Antiresorptive drugs, such as the bisphosphonates and the RANKL inhibitor denosumab, are currently the most widely used osteoporosis medications. These drugs increase bone mineral density (BMD) and ...reduce the risk of vertebral (by 40–70%), nonvertebral (by 25–40%) and hip fractures (by 40–53%) in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Due to the risk of rare side‐effects, the use of bisphosphonates has been limited to up to 10 years with oral bisphosphonates and 6 years with intravenous zoledronic acid. Despite their well‐proven efficacy and safety, few women at high risk of fracture are started on treatment. Case finding strategies, such as fracture risk‐based screening in primary care using the fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX) and Fracture Liaison Services, have proved effective in increasing treatment rates and reducing fracture rates. Recently, anabolic therapy with teriparatide was demonstrated to be superior to the bisphosphonate risedronate in preventing vertebral and clinical fractures in postmenopausal women with vertebral fracture. Treatment with the sclerostin antibody romosozumab increases BMD more profoundly and rapidly than alendronate and is also superior to alendronate in reducing the risk of vertebral and nonvertebral fracture in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. For patients with severe osteoporosis and high fracture risk, bisphosphonates alone are unlikely to be able to provide long‐term protection against fracture and restore BMD. For those patients, sequential treatment, starting with a bone‐building drug (e.g. teriparatide), followed by an antiresorptive, will likely provide better long‐term fracture prevention and should be the golden standard of future osteoporosis treatment.
Among postmenopausal women with osteoporosis and a high risk of fracture, treatment with the monoclonal antibody romosozumab for 12 months followed by alendronate resulted in a significantly lower ...risk of fracture than alendronate for 12 months followed by alendronate.
Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is considered a risk factor for fracture but the evidence regarding the impact of T2DM on fracture risk is conflicting. The objective of the study was to determine if ...patients with T2DM have increased fracture risk and if T2DM-related risk factors could be identified.
In this national cohort study in Sweden, we investigated the risk of fracture in 580,127 T2DM patients, identified through the national diabetes register including from both primary care and hospitals, and an equal number of population-based controls without diabetes matched for age, sex, and county from 2007 to 2017. The mean age at entry was 66.7 years and 43.6% were women. During a median follow-up time of 6.6 (interquartile range (IQR) 3.1 to 9.8) years, patients with T2DM had a marginally but significantly increased risk of major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) (hazard ratio (HR) 1.01 (95% confidence interval CI 1.00 to 1.03)) and hip fracture (HR 1.06 (95% CI 1.04 to 1.08)) compared to controls, associations that were only minimally affected (HR 1.05 (95% CI 1.03 to 1.06) and HR 1.11 (95% CI 1.09 to 1.14), respectively) by multivariable adjustment (age, sex, marital status, and an additional 20 variables related to general morbidity, cardiovascular status, risk of falls, and fracture). In a multivariable-adjusted Cox model, the proportion of the risk for all fracture outcomes (Heller's R2) explained by T2DM was below 0.1%. Among the T2DM patients, important risk factors for fracture were a low BMI (<25 kg/m2), long diabetes duration (≥15 years), insulin treatment, and low physical activity. In total, 55% of the T2DM patients had none of these risk factors and a significantly lower fracture risk than their respective controls. The relatively short mean duration of T2DM and lack of bone density data, constitute limitations of the analysis.
In this study, we observed only a marginally increased fracture risk in T2DM, a condition that explained less than 0.1% of the fracture risk. Consideration of the herein identified T2DM-related risk factors could be used to stratify T2DM patients according to fracture risk.
Celotno besedilo
Dostopno za:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
Summary
This report provides an overview and a comparison of the burden and management of fragility fractures in the largest five countries of the European Union plus Sweden (EU6). In 2017, new ...fragility fractures in the EU6 are estimated at 2.7 million with an associated annual cost of €37.5 billion and a loss of 1.0 million quality-adjusted life years.
Introduction
Osteoporosis is characterized by reduced bone mass and strength, which increases the risk of fragility fractures, which in turn, represent the main consequence of the disease. This report provides an overview and a comparison of the burden and management of fragility fractures in the largest five EU countries and Sweden (designated the EU6).
Methods
A series of metrics describing the burden and management of fragility fractures were defined by a scientific steering committee. A working group performed the data collection and analysis. Data were collected from current literature, available retrospective data and public sources. Different methods were applied (e.g. standard statistics and health economic modelling), where appropriate, to perform the analysis for each metric.
Results
Total fragility fractures in the EU6 are estimated to increase from 2.7 million in 2017 to 3.3 million in 2030; a 23% increase. The resulting annual fracture-related costs (€37.5 billion in 2017) are expected to increase by 27%. An estimated 1.0 million quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were lost in 2017 due to fragility fractures. The current disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) per 1000 individuals age 50 years or more were estimated at 21 years, which is higher than the estimates for stroke or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The treatment gap (percentage of eligible individuals not receiving treatment with osteoporosis drugs) in the EU6 is estimated to be 73% for women and 63% for men; an increase of 17% since 2010. If all patients who fracture in the EU6 were enrolled into fracture liaison services, at least 19,000 fractures every year might be avoided.
