Which screening strategy using BMD measurements would be most cost effective for hip fracture prevention in elderly women? A decision analysis based on a Markov model.

INTRODUCTION: Hip fractures are responsible for excessive mortality, decreasing the 5-year survival rate by about 20%. From an economic perspective, they represent a major source of expense, with direct costs in hospitalization, rehabilitation, and institutionalization. The incidence rate sharply increases after the age of 70, but it can be reduced in women aged 70-80 years by therapeutic interventions. Recent analyses suggest that the most efficient strategy is to implement such interventions in women at the age of 70 years. As several guidelines recommend bone mineral density (BMD) screening of postmenopausal women with clinical risk factors, our objective was to assess the cost-effectiveness of two screening strategies applied to elderly women aged 70 years and older. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using decision-tree analysis and a Markov model. Two alternative strategies, one measuring BMD of all women, and one measuring BMD only of those having at least one risk factor, were compared with the reference strategy "no screening". Cost-effectiveness ratios were measured as cost per year gained without hip fracture. Most probabilities were based on data observed in EPIDOS, SEMOF and OFELY cohorts. RESULTS: In this model, which is mostly based on observed data, the strategy "screen all" was more cost effective than "screen women at risk." For one woman screened at the age of 70 and followed for 10 years, the incremental (additional) cost-effectiveness ratio of these two strategies compared with the reference was 4,235 euros and 8,290 euros, respectively. CONCLUSION: The results of this model, under the assumptions described in the paper, suggest that in women aged 70-80 years, screening all women with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) would be more effective than no screening or screening only women with at least one risk factor. Cost-effectiveness studies based on decision-analysis trees maybe useful tools for helping decision makers, and further models based on different assumptions should be performed to improve the level of evidence on cost-effectiveness ratios of the usual screening strategies for osteoporosis.

The use of clinical risk factors enhances the performance of BMD in the prediction of hip and osteoporotic fractures in men and women.

SUMMARY: BMD and clinical risk factors predict hip and other osteoporotic fractures. The combination of clinical risk factors and BMD provide higher specificity and sensitivity than either alone. INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESES: To develop a risk assessment tool based on clinical risk factors (CRFs) with and without BMD. METHODS: Nine population-based studies were studied in which BMD and CRFs were documented at baseline. Poisson regression models were developed for hip fracture and other osteoporotic fractures, with and without hip BMD. Fracture risk was expressed as gradient of risk (GR, risk ratio/SD change in risk score). RESULTS: CRFs alone predicted hip fracture with a GR of 2.1/SD at the age of 50 years and decreased with age. The use of BMD alone provided a higher GR (3.7/SD), and was improved further with the combined use of CRFs and BMD (4.2/SD). For other osteoporotic fractures, the GRs were lower than for hip fracture. The GR with CRFs alone was 1.4/SD at the age of 50 years, similar to that provided by BMD (GR = 1.4/SD) and was not markedly increased by the combination (GR = 1.4/SD). The performance characteristics of clinical risk factors with and without BMD were validated in eleven independent population-based cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: The models developed provide the basis for the integrated use of validated clinical risk factors in men and women to aid in fracture risk prediction.

Prediction and discrimination of osteoporotic hip fracture in postmenopausal women.

Osteoporotic hip fractures increase dramatically with age and are responsible for considerable morbidity and mortality. Several treatments to prevent the occurrence of hip fracture have been validated in large randomized trials and the current challenge is to improve the identification of individuals at high risk of fracture who would benefit from therapeutic or preventive intervention. We have performed an exhaustive literature review on hip fracture predictors, focusing primarily on clinical risk factors, dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), quantitative ultrasound, and bone markers. This review is based on original articles and meta-analyses. We have selected studies that aim both to predict the risk of hip fracture and to discriminate individuals with or without fracture. We have included only postmenopausal women in our review. For studies involving both men and women, only results concerning women have been considered. Regarding clinical factors, only prospective studies have been taken into account. Predictive factors have been used as stand-alone tools to predict hip fracture or sequentially through successive selection processes or by combination into risk scores. There is still much debate as to whether or not the combination of these various parameters, as risk scores or as sequential or concurrent combinations, could help to better predict hip fracture. There are conflicting results on whether or not such combinations provide improvement over each method alone. Sequential combination of bone mineral density and ultrasound parameters might be cost-effective compared with DXA alone, because of fewer bone mineral density measurements. However, use of multiple techniques may increase costs. One problem that precludes comparison of most published studies is that they use either relative risk, or absolute risk, or sensitivity and specificity. The absolute risk of individuals given their risk factors and bone assessment results would be a more appropriate model for decision-making than relative risk. Currently, a group appointed by the World Health Organization and lead by Professor John Kanis is working on such a model. It will therefore be possible to further assess the best choice of threshold to optimize the number of women needed to screen for each country and each treatment.

