Metabolic syndrome and fragility fracture risk

2021 ◽  
Vol 73 (6) ◽  
Author(s):  
Roberta COSSO ◽  
Alberto FALCHETTI
2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 294.2-294
Author(s):  
D. Ciardo ◽  
P. Pisani ◽  
F. A. Lombardi ◽  
R. Franchini ◽  
F. Conversano ◽  
...  

Background:The main consequence of osteoporosis is the occurrence of fractures due to bone fragility, with important sequelae in terms of disability and mortality. It has been already demonstrated that the information about bone mass density (BMD) alone is not sufficient to predict the risk of fragility fractures, since several fractures occur in patients with normal BMD [1].The Fragility Score is a parameter that allows to estimate skeletal fragility thanks to a trans-abdominal ultrasound scan performed with Radiofrequency Echographic Multi Spectrometry (REMS) technology. It is calculated by comparing the results of the spectral analysis of the patient’s raw ultrasound signals with reference models representative of fragile and non-fragile bones [2]. It is a dimensionless parameter, which can vary from 0 to 100, in proportion to the degree of fragility, independently from BMD.Objectives:This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of Fragility Score, measured during a bone densitometry exam performed with REMS technology at lumbar spine, in identifying patients at risk of incident osteoporotic fractures at a follow-up period of 5 years.Methods:Caucasian women with age between 30 and 90 were scanned with spinal REMS and DXA. The incidence of osteoporotic fractures was assessed during a follow-up period of 5 years. The ability of the Fragility Score to discriminate between patients with and without incident fragility fractures was subsequently evaluated and compared with the discriminatory ability of the T-score calculated with DXA and with REMS.Results:Overall, 533 women (median age: 60 years; interquartile range [IQR]: 54-66 years) completed the follow-up (median 42 months; IQR: 35-56 months), during which 73 patients had sustained an incident fracture.Both median REMS and DXA measured T-score values were significantly lower in fractured patients than for non-fractured ones, conversely, REMS Fragility Score was significantly higher (Table 1).Table 1.Analysis of T-score values calculated with REMS and DXA and Fragility Score calculated with REMS. Median values and interquartile ranges (IQR) are reported. The p-value is derived from the Mann-Whitney test.Patients without incident fragility fracturePatients with incident fragility fracturep-valueT-score DXA[median (IQR)]-1.9 (-2.7 to -1.0)-2.6 (-3.3 to -1.7)0.0001T-score REMS[median (IQR)]-2.0 (-2.8 to -1.1)-2.7 (-3.5 to -1.9)<0.0001Fragility Score[median (IQR)]29.9 (25.7 to 36.2)53.0 (34.2 to 62.5)<0.0001By evaluating the capability to discriminate patients with/without fragility fractures, the Fragility Score obtained a value of the ROC area under the curve (AUC) of 0.80, higher than the AUC of the REMS T-score (0.66) and of the T-score DXA (0.64), and the difference was statistically significant (Figure 1).Figure 1.ROC curve comparison of Fragility Score, REMS and DXA T-score values in the classification of patients with incident fragility fractures.Furthermore, the correlation between the Fragility Score and the T-score values was low, with Pearson correlation coefficient r=-0.19 between Fragility Score and DXA T-score and -0.18 between the Fragility Score and the REMS T-score.Conclusion:The Fragility Score was found to be an effective tool for the prediction of fracture risk in a population of Caucasian women, with performances superior to those of the T-score values. Therefore, this tool presents a high potential as an effective diagnostic tool for the early identification and subsequent early treatment of bone fragility.References:[1]Diez Perez A et al. Aging Clin Exp Res 2019; 31(10):1375-1389.[2]Pisani P et al. Measurement 2017; 101:243–249.Disclosure of Interests:None declared


2021 ◽  
pp. 112070002110274
Author(s):  
Gershon Zinger ◽  
Noa Sylvetsky ◽  
Yedin Levy ◽  
Kobi Steinberg ◽  
Alexander Bregman ◽  
...  

Introduction: The most successful programme for secondary fracture prevention is the FLS (fracture liaison service) model. Our orthopaedic department carried out a prospective randomised study to measure the effectiveness of a 4-step intervention programme. The findings in this study reveal important additional clinical benefits to having an orthopaedic-based FLS programme and evaluates the usefulness of fracture risk tools. Methods: We carried out a prospective study to evaluate patients with a fragility fracture of the hip. There were 2 groups, intervention and control (each 100 patients). Of these, 20 were either removed from the study or dropped out, leaving 180 for analysis. In addition to routine preoperative blood tests, albumin and thyroid function levels were obtained and PTH (parathyroid hormone) levels when indicated. The intervention group (83 patients) had a dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) scan performed and fracture risk (FRAX) was calculated. Results: 12 patients (6.7%) had blood results which showed a potentially treatable cause for osteoporosis and 36 (20%) had blood results that changed their medical care. FRAX scores (180 patients) showed that the major osteoporotic fracture score correctly predicted the hip fracture in only 49%. The hip fracture score correctly predicted the hip fracture in 83%. DEXA scores (65 patients) showed osteoporosis in only 46% of hips and in only 26% of spines. An abnormal FRAX score or DEXA scan would have predicted a fragility fracture 93% of the time. Conclusions: In addition to reducing secondary fractures, FLS programmes can provide fundamental benefits to the health of the patient. The intervention programme in this study identified patients with underlying treatable causes, correctable clinical conditions and patients with an unusually low bone density. When used together, FRAX and DEXA are more sensitive predictors for hip fracture risk than either are individually. Trial registry: 201497CTIL ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02239523 )


