Birth weight and birth length affect future fracture risk differently in men and women.

We wanted to determine if there are any associations between birth factors and adult fracture risk. For women only, shorter birth length was associated with lower relative fracture risk. For women and men, individuals who were long at birth as well as tall in adulthood had a substantially higher relative fracture risk. PURPOSE: We aimed to examine associations between birth anthropometry and adult fracture risk and to investigate if developmental mismatch is associated with fracture risk. METHODS: We included 4635 participants (476 women and 4159 men; born 1921-1950) with hospital and national registry-based data on birth anthropometry and adult fractures (≥ 50 years). We tested associations by Cox proportional hazards regressions and present hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: In total, 1215 (26%) suffered ≥ 1 fracture during a mean observation period of 26 years. In women, unadjusted analyses indicated that both higher birth weight (HR 1.42 per kg (1.10-1.84)) and birth length (1.10 per cm (1.05-1.17)) were associated to higher adult fracture risk. After adjustment (year of birth and gestational age), statistical significance remained only for birth length, HR 1.10 per cm (1.04-1.17). For men, no associations were apparent. We found no associations between developmental mismatch (lower birth weight followed by higher adult weight) and adult fracture risk. However, for both sexes, being born tall and staying tall into adulthood was associated with a markedly higher (55-105%) relative fracture risk (HR women 2.09 (1.18-3.68), men 1.55 (1.19-2.03)) compared to being born short and remaining short in adulthood. CONCLUSION: In this study, being born shorter and lighter was associated with a lower risk for fractures ≥ 50 years in women. However, analyses indicated that tall adults who were also long at birth may be at markedly higher risk of fractures; this warrants further examinations.

Trabecular bone score in adults with type 1 diabetes: a meta-analysis.

Type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) is associated with a disproportionately high fracture rate despite a minimal decrease in bone mineral density. Though trabecular bone score (TBS), an indirect measure of bone architecture, is lower in adults with T1DM, the modest difference is unlikely to account for the large excess risk and calls for further exploration. INTRODUCTION: Fracture rates in type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) are disproportionately high compared to the modestly low bone mineral density (BMD). Distortion of bone microarchitecture compromises bone quality in T1DM and is indirectly measured by trabecular bone score (TBS). TBS could potentially be used as a screening tool for skeletal assessment; however, there are inconsistencies in the studies evaluating TBS in T1DM. We performed this meta-analysis to address this knowledge gap. METHODS: An electronic literature search was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science resources (all-year time span) to identify studies relating to TBS in T1DM. Cross-sectional and retrospective studies in adults with T1DM were included. TBS and BMD data were extracted for pooled analysis. Fracture risk could not be analyzed as there were insufficient studies reporting it. RESULT: Data from six studies were included (T1DM: n = 378 and controls: n = 286). Pooled analysis showed a significantly lower TBS [standardized mean difference (SMD) = - 0.37, 95% CI - 0.52 to - 0.21; p < 0.00001] in T1DM compared to controls. There was no difference in the lumbar spine BMD (6 studies, SMD - 0.06, 95% CI - 0.22 to 0.09; p = 0.43) and total hip BMD (6 studies, SMD - 0.17, 95% CI - 0.35 to 0.01; p = 0.06) in the case and control groups. CONCLUSIONS: Adults with T1DM have a lower TBS but similar total hip and lumbar spine BMD compared to controls. The risk attributable to the significant but limited difference in TBS falls short of explaining the large excess propensity to fragility fracture in adults with T1DM. Further studies on clarification of the mechanism and whether TBS is suited to screen for fracture risk in adults with T1DM are necessary.

Non-osteoporotic fractures are associated with increased risk of subsequent major osteoporotic fractures.

We studied the association between non-osteoporotic fractures and future major osteoporotic fractures, using UK health records. Non-osteoporotic fractures were found to increase the risk of major osteoporotic fractures, although to a lesser extent than osteoporotic fractures. This highlights the importance of considering all previous fractures in assessing future fracture risk. PURPOSE: Previous studies demonstrated that osteoporotic fractures-minor and major-increase the risk for future major osteoporotic fractures; we test whether non-osteoporotic fractures are also associated with such increased risk. METHODS: The study is a retrospective cohort study using UK primary care electronic health records. Exposure groups were defined according to fracture location prior to the year 2011 (index date): major, minor, and non-osteoporotic. The outcome of incident major osteoporotic fractures following the index date was compared between the exposure groups and the general population. RESULTS: The general study population included 1,951,388 patients. The exposure groups included 39,931 patients with a prior major osteoporotic fracture, 19,397 with a prior minor osteoporotic fracture, and 50,115 patients with a prior non-osteoporotic fracture. The standardized Incidence Rate Ratio for future major osteoporotic fractures was 2.73 (95% confidence interval: 2.64-2.82), 2.43 (2.32-2.54), and 1.83 (1.74-1.92), respectively. CONCLUSION: Non-osteoporotic fractures are significantly associated with increased risk for future major osteoporotic fractures relative to the general population, yet to a lesser extent compared to major and minor osteoporotic fractures.

