The assessment of fracture risk.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Unnanuntana A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC2827823 | biostudies-other | 2010 Mar
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Publications
The assessment of fracture risk.
Unnanuntana Aasis A Gladnick Brian P BP Donnelly Eve E Lane Joseph M JM
The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume 20100301 3
Bone mineral density is considered to be the standard measure for the diagnosis of osteoporosis and the assessment of fracture risk. The majority of fragility fractures occur in patients with bone mineral density in the osteopenic range. The Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) can be used as an assessment modality for the prediction of fractures on the basis of clinical risk factors, with or without the use of femoral neck bone mineral density. Treatment of osteoporosis should be considered for ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundBone health and fracture risk reduction are increasingly recognized as important issues in Parkinson's disease (PD). However, the evidence for fracture risk management in atypical parkinsonism (AP) is less clear. Guidance on management of bone health in PD has recently been published.ObjectivesTo evaluate the outcome of fracture risk assessment in a cohort of patients with AP, compared to a population with idiopathic PD.MethodsWe did a cross-sectional study of patients with PD or AP who had fracture risk assessed at two tertiary movement disorder centres. Data on fracture risk as assessed using QFracture and FRAX were collected. To assess for the effect of age on fracture risk we compared the risks of PD and AP patients aged ≤70 and >70 years.ResultsWe assessed 71 patients with AP and 267 with PD. Age, sex and body mass index were similar between groups; patients with AP were more likely to have fallen in the previous year. Major osteoporotic fracture risk was greater in patients with AP aged ≤70 compared to PD; no differences between groups were seen in those aged >70 years. 76% of those with AP, and 63% with PD, had an estimated fracture risk indicating bone-sparing treatment, but only 33% of patients with AP were receiving this where it was indicated.ConclusionThere is scope for considerable improvement in fracture risk assessment and treatment in atypical parkinsonism, taking into account the worse prognosis of this patient group.
| S-EPMC8015890 | biostudies-literature
Project description:UNLABELLED:We systematically reviewed the literature on the performance of osteoporosis absolute fracture risk assessment instruments. Relatively few studies have evaluated the calibration of instruments in populations separate from their development cohorts, and findings are mixed. Many studies had methodological limitations making susceptibility to bias a concern. INTRODUCTION:The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature on the performance of osteoporosis clinical fracture risk assessment instruments for predicting absolute fracture risk, or calibration, in populations other than their derivation cohorts. METHODS:We performed a systematic review, and MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and multiple other literature sources were searched. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied and data extracted, including information about study participants, study design, potential sources of bias, and predicted and observed fracture probabilities. RESULTS:A total of 19,949 unique records were identified for review. Fourteen studies met inclusion criteria. There was substantial heterogeneity among included studies. Six studies assessed the WHO's Fracture Risk Assessment (FRAX) instrument in five separate cohorts, and a variety of risk assessment instruments were evaluated in the remainder of the studies. Approximately half found good instrument calibration, with observed fracture probabilities being close to predicted probabilities for different risk categories. Studies that assessed the calibration of FRAX found mixed performance in different populations. A similar proportion of studies that evaluated simple risk assessment instruments (?5 variables) found good calibration when compared with studies that assessed complex instruments (>5 variables). Many studies had methodological features making them susceptible to bias. CONCLUSIONS:Few studies have evaluated the performance or calibration of osteoporosis fracture risk assessment instruments in populations separate from their development cohorts. Findings are mixed, and many studies had methodological limitations making susceptibility to bias a possibility, raising concerns about use of these tools outside of the original derivation cohorts. Further studies are needed to assess the calibration of instruments in different populations prior to widespread use.
