Epidemiology of hip fracture in Belarus: development of a country-specific FRAX model and its comparison to neighboring country models

Summary Fracture probabilities resulting from the newly generated FRAX model for Belarus based on regional estimates of the hip fracture incidence were compared with FRAX models of neighboring countries. Differences between the country-specific FRAX patterns and the rank orders of fracture probabilities were modest. Objective This paper describes the epidemiology of hip fractures in Belarus that was used to develop the country-specific fracture prediction FRAX® tool and illustrates its features compared to models for the neighboring countries of Poland, Russia, and Lithuania. Methods We carried out a population-based study in a region of Belarus (the city of Mozyr) representing approximately 1.2% of the country’s population. We aimed to identify all hip fractures in 2011–2012 from hospital registers and primary care sources. Age- and sex-specific incidence and national mortality rates were incorporated into a FRAX model for Belarus. Fracture probabilities were compared with those derived from FRAX models in neighboring countries. Results The estimated number of hip fractures nationwide in persons over the age of 50 years for 2015 was 8250 in 2015 and is predicted to increase to 12,918 in 2050. The annual incidence of fragility hip fractures in individuals aged 50 years or more was 24.6/10,000 for women and 14.6/10,000 for men, standardized to the world population. The comparison with FRAX models in neighboring countries showed that hip fracture probabilities in men and women in Belarus were similar to those in Poland, Russia, and Lithuania. The difference in incidence rates between the surveys including or excluding data from primary care suggested that 29.1% of patients sustaining a hip fracture were not hospitalized and, therefore, did not receive specialized medical care. Conclusion A substantial proportion of hip fractures in Belarus does not come to hospital attention. The FRAX model should enhance accuracy of determining fracture probability among the Belarus population and help guide decisions about treatment

The Utility and Limitations of FRAX: A US Perspective

The FRAX calculator is a major achievement in terms of our understanding of measuring fracture risk. Along with being an easily accessible web-based tool, it is the only model based on extensive data on multiple cohorts. FRAX will help clinicians identify individuals who need osteoporosis treatments, while also screening out those who do not require osteoporosis treatments. However, FRAX is limited by a number of factors. Although it is web based, few physicians have the means to access it. It also assumes that body mass index and mortality are constant across different racial and ethnic groups. FRAX is further limited by the exclusion of variables known to be associated with fracture risk, lack of dose-response relationships for variables, increased subsequent fracture risk after initial fracture, restriction to only one bone mineral density site, racial and ethnic differences that may influence fracture risk, and availability of racial and ethnic fracture risk data to be used in the FRAX calculator. Finally, the values obtained from FRAX should not take the place of good clinical judgment

Epidemiology of fractures in Armenia: development of a country-specific FRAX model and comparison to its surrogate

Summary: Fracture probabilities derived from the surrogate FRAX model for Armenia were compared to those from the model based on regional estimates of the incidence of hip fracture. Disparities between the surrogate and authentic FRAX models indicate the importance of developing country-specific FRAX models. Despite large differences between models, differences in the rank order of fracture probabilities were minimal. Objective: Armenia has relied on a surrogate FRAX model based on the fracture epidemiology of Romania. This paper describes the epidemiology of fragility fractures in Armenia used to create an Armenia-specific FRAX model with an aim of comparing this new model with the surrogate model. Methods: We carried out a population-based study in two regions of Armenia (Ararat and Vayots Dzor representing approximately 11% of the country’s population). We aimed to identify all low-energy fractures: retrospectively from hospital registers in 2011–2012 and prospectively in 2013 with the inclusion of primary care sources. Results: The differences in incidence between the surveys with and without data from primary care suggested that 44% of patients sustaining a hip fracture did not receive specialized medical care. A similar proportion of forearm and humeral fractures did not come to hospital attention (48 and 49%, respectively). Only 57.7% of patients sustaining a hip fracture were hospitalized. In 2013, hip fracture incidence at the age of 50 years or more was 201/100,000 for women and 136/100,000 for men, and age- and sex-specific rates were incorporated into the new “authentic” FRAX model for Armenia. Compared to the surrogate model, the authentic model gave lower 10-year fracture probabilities in men and women aged less than 70 years but substantially higher above this age. Notwithstanding, there were very close correlations in fracture probabilities between the surrogate and authentic models ( >  0.99) so that the revisions had little impact on the rank order of risk. Conclusion: A substantial proportion of major osteoporotic fractures in Armenia do not come to hospital attention. The disparities between surrogate and authentic FRAX models indicate the importance of developing country-specific FRAX models. Despite large differences between models, differences in the rank order of fracture probabilities were minimal