Cost-effectiveness of romosozumab for the treatment of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis at high risk of fracture in Belgium.

This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of sequential treatment with romosozumab-to-alendronate compared to alendronate monotherapy and teriparatide-to-alendronate, in postmenopausal osteoporotic women from a Belgian healthcare perspective. Romosozumab-to-alendronate was found to be cost-effective compared to alendronate monotherapy and dominant compared to teriparatide-to-alendronate for osteoporotic women at high risk of fracture in Belgium. PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of sequential treatment with romosozumab followed by alendronate compared to alendronate monotherapy and teriparatide followed by alendronate, in postmenopausal osteoporotic women at high risk of fracture, from a Belgian healthcare perspective. Romosozumab is reimbursed in Belgium since December 2021. METHODS: A Markov microsimulation model was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of romosozumab-to-alendronate compared to alendronate monotherapy and to teriparatide-to-alendronate over a lifetime horizon. Patients transition between five different health states every 6 months based on fracture risks or death. The model was populated with Belgium-specific epidemiological and cost data, where available. The fracture risk reduction of romosozumab treatment was collated from the ARCH study, and from a published network meta-analysis. Costs were included from a healthcare perspective (NIHDI). Cost-effectiveness was reported in terms of costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), reported in Euro (€) 2022. Deterministic (DSA) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed. RESULTS: Romosozumab-to-alendronate was associated with 0.12 additional QALYs at an additional cost of €2314 compared to alendronate monotherapy, resulting in an ICER of €19,978. Compared to teriparatide-to-alendronate, romosozumab-to-alendronate was found to be dominant, with higher QALYs and lower costs. The base-case results were robust to uncertainty in the input parameters when conducting the sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSION: Sequential treatment with romosozumab followed by alendronate was found to be cost-effective compared to alendronate monotherapy and dominant compared to teriparatide followed by alendronate for postmenopausal women with osteoporosis at high risk of fracture in Belgium.

Romosozumab in patients who experienced an on-study fracture: post hoc analyses of the FRAME and ARCH phase 3 trials.

Post hoc analysis of FRAME and ARCH revealed that on-study nonvertebral and vertebral fractures by Month 12 were less common in women initially treated with romosozumab versus placebo or alendronate. Recurrent fracture risk was also lower in romosozumab­treated patients, and there were no fracture­related complications. Results support continuing romosozumab treatment post­fracture. PURPOSE: Post hoc analysis evaluating efficacy and safety of romosozumab, administered in the immediate post­fracture period, in the FRAME and ARCH phase 3 trials. METHODS: In FRAME (NCT01575834) and ARCH (NCT01631214), postmenopausal women with osteoporosis were randomized 1:1 to romosozumab 210 mg monthly or comparator (FRAME, placebo; ARCH, alendronate 70 mg weekly) for 12 months, followed by antiresorptive therapy (FRAME, denosumab; ARCH, alendronate). In patients who experienced on-study nonvertebral or new/worsening vertebral fracture by Month 12, we report the following: fracture and treatment­emergent adverse event (TEAE) incidence through 36 months, bone mineral density changes (BMD), and romosozumab timing. Due to the sample sizes employed, meaningful statistical comparisons between treatments were not possible. RESULTS: Incidence of on-study nonvertebral and vertebral fractures by Month 12 was numerically lower in romosozumab- versus comparator-treated patients (FRAME, 1.6% and 0.5% versus 2.1% and 1.6%; ARCH, 3.4% and 3.3% versus 4.6% and 4.9%, respectively). In those who experienced on-study nonvertebral fracture by Month 12, recurrent nonvertebral and subsequent vertebral fracture incidences were numerically lower in patients initially treated with romosozumab versus comparator (FRAME, 3.6% [2/56] and 1.8% [1/56] versus 9.2% [7/76] and 3.9% [3/76]; ARCH, 10.0% [7/70] and 5.7% [4/70] versus 12.6% [12/95] and 8.4% [8/95], respectively). Among those with on-study vertebral fracture by Month 12, recurrent vertebral and subsequent nonvertebral fracture incidences were numerically lower with romosozumab versus comparator (FRAME, 0.0% [0/17] and 0.0% [0/17] versus 11.9% [7/59] and 8.5% [5/59]; ARCH, 9.0% [6/67] and 7.5% [5/67] versus 15.0% [15/100] and 16.0% [16/100], respectively). In patients with fracture by Month 12, no fracture­related complications were reported in romosozumab-treated patients. BMD gains were numerically greater with romosozumab than comparators. CONCLUSION: Data suggest support for the efficacy and safety of continuing romosozumab treatment following fracture. TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: NCT01575834; NCT01631214.

