-
PharmacoEconomics Feb 2021Considering the heavy economic burden of osteoporotic fractures, the limits of healthcare resources, and the recent availability of new anti-osteoporosis drugs, there is...
BACKGROUND
Considering the heavy economic burden of osteoporotic fractures, the limits of healthcare resources, and the recent availability of new anti-osteoporosis drugs, there is continuing interest in economic evaluation studies of osteoporosis management strategies.
OBJECTIVES
This study aims to (1) systematically review recent economic evaluations of drugs for osteoporosis and (2) to apply an osteoporosis-specific guideline to critically appraise them.
METHODS
A literature search was undertaken using PubMed, EMBASE, National Health Service Economic Evaluation database, and the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry to identify original articles containing economic evaluations of anti-osteoporosis drugs, published between 1 July, 2013 and 31 December, 2019. A recent European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases-International Osteoporosis Foundation (ESCEO-IOF) guideline for the conduct and reporting of economic evaluations in osteoporosis was used to assess the quality of included articles.
RESULTS
The database search retrieved 3860 records, of which 27 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. These studies were conducted in 15 countries; 12 active drugs were assessed, including various traditional pharmacological treatments such as bisphosphonates, raloxifene, strontium ranelate, denosumab, and teriparatide, and new agents such as abaloparatide, romosozumab, and gastro-resistant risedronate. Eight out of 12 studies that compared traditional oral bisphosphonates to other active interventions (denosumab, zoledronic acid, gastro-resistant risedronate, and teriparatide) suggested that the other active agents were generally cost-effective or dominant. Additionally, the cost-effectiveness of sequential therapy has recently been assessed and indications are that it can lead to extra health benefits (larger gains in quality-adjusted life-year). The key drivers of cost effectiveness included baseline fracture risk, drug effect on the risk of fractures, drug cost, and medication adherence/persistence. The current average score for quality assessment was 17 out of 25 (range 2-15); room for improvement was observed for most studies, which could potentially be explained by the fact that most studies were published prior to the osteoporosis-specific guideline. Greater adherence to guideline recommendations was expected for future studies. The quality of reporting was also suboptimal, especially with regard to treatment side effects, treatment effect after discontinuation, and medication adherence.
CONCLUSIONS
This updated review provides an overview of recently published cost-effectiveness analyses. In comparison with a previous review, recent economic evaluations of anti-osteoporosis drugs were conducted in more countries and included more active drugs and sequential therapy as interventions/comparators. The updated economic evidence could help decision makers prioritize health interventions and the unmet/unreported quality issues indicated by the osteoporosis-specific guideline could be useful in improving the transparency, quality, and comparability of future economic evaluations in osteoporosis.
Topics: Cost-Benefit Analysis; Humans; Osteoporosis; Osteoporotic Fractures; Pharmaceutical Preparations; State Medicine
PubMed: 33026634
DOI: 10.1007/s40273-020-00965-9 -
Osteoporosis International : a Journal... Aug 2020This systematic review and meta-analysis set out to determine the effect of dynamic resistance exercise (DRT) on areal bone mineral density (aBMD) in postmenopausal... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Effects of dynamic resistance exercise on bone mineral density in postmenopausal women: a systematic review and meta-analysis with special emphasis on exercise parameters.
This systematic review and meta-analysis set out to determine the effect of dynamic resistance exercise (DRT) on areal bone mineral density (aBMD) in postmenopausal women and derive evidence-based recommendations for optimized training protocols. A systematic review of the literature according to the PRISMA statement included (a) controlled trials, (b) of isolated DRT with at least one exercise and one control group, (c) with intervention durations ≥ 6 months, (d) aBMD assessments at lumbar spine or proximal femur, (e) in cohorts of postmenopausal women. We searched eight electronic databases up to March 2019 without language restrictions. The meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. Standardized mean differences (SMD) for BMD changes at lumbar spine (LS), femoral neck (FN), and total hip (TH) were defined as outcome measures. Moderators of the exercise effects, i.e., "intervention length," "type of DRT," "training frequency," "exercise intensity," and "exercise volume," were addressed by sub-group analyses. The study was registered in the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) under ID: CRD42018095097. Seventeen articles with 20 exercise and 18 control groups were eligible. SMD average is 0.54 (95% CI 0.22-0.87) for LS-BMD, 0.22 (0.07-0.38) for FN-BMD, and 0.48 (0.22-0.75) for TH-BMD changes (all p ≤ 0.015). While sub-group analysis for FN-BMD revealed no differences within categories of moderators, lower training frequency (< 2 sessions/week) resulted in significantly higher BMD changes at LS and TH compared to higher training frequency (≥ 2 sessions/week). Additionally, free weight training was significantly superior to DRT devices for improving TH-BMD. This work provided further evidence for significant, albeit only low-moderate, effects of DRT on LS-, FN-, and TH-BMD. Unfortunately, sub-analysis results did not allow meaningful exercise recommendations to be derived. This systematic review and meta-analysis observed a significant low-moderate effect of dynamic resistance exercise on bone mineral density changes in postmenopausal women. However, sub-group analyses focusing on exercise characteristics found no results that enable the derivation of meaningful exercise recommendations in the area of exercise and osteoporosis prevention or therapy.