Management of osteoporosis in central and eastern Europe (CEE): conclusions of the “2nd Summit on Osteoporosis—CEE”, 21–22 November 2008, Warsaw, Poland

In November 2008, the “2nd Summit on Osteoporosis—Central and Eastern Europe (CEE)” was held in Warsaw, Poland. Discussions at this meeting focused on the identification and discussion of diagnostic, preventive, and therapeutic measures used in CEE. Evaluated information was used to identify issues regarding diagnosis and therapy of osteoporosis in these countries to facilitate the subsequent setup of appropriate support and development strategies. The main debate was structured according to the following five subjects: (1) present status and future perspectives for implementation of FRAX® into local (CEE) diagnostic algorithms, (2) principles of drug selection in osteoporosis treatment in CEE countries, (3) nonpharmacological interventions in osteoporosis treatment and prophylaxis in CEE countries, (4) treatment benefit evaluation, and (5) cost–effectiveness and evaluation of reimbursement policies in CEE countries. The most important and substantial comments of the delegates are summarized in the present article. The multinational panel of experts with representatives from many CEE countries as well as Austria and Switzerland made the “2nd Summit on Osteoporosis—CEE” a perfect platform to identify issues and needs regarding diagnosis and therapy of osteoporosis as well as the cost–effectiveness of osteoporosis management in CEE countries. The information gained will serve as a basis for the development of strategies to resolve the identified issues at the “3rd Summit on Osteoporosis—CEE” in November 2009

Appropriate Osteoporosis Treatment by Family Physicians inResponse to FRAX vs CAROC Reporting: Results Froma Randomized Controlled Trial

© 2014 The International Society for Clinical Densitometry. Canadian guidelines recommend either the FRAX or the Canadian Association of Radiologists and Osteoporosis Canada (CAROC) fracture risk assessment tools to report 10-yr fracture risk as low (20%). It is unknown whether one reporting system is more effective in helping family physicians (FPs) identify individuals who require treatment. Individuals ≥50yr old with a distal radius fracture and no previous osteoporosis diagnosis or treatment were recruited. Participants underwent a dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scan and answered questions about fracture risk factors. Participants\u27 FPs were randomized to receive either a FRAX report or the standard CAROC-derived bone mineral density report currently used by the institution. Only the FRAX report included statements regarding treatment recommendations. Within 3 mo, all participants were asked about follow-up care by their FP, and treatment recommendations were compared with anosteoporosis specialist. Sixty participants were enrolled (31 to FRAX and 29 to CAROC). Kappa statistics of agreement in treatment recommendation were 0.64 for FRAX and 0.32 for bone mineral density. The FRAX report was preferred by FPs and resulted in better postfracture follow-up and treatment that agreed more closely with a specialist. Either the clear statement of fracture risk or the specific statement of treatment recommendations on the FRAX report may have supported FPs to make better treatment decisions