A meta-analysis of previous falls and subsequent fracture risk in cohort studies.

The relationship between self-reported falls and fracture risk was estimated in an international meta-analysis of individual-level data from 46 prospective cohorts. Previous falls were associated with an increased fracture risk in women and men and should be considered as an additional risk factor in the FRAX® algorithm. INTRODUCTION: Previous falls are a well-documented risk factor for subsequent fracture but have not yet been incorporated into the FRAX algorithm. The aim of this study was to evaluate, in an international meta-analysis, the association between previous falls and subsequent fracture risk and its relation to sex, age, duration of follow-up, and bone mineral density (BMD). METHODS: The resource comprised 906,359 women and men (66.9% female) from 46 prospective cohorts. Previous falls were uniformly defined as any fall occurring during the previous year in 43 cohorts; the remaining three cohorts had a different question construct. The association between previous falls and fracture risk (any clinical fracture, osteoporotic fracture, major osteoporotic fracture, and hip fracture) was examined using an extension of the Poisson regression model in each cohort and each sex, followed by random-effects meta-analyses of the weighted beta coefficients. RESULTS: Falls in the past year were reported in 21.4% of individuals. During a follow-up of 9,102,207 person-years, 87,352 fractures occurred of which 19,509 were hip fractures. A previous fall was associated with a significantly increased risk of any clinical fracture both in women (hazard ratio (HR) 1.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.33-1.51) and men (HR 1.53, 95% CI 1.41-1.67). The HRs were of similar magnitude for osteoporotic, major osteoporotic fracture, and hip fracture. Sex significantly modified the association between previous fall and fracture risk, with predictive values being higher in men than in women (e.g., for major osteoporotic fracture, HR 1.53 (95% CI 1.27-1.84) in men vs. HR 1.32 (95% CI 1.20-1.45) in women, P for interaction = 0.013). The HRs associated with previous falls decreased with age in women and with duration of follow-up in men and women for most fracture outcomes. There was no evidence of an interaction between falls and BMD for fracture risk. Subsequent risk for a major osteoporotic fracture increased with each additional previous fall in women and men. CONCLUSIONS: A previous self-reported fall confers an increased risk of fracture that is largely independent of BMD. Previous falls should be considered as an additional risk factor in future iterations of FRAX to improve fracture risk prediction.

Selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) with vitamin D composite agent can prevent fracture better than SERMs treatment: based on the National Health Claims Database 2017-2019.

With the analysis of nationwide health claim data, treatment with the composite agent of SERMs and vitamin D reduces the risk of osteoporotic fracture and hip fracture better compared to SERMs treatment in women with osteoporosis aged ≥ 50 years. PURPOSE: This study compared the potential of the composite agent of selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) and vitamin D (SERM + VitD) with that of SERMs-only for fracture prevention and mortality reduction in women aged ≥ 50 years. METHODS: The incidence of osteoporotic fracture (fractures of the vertebrae, hip, wrist, or humerus) and all-cause death after treatment with SERM + VitD and SERMs were characterized using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database 2017-2019. The participants were divided into two groups (SERM + VitD vs SERMs). After exclusion and propensity score matching, 2,885 patients from each group were included in the analysis. Fracture incidence was compared between groups. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to compare mortality. Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to compare the risks of fracture occurrence and mortality between the groups. RESULTS: The incidence rate (138.6/10,000 vs. 192.4/10,000 person-years), and risk of osteoporotic fractures (hazard ratio [HR], 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61-0.97; p = 0.024) were lower in the SERM + VitD group than in the SERMs group. Analysis for specific fractures showed a lower hazard of hip fracture in the SERM + VitD group (HR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.09-0.71; p = 0.009). No difference was observed between the groups regarding mortality. CONCLUSION: The risk of osteoporotic fractures, especially hip fractures, was lower in the SERM + VitD group than in the SERMs group. Therefore, the composite agent of SERMs and vitamin D can be considered as a viable option for postmenopausal women with a relatively low fracture risk.

A new hip fracture risk index derived from FEA-computed proximal femur fracture loads and energies-to-failure.

Hip fracture risk assessment is an important but challenging task. Quantitative CT-based patient-specific finite element (FE) analysis (FEA) incorporates bone geometry and bone density in the proximal femur. We developed a global FEA-computed fracture risk index to increase the prediction accuracy of hip fracture incidence. PURPOSE: Quantitative CT-based patient-specific finite element (FE) analysis (FEA) incorporates bone geometry and bone density in the proximal femur to compute the force (fracture load) and energy necessary to break the proximal femur in a particular loading condition. The fracture loads and energies-to-failure are individually associated with incident hip fracture, and provide different structural information about the proximal femur. METHODS: We used principal component analysis (PCA) to develop a global FEA-computed fracture risk index that incorporates the FEA-computed yield and ultimate failure loads and energies-to-failure in four loading conditions of 110 hip fracture subjects and 235 age- and sex-matched control subjects from the AGES-Reykjavik study. Using a logistic regression model, we compared the prediction performance for hip fracture based on the stratified resampling. RESULTS: We referred the first principal component (PC1) of the FE parameters as the global FEA-computed fracture risk index, which was the significant predictor of hip fracture (p-value < 0.001). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) using PC1 (0.776) was higher than that using all FE parameters combined (0.737) in the males (p-value < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The global FEA-computed fracture risk index increased hip fracture risk prediction accuracy in males.

Enhanced fracture risk prediction: a novel multi-trait genetic approach integrating polygenic scores of fracture-related traits.

The novel metaPGS, integrating multiple fracture-related genetic traits, surpasses traditional polygenic scores in predicting fracture risk. Demonstrating a robust association with incident fractures, this metaPGS offers significant potential for enhancing clinical fracture risk assessment and tailoring prevention strategies. INTRODUCTION: Current polygenic scores (PGS) have limited predictive power for fracture risk. To improve genetic prediction, we developed and evaluated a novel metaPGS combining genetic information from multiple fracture-related traits. METHODS: We derived individual PGS from genome-wide association studies of 16 fracture-related traits and employed an elastic-net logistic regression model to examine the association between the 16 PGSs and fractures. An optimal metaPGS was constructed by combining 11 significant individual PGSs selected by the elastic regularized regression model. We evaluated the predictive power of the metaPGS alone and in combination with clinical risk factors recommended by guidelines. The discrimination ability of metaPGS was assessed using the concordance index. Reclassification was assessed using net reclassification improvement (NRI) and integrated discrimination improvement (IDI). RESULTS: The metaPGS had a significant association with incident fractures (HR 1.21, 95% CI 1.18-1.25 per standard deviation of metaPGS), which was stronger than previously developed bone mineral density (BMD)-related individual PGSs. Models with PGS_FNBMD, PGS_TBBMD, and metaPGS had slightly higher but statistically non-significant c-index than the base model (0.640, 0.644, 0.644 vs. 0.638). However, the reclassification analysis showed that compared to the base model, the model with metaPGS improves the reclassification of fracture. CONCLUSIONS: The metaPGS is a promising approach for stratifying fracture risk in the European population, improving fracture risk prediction by combining genetic information from multiple fracture-related traits.

