-
Calcified Tissue International Oct 2021It is acknowledged that the COVID-19 pandemic has caused profound disruption to the delivery of healthcare services globally. This has affected the management of many... (Review)
Review
It is acknowledged that the COVID-19 pandemic has caused profound disruption to the delivery of healthcare services globally. This has affected the management of many long-term conditions including osteoporosis as resources are diverted to cover urgent care. Osteoporosis is a public health concern worldwide and treatment is required for the prevention of further bone loss, deterioration of skeletal micro-architecture, and fragility fractures. This review provides information on how the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis. We also provide clinical recommendations on the adaptation of care pathways based on experience from five referral centres to ensure that patients with osteoporosis are still treated and to reduce the risk of fractures both for the individual patient and on a societal basis. We address the use of the FRAX tool for risk stratification and initiation of osteoporosis treatment and discuss the potential adaptations to treatment pathways in view of limitations on the availability of DXA. We focus on the issues surrounding initiation and maintenance of treatment for patients on parenteral therapies such as zoledronate, denosumab, teriparatide, and romosozumab during the pandemic. The design of these innovative care pathways for the management of patients with osteoporosis may also provide a platform for future improvement to osteoporosis services when routine clinical care resumes.
Topics: Bone Density Conservation Agents; COVID-19; Humans; Osteoporosis; Osteoporotic Fractures; Pandemics; SARS-CoV-2; Teriparatide
PubMed: 34003337
DOI: 10.1007/s00223-021-00858-9 -
Systematic Reviews Mar 2023To inform recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care, we reviewed evidence on the benefits, harms, and acceptability of screening and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Screening for the primary prevention of fragility fractures among adults aged 40 years and older in primary care: systematic reviews of the effects and acceptability of screening and treatment, and the accuracy of risk prediction tools.
BACKGROUND
To inform recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care, we reviewed evidence on the benefits, harms, and acceptability of screening and treatment, and on the accuracy of risk prediction tools for the primary prevention of fragility fractures among adults aged 40 years and older in primary care.
METHODS
For screening effectiveness, accuracy of risk prediction tools, and treatment benefits, our search methods involved integrating studies published up to 2016 from an existing systematic review. Then, to locate more recent studies and any evidence relating to acceptability and treatment harms, we searched online databases (2016 to April 4, 2022 [screening] or to June 1, 2021 [predictive accuracy]; 1995 to June 1, 2021, for acceptability; 2016 to March 2, 2020, for treatment benefits; 2015 to June 24, 2020, for treatment harms), trial registries and gray literature, and hand-searched reviews, guidelines, and the included studies. Two reviewers selected studies, extracted results, and appraised risk of bias, with disagreements resolved by consensus or a third reviewer. The overview of reviews on treatment harms relied on one reviewer, with verification of data by another reviewer to correct errors and omissions. When appropriate, study results were pooled using random effects meta-analysis; otherwise, findings were described narratively. Evidence certainty was rated according to the GRADE approach.
