimal use of bone forming agents in osteoporosis.

Bone forming agents, also known as anabolic therapies, are essential in managing osteoporosis, particularly for patients at very high-risk of fractures. Identifying candidates who will benefit the most from these treatments is crucial. For example, this group might include individuals with severe osteoporosis, multiple vertebral fractures, a recent fragility fracture or those unresponsive to antiresorptive treatments. Definitions of patients with a very high fracture risk vary across nations, are often based on fracture history, bone mineral density (BMD), and/or fracture risk calculated by FRAX® or other algorithms. However, for very high-risk patients, anabolic agents such as teriparatide, abaloparatide, or romosozumab are commonly recommended as first-line therapies due to their ability to stimulate new bone formation and improve bone microarchitecture, offering significant benefits in rapid fracture reduction over antiresorptive therapies. The cost-effectiveness of these agents is a critical consideration for decision-makers. Despite their higher costs, their effectiveness in significantly reducing fracture risk and improving quality of life can justify the investment, especially when long-term savings from reduced fracture rates and associated healthcare costs are considered. Additionally, after completing a course of anabolic therapy, transitioning to antiresorptive agents like bisphosphonates or denosumab is crucial to maintain the gains in bone density and minimize subsequent fracture risks. This sequential treatment approach ensures sustained protection and optimal resource utilization. In summary, the effective use of bone forming agents in osteoporosis requires a comprehensive strategy that includes accurate patient identification, consideration of cost-effectiveness, and implementation of appropriate sequential treatments, ultimately maximizing patient outcomes and healthcare efficiency.

Prediction of subsequent fragility fractures: application of machine learning.

BACKGROUND: Machine learning (ML) has shown exceptional promise in various domains of medical research. However, its application in predicting subsequent fragility fractures is still largely unknown. In this study, we aim to evaluate the predictive power of different ML algorithms in this area and identify key features associated with the risk of subsequent fragility fractures in osteoporotic patients. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed data from patients presented with fragility fractures at our Fracture Liaison Service, categorizing them into index fragility fracture (n = 905) and subsequent fragility fracture groups (n = 195). We independently trained ML models using 27 features for both male and female cohorts. The algorithms tested include Random Forest, XGBoost, CatBoost, Logistic Regression, LightGBM, AdaBoost, Multi-Layer Perceptron, and Support Vector Machine. Model performance was evaluated through 10-fold cross-validation. RESULTS: The CatBoost model outperformed other models, achieving 87% accuracy and an AUC of 0.951 for females, and 93.4% accuracy with an AUC of 0.990 for males. The most significant predictors for females included age, serum C-reactive protein (CRP), 25(OH)D, creatinine, blood urea nitrogen (BUN), parathyroid hormone (PTH), femoral neck Z-score, menopause age, number of pregnancies, phosphorus, calcium, and body mass index (BMI); for males, the predictors were serum CRP, femoral neck T-score, PTH, hip T-score, BMI, BUN, creatinine, alkaline phosphatase, and spinal Z-score. CONCLUSION: ML models, especially CatBoost, offer a valuable approach for predicting subsequent fragility fractures in osteoporotic patients. These models hold the potential to enhance clinical decision-making by supporting the development of personalized preventative strategies.

Application of machine learning models on predicting the length of hospital stay in fragility fracture patients.

