Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

New Developments in Fracture Risk Assessment for Current Osteoporosis Reports

  • Epidemiology and Pathophysiology (D Shoback and G El-Hajj Fuleihan, Section Editors)
  • Published:
Current Osteoporosis Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 21 May 2020

This article has been updated

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Identifying individuals at high fracture risk can be used to target those likely to derive the greatest benefit from treatment. This narrative review examines recent developments in using specific risk factors used to assess fracture risk, with a focus on publications in the last 3 years.

Recent Findings

There is expanding evidence for the recognition of individual clinical risk factors and clinical use of composite scores in the general population. Unfortunately, enthusiasm is dampened by three pragmatic randomized trials that raise questions about the effectiveness of widespread population screening using clinical fracture prediction tools given suboptimal participation and adherence. There have been refinements in risk assessment in special populations: men, patients with diabetes, and secondary causes of osteoporosis. New evidence supports the value of vertebral fracture assessment (VFA), high resolution peripheral quantitative CT (HR-pQCT), opportunistic screening using CT, skeletal strength assessment with finite element analysis (FEA), and trabecular bone score (TBS).

Summary

The last 3 years have seen important developments in the area of fracture risk assessment, both in the research setting and translation to clinical practice. The next challenge will be incorporating these advances into routine work flows that can improve the identification of high risk individuals at the population level and meaningfully impact the ongoing crisis in osteoporosis management.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

  • 21 May 2020

    The article, ���New Developments in Fracture Risk Assessment for Current Osteoporosis Reports.