RESULTS
We included 4 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 1 controlled clinical trial (CCT) for the benefits and harms of screening, 1 RCT for comparative benefits and harms of different screening strategies, 32 validation cohort studies for the calibration of risk prediction tools (26 of these reporting on the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool without [i.e., clinical FRAX], or with the inclusion of bone mineral density (BMD) results [i.e., FRAX + BMD]), 27 RCTs for the benefits of treatment, 10 systematic reviews for the harms of treatment, and 12 studies for the acceptability of screening or initiating treatment. In females aged 65 years and older who are willing to independently complete a mailed fracture risk questionnaire (referred to as "selected population"), 2-step screening using a risk assessment tool with or without measurement of BMD probably (moderate certainty) reduces the risk of hip fractures (3 RCTs and 1 CCT, n = 43,736, absolute risk reduction [ARD] = 6.2 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 9.0-2.8 fewer, number needed to screen [NNS] = 161) and clinical fragility fractures (3 RCTs, n = 42,009, ARD = 5.9 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 10.9-0.8 fewer, NNS = 169). It probably does not reduce all-cause mortality (2 RCTs and 1 CCT, n = 26,511, ARD = no difference in 1000, 95% CI 7.1 fewer to 5.3 more) and may (low certainty) not affect health-related quality of life. Benefits for fracture outcomes were not replicated in an offer-to-screen population where the rate of response to mailed screening questionnaires was low. For females aged 68-80 years, population screening may not reduce the risk of hip fractures (1 RCT, n = 34,229, ARD = 0.3 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 4.2 fewer to 3.9 more) or clinical fragility fractures (1 RCT, n = 34,229, ARD = 1.0 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 8.0 fewer to 6.0 more) over 5 years of follow-up. The evidence for serious adverse events among all patients and for all outcomes among males and younger females (<65 years) is very uncertain. We defined overdiagnosis as the identification of high risk in individuals who, if not screened, would never have known that they were at risk and would never have experienced a fragility fracture. This was not directly reported in any of the trials. Estimates using data available in the trials suggest that among "selected" females offered screening, 12% of those meeting age-specific treatment thresholds based on clinical FRAX 10-year hip fracture risk, and 19% of those meeting thresholds based on clinical FRAX 10-year major osteoporotic fracture risk, may be overdiagnosed as being at high risk of fracture. Of those identified as being at high clinical FRAX 10-year hip fracture risk and who were referred for BMD assessment, 24% may be overdiagnosed. One RCT (n = 9268) provided evidence comparing 1-step to 2-step screening among postmenopausal females, but the evidence from this trial was very uncertain. For the calibration of risk prediction tools, evidence from three Canadian studies (n = 67,611) without serious risk of bias concerns indicates that clinical FRAX-Canada may be well calibrated for the 10-year prediction of hip fractures (observed-to-expected fracture ratio [O:E] = 1.13, 95% CI 0.74-1.72, I = 89.2%), and is probably well calibrated for the 10-year prediction of clinical fragility fractures (O:E = 1.10, 95% CI 1.01-1.20, I = 50.4%), both leading to some underestimation of the observed risk. Data from these same studies (n = 61,156) showed that FRAX-Canada with BMD may perform poorly to estimate 10-year hip fracture risk (O:E = 1.31, 95% CI 0.91-2.13, I = 92.7%), but is probably well calibrated for the 10-year prediction of clinical fragility fractures, with some underestimation of the observed risk (O:E 1.16, 95% CI 1.12-1.20, I = 0%). The Canadian Association of Radiologists and Osteoporosis Canada Risk Assessment (CAROC) tool may be well calibrated to predict a category of risk for 10-year clinical fractures (low, moderate, or high risk; 1 study, n = 34,060). The evidence for most other tools was limited, or in the case of FRAX tools calibrated for countries other than Canada, very uncertain due to serious risk of bias concerns and large inconsistency in findings across studies. Postmenopausal females in a primary prevention population defined as <50% prevalence of prior fragility fracture (median 16.9%, range 0 to 48% when reported in the trials) and at risk of fragility fracture, treatment with bisphosphonates as a class (median 2 years, range 1-6 years) probably reduces the risk of clinical fragility fractures (19 RCTs, n = 22,482, ARD = 11.1 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 