BACKGROUND: The rate of geriatric hip fracture in Hong Kong is increasing steadily and associated mortality in fragility fracture is high. Moreover, fragility fracture patients increase the pressure on hospital bed demand. Hence, this study aims to develop a predictive model on the length of hospital stay (LOS) of geriatric fragility fracture patients using machine learning (ML) techniques. METHODS: In this study, we use the basic information, such as gender, age, residence type, etc., and medical parameters of patients, such as the modified functional ambulation classification score (MFAC), elderly mobility scale (EMS), modified Barthel index (MBI) etc, to predict whether the length of stay would exceed 21 days or not. RESULTS: Our results are promising despite the relatively small sample size of 8000 data. We develop various models with three approaches, namely (1) regularizing gradient boosting frameworks, (2) custom-built artificial neural network and (3) Google's Wide & Deep Learning technique. Our best results resulted from our Wide & Deep model with an accuracy of 0.79, with a precision of 0.73, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC-ROC) of 0.84. Feature importance analysis indicates (1) the type of hospital the patient is admitted to, (2) the mental state of the patient and (3) the length of stay at the acute hospital all have a relatively strong impact on the length of stay at palliative care. CONCLUSIONS: Applying ML techniques to improve the quality and efficiency in the healthcare sector is becoming popular in Hong Kong and around the globe, but there has not yet been research related to fragility fracture. The integration of machine learning may be useful for health-care professionals to better identify fragility fracture patients at risk of prolonged hospital stays. These findings underline the usefulness of machine learning techniques in optimizing resource allocation by identifying high risk individuals and providing appropriate management to improve treatment outcome.

Evaluating Male Patients' Understanding of Osteoporosis Evaluation and Treatment Following a Distal Radius Fracture.

PURPOSE: Current estimates suggest that 1-2 million men in the United States have osteoporosis, yet the majority of osteoporosis literature focuses on postmenopausal women. Our aim was to understand men's awareness and knowledge of osteoporosis and its treatment. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted with 20 male patients >50 years old who sustained a low-energy distal radius fracture. The goal was to ascertain patients' knowledge of osteoporosis, its management, and experience discussing osteoporosis with their primary care physicians (PCP). RESULTS: Participants had little knowledge of osteoporosis or its treatment. Many participants regarded osteoporosis as a women's disease. Most participants expressed concern regarding receiving a diagnosis of osteoporosis. Several patients stated that they believe osteoporosis may have contributed to their fracture. Families, friends, or mass media served as the primary information source for participants, but few had good self-reported understanding of the disease itself. The majority of participants reported never having discussed osteoporosis with their PCPs although almost half had received a dual x-ray absorptiometry scan. Participants expressed general interest in being tested/screened and generally were willing to undergo treatment despite the perception that medication has serious side effects. One patient expressed concern that treatment side effects could be worse than having osteoporosis. CONCLUSION: Critical knowledge gaps exist regarding osteoporosis diagnosis and treatment in at-risk male patients. Specifically, most patients were unaware they could be osteoporotic because of the perception of osteoporosis as a women's disease. Most patients had never discussed osteoporosis with their PCP. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Male patients remain relatively unaware of osteoporosis as a disease entity. Opportunity exists for prevention of future fragility fractures by improving communication between patients and physicians regarding osteoporosis screening in men following low-energy distal radius fractures.

Bone Health Screening Prior to Medicare Eligibility-Osteoporosis Screening and Fracture Prevention After Distal Radius Fractures in Patients Aged 50-59.

PURPOSE: Current guidelines recommend bone mineral density (BMD) testing after fragility fractures in patients aged 50 years or older. This study aimed to assess BMD testing and subsequent fragility fractures after low-energy distal radius fractures (DRFs) among patients aged 50-59 years. METHODS: We used the 2010-2020 MarketScan dataset to identify patients with initial DRFs with ages ranging between 50 and 59 years. We assessed the 1-year BMD testing rate and 3-year non-DRF fragility fracture rate. We created Kaplan-Meier plots to depict fragility fracture-free probabilities over time and used log-rank tests to compare the Kaplan-Meier curves. RESULTS: Among 78,389 patients aged 50-59 years with DRFs, 24,589 patients met our inclusion criteria, and most patients were women (N = 17,580, 71.5%). The BMD testing rate within 1 year after the initial DRF was 12.7% (95% CI, 12.3% to 13.2%). In addition, 1-year BMD testing rates for the age groups of 50-54 and 55-59 years were 10.4% (95% CI, 9.9% to 11.0%) and 14.9% (95% CI, 14.2% to 15.6%), respectively. Only 1.8% (95% CI, 1.5% to 2.1%) of men, compared with 17.1% (95% CI, 16.5% to 17.7%) of women, underwent BMD testing within 1 year after the initial fracture. The overall 3-year fragility fracture rate was 6.0% (95% CI, 5.6% to 6.3%). The subsequent fragility fracture rate was lower for those with any BMD testing (4.4%; 95% CI, 3.7% to 5.2%), compared with those without BMD testing (6.2%; 95% CI, 5.9% to 6.6%; P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: We report a low BMD testing rate for patients aged between 50 and 59 years after initial isolated DRFs, especially for men and patients aged between 50 and 54 years. Patients who received BMD testing had a lower rate of subsequent fracture within 3 years. We recommend that providers follow published guidelines and initiate an osteoporosis work-up for patients with low-energy DRFs to ensure early diagnosis. This provides an opportunity to initiate treatment that may prevent subsequent fractures. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognosis II.