| S-EPMC3962543 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD), age plus femoral neck BMD T score, and three externally generated fracture risk tools had similar accuracy to identify older men who developed osteoporotic fractures. Risk tools with femoral neck BMD performed better than those without BMD. The externally developed risk tools were poorly calibrated. INTRODUCTION:We compared the performance of fracture risk assessment tools in older men, accounting for competing risks including mortality. METHODS:A comparative ROC curve analysis assessed the ability of the QFracture, FRAX® and Garvan fracture risk tools, and femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD) T score with or without age to identify incident fracture in community-dwelling men aged 65 years or older (N = 4994) without hip or clinical vertebral fracture or antifracture treatment at baseline. RESULTS:Among risk tools calculated with BMD, the discriminative ability to identify men with incident hip fracture was similar for FRAX (AUC 0.77, 95% CI 0.73, 0.81), the Garvan tool (AUC 0.78, 95% CI 0.74, 0.82), age plus femoral neck BMD T score (AUC 0.79, 95% CI 0.75, 0.83), and femoral neck BMD T score alone (AUC 0.76, 95% CI 0.72, 0.81). Among risk tools calculated without BMD, the discriminative ability to identify hip fracture was similar for QFracture (AUC 0.69, 95% CI 0.66, 0.73), FRAX (AUC 0.70, 95% CI 0.66, 0.73), and the Garvan tool (AUC 0.71, 95% CI 0.67, 0.74). Correlated ROC curve analyses revealed better diagnostic accuracy for risk scores calculated with BMD compared with QFracture (P < 0.0001). Calibration was good for the internally generated BMD T score predictor with or without age and poor for the externally developed risk tools. CONCLUSION:In untreated older men without fragility fractures at baseline, an age plus femoral neck BMD T score classifier identified men with incident hip fracture as accurately as more complicated fracture risk scores.
| S-EPMC5695884 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Undertreatment of osteoporosis has been recognized as a common problem in selected patient subgroups. However, primary prevention has been hampered by limited risk assessment tools that can be applied to large populations.Using clinical risk factors with a new tool from the World Health Organization (FRAX) and recommendations from the National Osteoporosis Foundation (NOF), we evaluated fracture risk and osteoporosis treatment in a US cohort.African Americans and Caucasians recruited from 2003-7 across the US as part of a longitudinal study.Cross-sectional.The number of persons receiving prescription osteoporosis medications was assessed by race, sex, and fracture risk. Multivariable logistic regression evaluated the association between receipt of osteoporosis medications and fracture risk after controlling for potential confounders.Among 24,783 participants, estimated fracture risk was highest for Caucasian women. After multivariable adjustment for fracture-related risk factors, the likelihood of receipt of osteoporosis medications among African Americans was lower than among Caucasians [odds ratio (OR) = 0.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.37, 0.53] and for men compared to women (OR = 0.08, 95% CI 0.06-0.10). Even for the highest risk group, Caucasian women with 10-year hip fracture risk > or = 3% (n = 3,025, 39.7%), only 26% were receiving treatment.A substantial gap exists between 2008 NOF treatment guidelines based on fracture risk and the receipt of prescription osteoporosis medications. This gap was particularly notable for African Americans and men. FRAX is likely to be useful to assess risk at a population level and identify high-risk persons in need of additional evaluation.
| S-EPMC2710475 | biostudies-other
Project description:BACKGROUND: Breast cancer (BC) therapies can have negative effects on bone. Current guidelines recommend antiresorptive therapy based on bone mineral density (BMD), and emerging guidelines include both clinical risk factors and BMD to assess the overall fracture risk. A retrospective, case-controlled study based on current and emerging guidelines was conducted in women with newly diagnosed BC to identify those who were at increased fracture risk based on current and emerging guidelines. METHODS: Baseline characteristics, fracture risk factors, and lumbar-spine (LS) and total-hip BMD in women with BC (88 premenopausal and 402 postmenopausal) were assessed to determine who would receive bisphosphonate therapy based on current and emerging guidelines. RESULTS: Among patients with estrogen-receptor-positive (ER(+)) BC, 18.8% of premenopausal and 36.9% of postmenopausal women were osteopenic at LS. In the postmenopausal cohort, osteoporosis was more prevalent in patients with ER(+) vs ER(-) BC. Current guidelines identified 8.9% of patients as eligible for antiresorptive therapy, clinical risk factors alone identified 6.5%, and BMD plus clinical risk factors identified 28.6%. CONCLUSIONS: In addition to fracture risk factors present at BC diagnosis, cancer therapies leading to BMD loss further increase fracture risk. Evaluating both BMD and clinical risk factors may allow more effective identification of BC patients with elevated fracture risk.