2021 ◽  
Vol 50 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. i12-i42
Author(s):  
C M Orton ◽  
N E Sinson ◽  
R Blythe ◽  
J Hogan ◽  
N A Vethanayagam ◽  
...  

Abstract Introduction NICE and the National Osteoporosis Guidance Group (NOGG) advise on evaluation of fracture risk and osteoporosis treatment1,2, with evidence suggesting that screening and treatment reduces the risk of fragility fractures 3,4,5. However, it is often overlooked in the management of older patients within secondary care. Audit data from Sheffield Frailty Unit (SFU) in 2018 showed that national guidance was not routinely followed. Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX®) scores were not calculated and bone health was poorly managed. Therefore, we undertook a quality improvement project aiming to optimise bone health in patients presenting to SFU. Method & Intervention In January 2019 we collaborated with Sheffield Metabolic Bone Centre (MBC) to develop a pathway aiming to improve bone health assessment and management in patients presenting to SFU with a fall or fragility fracture. This included a user-friendly flow chart with accompanying guidelines, alongside education for staff. Performance was re-evaluated in May 2019, following which a tick box prompt was added to post take ward round documentation. A re-audit was performed in March 2020. Results In March 2018 0% of patients presenting with a fall had a FRAX® score calculated and only 40% of those with a new fragility fracture were managed according to guidelines. In May 2019, this had improved to 18% and 100% respectively. In March 2020 86% of patients had a FRAX® score calculated appropriately and 100% of fragility fractures were managed according to guidelines. In both re-audits 100% of FRAX® scores were acted on appropriately. Conclusions There has been a significant increase in the number of patients who have their bone health appropriately assessed and managed after presenting to SFU. However, achieving optimum care is under constant review with the aim to deliver more treatment on SFU, thereby reducing the need for repeat visits to the MBC.


2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (Supplement_2) ◽  
pp. S171-S171
Author(s):  
Anne Abbate ◽  
Lisa Chirch ◽  
Michael Christopher. Thompson ◽  
Dorothy Wakefield ◽  
Faryal Mirza ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Recommendations on screening HIV-infected (+) patients for bone disease exist. We sought to characterize awareness of and adherence to HIV-specific recommendations and assess risk factors for fracture in this population. Methods Primary care provider (PCP) and ID specialist awareness of screening recommendations was assessed using an anonymous electronic survey. We conducted interviews of 45 HIV+ patients and chart review. We calculated risk using the fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX). Email notifications were sent if an indication dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans was identified. Chart review was repeated 12 months later to assess response. Statistical methods included chi-square and Fisher’s exact test for categorical data, and t-tests or Wilcoxon rank-sum tests for continuous data. A multivariate logistic regression examined the relationship between adult fragility fractures and covariates. Results No immunologic or virologic factors or exposure to specific antiretroviral therapies (ART) were associated with FFX (Table 1). FRAX score (hip, major osteoporotic fracture) successfully predicted FFX history (P = 0.002, P = 0.001, respectively). Overall, 35 (78%) patients qualified for DXA; 23 (66%) were men, only 8 (23%) had a previous DXA. Following provider notification, an additional 5 patients had DXA ordered. DXA was recommended for all patients with FFX, compared with 68% without a fracture (P = 0.02). In logistic regression modeling, increasing age, male sex, and months of ART therapy were associated with FFX (Table 2). Twenty-seven providers responded to the pre-intervention survey, of whom only 35% were aware of screening recommendations for HIV+ patients. Of the 18 providers who responded post-intervention, 63% were aware of these recommendations (Table 3). Conclusion A brief educational intervention resulted in increased awareness of HIV-specific screening recommendations, but this translated into adherence to a lesser extent. HIV+ men were more likely to have a history of fragility fracture compared with females. No specific ART or immunologic marker predicted fracture risk or history. Fostering a greater understanding of unique characteristics and risks in this population is crucial to ensure appropriate preventive care. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.


2011 ◽  
Vol 63 (6) ◽  
pp. e39-e40
Author(s):  
Ben Stone ◽  
Eugene McCloskey ◽  
Christine Bowman ◽  
David Dockrell

2014 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 123-130 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. Duncan ◽  
R. M. Francis ◽  
C. Jagger ◽  
A. Kingston ◽  
E. McCloskey ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document