Chronic Oral Corticosteroid Use and 10-Year Incidence of Major Complications Following Total Knee Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Oral corticosteroids are the primary treatment for several autoimmune conditions. The risk of long-term implant, bone health, and infectious-related complications in patients taking chronic oral corticosteroids before total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is unknown. We compared the 10-year cumulative incidence of revision, periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), fragility fracture (FF), and periprosthetic fracture following TKA in patients who had and did not have preoperative chronic oral corticosteroid use. METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis was conducted using a national database. Primary TKA patients who had chronic preoperative oral corticosteroid use were identified using Current Procedural Terminology and International Classification of Disease 9 and 10 codes. Exclusion criteria included malignancy, osteoporosis treatment, trauma, and < 2-year follow-up. Primary outcomes were 10-year cumulative incidence and hazard ratios (HRs) of all-cause revision (ACR), aseptic revision, PJI, FF, and periprosthetic fracture. A Kaplan-Meier analysis and a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model were utilized. Overall, 611,596 patients were identified, and 5,217 (0.85%) were prescribed chronic corticosteroids. There were 10,000 control patients randomly sampled for analysis. RESULTS: Corticosteroid patients had significantly higher 10-year HR of FF (HR; 95% confidence interval); P value (1.47; 1.34 to 1.62; P < .001)], ACR (1.21; 1.05 to 1.40; P = .009), and PJI (1.30; 1.01 to 1.69; P = .045) when compared to the control. CONCLUSIONS: Patients prescribed preoperative chronic oral corticosteroids had higher risks of ACR, PJI, and FF within 10 years following TKA compared to patients not taking corticosteroids. This information can be used by surgeons during preoperative counseling to educate this high-risk patient population about their increased risk of postoperative complications.

Application of an in-hospital, surgeon-led anti-osteoporotic medication algorithm in patients with hip fractures improves persistence to medication and can prevent the second fragility fracture.

INTRODUCTION: Secondary fracture prevention is an essential part of hip fracture treatment. Despite this, many patients are discharged without the appropriate anti-osteoporotic medication. The aim of this study is to report the outcomes of the application of an in-hospital, surgeon-led anti-osteoporotic medication algorithm to patients with hip fractures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective cohort study followed patients with hip fractures who were treated at a tertiary referral hospital between 2020 and 2022. At discharge, anti-osteoporotic medication according to the Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen (AO) Foundation algorithm was prescribed to all patients. Multivariate Cox regression analysis was used to investigate the risks of non-persistence to medication and of secondary fracture. RESULTS: Two hundred thirteen consecutive patients were prospectively followed. Mean follow-up was 17.2 ± 7.1 months. Persistence to medication at 2 years was 58% (95%CI 51-65%). A secondary osteoporotic fracture occurred in 1/126 (0.8%) persistent patients and 9/87 (11.4%) non-persistent patients. Multivariable Cox regression analysis confirmed that persistence to medication was significantly associated with a lower risk of secondary fracture (cause-specific hazard ratio [csHR] 0.05; 95%CI 0.01-0.45; p = 0.007). CONCLUSION: The application of the surgeon-led AO Foundation algorithm enables the in-hospital initiation of anti-osteoporotic treatment, leading to better persistence to medication and decreased incidence of secondary osteoporotic fractures.