Official Positions for FRAX® clinical regarding international differences from Joint Official Positions Development Conference of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry and International Osteoporosis Foundation on FRAX®.

Osteoporosis is a serious worldwide epidemic. Increased risk of fractures is the hallmark of the disease and is associated with increased morbidity, mortality and economic burden. FRAX® is a web-based tool developed by the Sheffield WHO Collaborating Center team, that integrates clinical risk factors, femoral neck BMD, country specific mortality and fracture data and calculates the 10 year fracture probability in order to help health care professionals identify patients who need treatment. However, only 31 countries have a FRAX® calculator at the time paper was accepted for publication. In the absence of a FRAX® model for a particular country, it has been suggested to use a surrogate country for which the epidemiology of osteoporosis most closely approximates the index country. More specific recommendations for clinicians in these countries are not available. In North America, concerns have also been raised regarding the assumptions used to construct the US ethnic specific FRAX® calculators with respect to the correction factors applied to derive fracture probabilities in Blacks, Asians and Hispanics in comparison to Whites. In addition, questions were raised about calculating fracture risk in other ethnic groups e.g., Native Americans and First Canadians. In order to provide additional guidance to clinicians, a FRAX® International Task Force was formed to address specific questions raised by physicians in countries without FRAX® calculators and seeking to integrate FRAX® into their clinical practice. The main questions that the task force tried to answer were the following: The Task Force members conducted appropriate literature reviews and developed preliminary statements that were discussed and graded by a panel of experts at the ISCD-IOF joint conference. The statements approved by the panel of experts are discussed in the current paper.

Combining clinical factors and quantitative ultrasound improves the detection of women both at low and high risk for hip fracture.

We hypothesized that combining clinical risk factors (CRF) with the heel stiffness index (SI) measured via quantitative ultrasound (QUS) would improve the detection of women both at low and high risk for hip fracture. Categorizing women by risk score improved the specificity of detection to 42.4%, versus 33.8% using CRF alone and 38.4% using the SI alone. This combined CRF-SI score could be used wherever and whenever DXA is not readily accessible. INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Several strategies have been proposed to identify women at high risk for osteoporosis-related fractures; we wanted to investigate whether combining clinical risk factors (CRF) and heel QUS parameters could provide a more accurate tool to identify women at both low and high risk for hip fracture than either CRF or QUS alone. METHODS: We pooled two Caucasian cohorts, EPIDOS and SEMOF, into a large database named "EPISEM", in which 12,064 women, 70 to 100 years old, were analyzed. Amongst all the CRF available in EPISEM, we used only the ones which were statistically significant in a Cox multivariate model. Then, we constructed a risk score, by combining the QUS-derived heel stiffness index (SI) and the following seven CRF: patient age, body mass index (BMI), fracture history, fall history, diabetes history, chair-test results, and past estrogen treatment. RESULTS: Using the composite SI-CRF score, 42% of the women who did not report a hip fracture were found to be at low risk at baseline, and 57% of those who subsequently sustained a fracture were at high risk. Using the SI alone, corresponding percentages were 38% and 52%; using CRF alone, 34% and 53%. The number of subjects in the intermediate group was reduced from 5,400 (including 112 hip fractures) and 5,032 (including 111 hip fractures) to 4,549 (including 100 including fractures) for the CRF and QUS alone versus the combination score. CONCLUSIONS: Combining clinical risk factors to heel bone ultrasound appears to correctly identify more women at low risk for hip fracture than either the stiffness index or the CRF alone; it improves the detection of women both at low and high risk.

Quantitative ultrasound in the management of osteoporosis: the 2007 ISCD Official Positions

Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is commonly used in the care of patients for diagnostic classification of osteoporosis, low bone mass (osteopenia), or normal bone density; assessment of fracture risk; and monitoring changes in bone density over time. The development of other technologies for the evaluation of skeletal health has been associated with uncertainties regarding their applications in clinical practice. Quantitative ultrasound (QUS), a technology for measuring properties of bone at peripheral skeletal sites, is more portable and less expensive than DXA, without the use of ionizing radiation. The proliferation of QUS devices that are technologically diverse, measuring and reporting variable bone parameters in different ways, examining different skeletal sites, and having differing levels of validating data for association with DXA-measured bone density and fracture risk, has created many challenges in applying QUS for use in clinical practice. The International Society for Clinical Densitometry (ISCD) 2007 Position Development Conference (PDC) addressed clinical applications of QUS for fracture risk assessment, diagnosis of osteoporosis, treatment initiation, monitoring of treatment, and quality assurance/quality control. The ISCD Official Positions on QUS resulting from this PDC, the rationale for their establishment, and recommendations for further study are presented here.