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Murad MH, Drake MT, Mullan RJ, Mauck KF, Stuart LM, Lane MA, et al. Clinical review. Comparative effectiveness of drug treatments to prevent fragility fractures: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2012;97(6):1871–80. https://doi.org/10.1210/jc.2011-3060.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Saito T, Sterbenz JM, Malay S, Zhong L, MacEachern MP, Chung KC. Effectiveness of anti-osteoporotic drugs to prevent secondary fragility fractures: systematic review and meta-analysis. Osteoporos Int. 2017;28(12):3289–300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-017-4175-0.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Compston JE, McClung MR, Leslie WD. Osteoporosis. Lancet. 2019;393(10169):364–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(18)32112-3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Black DM, Cauley JA, Wagman R, Ensrud K, Fink HA, Hillier TA, et al. The ability of a single BMD and fracture history assessment to predict fracture over 25 years in postmenopausal women: the Study of Osteoporotic Fractures. J Bone Miner Res. 2018;33(3):389–95. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.3194.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Johnell O, Kanis JA, Oden A, Johansson H, De Laet C, Delmas P, et al. Predictive value of BMD for hip and other fractures. J Bone Miner Res. 2005;20(7):1185–94. https://doi.org/10.1359/JBMR.050304.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kanis JA, Oden A, Johnell O, Johansson H, De Laet C, Brown J, et al. The use of clinical risk factors enhances the performance of BMD in the prediction of hip and osteoporotic fractures in men and women. Osteoporos Int. 2007;18(8):1033–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-007-0343-y.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Nguyen TV. Individualized fracture risk assessment: state-of-the-art and room for improvement. Osteoporos Sarcopenia. 2018;4(1):2–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.afos.2018.03.001.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. • Beaudoin C, Moore L, Gagne M, Bessette L, Ste-Marie LG, Brown JP, et al. Performance of predictive tools to identify individuals at risk of non-traumatic fracture: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression. Osteoporos Int. 2019;30(4)):721–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-019-04919-6In this large retrospective cohort study, the risk of future fracture increased with the number of prior fractures, varied according to prior fracture skeletal site, and decreased with increasing time since prior fracture in both men and women.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. El-Hajj Fuleihan G, Chakhtoura M, Cauley JA, Chamoun N. Worldwide fracture prediction. J Clin Densitom. 2017;20(3):397–424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocd.2017.06.008.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. • Gourlay ML, Ritter VS, Fine JP, Overman RA, Schousboe JT, Cawthon PM, et al. Comparison of fracture risk assessment tools in older men without prior hip or spine fracture: the MrOS Study. Arch Osteoporos. 2017;12(1):91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11657-017-0389-1Most commonly used fracture risk assessment tools accurately identify men at risk of hip fractures, including a simple algorithm of age + femoral neck BMD.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Kanis JA, Johansson H, Oden A, Johnell O, De Laet C, Eisman JA, et al. A family history of fracture and fracture risk: a meta-analysis. Bone. 2004;35(8756–3282 Print):1029–37.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Yang S, Leslie WD, Yan L, Walld R, Roos LL, Morin SN, et al. Objectively verified parental hip fracture is an independent risk factor for fracture: a linkage analysis of 478,792 parents and 261,705 offspring. J Bone Miner Res. 2016;31(9):1753–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.2849.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Yang S, Leslie WD, Walld R, Roos LL, Morin SN, Majumdar SR, et al. Objectively-verified parental non-hip major osteoporotic fractures and offspring osteoporotic fracture risk: a population-based familial linkage study. J Bone Mineral Res. 2017;32(4):716–21. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.3035.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Balasubramanian A, Zhang J, Chen L, Wenkert D, Daigle SG, Grauer A, et al. Risk of subsequent fracture after prior fracture among older women. Osteoporos Int. 2019;30(1):79–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-018-4732-1.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. • Beaudoin C, Jean S, Moore L, Gamache P, Bessette L, Ste-Marie LG, et al. Number, location, and time since prior fracture as predictors of future fracture in the elderly from the general population. J Bone Miner Res. 2018;33(11):1956–66. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.3526. In this large retrospective cohort study, the risk of future fracture increased with the number of prior fractures, varied according to prior fracture skeletal site and decreased with increasing time since prior fracture in both men and women.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Christiansen BA, Harrison SL, Fink HA, Lane NE. Incident fracture is associated with a period of accelerated loss of hip BMD: the Study of Osteoporotic Fractures. Osteoporos Int. 2018;29(10):2201–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-018-4606-6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. • Malmstrom TK, Morley JE. SARC-F: a simple questionnaire to rapidly diagnose sarcopenia. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2013;14(8):531–2 The ascertainment of sarcopenia through the simple clinical tool SARC-F in addition to FRAX screening may improve hip fracture risk prediction.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Su Y, Woo JW, Kwok TCY. The added value of SARC-F to prescreening using FRAX for hip fracture prevention in older community adults. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2019;20(1):83–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2018.08.007.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hoff M, Meyer HE, Skurtveit S, Langhammer A, Sogaard AJ, Syversen U, et al. Validation of FRAX and the impact of self-reported falls among elderly in a general population: the HUNT Study, Norway. Osteoporos Int. 2017;28:2935–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-017-4134-9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Su Y, Leung J, Kwok T. The role of previous falls in major osteoporotic fracture prediction in conjunction with FRAX in older Chinese men and women: the Mr. OS and Ms. OS cohort study in Hong Kong. Osteoporos Int. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-017-4277-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. •• Leslie WD, Morin SN, Lix LM, Martineau P, Bryanton M, McCloskey EV, et al. Fracture prediction from self-reported falls in routine clinical practice: a registry-based cohort study. Osteoporos Int. 2019;30(11):2195–203. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-019-05106-3Self-reported falls (and the number of self-reported falls) are associated with a higher risk of incident major osteoporotic fractures and hip fractures, independently of the FRAX score.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Yan J, Liu HJ, Guo WC, Yang J. Low serum concentrations of Irisin are associated with increased risk of hip fracture in Chinese older women. Joint Bone Spine. 2018;85(3):353–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbspin.2017.03.011.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. • Stojanovic D, Buzkova P, Mukamal KJ, Heckbert SR, Psaty BM, Fink HA, et al. Soluble inflammatory markers and risk of incident fractures in older adults: the Cardiovascular Health Study. J Bone Miner Res. 2018;33(2):221–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.3301Inflammatory markers are associated with a modest, but significant, rise in hip fracture risk in women.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Orchard T, Yildiz V, Steck SE, Hebert JR, Ma Y, Cauley JA, et al. Dietary inflammatory index, bone mineral density, and risk of fracture in postmenopausal women: results from the Women’s Health Initiative. J Bone Miner Res. 2017;32(5):1136–46. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.3070.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. • Leslie WD, Majumdar SR, Morin SN, Lix LM, Johansson H, Oden A, et al. FRAX for fracture prediction shorter and longer than 10 years: the Manitoba BMD Registry. Osteoporos Int. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-017-4091-3FRAX can provide insight into fracture risk over a broader time scale (from 1 year to 15 years) for groups of patients, but this may not apply to individuals.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Leslie WD, Majumdar SR, Morin SN, Lix LM, Schousboe JT, Ensrud KE, et al. Performance of FRAX in clinical practice according to sex and osteoporosis definitions: the Manitoba BMD Registry. Osteoporos Int. 2018;29:759–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-018-4415-y.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Dhiman P, Andersen S, Vestergaard P, Masud T, Qureshi N. Does bone mineral density improve the predictive accuracy of fracture risk assessment? A prospective cohort study in northern Denmark. BMJ Open. 2018;8(4):e018898. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018898.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Holloway-Kew KL, Zhang Y, Betson AG, Anderson KB, Hans D, Hyde NK, et al. How well do the FRAX (Australia) and Garvan calculators predict incident fractures? Data from the Geelong Osteoporosis Study. Osteoporos Int. 2019;30(10):2129–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-019-05088-2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Kanis JA, Oden A, Johansson H, McCloskey E. Pitfalls in the external validation of FRAX. Osteoporos Int. 2012;23(2):423–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-011-1846-0.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. • Crandall CJ, Larson J, LaCroix A, Cauley JA, LeBoff MS, Li W, et al. Predicting fracture risk in younger postmenopausal women: comparison of the Garvan and FRAX risk calculators in the Women’s Health Initiative Study. J Gen Intern Med. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-018-4696-zThe authors concluded that for postmenopausal women aged 50–64 years, neither FRAX nor the Garvan fracture risk calculator used without BMD provided good prediction of incident fractures during 10 years of follow-up, and that no useful threshold could be proposed for either tool.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. •• Crandall CJ, Schousboe JT, Morin SN, Lix LM, Leslie W. Performance of FRAX and FRAX-based treatment thresholds in women aged 40 years and older: the Manitoba BMD Registry. J Bone Miner Res. 2019;34(8):1419–27. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.3717For identifying women aged 40 who experience major osteoporotic fractures during 10 years of follow-up, femoral neck bone mineral density T-score and FRAX-predicted fracture risk used as a continuous measures each predicted fracture risk well. However, thresholds of bone density or FRAX score recommended by treatment guidelines had low sensitivity for identifying women who experienced incident major osteoporotic fractures, suggesting that threshold-based approaches should be reassessed particularly in younger postmenopausal women.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Kanis JA, Harvey NC, Johansson H, Liu E, Vandenput L, Lorentzon M, et al. A decade of FRAX: how has it changed the management of osteoporosis? Aging Clin Exp Res. 2020;32:187–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40520-019-01432-y.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Cauley JA, El-Hajj Fuleihan G, Arabi A, Fujiwara S, Ragi-Eis S, Calderon A, et al. Official positions for FRAX(R) clinical regarding international differences from Joint Official Positions Development Conference of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry and International Osteoporosis Foundation on FRAX(R). J Clin Densitom. 2011;14(3):240–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocd.2011.05.015.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. •• Shepstone L, Lenaghan E, Cooper C, Clarke S, Fong-Soe-Khioe R, Fordham R et al. Screening in the community to reduce fractures in older women (SCOOP): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2018;391(10122):741–747. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32640-5. Compared with routine care, community-based osteoporosis screening in the UK using age-specific FRAX thresholds did not reduce osteoporosis-related fractures overall, but reduced the secondary endpoint of hip fractures by 28%.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. • McCloskey E, Johansson H, Harvey NC, Shepstone L, Lenaghan E, Fordham R, et al. Management of patients with high baseline hip fracture risk by FRAX reduces hip fractures-a post hoc analysis of the SCOOP Study. J Bone Miner Res. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.3411In the SCOOP randomized trial of FRAX-based osteoporosis screening versus usual care in older women, the efficacy of the screening intervention in reducing hip fracture risk was not observed in women with the lowest baseline FRAX-predicted hip fracture risk.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. • Turner DA, Khioe RFS, Shepstone L, Lenaghan E, Cooper C, Gittoes N, et al. The cost-effectiveness of screening in the community to reduce osteoporotic fractures in older women in the UK: economic evaluation of the SCOOP Study. J Bone Miner Res. 2018;33(5):845–51. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.3381In the SCOOP trial of community-based osteoporosis screening versus routine care in the women aged 70–85 years in the UK, the FRAX-based screening strategy was highly cost-effective.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. •• Rubin KH, Rothmann MJ, Holmberg T, Hoiberg M, Moller S, Barkmann R, et al. Effectiveness of a two-step population-based osteoporosis screening program using FRAX: the randomized Risk-stratified Osteoporosis Strategy Evaluation (ROSE) Study. Osteoporos Int. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-017-4326-3The ROSE trial tested a community-based osteoporosis screening intervention versus usual care among women aged 65–80 years in Denmark. Compared with usual care, the FRAX-based screening intervention did not decrease osteoporosis-related fractures, but decreased the secondary outcomes of hip fractures and major osteoporotic fractures.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. • Rothmann MJ, Moller S, Holmberg T, Hojberg M, Gram J, Bech M, et al. Non-participation in systematic screening for osteoporosis-the ROSE trial. Osteoporos Int. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-017-4205-yIn the ROSE trial of FRAX-based screening vs. usual care in older women, certain factors were associated with lower likelihood of accepting DXA screening, including higher alcohol consumption, older age, current smoking, and physical impairment.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. •• Merlijn T, Swart KM, van Schoor NM, Heymans MW, van der Zwaard BC, van der Heijden AA, et al. The effect of a screening and treatment program for the prevention of fractures in older women: a randomized pragmatic trial. J Bone Miner Res. 2019;34(11):1993–2000. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.3815The SALT osteoporosis study (SOS) randomized pragmatic trial studied whether screening for fracture risk and subsequent treatment in primary care reduces fractures, compared with usual care. 11,032 women aged 65–90 years with ≥ 1 clinical risk factor for fractures were individually randomized to screening (n= 5,575) or usual care (n= 5,457). The primary outcome was negative but may have been compromised by non-participation and medication non-adherence in the screening group.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. •• Merlijn T, KMA S, van der Horst HE, Netelenbos JC, Elders PJM. Fracture prevention by screening for high fracture risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Osteoporos Int. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-019-05226-wPooling data most comparable to intention to treat from SCOOP, ROSE, and SOS showed small but significant befnefits from screening: observed relative risk reductions 5% for osteoporotic fractures, 9% for major osteoporotic fractures, and 20% for hip fractures, with a larger reduction for fractures more related to osteoporosis.