15.0-6.6 fewer, [number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome] NNT = 90), and may reduce the risk of hip fractures (14 RCTs, n = 21,038, ARD = 2.9 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 4.6-0.9 fewer, NNT = 345) and clinical vertebral fractures (11 RCTs, n = 8921, ARD = 10.0 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 14.0-3.9 fewer, NNT = 100); it may not reduce all-cause mortality. There is low certainty evidence of little-to-no reduction in hip fractures with any individual bisphosphonate, but all provided evidence of decreased risk of clinical fragility fractures (moderate certainty for alendronate [NNT=68] and zoledronic acid [NNT=50], low certainty for risedronate [NNT=128]) among postmenopausal females. Evidence for an impact on risk of clinical vertebral fractures is very uncertain for alendronate and risedronate; zoledronic acid may reduce the risk of this outcome (4 RCTs, n = 2367, ARD = 18.7 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 25.6-6.6 fewer, NNT = 54) for postmenopausal females. Denosumab probably reduces the risk of clinical fragility fractures (6 RCTs, n = 9473, ARD = 9.1 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 12.1-5.6 fewer, NNT = 110) and clinical vertebral fractures (4 RCTs, n = 8639, ARD = 16.0 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 18.6-12.1 fewer, NNT=62), but may make little-to-no difference in the risk of hip fractures among postmenopausal females. Denosumab probably makes little-to-no difference in the risk of all-cause mortality or health-related quality of life among postmenopausal females. Evidence in males is limited to two trials (1 zoledronic acid, 1 denosumab); in this population, zoledronic acid may make little-to-no difference in the risk of hip or clinical fragility fractures, and evidence for all-cause mortality is very uncertain. The evidence for treatment with denosumab in males is very uncertain for all fracture outcomes (hip, clinical fragility, clinical vertebral) and all-cause mortality. There is moderate certainty evidence that treatment causes a small number of patients to experience a non-serious adverse event, notably non-serious gastrointestinal events (e.g., abdominal pain, reflux) with alendronate (50 RCTs, n = 22,549, ARD = 16.3 more in 1000, 95% CI 2.4-31.3 more, [number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome] NNH = 61) but not with risedronate; influenza-like symptoms with zoledronic acid (5 RCTs, n = 10,695, ARD = 142.5 more in 1000, 95% CI 105.5-188.5 more, NNH = 7); and non-serious gastrointestinal adverse events (3 RCTs, n = 8454, ARD = 64.5 more in 1000, 95% CI 26.4-13.3 more, NNH = 16), dermatologic adverse events (3 RCTs, n = 8454, ARD = 15.6 more in 1000, 95% CI 7.6-27.0 more, NNH = 64), and infections (any severity; 4 RCTs, n = 8691, ARD = 1.8 more in 1000, 95% CI 0.1-4.0 more, NNH = 556) with denosumab. For serious adverse events overall and specific to stroke and myocardial infarction, treatment with bisphosphonates probably makes little-to-no difference; evidence for other specific serious harms was less certain or not available. There was low certainty evidence for an increased risk for the rare occurrence of atypical femoral fractures (0.06 to 0.08 more in 1000) and osteonecrosis of the jaw (0.22 more in 1000) with bisphosphonates (most evidence for alendronate). The evidence for these rare outcomes and for rebound fractures with denosumab was very uncertain. Younger (lower risk) females have high willingness to be screened. A minority of postmenopausal females at increased risk for fracture may accept treatment. Further, there is large heterogeneity in the level of risk at which patients may be accepting of initiating treatment, and treatment effects appear to be overestimated.
CONCLUSION
An offer of 2-step screening with risk assessment and BMD measurement to selected postmenopausal females with low prevalence of prior fracture probably results in a small reduction in the risk of clinical fragility fracture and hip fracture compared to no screening. These findings were most applicable to the use of clinical FRAX for risk assessment and were not replicated in the offer-to-screen population where the rate of response to mailed screening questionnaires was low. Limited direct evidence on harms of screening were available; using study data to provide estimates, there may be a moderate degree of overdiagnosis of high risk for fracture to consider. The evidence for younger females and males is very limited. The benefits of screening and treatment need to be weighed against the potential for harm; patient views on the acceptability of treatment are highly variable.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO): CRD42019123767.