Defining risk thresholds for a 10-year probability of hip fracture model that combines clinical risk factors and quantitative ultrasound: results using the EPISEM cohort.

Using a large prospective cohort of over 12,000 women, we determined 2 thresholds (high risk and low risk of hip fracture) to use in a 10-yr hip fracture probability model that we had previously described, a model combining the heel stiffness index measured by quantitative ultrasound (QUS) and a set of easily determined clinical risk factors (CRFs). The model identified a higher percentage of women with fractures as high risk than a previously reported risk score that combined QUS and CRF. In addition, it categorized women in a way that was quite consistent with the categorization that occurred using dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and the World Health Organization (WHO) classification system; the 2 methods identified similar percentages of women with and without fractures in each of their 3 categories, but the 2 identified only in part the same women. Nevertheless, combining our composite probability model with DXA in a case findings strategy will likely further improve the detection of women at high risk of fragility hip fracture. We conclude that the currently proposed model may be of some use as an alternative to the WHO classification criteria for osteoporosis, at least when access to DXA is limited.

La sélection intra-universitaire : un bon ou mauvais moyen d'identifier les meilleurs étudiants en médecine ?

Résumé: La sélection des étudiants en médecine se fait à la Faculté de Médecine de Lausanne pendant les deux premières années du curriculum, sur la base d'examens portant sur les sciences de base. Le risque est par ce biais de privilégier le passage dans les années cliniques d'étudiants doués sur le plan scientifique, mais ne possédant pas nécessairement les qualités humaines que devrait avoir un bon médecin. La présente étude a porté sur une volée d'étudiants (n = 115) ayant réussi la première partie de l'examen final à la fin de la troisième année des études de médecine. A cette occasion les étudiants ont passé un examen oral de médecine psycho-sociale permettant d'évaluer leurs aptitudes à gérer la relation médecin- malade. Les notes obtenues à cet examen ont été mises en rapport avec celles obtenues en première année lors d'un examen écrit de physique et de physiologie. Les résultats ont montré que la performance à ces disciplines de base n'ont pas de valeur prédictive quant aux performances futures à l'examen de médecine psycho-sociale. Par ailleurs il est apparu que le type de maturité acquis pendant le gymnase n'a pas d'influence majeure sur la progression des étudiants pendant les années pré-cliniques des études de médecine.

Assessment of the 10-year probability of osteoporotic hip fracture combining clinical risk factors and heel bone ultrasound: the EPISEM prospective cohort of 12,958 elderly women.

This study aimed to develop a hip screening tool that combines relevant clinical risk factors (CRFs) and quantitative ultrasound (QUS) at the heel to determine the 10-yr probability of hip fractures in elderly women. The EPISEM database, comprised of approximately 13,000 women 70 yr of age, was derived from two population-based white European cohorts in France and Switzerland. All women had baseline data on CRFs and a baseline measurement of the stiffness index (SI) derived from QUS at the heel. Women were followed prospectively to identify incident fractures. Multivariate analysis was performed to determine the CRFs that contributed significantly to hip fracture risk, and these were used to generate a CRF score. Gradients of risk (GR; RR/SD change) and areas under receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) were calculated for the CRF score, SI, and a score combining both. The 10-yr probability of hip fracture was computed for the combined model. Three hundred seven hip fractures were observed over a mean follow-up of 3.2 yr. In addition to SI, significant CRFs for hip fracture were body mass index (BMI), history of fracture, an impaired chair test, history of a recent fall, current cigarette smoking, and diabetes mellitus. The average GR for hip fracture was 2.10 per SD with the combined SI + CRF score compared with a GR of 1.77 with SI alone and of 1.52 with the CRF score alone. Thus, the use of CRFs enhanced the predictive value of SI alone. For example, in a woman 80 yr of age, the presence of two to four CRFs increased the probability of hip fracture from 16.9% to 26.6% and from 52.6% to 70.5% for SI Z-scores of +2 and -3, respectively. The combined use of CRFs and QUS SI is a promising tool to assess hip fracture probability in elderly women, especially when access to DXA is limited.