Assessment of the importance of physical activity and quality of life for patients diagnosed with osteoporosis during the COVID-19 pandemic

Introduction. Osteoporosis is one of the most important ten diseases worldwide, still causing extreme suffering to patients and huge costs to the health system. The rapid increase of the population 's aging was involved in many aspects of human health, and, among these ones, osteoporosis was one of the main public health issues. The aim of the study was to assess the importance of physical activity and the quality of life in patients diagnosed with osteoporosis during the COVID-19 pandemic. Material and methods. The study is longitudinal, it was conducted in an outpatient setting for a period of 1 year and it included 20 patients diagnosed with osteoporosis. The demographic variables (age, living environment, body mass index) were assessed, and as parameters: pain (VAS scale), fracture risk (FRAX score), quality of life (Qualeffo-41 questionnaire), bone mineral density at the spine and at the femur (DEXA). The patients received pharmacological treatment such as bisphosphonates and underwent physiotherapy for pains: low frequency currents (TENS), ultrasound and physical therapy. Results and discussions. In all the studied cases, it was considered that the pain decreased following the use of the medicinal and physiotherapeutic treatment. This is an expected result given that other studies have shown this. Postmenopausal women in Romania with osteoporosis have a lower HRQoL than healthy controls, measured with the SF-36 instrument and the total QUALEFFO-41 score. Conclusions. The obtained data point out the correlation between bone mineral density, fracture risks and exercises in patients diagnosed with osteoporosis. The FRAX score is useful to identify patients who need the combination of drug therapy and exercises to prevent vertebral and non-vertebral fractures in the next 10 years. Keywords: osteoporosis, physical activity, quality of life, COVID-19,

Role of Fracture Liaison Service Program in Reducing Refracture Rate in the Elderly Osteoporotic Trauma Patients Presenting With Vertebral Compression Fracture: A Six-Year Study

Introduction As the elderly population of the United States and the world increases, so does the incidence of osteoporotic fragility fractures from a fall or minor injury. This results in a large cost to the health care system. This cost is further increased as more than 50% of individuals will have refractures within the first year. In order to reduce the refracture rate in such patients, we enrolled our elderly trauma patients with vertebral compression fractures and vertebral augmentation in a Fracture Liaison Service (FLS) clinic for two years and reevaluated their refracture rate. Method This is a retrospective analysis of 720 patients. 142 patients (Group A) were seen between 2012 and 2014 before establishing the FLS program and 578 patients (Group B) were seen between 2015 and 2020 after implementation of the FLS program. The patients enrolled in the FLS program were followed for two years after sustaining a vertebral compression fracture. The data collected included age, sex, serum calcium and vitamin D levels, dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scan, 10-year fracture risk (FRAX) score, pressure measurements in PSI taken during vertebral augmentation, as well as the refracture rate. The data collected were analyzed and compared between the two groups using the Student’s t-test and chi-square test. Results There was significant reduction in the refracture rate of pre-FLS vs post-FLS vertebral, as well as other fractures in the FLS group (pre-FLS: 48.9% vs post-FLS: 37.0%; P = .01). There was no significant difference between groups A and B in regard to the mean serum level of calcium (9.44 mg/dL vs 9.53 mg/dL), vitamin D level (35.04 ng/mL vs 41.39 ng/mL), DXA scan for spine (−.52 vs −.76) and for femur (−1.77 vs −1.52), and 10-year refracture risk for osteoporotic major fracture (FRAX score-mean: 22.6% vs 19.2%) and for hip fracture (9.18% vs 7.53%). There was a significant difference in the mean age between the groups (79.5 vs 73.5 years; P = .01). Of those who underwent vertebral augmentation, 235 had Pressure Scale Index (PSI) measurements taken. There was a trend in increasing refracture rate when PSI ≤199 compared with those who had PSI ≥200, although statistical significance was not met (33.9% vs 27.0%, P = .21). Conclusion A Fracture Liaison Service program will improve the bone health of geriatric osteoporotic patients presenting to the trauma service with vertebral compression fractures and thus reduces the subsequent refracture rate. Further study is needed to evaluate the best PSI used to impact reduction in refracture rate.