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Williams ST, Lawrence PT, Miller KL, Crook JL, LaFleur J, Cannon GW, et al. A comparison of electronic and manual fracture risk assessment tools in screening elderly male US veterans at risk for osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int. 2017;28:3107–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-017-4172-3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Goldshtein I, Ish-Shalom S, Leshno M. Impact of FRAX-based osteoporosis intervention using real world data. Bone. 2017;103:318–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2017.07.027.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Goldshtein I, Gerber Y, Ish-Shalom S, Leshno M. Fracture risk assessment with FRAX using real-world data: a population-based cohort from Israel. Am J Epidemiol. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwx128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Reber KC, Konig HH, Becker C, Rapp K, Buchele G, Machler S, et al. Development of a risk assessment tool for osteoporotic fracture prevention: a claims data approach. Bone. 2018;110:170–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2018.02.002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Yang S, Leslie WD, Morin SN, Lix LM. Administrative healthcare data applied to fracture risk assessment. Osteoporos Int. 2019;30(3):565–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-018-4780-6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. •• Rubin KH, Moller S, Holmberg T, Bliddal M, Sondergaard J, Abrahamsen B. A new fracture risk assessment tool (FREM) based on public health registries. J Bone Miner Res. 2018;33(11):1967–79. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.3528Ambitious derivation and internal validation of FREM—Fracture Risk Evaluation Model—for automated case-finding of high-risk individuals of hip or major osteoporotic fractures (MOF) using the population in Denmark aged 45+ years (N= 2,495,339), all hospital diagnoses from 1998 to 2012 and fracture outcomes during 2013. FREM for MOF (38 and 43 risk factors for women and men, respectively) in the validation cohort showed high accuracy (AUC 0.750, 95% CI 0.741, 0.795 and 0.752, 95% CI 0.743, 0.761 for women and men, respectively). FREM for hip fractures included 32 risk factors for both genders and gave AUC 0.874 (95% CI 0.869, 0.879) and 0.851 (95% CI 0.841, 0.861) for women and men.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Zhang X, Lin J, Yang Y, Wu H, Li Y, Yang X, et al. Comparison of three tools for predicting primary osteoporosis in an elderly male population in Beijing: a cross-sectional study. Clin Interv Aging. 2018;13:201–9. https://doi.org/10.2147/cia.S145741.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Orwoll ES, Lapidus J, Wang PY, Vandenput L, Hoffman A, Fink HA, et al. The limited clinical utility of testosterone, estradiol, and sex hormone binding globulin measurements in the prediction of fracture risk and bone loss in older men. J Bone Miner Res. 2017;32(3):633–40. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.3021.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Ohlsson C, Nethander M, Kindmark A, Ljunggren O, Lorentzon M, Rosengren BE, et al. Low serum DHEAS predicts increased fracture risk in older men: the MrOS Sweden study. J Bone Miner Res. 2017;32(8):1607–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.3123.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. •• Harvey NC, Oden A, Orwoll E, Lapidus J, Kwok T, Karlsson MK, et al. Falls predict fractures independently of FRAX probability: a aeta-analysis of the Osteoporotic Fractures in Men (MrOS) Study. J Bone Miner Res. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.3331Past falls predicted incident fracture risk at any skeletal site independently of FRAX probability in this meta-analysis of the 3 MrOs studies.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Buehring B, Hansen KE, Lewis BL, Cummings SR, Lane NE, Binkley N, et al. Dysmobility syndrome independently increases fracture risk in the osteoporotic fractures in men (MrOS) prospective cohort study. J Bone Miner Res. 2018;33(9):1622–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.3455.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. •• Harvey NC, Oden A, Orwoll E, Lapidus J, Kwok T, Karlsson MK, et al. Measures of physical performance and muscle strength as predictors of fracture risk independent of FRAX, falls, and aBMD: A meta-analysis of the Osteoporotic Fractures in Men (MrOS) Study. J Bone Miner Res. 2018;33(12):2150–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.3556Muscle strength and function, ascertained by simple clinical tools, predicted the risk of major osteoporotic fractures in older men independently of FRAX probability.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Ferrari SL, Abrahamsen B, Napoli N, Akesson K, Chandran M, Eastell R, et al. Diagnosis and management of bone fragility in diabetes: an emerging challenge. Osteoporos Int. 2018;29(12):2585–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-018-4650-2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. • Leslie WD, Johansson H, McCloskey EV, Harvey NC, Kanis JA, Hans D. Comparison of methods for improving fracture risk assessment in diabetes: the Manitoba BMD Registry. J Bone Miner Res. 2018;33(11):1923–30. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.3538This analysis provides practical guidance on how to “adjust” for the presence of diabetes in fracture risk prediction using the FRAX tool.