Fracture prediction from self-reported falls in routine clinical practice: a registry-based cohort study.

A simple question construct regarding number of falls in the previous year, ascertained by a single question, was strongly associated with incident fractures in routine clinical practice using a population-based dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) registry. INTRODUCTION: There is conflicting evidence from research cohorts that falls independently increase fracture risk. We examined the independent effects of falls on subsequent fractures in a large clinical registry of bone mineral density (BMD) results for the Province of Manitoba, Canada that has been systematically collecting self-reported falls information since September 1, 2012. METHODS: The study population consisted of 24,943 women and men aged 40 years and older (mean age 65.5 ± 10.2 years) with fracture probability assessment (FRAX), self-reported falls for the previous year (categorized as none, 1, 2, or > 3) and fracture outcomes. Adjusted hazard ratios (HR) with 95 confidence intervals (CI) for time to fracture were estimated using Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: During mean observation time of 2.7 ± 1.0 years, 863 (3.5%) sustained one or more major osteoporotic fractures (MOF), 212 (0.8%) sustained a hip fracture, and 1210 (4.9%) sustained any incident fracture. Compared with no falls in the previous year (referent), there was a gradient of increasing risk for fracture with increasing number of falls (all P < 0.001). Results showed minimal attenuation with covariate adjustment. When adjusted for baseline fracture probability (FRAX score with BMD) the HR for MOF increased from 1.49 (95% CI 1.25-1.78) for one fall to 1.74 (1.33-2.27) for two falls to 2.62 (2.06-3.34) for ≥ 3 falls. HRs were similar for any incident fracture and slightly greater for prediction of hip fracture, reaching 3.41 (95% CI 2.19-5.31) for ≥ 3 previous falls. CONCLUSIONS: Self-report number of falls in the previous year is strongly associated with incident fracture risk in the routine clinical practice setting, and this risk is independent of age, sex, BMD, and baseline fracture probability. Moreover, there is dose-response with multiple falls (up to a maximum of 3) conferring greater risk than a single fall.

Which is the preferred site for bone mineral density monitoring as an indicator of treatment-related anti-fracture effect in routine clinical practice? A registry-based cohort study.

Change in total hip bone mineral density (BMD) provides a robust indication of anti-fracture effect during treatment monitoring in routine clinical practice, whereas spine BMD change is not independently associated with fracture risk. PURPOSE: The role of monitoring bone mineral density (BMD) as an indicator of an anti-fracture effect is controversial. Discordance between the spine and hip BMD is common and creates uncertainty in clinical practice. METHODS: Using a population-based BMD Registry for the Province of Manitoba, Canada, we compared change in the spine and hip BMD as an indicator of treatment-related fracture risk reduction. The study cohort included 6093 women age > 40 years initiating osteoporosis treatment with two consecutive dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans (mean interval 4.7 years). We computed change in the spine, total hip, and femur neck BMD between the first and second DXA scans as categorical (categorized as stable, detectable decrease, or detectable increase) and continuous measures. We modeled time to first incident fracture, ascertained from health services data, using Cox regression adjusted for baseline fracture probability. RESULTS: During a mean follow-up of 12.1 years, 995 women developed incident major osteoporotic fractures (MOF) including 246 with hip fractures and 301 with clinical vertebral fractures. Women with a detectable decrease in total hip BMD compared with stable BMD experienced an increase in MOF (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.46, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.25-1.70) while those with a detectable increase in total hip BMD experienced a decrease in MOF (aHR 0.71, 95% CI 0.61-0.83), and these results were not attenuated when adjusted for change in spine BMD. Similar results were seen for hip and clinical vertebral fracture outcomes, when BMD change was assessed as a continuous measure, and when femur neck BMD monitoring was used instead of total hip BMD monitoring. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment-related increases in total hip BMD are associated with lower MOF, hip, and clinical vertebral fracture risk compared with stable BMD, while BMD decreases are associated with higher fracture risk. In contrast, spine BMD change is not independently associated with fracture risk.