| S-EPMC2837568 | biostudies-other
Project description:Atypical femoral fractures (AFFs) occurring during the course of osteoporosis treatment usually lead to discontinuation of anti-resorptive (AR) drugs. However, the risk of fracture after an AFF is unknown. We conducted a follow-up study of patients with AFF matched 1:3 for age and gender with patients with a peripheral major osteoporotic fracture (pMOF), in the setting of a fracture liaison service, to investigate the incidence of subsequent low-trauma fractures. Fifty-five patients with AFF (95% women, age [mean ± standard deviation] 75 ± 10 years, 89% exposed to AR drugs), followed for 6.2 ± 3.7 years, were compared to 165 matched controls with a pMOF (hip 85%) followed for 4.3 ± 2.6 years. During the follow-up, 38% of patients in the AFF group and 16% in the pMOF group received AR therapies. Continuation of AR drugs after an AFF was associated with contralateral AFF in 27% of subjects. The risks of new low-trauma, major osteoporotic and imminent (within 2 years) fractures, were similar between the two groups: incidence rate ratio (95% confidence interval [CI]) of subsequent fracture following AFF relative to pMOF, 1.30 (95% CI, 0.82-2.04), 1.28 (95% CI, 0.74-2.15), and 1.11 (95% CI, 0.54-2.15), respectively. Moreover, the risk of sustaining multiple fractures per participant was significantly increased among patients with AFF compared to pMOF (hazard ratio 1.48 [95% CI, 1.00-2.19]; p = 0.049). When taking mortality into account, the risk of subsequent fractures tended to be higher in the AFF group (sub-hazard ratio 1.42 [95% CI, 0.95-2.12]). In conclusion, patients who sustained an AFF are at high risk of subsequent fragility fractures, at least equal or even greater to the risk observed after a pMOF. However, continuation of AR drugs increases the risk of contralateral AFF. Therefore, optimal modalities for secondary fracture prevention after AFF require further evaluation. © 2021 The Authors. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).
| S-EPMC9298806 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundFractures in Gaucher disease type 1 (GD1) patients cause significant morbidity. Fracture risk may be decreased by enzyme replacement therapy (ERT) but not eliminated. When considering initiation of treatment, it is useful to know to what extent fixed patient-specific factors determine risk for future fractures beyond standard risk factors that change with time and treatment, such as decreased bone mineral density. We developed a tool called the GRAF score (Gaucher Risk Assessment for Fracture) that applies 5 widely available characteristics (sex, age at treatment initiation [ATI], time interval between diagnosis and treatment initiation, splenectomy status, history of pre-treatment bone crisis) and provides a practical method to assess future fracture risk when imiglucerase ERT is initiated.MethodsInclusion criteria: GD1 patients in the International Collaborative Gaucher Group Gaucher Registry as of September 2019 initially treated with alglucerase/imiglucerase; known splenectomy status; at least one skeletal assessment on treatment (3216 of 6422 patients). Data were analyzed by ATI group (< 18, ≥ 18 to < 50, or ≥ 50 years of age) using Cox proportional hazards regression with all 5 risk factors included in the multivariable model. A composite risk score was calculated by summing the contribution of each parameter weighted by the strength of its association (regression coefficient) with fracture risk.ResultsPatients were followed from the date of treatment initiation (or age 18 years for patients if treatment started earlier) to the date of first adult fracture (n = 288 first fracture endpoints), death, or end of follow-up. The GRAF score for each ATI group was associated with a 2.7-fold increased risk of adult fracture for each one-point increase (p < 0.02 for < 18 ATI, p < 0.0001 for ≥ 18 to < 50 ATI and ≥ 50 ATI).ConclusionsThe GRAF score is a tool to be used with bone density and other modifiable, non-GD-specific risk factors (e.g. smoking, alcohol intake, frailty) to inform physicians and previously untreated GD1 patients about risk for a future fracture after starting imiglucerase regardless of whether there is an eventual switch to an alternative ERT or to substrate reduction therapy. GRAF can also help predict the extent that fracture risk increases if initiation of treatment is further delayed.
| S-EPMC7893749 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Type 2 diabetes is a risk factor for fracture independent of FRAX (fracture risk assessment) probability. We directly compared four proposed methods to improve the performance of FRAX for type 2 diabetes by: (1) including the rheumatoid arthritis (RA) input to FRAX; (2) making a trabecular bone score (TBS) adjustment to FRAX; (3) reducing the femoral neck T-score input to FRAX by 0.5 SD; and (4) increasing the age input to FRAX by 10 years. We examined major osteoporotic fractures (MOFs) and hip fractures (HFs) over a mean of 8.3 years observation among 44,543 women and men 40 years of age or older (4136 with diabetes) with baseline lumbar spine and hip DXA from 1999 through 2016. Controlled for unadjusted FRAX probability, diabetes was associated with an increased risk for MOFs and HFs. All four FRAX adjustments attenuated the effect of diabetes, but a residual effect of diabetes was seen on MOF risk after TBS adjustment, and on HF risk after the RA and TBS adjustments. Among those with diabetes, unadjusted FRAX risk underestimated MOF (observed/predicted ratio 1.15; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.28), but this was no longer significant after applying the diabetes adjustments. HF risk was more severely underestimated (observed/predicted ratio 1.85; 95% CI, 1.51 to 2.20) and was only partially corrected with the diabetes adjustments (still significant for the RA and TBS adjustments). Among those with diabetes, there was moderate reclassification based upon a fixed MOF cut-off of 20% (4.1% to 7.1%) or fixed HF cut-off of 3% (5.7% to 16.5%). Net reclassification improvement increased for MOF with each of the diabetes adjustments (range 3.9% to 5.6% in the diabetes subgroup). In conclusion, each of the proposed methods for addressing limitations in the ability of FRAX to assess fracture risk in individuals with diabetes was found to improve performance, though no single method was optimal in all settings. © 2018 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.