Topics: Aged; Bone Density; Exercise; Female; Femur Neck; Humans; Lumbar Vertebrae; Middle Aged; Osteoporosis, Postmenopausal; Postmenopause; Resistance Training
PubMed: 32399891
DOI: 10.1007/s00198-020-05441-w -
Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and... Feb 2024Osteosarcopenia is defined as the concurrent occurrence of osteopenia/osteoporosis and sarcopenia. The aim of the current study was to perform a systematic review with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Osteosarcopenia is defined as the concurrent occurrence of osteopenia/osteoporosis and sarcopenia. The aim of the current study was to perform a systematic review with meta-analysis to determine the global prevalence, risk factors and clinical outcomes of osteosarcopenia. This review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022351229). PubMed, Cochrane, Medline and Embase were searched from inception to February 2023 to retrieve eligible observational population-based studies. Pooled osteosarcopenia prevalence was calculated with 95% confidence interval (CI), and subgroup analyses were performed. The risk factor of osteosarcopenia and its association with clinical outcomes were expressed as odds ratio (OR) and hazard ratio (HR), respectively. Heterogeneity was estimated using the I test. Study quality was assessed using validated instruments matched to study designs. The search identified 55 158 studies, and 66 studies (64 404 participants, mean age from 46.6 to 93 years) were analysed in the final analysis, including 48 cross-sectional studies, 17 cohort studies and 1 case-control study. Overall, the pooled prevalence of osteosarcopenia was 18.5% (95% CI: 16.7-20.3, I = 98.7%), including 15.3% (95% CI: 13.2-17.4, I = 97.6%) in men and 19.4% (95% CI: 16.9-21.9, I = 98.5%) in women. The prevalence of osteosarcopenia diagnosed using sarcopenia plus osteopenia/osteoporosis was 20.7% (95% CI: 17.1-24.4, I = 98.55%), and the prevalence of using sarcopenia plus osteoporosis was 16.1% (95% CI: 13.3-18.9, I = 98.0%). The global osteosarcopenia prevalence varied in different regions with 22.9% in Oceania, 21.6% in Asia, 20.8% in South America, 15.7% in North America and 10.9% in Europe. A statistically significant difference was found in the subgroups of the study population between the hospital (24.7%) and community (12.9%) (P = 0.001). Frailty (OR = 4.72, 95% CI: 2.71-8.23, I = 61.1%), malnutrition (OR = 2.35, 95% CI: 1.62-3.40, I = 50.0%), female sex (OR = 5.07, 95% CI: 2.96-8.69, I = 73.0%) and higher age (OR = 1.10, 95% CI: 1.06-1.15, I ==86.0%) were significantly associated with a higher risk for osteosarcopenia. Meta-analysis of cohort studies showed that osteosarcopenia significantly increased the risk of fall (HR = 1.54, 95% CI: 1.20-1.97; I = 1.0%, three studies), fracture (HR = 2.13, 95% CI: 1.61-2.81; I = 67.8%, seven studies) and mortality (HR = 1.75, 95% CI: 1.34-2.28; I = 0.0%, five studies). Despite the heterogeneity arising from varied definitions and criteria, our findings highlight a significant global prevalence of osteosarcopenia and its negative impact on clinical health. Standardizing diagnostic criteria for osteosarcopenia would be advantageous in the future, and early detection and management should be emphasized in this patient population.