Topics: Adult; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Alendronate; Canada; Denosumab; Diphosphonates; Hip Fractures; Osteoporotic Fractures; Primary Health Care; Primary Prevention; Risedronic Acid; Systematic Reviews as Topic; Zoledronic Acid
PubMed: 36945065
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-023-02181-w -
Orthopaedics & Traumatology, Surgery &... Sep 2015To assess the effectiveness and safety of stentoplasty in people with osteoporotic vertebral body fractures. A systematic search of databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE... (Review)
Review
UNLABELLED
To assess the effectiveness and safety of stentoplasty in people with osteoporotic vertebral body fractures. A systematic search of databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane library, between others, was conducted to June 9, 2014. Clinical trials and observational studies that included alive adults with osteoporotic vertebral body fractures and the comparators were the intervention himself, vertebroplasty or balloon kyphoplasty were selected. Quality of evidence was graded according to the GRADE approach. Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. Forty-two citations were identified during the search. After removing duplicates, five studies were included: two clinical trials and three observational studies. Stentoplasty, showed higher rate of adverse events related to material (P=0.043) and cuff pressure (P=0.014) in comparison to kyphoplasty. There was no difference between two procedures in terms of reduction of kyphosis, time of exposure to radiation or postoperative loss of cement. Stentoplasty in comparison to vertebroplasty, showed an improvement of restoration of vertebral height (P=0.042), kyphosis correction and volume of bone cement. No differences were found between two procedures in terms of loss of vertebral body volume. Based on observational studies, stentoplasty improved vertebral height, pain and functional disability at 6 and 12months follow-up, and corrected the angle vertebral fractures in patients with osteoporotic vertebral body. Stentoplasty was presented as a safe procedure in short-medium term, with a low complication rate, a reduced loss of cement and new vertebral body fractures lower rates. Stentoplasty improves vertebral height, reduces the pain and functional disability and correct the vertebral angle in patients with osteoporotic vertebral body fracture with minimum adverse events. Stentoplasty is comparable to kyphoplasty in terms of correction of kyphosis, time of exposure to radiation and cement postoperative loss, and comparable to vertebroplasty in terms of restoration of vertebral height correction and bone cement volume.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Level II systematic review.
Topics: Humans; Kyphoplasty; Osteoporotic Fractures; Pain; Spinal Fractures; Stents
PubMed: 26194207
DOI: 10.1016/j.otsr.2015.06.002 -
Orthopaedic Surgery Oct 2023This systematic review and meta-analysis is aimed to provide higher quality evidence regarding the efficacy and safety between PCVP and PVP/KP in OVCFs. We searched the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
This systematic review and meta-analysis is aimed to provide higher quality evidence regarding the efficacy and safety between PCVP and PVP/KP in OVCFs. We searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase databases for all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies (cohort or case-control studies) that compare PCVP to PVP/KP for OVCFs. The Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias Tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) were used to evaluate the quality of the RCTs and non-RCTs, respectively. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4 software. A total of seven articles consisting of 562 patients with 593 diseased vertebral bodies were included. Statistically significant differences were found in the postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) at 1 day (MD = -0.11; 95% CI: [-0.21 to -0.01], p = 0.03), but not at 3 months (MD = -0.21; 95% CI: [-0.41-0.00], p = 0.05) or 6 months (MD = 0.03; 95% CI: [-0.13-0.20], p = 0.70). There was no statistically significant difference in postoperative Oswestry disability index (ODI) at 1 day (MD = -0.28; 95% CI: [-0.62-0.05], p = 0.10), 3 months (MD = -1.52; 95% CI: [-3.11-0.07], p = 0.06), or 6 months (MD = 0.18; 95% CI: [-0.13-0.48], p = 0.25). Additionally, there were no statistically significant differences in Cobb angle (MD = 0.30; 95% CI: [-1.69-2.30], p = 0.77) or anterior vertebral body height (SMD = -0.01; 95% CI: [-0.26-0.23], p = 0.92) after surgery. Statistically significant differences were found in surgical time (MD = -8.60; 95% CI: [-13.75 to -3.45], p = 0.001), cement infusion volume (MD = -0.82; 95% CI: [-1.50 to -0.14], P = 0.02), and dose of fluoroscopy (SMD = -1.22; 95% CI: [-1.84 to -0.60], p = 0.0001) between curved and noncurved techniques, especially compared to bilateral PVP. Moreover, cement leakage showed statistically significant difference (OR = 0.40; 95% CI: [0.27-0.60], p < 0.0001). Compared with PVP/KP, PCVP is superior for pain relief at short-term follow-up. Additionally, PCVP has the advantages of significantly lower surgical time, radiation exposure, bone cement infusion volume, and cement leakage incidence compared to bilateral PVP, while no statistically significant difference is found when compared with unilateral PVP or PKP. In terms of quality of life and radiologic outcomes, the effects of PCVP and PVP/KP are not significantly different. Overall, this meta-analysis reveals that PCVP was an effective and safe therapy for patients with OVCFs.