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Adami S, Bianchi G, Brandi ML, Di Munno O, Frediani B, Gatti D, et al. Validation and further development of the WHO 10-year fracture risk assessment tool in Italian postmenopausal women: project rationale and description. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2010;28(4):561–70.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Bonaccorsi G, Messina C, Cervellati C, Maietti E, Medini M, Rossini M, et al. Fracture risk assessment in postmenopausal women with diabetes: comparison between DeFRA and FRAX tools. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2017:1–5. https://doi.org/10.1080/09513590.2017.1407308.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Chen FP, Kuo SF, Lin YC, Fan CM, Chen JF. Status of bone strength and factors associated with vertebral fracture in postmenopausal women with type 2 diabetes. Menopause. 2019;26(2):182–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/gme.0000000000001185.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Valentini A, Cianfarani MA, De Meo L, Morabito P, Romanello D, Tarantino U, et al. FRAX tool in type 2 diabetic subjects: the use of HbA1c in estimating fracture risk. Acta Diabetol. 2018;55(10):1043–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00592-018-1187-y.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. •• Tebe C, Martinez-Laguna D, Moreno V, Cooper C, Diez-Perez A, Collins GS, et al. Differential mortality and the excess rates of hip fracture associated with type 2 diabetes: accounting for competing risks in fracture prediction matters. J Bone Miner Res. 2018;33(8):1417–21. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.3435This large cohort study provides important insight on the interplay between mortality as a competing risk in the evaluation of the association between type 2 diabetes and hip fractures.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Lespessailles E, Paccou J, Javier RM, Thomas T, Cortet B, Committee GS. Obesity, bariatric surgery, and fractures. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2019;104(10):4756–68. https://doi.org/10.1210/jc.2018-02084.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Yu EW, Lee MP, Landon JE, Lindeman KG, Kim SC. Fracture risk after bariatric surgery: Roux-en-Y gastric bypass versus adjustable gastric banding. J Bone Miner Res. 2017;32(6):1229–36. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.3101.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. • Axelsson KF, Werling M, Eliasson B, Szabo E, Naslund I, Wedel H, et al. Fracture risk after gastric bypass surgery: a retrospective cohort study. J Bone Miner Res. 2018;33(12):2122–31. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.3553Gastric bypass surgery is associated with increase falls and fracture risk in both diabetic and non -diabetic population.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. • van Dort MJ, Geusens P, Driessen JH, Romme EA, Smeenk FW, Wouters EF, et al. High imminent vertebral fracture risk in subjects with COPD with a prevalent or incident vertebral fracture. J Bone Miner Res. 2018;33(7):1233–41. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.3429The presence of prevalent vertebral fractures in patients with COPD is associated with an increased risk for incident vertebral fractures within a short period of time.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Gupta A, Greening NJ, Evans RA, Samuels A, Toms N, Steiner MC. Prospective risk of osteoporotic fractures in patients with advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Chron Respir Dis. 2018;1479972318769763. https://doi.org/10.1177/1479972318769763.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Goncalves PA, Dos Santos NR, Neto LV, Madeira M, Guimaraes FS, Mendonca LMC, et al. Inhaled glucocorticoids are associated with vertebral fractures in COPD patients. J Bone Miner Metab. 2017;36:454–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00774-017-0854-3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Choi ST, Kwon SR, Jung JY, Kim HA, Kim SS, Kim SH, et al. Prevalence and fracture risk of osteoporosis in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a multicenter comparative study of the FRAX and WHO criteria. J Clin Med. 2018;7(12). https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm7120507.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. Cheng TT, Yu SF, Su FM, Chen YC, Su BY, Chiu WC, et al. Anti-CCP-positive patients with RA have a higher 10-year probability of fracture evaluated by FRAX(R): a registry study of RA with osteoporosis/fracture. Arthritis Res Ther. 2018;20(1):16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13075-018-1515-1.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. Phuan-Udom R, Lektrakul N, Katchamart W. The association between 10-year fracture risk by FRAX and osteoporotic fractures with disease activity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Rheumatol. 2018;37(10):2603–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-018-4218-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Cheng TT, Lai HM, Yu SF, Chiu WC, Hsu CY, Chen JF, et al. The impact of low-dose glucocorticoids on disease activity, bone mineral density, fragility fractures, and 10-year probability of fractures in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. J Investig Med. 2018;66(6):1004–7. https://doi.org/10.1136/jim-2018-000723.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. • Bisson EJ, Finlayson ML, Ekuma O, Marrie RA, Leslie WD. Accuracy of FRAX(R) in people with multiple sclerosis. J Bone Miner Res. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.3682Multiple sclerosis is associated with higher risk of fractures independently of FRAX probability. To improve performance of the FRAX tool in the presence of multiple sclerosis, the authors recommend inputting secondary osteoporosis or rheumatoid arthritis as proxies.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Cervinka T, Lynch CL, Giangregorio L, Adachi JD, Papaioannou A, Thabane L, et al. Agreement between fragility fracture risk assessment algorithms as applied to adults with chronic spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord. 2017;55:985–93. https://doi.org/10.1038/sc.2017.65.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Yang J, Sharma A, Shi Q, Anastos K, Cohen MH, Golub ET, et al. Improved fracture prediction using different fracture risk assessment tool adjustments in HIV-infected women. AIDS. 2018;32(12):1699–706. https://doi.org/10.1097/qad.0000000000001864.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Lin MS, Chen PH, Wang PC, Lin HS, Huang TJ, Chang ST, et al. Association between hepatitis C virus infection and osteoporotic fracture risk among postmenopausal women: a cross-sectional investigation in Taiwan. BMJ Open. 2019;9(1):e021990. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-021990.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  74. Ginther JP, Ginther AW, Brodersen LD. Adding VFA to DXA identifies fracture risk in a way not duplicated by other measures. Endocr Pract. 2017. https://doi.org/10.4158/EP161714.OR.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. • Schousboe JT, Lix LM, Morin SN, Derkatch S, Bryanton M, Alhrbi M, et al. Prevalent vertebral fracture on bone density lateral spine (VFA) images in routine clinical practice predict incident fractures. Bone. 2019;121:72–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2019.01.009This was the first study to show that using any form of lateral spine imaging modality outside of the research setting was useful for prediction of incident fractures.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. • Schousboe JT, Lix LM, Morin SN, Derkatch S, Bryanton M, Alhrbi M, et al. Vertebral fracture assessment increases use of pharmacologic therapy for fracture prevention in clinical practice. J Bone Miner Res. 2019;34(12):2205–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.3836Targeted VFA imaging at the time of bone densitometry substantially improved identification those at high fracture risk and fracture medication use among those with prevalent vertebral fractures.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Glinkowski WM, Narloch J. CT-scout based, semi-automated vertebral morphometry after digital image enhancement. Eur J Radiol. 2017;94:195–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.06.027.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Pickhardt PJ, Lee SJ, Liu J, Yao J, Lay N, Graffy PM, et al. Population-based opportunistic osteoporosis screening: validation of a fully automated CT tool for assessing longitudinal BMD changes. Br J Radiol. 2019;92(1094):20180726. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20180726.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Li YL, Wong KH, Law MW, Fang BX, Lau VW, Vardhanabuti VV, et al. Opportunistic screening for osteoporosis in abdominal computed tomography for Chinese population. Arch Osteoporos. 2018;13(1):76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11657-018-0492-y.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Buckens CF, Dijkhuis G, de Keizer B, Verhaar HJ, de Jong PA. Opportunistic screening for osteoporosis on routine computed tomography? An external validation study. Eur Radiol. 2015;25(7):2074–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3584-0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Sornay-Rendu E, Boutroy S, Duboeuf F, Chapurlat RD. Bone microarchitecture assessed by HR-pQCT as predictor of fracture risk in postmenopausal women: the OFELY Study. J Bone Miner Res. 2017;32(6):1243–51. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.3105.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Litwic AE, Westbury LD, Robinson DE, Ward KA, Cooper C, Dennison EM. Bone phenotype assessed by HRpQCT and associations with fracture risk in the GLOW Study. Calcif Tissue Int. 2018;102(1):14–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00223-017-0325-9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Biver E, Durosier-Izart C, Chevalley T, van Rietbergen B, Rizzoli R, Ferrari S. Evaluation of radius microstructure and areal bone mineral density improves fracture prediction in postmenopausal women. J Bone Miner Res. 2018;33(2):328–37. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.3299.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Langsetmo L, Peters KW, Burghardt AJ, Ensrud KE, Fink HA, Cawthon PM, et al. Volumetric bone mineral density and failure load of distal limbs predict incident clinical fracture independent HR-pQCT BMD and failure load predicts incident clinical fracture of FRAX and clinical risk factors among older men. J Bone Miner Res. 2018;33(7):1302–11. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.3433.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Nguyen BN, Hoshino H, Togawa D, Matsuyama Y. Cortical thickness index of the proximal femur: a radiographic parameter for preliminary assessment of bone mineral density and osteoporosis status in the age 50 years and over population. Clin Orthop Surg. 2018;10(2):149–56. https://doi.org/10.4055/cios.2018.10.2.149.