Topics: Male; Humans; Female; Middle Aged; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Sarcopenia; Cross-Sectional Studies; Case-Control Studies; Osteoporosis; Fractures, Bone
PubMed: 38086772
DOI: 10.1002/jcsm.13392 -
Annals of Internal Medicine Jul 2019Optimal long-term osteoporosis drug treatment (ODT) is uncertain.
BACKGROUND
Optimal long-term osteoporosis drug treatment (ODT) is uncertain.
PURPOSE
To summarize the effects of long-term ODT and ODT discontinuation and holidays.
DATA SOURCES
Electronic bibliographic databases (January 1995 to October 2018) and systematic review bibliographies.
STUDY SELECTION
48 studies that enrolled men or postmenopausal women aged 50 years or older who were being investigated or treated for fracture prevention, compared long-term ODT (>3 years) versus control or ODT continuation versus discontinuation, reported incident fractures (for trials) or harms (for trials and observational studies), and had low or medium risk of bias (ROB).
DATA EXTRACTION
Two reviewers independently rated ROB and strength of evidence (SOE). One extracted data; another verified accuracy.
DATA SYNTHESIS
Thirty-five trials (9 unique studies) and 13 observational studies (11 unique studies) had low or medium ROB. In women with osteoporosis, 4 years of alendronate reduced clinical fractures (hazard ratio [HR], 0.64 [95% CI, 0.50 to 0.82]) and radiographic vertebral fractures (both moderate SOE), whereas 4 years of raloxifene reduced vertebral but not nonvertebral fractures. In women with osteopenia or osteoporosis, 6 years of zoledronic acid reduced clinical fractures (HR, 0.73 [CI, 0.60 to 0.90]), including nonvertebral fractures (high SOE) and clinical vertebral fractures (moderate SOE). Long-term bisphosphonates increased risk for 2 rare harms: atypical femoral fractures (low SOE) and osteonecrosis of the jaw (mostly low SOE). In women with unspecified osteoporosis status, 5 to 7 years of hormone therapy reduced clinical fractures (high SOE), including hip fractures (moderate SOE), but increased serious harms. After 3 to 5 years of treatment, bisphosphonate continuation versus discontinuation reduced radiographic vertebral fractures (zoledronic acid; low SOE) and clinical vertebral fractures (alendronate; moderate SOE) but not nonvertebral fractures (low SOE).
LIMITATION
No trials studied men, clinical fracture data were sparse, methods for estimating harms were heterogeneous, and no trials compared sequential treatments or different durations of drug holidays.
CONCLUSION
Long-term alendronate and zoledronic acid therapies reduce fracture risk in women with osteoporosis. Long-term bisphosphonate treatment may increase risk for rare adverse events, and continuing treatment beyond 3 to 5 years may reduce risk for vertebral fractures. Long-term hormone therapy reduces hip fracture risks but has serious harms.
PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE
National Institutes of Health and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (PROSPERO: CRD42018087006).
Topics: Alendronate; Bone Density; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Bone Diseases, Metabolic; Diphosphonates; Drug Administration Schedule; Duration of Therapy; Female; Hip Fractures; Humans; Osteoporosis, Postmenopausal; Osteoporotic Fractures; Spinal Fractures; Zoledronic Acid
PubMed: 31009947
DOI: 10.7326/M19-0533 -
BMC Geriatrics Jun 2023Osteosarcopenia is a syndrome with a concomitant presence of both sarcopenia and osteopenia/osteoporosis. It increases the risk of frailty, falls, fractures,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Osteosarcopenia is a syndrome with a concomitant presence of both sarcopenia and osteopenia/osteoporosis. It increases the risk of frailty, falls, fractures, hospitalization, and death. Not only does it burden the lives of older adults, but it also increases the economic burden on health systems around the world. This study aimed to review the prevalence and risk factors of osteosarcopenia to generate important references for clinical work in this area.
METHODS
Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang, CBM, and VIP databases were searched from inception until April 24th, 2022. The quality of studies included in the review was evaluated using the NOS and AHRQ Scale. Pooled effects of the prevalence and associated factors were calculated using random or fixed effects models. Egger's test, Begg's test, and funnel plots were used to test the publication bias. Sensitivity analysis and subgroup analysis were conducted to identify the sources of heterogeneity. Statistical analysis was performed using Stata 14.0 and Review Manager 5.4.