Topics: Humans; Fractures, Compression; Vertebroplasty; Kyphoplasty; Osteoporotic Fractures; Spinal Fractures; Bone Cements; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37497571
DOI: 10.1111/os.13800 -
Biomedicines May 2022Recent studies have proposed that adequate intake of Vitamin K (VK) is associated with a low risk of fracture and high bone mineral density (BMD) to improve skeletal... (Review)
Review
Recent studies have proposed that adequate intake of Vitamin K (VK) is associated with a low risk of fracture and high bone mineral density (BMD) to improve skeletal health in adults. This systematic review was designed to summarize the most relevant and updated evidence discussing the relationship between VK and bone. It explores the effect of VK deficiency and its supplementation on various bone parameters. Methods: The distinct databases such as PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, National Clinical Trials, Current Controlled Trials, and Clinical Trials were searched up to Jan 2020 to identify eligible trials. All relevant randomized controlled trial studies with any oral dosage form of VK supplement administered for at least six months and assessing BMD or fracture in adults were extracted. Finally, two independent reviewers identified 20 relevant citations for the systematic review and extracted data in tabular form. Results: The meta-analysis was performed with all studies, including postmenopausal and osteoporotic females, for both total clinical and vertebral fracture outcomes. The quantitative analysis showed that the odds ratios (OR) of any fracture were lower for VK as compared to control [OR 0.42 (95% CI 0.27 to 0.66)] for vertebral fractures and OR of 0.44 (95% CI 0.23 to 0.88) for clinical fracture. For the BMD, a meta-analysis of the pooled effect of interventional studies suggested a non-significant association between the use of VK and improvement in femoral BMD (CI 95%, = 0.08 [-0.03-0.20]). VK decreases general fracture risk, and it can be an option to counter bone loss disorders. However, insufficient evidence is available regarding the significant impact of VK on femoral neck BMD. Therefore, further studies are required to establish the therapeutic value of VK as a treatment for osteoporosis.
PubMed: 35625785
DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines10051048 -
Annals of Saudi Medicine 2016Both kyphoplasty (KP) and vertebroplasty (VP) are effective for patients with osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture (OVCF), but which approach might be more... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Both kyphoplasty (KP) and vertebroplasty (VP) are effective for patients with osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture (OVCF), but which approach might be more effective remains unclear, so we decided to update earlier systematic reviews.
OBJECTIVE
Review and analyze studies published as of August 2015 that compared clinical outcomes and complications of KP versus VP.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
SEARCH METHOD
Published reports up to August 2015 were found in PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective and retrospective cohort stud.ies comparing KP and VP in patients with OVCF.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently assessed the studies and extracted data.
RESULTS
Thirty-two studies involving 3274 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. There were significant differences between the two groups in short- and long-term postoperative changes in measures of pain intensity and dysfunction (P < .01), in anterior and middle height (P < .01), kyphotic angle (P < .01), and time to injury, but not in posterior height (P=.178). There were no significant differences in the rate of postoperative fractures including adjacent and total fractures, but cement leakage to the intraspinal space was greater in the VP group (P=.035). KP surgery took longer and required a greater volume of injected cement.
CONCLUSIONS
KR resulted in better pain relief, improvements in Oswestry dysfunction and radiographic outcomes with less cement leakage, but further RCTs are needed to verify this conclusion.
LIMITATIONS
Only four RCTs with a certain of risk of bias. Most studies were observational.
Topics: Bone Cements; Disability Evaluation; Fractures, Compression; Humans; Kyphoplasty; Operative Time; Osteoporotic Fractures; Pain Measurement; Spinal Fractures; Treatment Outcome; Vertebroplasty
PubMed: 27236387
DOI: 10.5144/0256-4947.2016.165 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Jun 2021Osteosarcopenia is a recently identified condition caused by the coexistence of osteoporosis and sarcopenia that affects the frail elderly population, leading to an... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Osteosarcopenia is a recently identified condition caused by the coexistence of osteoporosis and sarcopenia that affects the frail elderly population, leading to an increased risk of falls and fractures. Given the recent socio-economic interest associated with osteosarcopenia, the aim of this meta-analysis is to provide an overview of the factors potentially involved in its pathogenesis, assessing its population type, prevalence, and associated variables.