Clinical Usefulness of FRAX Score for Predicting Sarcopenia in Patients with Chronic Liver Disease

We investigated the usefulness of the Fracture Risk Assessment tool (FRAX) for predicting sarcopenia in chronic liver disease (CLD). In this cross-sectional study, we evaluated 321 patients with CLD. The FRAX with and without bone mineral density (BMD) was employed to calculate the 10-year risks of major osteoporotic and hip fractures. The FRAX score for high fracture risk was defined as a 10-year major osteoporotic fracture probability of ≥20% or a 10-year hip fracture probability of ≥3%. The diagnosis of sarcopenia was based on the Japan Society of Hepatology criteria. According to the FRAX, with and without BMD, 134 (41.7%) and 193 (60.1%) patients had a high fracture risk, respectively. The high fracture risk group had a significantly higher frequency of sarcopenia than the non-high fracture risk group. FRAX scores of major osteoporotic and hip fractures were negatively correlated with handgrip strength and muscle mass. Using the FRAX with BMD, the cutoff scores of major osteoporotic and hip fractures for predicting sarcopenia were 8.55% (sensitivity/specificity, 0.847/0.568) and 3.35% (0.729/0.746), respectively. Using the FRAX without BMD, they were 18.5% (0.635/0.725) and 7.65% (0.729/0.758), respectively. The FRAX is a simple and convenient screening tool for predicting sarcopenia in patients with CLD.

Risk factor analysis of fragility fractures in rheumatoid arthritis: A 3-year longitudinal, real-world, observational, cohort study

Objectives To explore the risk factors for fragility fractures in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients using a 3-year longitudinal, observational cohort study. Methods This RA registry study included consecutive RA patients in the outpatient clinic of Chang Gung Memorial Hospital since September 1, 2014. The demographics, clinical characteristics, lifestyle, evidence of previous fracture, risk factors according to the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX®), and the FRAX score of each participant were recorded. The participants were categorized into the new incident fracture (group A) and no incident fracture (group B) groups based on evidence or absence of new incident fractures and propensity score matching (age and gender, 1:2). Results Overall, 477 participants completed the 3-year observation period. After matching, 103 and 206 participants were allocated to groups A and B, respectively. The non-adjusted model revealed, presented as hazard ratio (HR) (95% confidence interval [CI]), that the presence of co-morbidity (1.80 [1.17–2.78], p = 0.008), Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (1.35 [1.07–1.69], p = 0.010), lower baseline hip bone mineral density (0.11 [0.02–0.48], p = 0.004), longer disease duration (1.02 [1.00–1.04], p = 0.026), higher FRAX score of major fracture (1.03 [1.02–1.04], p<0.001) or hip fracture (1.03 [1.02–1.04], p<0.001), and previous fracture history (2.65 [1.79–3.94], p<0.001) were associated with new incident fracture. After adjustment, it was disclosed that a previous fracture is an independent risk factor for fragility fractures in RA patients (2.17 [1.20–3.90], p = 0.010). Conclusions In addition to aging and disease-related factors, previous fracture history is the most important risk factor for fragility fractures in RA patients.

Bisphosphonates after Denosumab withdrawal reduce the vertebral fractures incidence

Objective: Several studies showed the occurrence of vertebral fracture (VFx) in patients discontinuing denosumab (Dmab), suggesting the need of bisphosphonate (BPs) therapy to mitigate this VFx risk increase. However, the morphometric VFx (morphoVFx) incidence after Dmab discontinuation and the BPs effect on VFx risk in this setting are still a matter of debate. Design: Retrospective, monocentric study. Methods: In 120 patients (111 females) discontinuing Dmab, 19 have not been treated (Not-treated Group, 16 females, age 63.5±15.0 years) and 101 patients have been treated (Treated Group, 95 females, age 70.0±10.6 years) with BPs (28 alendronate, ALN; 73 zoledronate, ZOL, single infusion), respectively. We evaluated the incidence of both clinical VFx and morphoVFx in Treated Group and Non-treated Group. Results: Patients in Treated Group showed a 5.5% VFx incidence (n=6, 3 clinical, 3 morpho VFx), which was anyway lower than Not-treated Group patients (n=4, 21.1%, 4 clinical, 3 multiple, p=0.029), despite a comparable FRAX score at the time of Dmab initiation. The logistic regression analysis showed that the VFx incidence was independently associated with the lack of BPs treatment (odds ratio 13.9, 95% confidence interval 1.7-111.1, p=0.014), but not with the number of Dmab injections, age, duration of BPs before Dmab initiation, the BMD at Dmab withdrawal and the prevalence of VFx at Dmab withdrawal. Conclusions: The Dmab withdrawal is associated with an increased risk of clinical but not morphometric VFx. Therapy with ALN or with a single ZOL treatment are partially effective in reducing the increased VFx risk after Dmab withdrawal.

AB0150 ACPA-STATUS AND RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS: MUCH MORE TO BE REVEALED!