RESULTS
A total of 31 studies involving 15,062 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The prevalence of osteosarcopenia ranged from 1.5 to 65.7%, with an overall prevalence of 21% (95% CI: 0.16-0.26). The risk factors for osteosarcopenia were female (OR 5.10, 95% CI: 2.37-10.98), older age (OR 1.12, 95% CI: 1.03-1.21), and fracture (OR 2.92, 95% CI: 1.62-5.25).
CONCLUSION
The prevalence of osteosarcopenia was high. Females, advanced age, and history of fracture were independently associated with osteosarcopenia. It is necessary to adopt integrated multidisciplinary management.
Topics: Humans; Female; Aged; Male; Prevalence; Osteoporosis; Fractures, Bone; Risk Factors; Sarcopenia
PubMed: 37322416
DOI: 10.1186/s12877-023-04085-9 -
Critical Reviews in Food Science and... 2020Although some studies have reported the beneficial effects of milk and dairy product consumption on osteoporosis and risk of fracture, the findings are conflicting. We... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Although some studies have reported the beneficial effects of milk and dairy product consumption on osteoporosis and risk of fracture, the findings are conflicting. We summarized earlier data on the association between milk and dairy intake and risk of osteoporosis and hip fracture through a meta-analysis. A systematic literature search of relevant reports published in PubMed, ISI (Web of Science), EMBASE, SCOPUS, and Google Scholar until August 2018 was conducted. Total dairy intake was protectively associated with reduced risk of osteoporosis based on cross-sectional and case-control studies (0.63; 95% CI: 0.55-0.73). Milk consumption was not associated with the risk of osteoporosis (overall RR = 0.79; 95% CI: 0.57-1.08). In non-linear dose-response meta-analysis, increase intake of dairy (at the level of 0 to 250 grams per day) was associated with a reduced risk of osteoporosis ( = 0.005). Meta-regression of included studies revealed an inverse linear association between dairy and milk intake and risk of osteoporosis; such that every additional 200-gram intake of dairy and milk was associated with a 22% and 37% reduced risk of osteoporosis, respectively. In terms of hip fracture, milk consumption was associated with a 25% reduced risk of hip fracture only in cross-sectional and case-control studies (overall RR = 0.75; 95%CI: 0.57-0.99). In linear meta-regression, every additional 200-gram milk intake per day was associated with a 9% greater risk of hip fracture in cohort studies. Despite an inverse association between milk and dairy intake and risk of osteoporosis and hip fracture in cross-sectional and case-control studies, no such association was seen in cohort studies. Given the advantages of the cohort over case-control studies, we concluded that a greater intake of milk and dairy products was not associated with a lower risk of osteoporosis and hip fracture.
Topics: Animals; Cross-Sectional Studies; Dairy Products; Diet; Hip Fractures; Humans; Milk; Osteoporosis; Risk Factors
PubMed: 30909722
DOI: 10.1080/10408398.2019.1590800 -
Calcified Tissue International Jun 2023To assess the effectiveness and safety of denosumab (Prolia®) compared to bisphosphonates (alendronate, ibandronate, risedronate, zoledronate), selective estrogen... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The Clinical Effectiveness of Denosumab (Prolia®) for the Treatment of Osteoporosis in Postmenopausal Women, Compared to Bisphosphonates, Selective Estrogen Receptor Modulators (SERM), and Placebo: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.