METHODS
A comprehensive systematic search for relevant studies, published from 2015 to 2020, was performed by using PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases. We analysed the variables of age, vitamin D, handgrip, and T-score in four different groups: healthy, osteopenic-osteoporotic, sarcopenic, and osteosarcopenic.
RESULTS
A total of 6504 patients from 16 studies were included in the final meta-analysis. The analysis of the individual variables reveals a statistically significant correlation between the handgrip test data and T-score ( < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS
The correlation between T-score values and handgrip strength suggests a new potential parameter in the development of predictive models that could be used in clinical practice, highlighting its importance for the diagnosis of osteosarcopenia.
PubMed: 34204622
DOI: 10.3390/jcm10122597 -
Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy 2022Osteoporotic vertebral fractures affect a large number of older adults OBJECTIVES: Systematically review evidence of the benefits and harms of non-surgical and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Osteoporotic vertebral fractures affect a large number of older adults OBJECTIVES: Systematically review evidence of the benefits and harms of non-surgical and non-pharmacological management of people with osteoporotic vertebral fractures compared with standard care (control); and evaluate the benefits and harms of non-surgical and non-pharmacological management of people with osteoporotic vertebral fractures compared with an alternative non-pharmacological, non-invasive intervention.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Five electronic databases (CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PUBMED, and COCHRANE) were searched. Eligible trials included participants with primary osteoporosis and at least one vertebral fracture diagnosed on radiographs, with treatment that was non-surgical and non-pharmacological involving more than one session.
RESULTS
Twenty randomized controlled trials were included with 2083 participants with osteoporotic vertebral fractures. Exercise, bracing, multimodal therapy, electrotherapy, and taping were investigated interventions. Meta-analyses provided low certainty evidence that exercise interventions compared to no exercise were effective in reducing pain in patients with osteoporotic vertebral fractures (mean difference (MD)= 1.01; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.08, 1.93), and low certainty evidence that rigid bracing intervention compared with no bracing was effective in reducing pain in patients with osteoporotic vertebral fractures (MD= 2.61; 95%CI: 0.95, 4.27). Meta-analyses showed no differences in harms between exercise and no exercise groups. No health-related quality of life or activity improvements were demonstrated for exercise interventions, bracing, electrotherapy, or multimodal interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
Exercise and rigid bracing as management for patients with osteoporotic vertebral fractures may have a small benefit for pain without increasing risk of harm.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO registration number CRD42012002936.
Topics: Aged; Exercise; Humans; Osteoporotic Fractures; Pain; Quality of Life; Spinal Fractures
PubMed: 35063701
DOI: 10.1016/j.bjpt.2021.100383 -
Journal of Bone and Mineral Research :... Oct 2021The Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) is the most widely used tool for fracture prediction. It provides 10-year probabilities for hip and major osteoporotic fracture...
The Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) is the most widely used tool for fracture prediction. It provides 10-year probabilities for hip and major osteoporotic fracture (MOF). It uses country-specific hip fracture incidence and life expectancy data, and for most countries, MOF/hip fracture incidence rate ratios (IRRs) from Malmo Sweden. However, the risk of MOF varies by age, sex, and geography. The objective is to compare the MOF/hip IRRs across countries, by sex and age. This systematic review targeted observational studies of MOF and hip fractures in individuals >50 years (PROSPERO 2019 CRD42019129259). One reviewer screened potential articles. Two reviewers completed duplicate and independent data abstraction, and assessed study quality based on population representativeness, study design and duration, definition of ethnicity, and fracture characteristics. We calculated the MOF/hip IRRs (95% confidence interval) and Z-values to compare IRRs in various countries to those for Sweden. We included 27 studies, of fair to good quality in the majority, from Europe (15), US and Canada (7), Asia (3), and Australia (2). The IRRs were twofold to 10-fold higher in younger compared to older age categories, and in women compared to men, with few exceptions. Within Europe, and using Sweden as a reference, MOF/Hip IRRs in women 50-54 years from Finland, Italy, Netherlands, Denmark, and UK were significantly lower by 38% to 60%. Findings were similar in men. At older ages, MOF/Hip IRRs were consistently lower in women from European countries compared to Sweden, by 10%-40% and 11%-51%, at 75-79 years and 85-89 years, respectively. Findings were heterogenous in men and in non-European countries. In conclusion, the MOF/hip fracture IRR may vary between countries. The variability at older ages may affect FRAX prediction when country-specific fracture IRRs are not used. Further research is needed to elucidate the implication of our findings to FRAX-derived MOF estimates in various countries. © 2021 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).