Conclusions
Fracture-related burden is expected to increase over the coming decades. Given the substantial treatment gap and proven cost-effectiveness of fracture prevention schemes such as fracture liaison services, urgent action is needed to ensure that all individuals at high risk of fragility fracture are appropriately assessed and treated.
Summary
This scorecard summarises key indicators of the burden of osteoporosis and its management in the 27 member states of the European Union, as well as the UK and Switzerland. The resulting ...scorecard elements, assembled on a single sheet, provide a unique overview of osteoporosis in Europe.
Introduction
The scorecard for osteoporosis in Europe (SCOPE) is a project of the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) that seeks to raise awareness of osteoporosis care in Europe. The aim of this project was to develop a scorecard and background documents to draw attention to gaps and inequalities in the provision of primary and secondary prevention of fractures due to osteoporosis.
Methods
The SCOPE panel reviewed the information available on osteoporosis and the resulting fractures for each of the 27 countries of the European Union plus the UK and Switzerland (termed EU27+2). The information obtained covered four domains: background information (e.g. the burden of osteoporosis and fractures), policy framework, service provision and service uptake, e.g. the proportion of men and women at high risk that do not receive treatment (the treatment gap).
Results
There was a marked difference in fracture risk among the EU27+2 countries. Of concern was the marked heterogeneity in the policy framework, service provision and service uptake for osteoporotic fracture that bore little relation to the fracture burden. For example, despite the wide availability of treatments to prevent fractures, in the majority of the EU27+2, only a minority of patients at high risk receive treatment even after their first fracture. The elements of each domain in each country were scored and coded using a traffic light system (red, orange, green) and used to synthesise a scorecard. The resulting scorecard elements, assembled on a single sheet, provide a unique overview of osteoporosis in Europe.
Conclusions
The scorecard enables healthcare professionals and policy makers to assess their country’s general approach to the disease and provide indicators to inform the future provision of healthcare.
Although areal bone mineral density (aBMD) assessed by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is the clinical standard for determining fracture risk, most older adults who sustain a fracture have T ...scores greater than -2·5 and thus do not meet the clinical criteria for osteoporosis. Importantly, bone fragility is due to low BMD and deterioration in bone structure. We assessed whether indices of high-resolution peripheral quantitative CT (HR-pQCT) were associated with fracture risk independently of femoral neck aBMD and the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) score.
We assessed participants in eight cohorts from the USA (Framingham, Mayo Clinic), France (QUALYOR, STRAMBO, OFELY), Switzerland (GERICO), Canada (CaMos), and Sweden (MrOS). We used Cox proportional hazard ratios (HRs) to estimate the association between HR-pQCT bone indices (per 1 SD of deficit) and incident fracture, adjusting for age, sex, height, weight, and cohort, and then additionally for femoral neck DXA aBMD or FRAX.
7254 individuals (66% women and 34% men) were assessed. Mean baseline age was 69 years (SD 9, range 40-96). Over a mean follow-up of 4·63 years (SD 2·41) years, 765 (11%) participants had incident fractures, of whom 633 (86%) had femoral neck T scores greater than -2·5. After adjustment for age, sex, cohort, height, and weight, peripheral skeleton failure load had the greatest association with risk of fracture: tibia HR 2·40 (95% CI 1·98-2·91) and radius 2·13 (1·77-2·56) per 1 SD decrease. HRs for other bone indices ranged from 1·12 (95% CI 1·03-1·23) per 1 SD increase in tibia cortical porosity to 1·58 (1·45-1·72) per 1 SD decrease in radius trabecular volumetric bone density. After further adjustment for femoral neck aBMD or FRAX score, the associations were reduced but remained significant for most bone parameters. A model including cortical volumetric bone density, trabecular number, and trabecular thickness at the distal radius and a model including these indices plus cortical area at the tibia were the best predictors of fracture.
HR-pQCT indices and failure load improved prediction of fracture beyond femoral neck aBMD or FRAX scores alone. Our findings from a large international cohort of men and women support previous reports that deficits in trabecular and cortical bone density and structure independently contribute to fracture risk. These measurements and morphological assessment of the peripheral skeleton might improve identification of people at the highest risk of fracture.
National Institutes of Health National Institute of Arthritis Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases.
The fracture risk assessment tool, FRAX
®
, was released in 2008 and provides country-specific algorithms for estimating individualized 10-year probability of hip and major osteoporotic fracture ...(hip, clinical spine, distal forearm, and proximal humerus). Since its release, 71 models have been made available for 66 countries covering more than 80% of the world population. The website receives approximately 3 million visits annually. Following independent validation, FRAX has been incorporated into more than 80 guidelines worldwide. The application of FRAX in assessment guidelines has been heterogeneous with the adoption of several different approaches in setting intervention thresholds. Whereas most guidelines adopt a case-finding strategy, the case for FRAX-based community screening in the elderly is increasing. The relationship between FRAX and efficacy of intervention has been explored and is expected to influence treatment guidelines in the future.
PDF