To assess the effectiveness and safety of denosumab (Prolia®) compared to bisphosphonates (alendronate, ibandronate, risedronate, zoledronate), selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs; bazedoxifene, raloxifene) or placebo, for the treatment of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women (PMW). Systematic searches were run in PubMed, Embase & Cochrane Library on 27-April-2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that included osteoporotic PMW allocated to denosumab, SERMs, bisphosphonates, or placebo were eligible for inclusion. RCTs were appraised using Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0. Bayesian network and/or pairwise meta-analyses were conducted on predetermined outcomes (i.e. vertebral/nonvertebral fractures, bone mineral density [BMD], mortality, adverse events [AEs], serious AEs (SAEs), withdrawals due to AEs, AEs caused by denosumab discontinuation). A total of 12 RCTs (k = 22 publications; n = 25,879 participants) were included in the analyses. Denosumab, reported a statistically significant increase in lumbar spine (LS) and total hip (TH) BMD, compared to placebo. Similarly, denosumab also resulted in a statistically significant increase in TH BMD compared to the raloxifene and bazedoxifene. However, relative to denosumab, alendronate, ibandronate and risedronate resulted in significant improvements in both femoral neck (FN) and LS BMD. With regards to vertebral fractures and all safety outcomes, there were no statistically significant differences between denosumab and any of the comparator. Relative to placebo, denosumab was associated with significant benefits in both LS and TH BMD. Additionally, denosumab (compared to placebo) was not associated with reductions in vertebral and nonvertebral fractures. Finally, denosumab was not associated with improvement in safety outcomes, compared to placebo. These findings should be interpreted with caution as some analyses suffered from statistical imprecision.
Topics: Female; Humans; Diphosphonates; Selective Estrogen Receptor Modulators; Denosumab; Alendronate; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Risedronic Acid; Raloxifene Hydrochloride; Ibandronic Acid; Network Meta-Analysis; Postmenopause; Osteoporosis, Postmenopausal; Osteoporosis; Bone Density; Spinal Fractures; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37016189
DOI: 10.1007/s00223-023-01078-z -
Nutrients Aug 2022Phenolic compounds are natural phytochemicals that have recently reported numerous health benefits. Resveratrol, curcumin, and quercetin have recently received the most...
Phenolic compounds are natural phytochemicals that have recently reported numerous health benefits. Resveratrol, curcumin, and quercetin have recently received the most attention among these molecules due to their documented antioxidant effects. The review aims to investigate the effects of these molecules on bone metabolism and their role in several diseases such as osteopenia and osteoporosis, bone tumours, and periodontitis. The PubMed/Medline, Web of Science, Google Scholar, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Embase electronic databases were searched for papers in line with the study topic. According to an English language restriction, the screening period was from January 2012 to 3 July 2022, with the following Boolean keywords: ("resveratrol" AND "bone"); ("curcumin" AND "bone"); ("quercetin" AND "bone"). A total of 36 papers were identified as relevant to the purpose of our investigation. The studies reported the positive effects of the investigated phenolic compounds on bone metabolism and their potential application as adjuvant treatments for osteoporosis, bone tumours, and periodontitis. Furthermore, their use on the titanium surfaces of orthopaedic prostheses could represent a possible application to improve the osteogenic processes and osseointegration. According to the study findings, resveratrol, curcumin, and quercetin are reported to have a wide variety of beneficial effects as supplement therapies. The investigated phenolic compounds seem to positively mediate bone metabolism and osteoclast-related pathologies.
Topics: Curcumin; Dietary Supplements; Humans; Osteoporosis; Periodontitis; Quercetin; Resveratrol
PubMed: 36079777
DOI: 10.3390/nu14173519 -
The International Journal of Behavioral... Nov 2020Various physical activity interventions for prevention and treatment of osteoporosis have been designed and evaluated, but the effect of such interventions on the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Evidence on physical activity and osteoporosis prevention for people aged 65+ years: a systematic review to inform the WHO guidelines on physical activity and sedentary behaviour.
BACKGROUND
Various physical activity interventions for prevention and treatment of osteoporosis have been designed and evaluated, but the effect of such interventions on the prevention of osteoporosis in older people is unclear. The aim of this review was to investigate the association between physical activity and osteoporosis prevention in people aged 65 years and above.
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted and searches for individual studies were conducted in PubMed (January 2010 to March 2020) and for systematic reviews were conducted in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL and SPORTDiscus (January 2008 to July 2020). Records were screened according to the following eligibility criteria: i) population: adults aged 65 years and older; ii) exposure: greater volume, duration, frequency, or intensity of physical activity; iii) comparison: no physical activity or lesser volume, duration, frequency, or intensity of physical activity; iv) outcome: osteoporosis related measures (e.g., bone mineral density). The methodological quality of included studies was assessed and meta-analysis summarised study effects. The GRADE approach was used to rate certainty of evidence.