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  86. Shen J, Griffith JF, Zhu TY, Tang P, Kun EW, Lee VK, et al. Bone mass, microstructure, and strength can discriminate vertebral fracture in patients on long-term steroid treatment. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2018;103(9):3340–9. https://doi.org/10.1210/jc.2018-00490.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Robinson DL, Jiang H, Song Q, Yates C, Lee PVS, Wark JD. The application of finite element modelling based on clinical pQCT for classification of fracture status. Biomech Model Mechanobiol. 2019;18(1):245–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10237-018-1079-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Samelson EJ, Broe KE, Xu H, Yang L, Boyd S, Biver E, et al. Cortical and trabecular bone microarchitecture as an independent predictor of incident fracture risk in older women and men in the Bone Microarchitecture International Consortium (BoMIC): a prospective study. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-8587(18)30308-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Agten CA, Ramme AJ, Kang S, Honig S, Chang G. Cost-effectiveness of virtual bone strength testing in osteoporosis screening programs for postmenopausal women in the United States. Radiology. 2017;161259. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2017161259.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Lee SJ, Graffy PM, Zea RD, Ziemlewicz TJ, Pickhardt PJ. Future osteoporotic fracture risk related to lumbar vertebral trabecular attenuation measured at routine body CT. J Bone Miner Res. 2018;33(5):860–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.3383.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. • Adams AL, Fischer H, Kopperdahl DL, Lee DC, Black DM, Bouxsein ML, et al. Osteoporosis and hip fracture risk from routine computed tomography scans: the fracture, osteoporosis, and CT utilization study (FOCUS). J Bone Miner Res. 2018;33(7):1291–301. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.3423“Biomechanical CT” analysis of previously acquired routine abdominal or pelvic CT scans may be as effective as conventional DXA for identifying patients at high risk of hip fracture.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Yang S, Leslie WD, Luo Y, Goertzen AL, Ahmed S, Ward LM, et al. Automated DXA-based finite element analysis for hip fracture risk stratification: a cross-sectional study. Osteoporos Int. 2018;29(1):191–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-017-4232-8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Leslie WD, Luo Y, Yang S, Goertzen AL, Ahmed S, Delubac I, et al. Fracture risk indices from DXA-based finite element analysis predict incident fractures independently from FRAX: the Manitoba BMD Registry. J Clin Densitom. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocd.2019.02.001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. • Leslie WD, Shevroja E, Johansson H, McCloskey EV, Harvey NC, Kanis JA, et al. Risk-equivalent T-score adjustment for using lumbar spine trabecular bone score (TBS): the Manitoba BMD Registry. Osteoporos Int. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-018-4405-0The BMD-independent effect of lumbar spine TBS on fracture risk can be estimated as a simple offset to the BMD T-score. The approach incorporates a TBS-age interaction term.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  95. Martineau P, Leslie WD, Johansson H, Harvey NC, McCloskey EV, Hans D, et al. In which patients does lumbar spine trabecular bone score (TBS) have the largest effect? Bone. 2018;113:161–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2018.05.026.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  96. Yavropoulou MP, Vaios V, Pikilidou M, Chryssogonidis I, Sachinidou M, Tournis S, et al. Bone quality assessment as measured by trabecular bone score in patients with end-stage renal disease on dialysis. J Clin Densitom. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocd.2016.11.002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Chuang MH, Chuang TL, Koo M, Wang YF. Trabecular bone score reflects trabecular microarchitecture deterioration and fraglity fracture in female adult patients receiving glucocorticoid therapy: a pre-post controlled study. Biomed Res Int. 2017;2017:4210217. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/4210217.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

SNM is chercheur-boursier des Fonds de Recherche du Québec en Santé.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Departments of Medicine and Radiology, University of Manitoba, 409 Tache Avenue, Winnipeg, Manitoba, R2H 2A6, Canada

    William D. Leslie

  2. Department of Medicine, McGill University- McGill University Health Center, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

    Suzanne N. Morin

Authors
  1. William D. Leslie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Suzanne N. Morin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to William D. Leslie.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

William Leslie: No conflicts of interest.

Suzanne Morin: No conflicts of interest for the context of this paper, but has received research grants from Amgen.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Epidemiology and Pathophysiology

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Leslie, W.D., Morin, S.N. New Developments in Fracture Risk Assessment for Current Osteoporosis Reports. Curr Osteoporos Rep 18, 115–129 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11914-020-00590-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11914-020-00590-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation