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 integrated structure of care: evidence for the efficacy of models of clinical governance in the prevention of fragility fractures after recent sentinel fracture after the age of 50 years.

Randomized clinical trials and observational studies on the implementation of clinical governance models, in patients who had experienced a fragility fracture, were examined. Literature was systematically reviewed and summarized by a panel of experts who formulated recommendations for the Italian guideline. PURPOSE: After experiencing a fracture, several strategies may be adopted to reduce the risk of recurrent fragility fractures and associated morbidity and mortality. Clinical governance models, such as the fracture liaison service (FLS), have been introduced for the identification, treatment, and monitoring of patients with secondary fragility fractures. A systematic review was conducted to evaluate the association between multidisciplinary care systems and several outcomes in patients with a fragility fracture in the context of the development of the Italian Guidelines. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were investigated up to December 2020 to update the search of the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies that analyzed clinical governance models in patients who had experienced a fragility fracture were eligible. Three authors independently extracted data and appraised the risk of bias in the included studies. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. Effect sizes were pooled in a meta-analysis using random-effects models. Primary outcomes were bone mineral density values, antiosteoporotic therapy initiation, adherence to antiosteoporotic medications, subsequent fracture, and mortality risk, while secondary outcomes were quality of life and physical performance. RESULTS: Fifteen RCTs and 62 observational studies, ranging from very low to low quality for bone mineral density values, antiosteoporotic initiation, adherence to antiosteoporotic medications, subsequent fracture, mortality, met our inclusion criteria. The implementation of clinical governance models compared to their pre-implementation or standard care/non-attenders significantly improved BMD testing rate, and increased the number of patients who initiated antiosteoporotic therapy and enhanced their adherence to the medications. Moreover, the treatment by clinical governance model respect to standard care/non-attenders significantly reduced the risk of subsequent fracture and mortality. The integrated structure of care enhanced the quality of life and physical function among patients with fragility fractures. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our findings, clinicians should promote the management of patients experiencing a fragility fracture through structured and integrated models of care. The task force has formulated appropriate recommendations on the implementation of multidisciplinary care systems in patients with, or at risk of, fragility fractures.

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.

Patients with Lemierre syndrome have a high risk of new thromboembolic complications, clinical sequelae and death: an analysis of 712 cases.

BACKGROUND: Lemierre syndrome is characterized by head/neck vein thrombosis and septic embolism usually complicating an acute oropharyngeal bacterial infection in adolescents and young adults. We described the course of Lemierre syndrome in the contemporary era. METHODS: In our individual-level analysis of 712 patients (2000-2017), we included cases described as Lemierre syndrome if these criteria were met: (i) primary site of bacterial infection in the head/neck; (ii) objectively confirmed local thrombotic complications or septic embolism. The study outcomes were new or recurrent venous thromboembolism or peripheral septic lesions, major bleeding, all-cause death and clinical sequelae. RESULTS: The median age was 21 (Q1-Q3: 17-33) years, and 295 (41%) were female. At diagnosis, acute thrombosis of head/neck veins was detected in 597 (84%) patients, septic embolism in 582 (82%) and both in 468 (80%). After diagnosis and during in-hospital follow-up, new venous thromboembolism occurred in 34 (5.2%, 95% CI 3.8-7.2%) patients, new peripheral septic lesions became evident in 76 (11.7%; 9.4-14.3%). The rate of either was lower in patients who received anticoagulation (OR: 0.59; 0.36-0.94), higher in those with initial intracranial involvement (OR: 2.35; 1.45-3.80). Major bleeding occurred in 19 patients (2.9%; 1.9-4.5%), and 26 died (4.0%; 2.7-5.8%). Clinical sequelae were reported in 65 (10.4%, 8.2-13.0%) individuals, often consisting of cranial nerve palsy (n = 24) and orthopaedic limitations (n = 19). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with Lemierre syndrome were characterized by a substantial risk of new thromboembolic complications and death. This risk was higher in the presence of initial intracranial involvement. One-tenth of survivors suffered major clinical sequelae.

Gastrointestinal symptoms and digestive comorbidities in an Italian cohort of patients with COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic mainly involves respiratory symptoms, though gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms are increasingly being recognized. In this context, the presence of comorbidities appears to be associated with adverse outcomes. However, the role of digestive manifestations is not yet well defined. The primary aim of this study was to assess the prevalence of GI symptoms and digestive comorbidities in a cohort of patients with COVID-19 compared to controls. The secondary aim was to determine the association of GI-symptoms and digestive comorbidities with clinical outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Inpatients with COVID-19 and controls with similar symptoms and/or radiological findings were enrolled. Symptoms at admission and throughout hospitalization were collected as they were comorbidities. The measured clinical outcomes were mortality, intensive care unit admission and cumulative endpoint. RESULTS: A total of 105 patients were included: 34 with COVID-19 and 71 controls. At admission, the prevalence of GI symptoms among COVID-19 patients was 8.8%. During hospitalization, the frequency of GI symptoms was higher in patients with COVID-19 than in controls (p=0.004). Among patients with COVID-19, the mortality and a cumulative endpoint rates of those with GI symptoms were both lower than for those without GI symptoms (p=0.016 and p=0.000, respectively). Finally, we found digestive comorbidities to be associated with a milder course of COVID-19 (p=0.039 for cumulative endpoint). CONCLUSIONS: Our results highlighted the non-negligible frequency of GI symptoms in patients with COVID-19, partly attributable to the therapies implemented. In addition, the presence of GI symptoms and digestive comorbidities is associated with better outcomes. Most likely, digestive comorbidities do not hinder the host's immune response against SARS-COV-2, and the occurrence of GI symptoms might be linked to a faster reduction of the viral load via the faecal route.