RESULTS
We included a total of 59 studies, including 12 observational studies and 47 trials. Within the included trials, 40 compared physical activity with no intervention controls, 11 compared two physical activity programs, and six investigated different doses of physical activity. Included studies suggest that physical activity interventions probably improve bone health among older adults and thus prevent osteoporosis (standardised effect size 0.15, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.25, 20 trials, moderate-certainty evidence, main or most relevant outcome selected for each of the included studies). Physical activity interventions probably improve lumbar spine bone mineral density (standardised effect size 0.17, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.30, 11 trials, moderate-certainty evidence) and may improve hip (femoral neck) bone mineral density (standardised effect size 0.09, 95% CI - 0.03 to 0.21, 14 trials, low-certainty evidence). Higher doses of physical activity and programs involving multiple exercise types or resistance exercise appear to be most effective. Typical programs for which significant intervention impacts were detected in trials were undertaken for 60+ mins, 2-3 times/week for 7+ months. Observational studies suggested a positive association between long-term total and planned physical activity on bone health.
CONCLUSIONS
Physical activity probably plays a role in the prevention of osteoporosis. The level of evidence is higher for effects of physical activity on lumbar spine bone mineral density than for hip. Higher dose programs and those involving multiple exercises and resistance exercises appear to be more effective.
Topics: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Bone Density; Exercise; Female; Guidelines as Topic; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Osteoporosis; World Health Organization
PubMed: 33239014
DOI: 10.1186/s12966-020-01040-4 -
Osteoporosis International : a Journal... Sep 2023Trabecular bone score (TBS) is a grey-level textural measurement acquired from dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry lumbar spine images and is a validated index of bone...
Update on the clinical use of trabecular bone score (TBS) in the management of osteoporosis: results of an expert group meeting organized by the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO), and the International...
PURPOSE
Trabecular bone score (TBS) is a grey-level textural measurement acquired from dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry lumbar spine images and is a validated index of bone microarchitecture. In 2015, a Working Group of the European Society on Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO) published a review of the TBS literature, concluding that TBS predicts hip and major osteoporotic fracture, at least partly independent of bone mineral density (BMD) and clinical risk factors. It was also concluded that TBS is potentially amenable to change as a result of pharmacological therapy. Further evidence on the utility of TBS has since accumulated in both primary and secondary osteoporosis, and the introduction of FRAX and BMD T-score adjustment for TBS has accelerated adoption. This position paper therefore presents a review of the updated scientific literature and provides expert consensus statements and corresponding operational guidelines for the use of TBS.
METHODS
An Expert Working Group was convened by the ESCEO and a systematic review of the evidence undertaken, with defined search strategies for four key topics with respect to the potential use of TBS: (1) fracture prediction in men and women; (2) initiating and monitoring treatment in postmenopausal osteoporosis; (3) fracture prediction in secondary osteoporosis; and (4) treatment monitoring in secondary osteoporosis. Statements to guide the clinical use of TBS were derived from the review and graded by consensus using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.
RESULTS
A total of 96 articles were reviewed and included data on the use of TBS for fracture prediction in men and women, from over 20 countries. The updated evidence shows that TBS enhances fracture risk prediction in both primary and secondary osteoporosis, and can, when taken with BMD and clinical risk factors, inform treatment initiation and the choice of antiosteoporosis treatment. Evidence also indicates that TBS provides useful adjunctive information in monitoring treatment with long-term denosumab and anabolic agents. All expert consensus statements were voted as strongly recommended.
CONCLUSION
The addition of TBS assessment to FRAX and/or BMD enhances fracture risk prediction in primary and secondary osteoporosis, adding useful information for treatment decision-making and monitoring. The expert consensus statements provided in this paper can be used to guide the integration of TBS in clinical practice for the assessment and management of osteoporosis. An example of an operational approach is provided in the appendix. This position paper presents an up-to-date review of the evidence base, synthesised through expert consensus statements, which informs the implementation of Trabecular Bone Score in clinical practice.
Topics: Male; Female; Humans; Cancellous Bone; Osteoporosis; Osteoporotic Fractures; Bone Density; Absorptiometry, Photon; Lumbar Vertebrae; Osteoarthritis; Aging; Consensus; World Health Organization; Risk Assessment
PubMed: 37393412
DOI: 10.1007/s00198-023-06817-4