Computed tomography-based structural rigidity analysis can assess tumor- and treatment-induced changes in rat bones with metastatic lesions.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer (BrCa) is a predominant malignancy, with metastasis occurring in one in eight patients, nearly half of which target the bone, leading to serious complications such as pain, fractures, and compromised mobility. Structural rigidity, crucial for bone strength, becomes compromised with osteolytic lesions, highlighting the vulnerability and increased fracture risk in affected areas. Historically, two-dimensional radiographs have been employed to predict these fracture risks; however, their limitations in capturing the three-dimensional structural and material changes in bone have raised concerns. Recent advances in CT-based Structural Rigidity Analysis (CTRA), offer a promising, more accurate non-invasive 3D approach. This study aims to assess the efficacy of CTRA in monitoring osteolytic lesions' progression and response to therapy, suggesting its potential superiority over existing methodologies in guiding treatment strategies. METHODS: Twenty-seven female nude rats underwent femoral intra-medullary inoculation with MDA-MB-231 human breast cancer cells or saline control. They were divided into Control, Cancer Control, Ibandronate, and Paclitaxel groups. Osteolytic progression was monitored weekly using biplanar radiography, quantitative computed tomography (QCT), and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA). CTRA was employed to predict fracture risk, normalized using the contralateral femur. Statistical analyses, including Kruskal-Wallis and ANOVA, assessed differences in outcomes among groups and over time. RESULTS: Biplanar radiographs showed treatment benefits over time; however, only certain time-specific differences between the Control and other treatment groups were discernible. Notably, observer subjectivity in X-ray scoring became evident, with significant inter-operator variations. DEXA measurements for metaphyseal Bone Mineral Content (BMC) did not exhibit notable differences between groups. Although diaphyseal BMC highlighted some variance, it did not reveal significant differences between treatments at specific time points, suggesting a limited ability for DEXA to differentiate between treatment effects. In contrast, the CTRA consistently demonstrated variations across different treatments, effectively capturing bone rigidity changes over time, and the axial- (EA), bending- (EI), and torsional rigidity (GJ) outcomes from the CTRA method successfully distinguished differences among treatments at specific time points. CONCLUSION: Traditional approaches, such as biplanar radiographs and DEXA, have exhibited inherent limitations, notably observer bias and time-specific inefficacies. Our study accentuates the capability of CTRA in capturing real-time, progressive changes in bone structure, with the potential to predict fractures more accurately and provide a more objective analysis. Ultimately, this innovative approach may bridge the existing gap in clinical guidelines, ushering in enhanced Clinical Decision Support Tool (CDST) for both surgical and non-surgical treatments.

Androgen deprivation therapy-related fracture risk in prostate cancer: an insurance claims database study in Japan.

INTRODUCTION: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is widely used for the treatment of prostate cancer. ADT is associated with reduced bone density leading to an increased risk of osteoporotic fracture. The objective of this retrospective cohort study was to quantify fracture risk in men treated with ADT for prostate cancer in real-world practice in Japan. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were extracted from the Japanese Medical Data Vision (MDV) database. Men initiating ADT for treatment of prostate cancer between April 2010 and March 2021 were identified and matched to a cohort of prostate cancer patients not taking ADT using a propensity score. Fracture rates were estimated by a cumulative incidence function and compared between cohorts using a Cox cause-specific hazard model. Information was extracted on demographics, comorbidities and bone densitometry. RESULTS: 30,561 men with PC starting ADT were matched to 30,561 men with prostate cancer not treated with ADT. Following ADT initiation, <5% of men underwent bone densitometry. Prescription of ADT was associated with an increased fracture risk compared to not taking ADT (adjusted hazard ratio: 1.63 [95% CI 1.52-1.75]). CONCLUSION: ADT is associated with a 1.6-fold increase in the risk of osteoporotic fracture in men with prostate cancer. Densitometry in this population is infrequent and monitoring urgently needs to be improved in order to implement effective fracture prevention.

Secondary fracture and mortality risk with very high fracture risk osteoporosis and proximal femoral fracture.

INTRODUCTION: We aimed to investigate secondary fracture and mortality rates, and risk factors in patients with proximal femoral fractures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a multicenter prospective cohort study on female patients with proximal femoral fractures who underwent surgical treatment between April 2020 and March 2021. Postoperative follow-ups were performed at 6-, 12-, 18-, and 24-month intervals to determine the secondary fracture and mortality rates, and the risk factors and its influence were examined. RESULTS: Of the 279 registered patients, 144 patients (51.6%) were diagnosed with very high fracture risk osteoporosis. The postoperative osteoporosis rate exceeded 96%; however, osteoanabolic agents were used sparingly. The risk factor of both secondary fracture and mortality was very high fracture risk osteoporosis, and secondary fractures within 12 months were markedly occurred. Secondary fracture rates increased as the number of matched very high fracture risk osteoporosis criteria increased. Notably, secondary fractures and mortality were recorded in 21.4% and 23.5% of the patients who met all criteria, respectively. CONCLUSION: Over half of the female patients with proximal femoral fractures had very high fracture risk osteoporosis. Although, very high fracture risk osteoporosis demonstrated a notably increased risk of secondary fractures, particularly at 12 months post-surgery, the use of osteoanabolic agents was substantially low. Collectively, our findings highlight the need to consider the risk of very high fracture risk osteoporosis, expand the use of medications to include osteoanabolic agents, and reconsider the current healthcare approach for proximal femoral fractures.