Background:Anti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPA) are commonly associated with Rheumatoid arthritis (RA). RA is, therefore, classified as immunopositive or immunonegative, with disparate mechanisms in predisposition.Objectives:Our study aimed to determine the baseline characteristics and differences of ACPA-positive and ACPA-negative RA.Methods:We conducted a cross-sectional study including 224 patients with RA. All patients fulfilled the 2010 American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism RA classification criteria. The patients were divided according to their ACPA status into two groups: ACPA-positive group (G1) and ACPA-negative group (G2). We compared clinical, radiological, and laboratory findings between the two groups, as well as extra-articular manifestations, comorbidities including fractures and osteoporosis. The Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) was used to estimate the 10-year probability of major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) and also hip fracture (FH).Results:Of the 224 patients, 31.6% were negative for ACPA (n=71). Female predominance was found in both groups with a sex ratio of 0.25 (p=0.203). ACPA-negative subjects were younger (57±11 versus 59±12 years) (p= 0.305).The initial presentation of RA was different between the two groups without reaching statistical significance. In the ACPA-negative group, alteration of general condition was more frequent (16.9% in G2 versus 13.7% in G1) (p=0.533), with a tendency to oligo-articular onset (18.5% in G2 versus 6.7% in G1) (p=0.737). ACPA-positivity was more associated with an acute start of symptoms (10.4% in G1 versus 8.4% in G2) (p=0.639)There was no significant difference in the mean DAS28-VS (5.2±1.1 in G2 versus 5.5±1.3 in G1) and DAS28-CRP levels (5±1 in G2 versus 5.3±1.2 in G1) (p=0.069 and p=0.098 respectively).ACPA-positive RA was, however, significantly associated with more structural joint damage: erosions (55.9±53 in G1 versus 78±36 in G2, p=0.01), joint space narrowing (50.4±45.5 in G1 versus 33.1±36.6 in G2, p=0.003), Sharp/van der Heijde radiographic score (126.6 ±103.2 in G1 versus 88.8±81.5 in G2, p=0.004). ACPA-positive RA patients had more atlantoaxial dislocation: 20.2% in G1 versus 7% in G2 (p=0.012). There was no significant difference in hip involvement (9.8% in G1 versus 14% G2) (p=0.344).There were no significant differences in extra-articular manifestations between the two groups: Rheumatoid nodules (10.4% in G1 versus 18.3% in G2) (p=0.891), Sjögren’s syndrome (16.3% in G1 versus 16.9% in G2)(p=0.715), amyloidosis (0.6% in G1) (p=1), pulmonary fibrosis (5.8% in G1 versus 4.2% in G2) (p=0.757), neurological signs (4.5% in in G1 versus 5.6% in G2) (p=0.733), anaemia (5.8% in G1 versus 1.4% in G2) (p=0.175).When analyzing comorbidities, no significant differences were found: diabetes (10.4% in G1 versus 18.3% in G2) (p=0.103), cardiovascular diseases (19.6% in G1) (p=1), neurological diseases (0.06% in G1 versus 1.4% in G2) (p=0.534), dysthyroidism (2.6% in G1 versus 5.6% in G2) (p=0.267), dyslipidemia (3.2% in G1 versus 4.2% in G2) (p=0.711), cancer (1.3% in G1) (p=1). There were neither significant differences in the prevalence of fracture (21.5% in G1 versus 18.3% in G2) (p=0.574), and osteoporosis (23.6% in G1 versus 29.5% in G2) (p=0.347), between the two groups. However, ACPA-positive patients presented with a significantly higher FRAX score of MOF (2±2.8 in G1 versus 1.2±1 in G2) (p=0.006), and FRAX score of FH (0,9±1.8 in G1 versus 0.3±0.5 in G2) (p=0.003).Conclusion:ACPA status appears to influence both the clinical presentation and radiological progression of RA patients. ACPA-positive patients present with an acute start of symptoms, with more structural damages and atlantoaxial dislocation. Comorbidities, including osteoporosis, does not seem affected by ACPA status. However, regardless of osteoporosis, ACPA-positivity is associated with a higher probability of major osteoporotic and hip fractures. Further research is needed to clarify this relationship.Disclosure of Interests:None declared

Effect of a Multifactorial Intervention on Fracture in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: Subanalysis of the J-DOIT3 Study