| S-EPMC6193547 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe majority of frail elderly who live in long-term care (LTC) are not treated for osteoporosis despite their high risk for fragility fractures. Clinical Practice Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis provide guidance for the management of individuals 50 years and older at risk for fractures, however, they cannot benefit LTC residents if physicians perceive barriers to their application. Our objectives are to explore current practices to fracture risk assessment by LTC physicians and describe barriers to applying the recently published Osteoporosis Canada practice guidelines for fracture assessment and prevention in LTC.MethodsA cross-sectional survey was conducted with the Ontario Long-Term Care Physicians Association using an online questionnaire. The survey included questions that addressed members' attitudes, knowledge, and behaviour with respect to fracture risk assessment in LTC. Closed-ended responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics and thematic framework analysis for open-ended responses.ResultsWe contacted 347 LTC physicians; 25% submitted completed surveys (81% men, mean age 60 (Standard Deviation [SD] 11) years, average 32 [SD 11] years in practice). Of the surveyed physicians, 87% considered prevention of fragility fractures to be important, but a minority (34%) reported using validated fracture risk assessment tools, while 33% did not use any. Clinical risk factors recommended by the OC guidelines for assessing fracture risk considered applicable included; glucocorticoid use (99%), fall history (93%), age (92%), and fracture history (91%). Recommended clinical measurements considered applicable included: weight (84%), thyroid-stimulating hormone (78%) and creatinine (73%) measurements, height (61%), and Get-Up-and-Go test (60%). Perceived barriers to assessing fracture risk included difficulty acquiring necessary information, lack of access to tests (bone mineral density, x-rays) or obtaining medical history; resource constraints, and a sentiment that assessing fracture risk is futile in this population because of short life expectancy and polypharmacy.ConclusionPerceived barriers to fracture risk assessment and osteoporosis management in LTC have not changed recently, contributing in part to the ongoing care gap in osteoporosis management. Our findings highlight the importance to adapt guidelines to be applicable to the LTC environment, and to develop partnerships with stakeholders to facilitate their use in clinical practice.
| S-EPMC3853074 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the association between Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) without bone mineral density (BMD) and risk for major osteoporotic fractures (MOF) in type 1 diabetes.MethodsSubjects with type 1 diabetes and without diabetes from the 'Coronary Artery Calcification in Type 1 Diabetes' study were included. Risk for MOF was calculated using FRAX-based clinical risk factors and without BMD at visit 3 (2006-2008). Incident fractures were defined as fractures that occurred between visit 3 and visit 4 (2013-2017). Survival models were used to study the predictability of new MOF by diabetes status.Results346 type 1 diabetes (mean age 43.3 ± 9, BMI 26.4 ± 5, diabetes duration 29.4 ± 8.6 years, A1c 7.8 ± 1.1) and 411 controls (mean age 46.9 ± 9 years, BMI 26.3 ± 5 kg/m2, A1c 5.5 ± 0.4) were analyzed in this study. In unadjusted survival analysis, the FRAX score without BMD was significantly associated with MOF (HR 1.08, 95% CI: 1.04-1.13, p < 0.0001), and remained significantly associated after adjustment for age and sex (HR 1.09, 95% CI: 1.04-1.15, p = 0.0007) and type 1 diabetes (HR 1.08, 95% CI: 1.04-1.12, p = 0.0002). In the fully adjusted model (adjusted for age, sex and type 1 diabetes), the FRAX score without BMD was the only variable significantly associated with risk of MOF (HR 1.08, 95% CI: 1.02-1.14, p = 0.006).ConclusionClinical use of FRAX without BMD is useful tool in identifying adults with type 1 diabetes at higher risk for MOF risk and may help clinicians to guide therapeutic decision-making in this high fracture risk population.
| S-EPMC7770010 | biostudies-literature