Fat as a Friend or Foe of the Bone.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The objective of this review is to summarize the literature on the prevalence and diagnosis of obesity and its metabolic profile, including bone metabolism, focusing on the main inflammatory and turnover bone mediators that better characterize metabolically healthy obesity phenotype, and to summarize the therapeutic interventions for obesity with their effects on bone health. RECENT FINDINGS: Osteoporosis and fracture risk not only increase with age and menopause but also with metabolic diseases, such as diabetes mellitus. Thus, patients with high BMI may have a higher bone fragility and fracture risk. However, some obese individuals with healthy metabolic profiles seem to be less at risk of bone fracture. Obesity has become an alarming disease with growing prevalence and multiple metabolic comorbidities, resulting in a significant burden on healthcare and increased mortality. The imbalance between increased food ingestion and decreased energy expenditure leads to pathological adipose tissue distribution and function, with increased secretion of proinflammatory markers and harmful consequences for body tissues, including bone tissue. However, some obese individuals seem to have a healthy metabolic profile and may not develop cardiometabolic disease during their lives. This healthy metabolic profile also benefits bone turnover and is associated with lower fracture risk.

In Vivo Assessment of Bone Quality Without X-rays.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review summarizes recent advances in the assessment of bone quality using non-X-ray techniques. RECENT FINDINGS: Quantitative ultrasound (QUS) provides multiple measurements of bone characteristics based on the propagation of sound through bone, the attenuation of that sound, and different processing techniques. QUS parameters and model predictions based on backscattered signals can discriminate non-fracture from fracture cases with accuracy comparable to standard bone mineral density (BMD). With advances in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), bound water and pore water, or a porosity index, can be quantified in several long bones in vivo. Since such imaging-derived measurements correlate with the fracture resistance of bone, they potentially provide new BMD-independent predictors of fracture risk. While numerous measurements of mineral, organic matrix, and bound water by Raman spectroscopy correlate with the strength and toughness of cortical bone, the clinical assessment of person's bone quality using spatially offset Raman spectroscopy (SORS) requires advanced spectral processing techniques that minimize contaminating signals from fat, skin, and blood. Limiting exposure of patients to ionizing radiation, QUS, MRI, and SORS has the potential to improve the assessment of fracture risk and track changes of new therapies that target bone matrix and micro-structure.

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.

Fracture Risk with Modified FRAX in Men Living with HIV.

BACKGROUND: Aging of the HIV-infected population and prolonged use of ARTs, produced metabolic alterations, including increased fracture risk. FRAX is a validated, computer-based clinical fracture risk calculator which estimates 10-year risk of major fracture, and hip fracture. However may underestimate risk in HIV-infected individuals. Several experts recommend considering HIV a cause of secondary osteoporosis. METHODOLOGY: Were included 52 men living with HIV, classified as high, moderate and low risk using ABRASSO graphic tool. RESULTS: High risk prevalence found for major fracture and hip fracture were both 2 (4.2 %) using FRAX; while 10 (20.8 %) and 14 (29.2 %) using modified FRAX, respectively. Considering bone densitometry, 5 (12.8 %) were high risk for hip fracture and was noticed an increase in high risk major fracture from 4.2 % with FRAX to 5.1 % with FRAX considering bone densitometry. As for the low risk, 19 (39.6 %) for major fracture and 23 (47.9 %) for hip fracture with FRAX. While low risk modified FRAX were 0 (0 %) for major fracture and 8 (16.7 %) for hip fracture. It was also evidenced an association of high risk for major fracture and hip fracture with modified FRAX using Fisher's exact test [p=0.0273 (bilateral)]. CONCLUSION: It was concluded is recommended using modified FRAX for people living with HIV for better control and therapeutic decision-making about osteometabolic alterations provocated for the virus and ARTs.

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.

Follow-up Bone Mineral Density Testing: 2023 Official Positions of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry.

Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is the gold standard method for measuring bone mineral density (BMD) which is most strongly associated with fracture risk. BMD is therefore the basis for the World Health Organization's densitometric definition of osteoporosis. The International Society for Clinical Densitometry (ISCD) promotes best densitometry practices and its official positions reflect critical review of current evidence by domain experts. This document reports new official positions regarding follow-up DXA examinations based on a systematic review of literature published through December 2022. Adoption of official positions requires consensus agreement from an expert panel following a modified RAND protocol. Unless explicitly altered by the new position statements, prior ISCD official positions remain in force. This update reflects increased consideration of the clinical context prompting repeat examination. Follow-up DXA should be performed with pre-defined objectives when the results would have an impact on patient management. Testing intervals should be individualized according to the patient's age, sex, fracture risk and treatment history. Incident fractures and therapeutic approach are key considerations. Appropriately ordered and interpreted follow-up DXA examinations support diagnostic and therapeutic decision making, thereby contributing to excellent clinical care. Future research should address the complementary roles of clinical findings, imaging and laboratory testing to guide management.

Vertebral Fracture Risk Thresholds from Phantom-Less Quantitative Computed Tomography-Based Finite Element Modeling Correlate to Phantom-Based Outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Osteoporosis indicates weakened bones and heightened fracture susceptibility due to diminished bone quality. Dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry is unable to assess bone strength. Volumetric bone mineral density (vBMD) from quantitative computed tomography (QCT) has been used to establish guidelines as equivalent measurements for osteoporosis. QCT-based finite element analysis (FEA) has been implemented using calibration phantoms to establish bone strength thresholds based on the established vBMD. The primary aim was to validate vertebral failure load thresholds using a phantom-less approach with previously established thresholds, advancing a phantom-free approach for fracture risk prediction. METHODOLOGY: A controlled cohort of 108 subjects (68 females) was used to validate sex-specific vertebral fracture load thresholds for normal, osteopenic, and osteoporotic subjects, obtained using a QCT/FEA-based phantom-less calibration approach and two material equations. RESULTS: There were strong prediction correlations between the phantom-less and phantom-based methods (R2: 0.95 and 0.97 for males, and R2: 0.96 and 0.98 for females) based on the two equations. Bland Altman plots and paired t-tests showed no significant differences between methods. Predictions for bone strengths and thresholds using the phantom-less method matched those obtained using the phantom calibration and those previously established, with ≤4500 N (fragile) and ≥6000 N (normal) bone strength in females, and ≤6500 N (fragile) and ≥8500 N (normal) bone strength in males. CONCLUSION: Phantom-less QCT-based FEA can allow for prospective and retrospective studies evaluating incidental vertebral fracture risk along the spine and their association with spine curvature and/or fracture etiology. The findings of this study further supported the application of phantom-less QCT-based FEA modeling to predict vertebral strength, aiding in identifying individuals prone to fractures. This reinforces the rationale for adopting this method as a comprehensive approach in predicting and managing fracture risk.

Australian clinicians' perceptions of patients with very high risk of fracture.

BACKGROUND: International osteoporosis guidelines have recommended treatment approaches based on fracture risk stratification, in particular, anabolic therapy for patients with very high risk (VHR) of fragility fracture. AIM: To summarise Australian clinicians' perceptions of patients at VHR of fracture. METHODS: Australian clinicians invited to educational webinars on anabolic treatments for osteoporosis were surveyed in March and April 2021 about a typical patient they had most recently seen and identified as at VHR of fracture. RESULTS: Of the 268 clinician attendees who were invited to complete the post-webinar surveys, 67 (25%) responded and permitted the publication of aggregated data. A typical patient perceived to have a VHR of fracture was a woman in her 80's, living at home, who had been diagnosed with osteoporosis between 5 and 10 years ago, and received treatment for 1-5 years' duration, most commonly denosumab. The patient frequently had a T-score below -3.0 SD (standard deviation), multiple fragility fractures and most commonly suffered a vertebral fracture in the past 12 months, whereas on an adequate regimen of osteoporosis medication. There was a mismatch between the patient being eligible for anabolic therapy (64.2%) and actually having been prescribed an anabolic treatment in the past (20.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Australian clinicians' perceptions of patients with a VHR of fracture and the use of anabolic agents appear to be heavily influenced by local reimbursement criteria. The mismatch between patients deemed eligible for reimbursed anabolic therapy and those prescribed an anabolic agent suggests treatment inertia.