Aims To evaluate the effects of an intensified multifactorial intervention and patient characteristics on the incidence of fractures comorbid with type 2 diabetes. Methods Fracture events were identified and analyzed among adverse events reported in the J-DOIT3 study, a multicenter, open-label, randomized, parallel-group trial that was conducted in Japan, in which patients with type 2 diabetes were randomly assigned to receive conventional therapy for glucose, blood pressure, and lipids (targets: HbA1c &lt; 6.9%, blood pressure &lt;130/80 mm Hg, LDL-cholesterol &lt;120mg/dL) or intensive therapy (HbA1c &lt; 6.2%, blood pressure &lt;120/75 mm Hg, LDL-cholesterol &lt;80mg/dL) (ClinicalTrials.gov registration no. NCT00300976). Results The cumulative incidence of fractures did not differ between those receiving conventional therapy and those receiving intensive therapy (hazard ratio (HR) 1.15; 95% CI, 0.91-1.47; P = 0.241). Among the potential risk factors, only history of smoking at baseline was significantly associated with the incidence of fractures in men (HR 1.96; 95% CI, 1.04-3.07; P = 0.038). In contrast, the incidence of fractures in women was associated with the FRAX score [%/10 years] at baseline (HR 1.04; 95% CI, 1.02-1.07; P &lt; 0.001) and administration of pioglitazone at 1 year after randomization (HR 1.59; 95% CI, 1.06-2.38; P = 0.025). Conclusions Intensified multifactorial intervention may be implemented without increasing the fracture risk in patients with type 2 diabetes. The fracture risk is elevated in those with a history of smoking in men, whereas it is predicted by the FRAX score and is independently elevated with administration of pioglitazone in women.

T Scores, FRAX, Frailty Phenotype, Falls, and Its Relationship to Fractures in Patients on Maintenance Hemodialysis

Background: Despite the magnitude of fracture and the consequences in patients receiving hemodialysis, optimal risk assessment tools in this population are not well explored. Frailty and falls—known risk factors for fracture in chronic kidney disease (CKD) and non-CKD populations—are common in patients receiving hemodialysis (HD) therapy. While the relationship between T scores in relation to fractures in patients receiving HD is recognized, there is a paucity of data to the additional contributions of fracture assessment tool (FRAX), frailty status, and falls in its relationship with fracture. Objectives: To evaluate the clinical utility of adding FRAX, frailty status, and falls to T scores at the femoral neck to determine whether it enhances fracture discrimination in patients on maintenance HD. Design: A cross-sectional observational study. Setting: Two main dialysis units in Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada. Patients: A total of 109 patients on maintenance HD at two dialysis units from January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2018, were included in the study. Measurements: Fracture (the main outcome) was documented based on the review of medical charts, self-recall, and additionally vertebral fractures were identified by an x-ray. Areal bone mineral density (BMD) was measured by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA). FRAX score was calculated using an online algorithm based on 11 clinical risk factors. We calculated the FRAX score for hip fracture and major osteoprotoic fracture with and without the inclusion of BMD. Frailty was assessed using the Fried criteria, which included assessments of unintentional weight loss, weakness (handgrip strength), slowness (walking speed), and questionnaires for physical activity and self-perceived exhaustion. Patients were enquired about the history and frequency of falls. Methods: A total of 131 patients underwent frailty assessments at the two dialysis units during the dialysis treatment. Following frailty assessments, they were referred for DXA scans and upon receipt of the results undertook FRAX questionnaires. They were additionally sent for lumbar x-rays and contacted for a history of falls. Association between the BMD-T score, FRAX, frailty status, falls, with fracture were examined with sequential multivariable logistic regression models. Differences were considered statistically significant at P values <.05. Results: A total of 109 patients were included in the data analysis. The composite of fracture occurred in 37.6% of patients. About 59.3% were identified as frail, and 29% of the participants had at least one fall in the last year. On multivariate regression analysis, each lower standard deviation (SD) in femoral neck T score was associated with 48% higher odds of fracture (odds ratio [OR] = 1.48; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.20-1.68, P = .005). With the inclusion for FRAX scores (hip), the OR for fracture remained significant at 1.38 (OR = 1.38, 95% CI 1.04-1.63, P = .043). The addition of frailty status and history of falls did not further improve the model. Low T score and FRAX were both independent risk factors in patients on HD therapy. Limitations: This is a single-center study with a small sample size which limits the generalizability of the findings. Due to the cross-sectional study, associations identified may be difficult to interpret. Conclusions: Both BMD measurements by DXA and FRAX are useful tools to assess fracture in patients receiving HD. The addition of frailty status and history of falls is not associated with fractures in this population. Larger prospective studies are needed to determine whether the inclusion of frailty and falls to the conventional models will improve fracture assessment in the population receiving HD. Trial Registration: The study was not registered on a publicly accessible registry as it did not involve health care intervention on human participants.