Topics: Aged; Bone Density; Female; Hip Fractures; Humans; Incidence; Male; Middle Aged; Osteoporotic Fractures; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors
PubMed: 34152628
DOI: 10.1002/jbmr.4395 -
PharmacoEconomics Apr 2023Osteoporosis is often considered to be a disease of women. Over the last few years, owing to the increasing clinical and economic burden, the awareness and imperative...
BACKGROUND
Osteoporosis is often considered to be a disease of women. Over the last few years, owing to the increasing clinical and economic burden, the awareness and imperative for identifying and managing osteoporosis in men have increased substantially. With the approval of agents to treat men with osteoporosis, more economic evaluations have been conducted to assess the potential economic benefits of these interventions. Despite this concern, there is no specific overview of cost-effectiveness analyses for the treatment of osteoporosis in men.
OBJECTIVES
This study aims (1) to systematically review economic evaluations of interventions for osteoporosis in men; (2) to critically appraise the quality of included studies and the source of model input data; and (3) to investigate the comparability of results for studies including both men and women.
METHODS
A literature search mainly using MEDLINE (via Ovid) and Embase databases was undertaken to identify original articles published between 1 January, 2000 and 30 June, 2022. Studies that assessed the cost effectiveness of interventions for osteoporosis in men were included. The Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases and the International Osteoporosis Foundation osteoporosis-specific guideline was used to assess the quality of design, conduct, and reporting of included studies.
RESULTS
Of 2973 articles identified, 25 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria, classified into economic evaluations of active drugs (n = 8) or nutritional supplements (n = 4), intervention thresholds (n = 5), screening strategies (n = 6), and post-fracture care programs (n = 2). Most studies were conducted in European countries (n = 15), followed by North America (n = 9). Bisphosphonates (namely alendronate) and nutritional supplements were shown to be generally cost effective compared with no treatment in men over 60 years of age with osteoporosis or prior fractures. Two other studies suggested that denosumab was cost effective in men aged 75 years and older with osteoporosis compared with bisphosphates and teriparatide. Intervention thresholds at which bisphosphonates were found to be cost effective varied among studies with a 10-year probability of a major osteoporotic fracture that ranged from 8.9 to 34.2% for different age categories. A few studies suggested cost effectiveness of screening strategies and post-fracture care programs in men. Similar findings regarding the cost effectiveness of drugs and intervention thresholds in women and men were captured, with slightly greater incremental cost-effectiveness ratios in men. The quality of the studies included had an average score of 18.8 out of 25 (range 13-23.5). Hip fracture incidence and mortality risk were mainly derived from studies in men, while fracture cost, treatment efficacy, and disutility were commonly derived from studies in women or studies combining both sexes.
CONCLUSIONS
Anti-osteoporosis drugs and nutritional supplements are generally cost effective in men with osteoporosis. Screening strategies and post-fracture care programs also showed economic benefits for men. Cost-effectiveness and intervention thresholds were generally similar in studies conducted in both men and women, with slightly greater incremental cost-effectiveness ratios in men.
Topics: Male; Female; Humans; Middle Aged; Aged; Osteoporosis, Postmenopausal; Cost-Effectiveness Analysis; Osteoporosis; Osteoporotic Fractures; Diphosphonates; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Bone Density Conservation Agents
PubMed: 36738425
DOI: 10.1007/s40273-022-01239-2