Selection of risk assessment methods for osteoporosis screening in postmenopausal women with low-energy fractures: A comparison of fracture risk assessment tool, digital X-ray radiogrammetry, and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry

Objectives: Fracture liaison services are designed to identify patients needing osteoporosis treatment after a fracture. Some fracture liaison service designs involve a prescreening step, for example, fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX®). Another possible prescreening tools are bone mass density assessment in the acute setting. The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of prescreening tools. Methods: In the present prospective cohort study, women aged >55 years with a radius fracture were included. Patients were recruited at the emergency department after experiencing their fracture. All patients performed fracture risk assessment by fracture risk assessment tool, and bone mass density assessment by digital X-ray radiogrammetry and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (prescreening steps) as well as full routine evaluation at the osteoporosis unit (endpoint). The main outcome measures were sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and area under the curve. Results: Forty-one women were recruited (mean age: 70 ± 8 years). Of these, 54% fulfilled the treatment indication criteria of osteoporosis after a full examination. Fracture risk assessment tool without bone mass density (cutoff ⩾ 15%) for prescreening patients had a high sensitivity (90%) but a low area under the curve (0.50) and specificity (16%). The highest area under the curve (0.73) was found prescreening with bone mass density assessment (dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry or digital X-ray radiogrammetry) having a sensitivity of 59%–86% and specificity of 61%–90%. Conclusion: This study, though small, raises questions regarding the effectiveness of using a prescreening step in fracture liaison services for high-risk individuals. In this cohort, FRAX® without bone mass density had a low precision, with a risk of both underestimating and overestimating patients requiring treatment. Bone mass density assessment in the acute setting could improve the precision of prescreening. Further investigations on the effectiveness and health economics of prescreening steps in fracture liaison services are needed.

Long-term persistence of treatment after hip fracture in a fracture liaison service; recommending treatment during admission is more efficient

Background Long-term adherence to antiosteoporosis medication (AOM) in the setting of a fracture liaison service (FLS) are not well known. Methods Patients ≥50 with hip fracture seen in an FLS and recommended for treatment to prevent new fractures were analyzed. Baseline data included demographics, identification mode, previous treatment and FRAX® items. Patient records were reviewed 3-8 years later, and these data were collected: 1) survival; 2) major refracture; 3) initiation of treatment, proportion of days covered (PDC) and persistence with AOM. Results 372 patients (mean age, 79 years; 76% women) were included. Mean follow-up was 47 months, 52 patients (14%) had a refracture (22 hip) and 129 (34.5%) died. AOM was started in 283 patients (76.0%). Factors associated with initiation of AOM were previous use of bisphosphonate (OR9.94;95%CI:1.29-76.32) and a lower T-score lumbar (OR 0.80;95%CI:0.65-0.99). Persistence decreased to 72.6%, 60% and 47% at 12, 36 and 60 months. A PDC>80% was confirmed in 208 patients (55.7%) and associated with previous use of bisphosphonate (OR3.38;95%CI:1.34-8.53), treatment with denosumab (OR2.69;95%CI:1.37-5.27), and inpatient identification (OR2.26; 95%CI:1.18-4.34). Conclusions Long-term persistence with AOM was optimal in patients with hip fracture seen at an FLS. A PDC>80% was associated with inpatient identification and prescription of denosumab.

Does Fracture Liaison Service Improves Fracture Risk Assessment among Patients with Fragility Fractures? A Systematic Review

Background: The fragility fractures can cause substantial pain, disability, reduced quality of life and mortality. The probability of sustaining subsequent fractures increases up to five times after an initial fragility fracture. The Fracture Liaison Service is a coordinated model of care that aims to bridge the post-fracture care gap by improving subsequent fracture risk assessment and post-fracture management. However, there are very few studies that included fracture risk assessment as a significant outcome of an FLS program. This systematic review aims to evaluate the available evidence on the effect of FLS in improving fracture risk assessment among fragility fracture patients Method: A systematic literature search will be carried out on the major electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, CINAHL Plus, and Cochrane to identify the outcomes of Fracture Liaison Service. The literature search will not be restricted to the context and year of publication. Two researchers will independently conduct the databases search. We will pilot the search strategy to ensure sufficient sensitivity and specificity. The JBI critical appraisal tools will be used to assess methodological quality of all the included studies. Discussion: This review will highlight an urgent need for more studies from different geographical areas to determine best practices for implementing fracture risk assessment globally and guiding clinical decision making for osteoporosis management. The findings of this systematic review will highlight the importance of including fracture risk assessment as a significant parameter to evaluate FLS programs implemented across the globe. Conclusion: This systematic review will provide more information about fracture risk assessments and its reporting. It will also highlight the variations in the methods of performing a fracture risk assessment with and without BMD testing and the impact of the FLS program in improving fracture risk assessment.