FRAX-based intervention and assessment thresholds for osteoporosis in Iran

A Summary We compared the utility of the current Iranian guidelines that recommend treatment in women with a T-score <= - 2.5 SD with a FRAX-based intervention threshold equivalent to women of average BMI with a prior fragility fracture. Whereas the FRAX-based intervention threshold identified women at high fracture probability, the T-score threshold was less sensitive, and the associated fracture risk decreased markedly with age. Introduction The fracture risk assessment algorithm FRAX (R) has been recently calibrated for Iran, but guidance is needed on how to apply fracture probabilities to clinical practice. Methods The age-specific ten-year probabilities of a major osteoporotic fracture were calculated in women with average BMI to determine fracture probabilities at two potential intervention thresholds. The first comprised the age-specific fracture probabilities associated with a femoral neck T-score of -2.5 SD, in line with current guidelines in Iran. The second approach determined age-specific fracture probabilities that were equivalent to a woman with a prior fragility fracture, without BMD. The parsimonious use of BMD was additionally explored by the computation of upper and lower assessment thresholds for BMD testing. Results When a BMD T-score <= - 2.5 SD was used as an intervention threshold, FRAX probabilities in women aged 50 years was approximately two-fold higher than in women of the same age but with an average BMD and no risk factors. The relative increase in risk associated with the BMD threshold decreased progressively with age such that, at the age of 80 years or more, a T-score of -2.5 SD was actually protective. The 10-year probability of a major osteoporotic fracture by age, equivalent to women with a previous fracture rose with age from 4.9% at the age of 50 years to 17%, at the age of 80 years, and identified women at increased risk at all ages. Conclusion Intervention thresholds based on BMD alone do not effectively target women at high fracture risk, particularly in the elderly. In contrast, intervention thresholds based on fracture probabilities equivalent to a "fracture threshold" target women at high fracture risk

Intervention thresholds for osteoporosis in men and women: A study based on data from Sweden

The aim of this study was to determine the threshold of fracture probability at which interventions became cost-effective in men and women, based on data from Sweden. We modeled the effects of a treatment costing $500 per year given for 5 years that decreased the risk of all osteoporotic fractures by 35$200-500/year). Data on costs and risks were from Sweden. Costs included direct costs, but excluded indirect costs due to morbidity. A threshold for cost-effectiveness of approximately $45,000/QALY gained was used. Cost of added years was included in a sensitivity analysis. With the base case ($500 per year; 35% efficacy) treatment in women was cost-effective with a 10-year hip fracture probability that ranged from 1.2% at the age of 50 years to 7.4% at the age of 80 years. Similar results were observed in men except that the threshold for cost-effectiveness was higher at younger ages than in women (2.0 vs 1.2%, respectively, at the age of 50 years). Intervention thresholds were sensitive to the assumed effectiveness and intervention cost. The exclusion of osteoporotic fractures other than hip fracture significantly increased the cost-effectiveness ratio because of the substantial morbidity from such other fractures, particularly at younger ages. We conclude that the inclusion of all osteoporotic fractures has a marked effect on intervention thresholds, that these vary with age, and that available treatments can be targeted cost-effectively to individuals at moderately increased fracture risk

Implications for Fracture Healing of Current and New Osteoporosis Treatments: An ESCEO Consensus Paper

Osteoporotic fracture healing is critical to clinical outcome in terms of functional recovery, morbidity, and quality of life. Osteoporosis treatments may affect bone repair, so insights into their impact on fracture healing are important. We reviewed the current evidence for an impact of osteoporosis treatments on bone repair. Treatment with bisphosphonate in experimental models is associated with increased callus size and mineralization, reduced callus remodeling, and improved mechanical strength. Local and systemic bisphosphonate treatment may improve implant fixation. No negative impact on fracture healing has been observed, even after major surgery or when administered immediately after fracture. Experimental data for denosumab and raloxifene suggest no negative implications for bone repair. The extensive experimental results for teriparatide indicate increased callus formation, improved biomechanical strength, and greater external callus volume and total bone mineral content and density. Case reports and a randomized trial have produced mixed results but are consistent with a positive impact of teriparatide on clinical fracture healing. Studies with strontium ranelate in models of fracture healing indicate that it is associated with improved bone microstructure, callus volume, and biomechanical properties. Finally, there is experimental evidence for a beneficial effect of some of the agents currently being developed for osteoporosis, notably sclerostin antibody and DKK1 antibody. There is currently no evidence that osteoporosis treatments are detrimental for bone repair and some promising experimental evidence for positive effects on healing, notably for agents with a bone-forming mode of action, which may translate into therapeutic application