Official Positions for FRAX(®) clinical regarding glucocorticoids: the impact of the use of glucocorticoids on the estimate by FRAX(®) of the 10 year risk of fracture from Joint Official Positions Development Conference of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry and International Osteoporosis Foundation on FRAX(®).

Given the significant impact the use of glucocorticoids can have on fracture risk independent of bone density, their use has been incorporated as one of the clinical risk factors for calculating the 10-year fracture risk in the World Health Organization's Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX(®)). Like the other clinical risk factors, the use of glucocorticoids is included as a dichotomous variable with use of steroids defined as past or present exposure of 3 months or more of use of a daily dose of 5 mg or more of prednisolone or equivalent. The purpose of this report is to give clinicians guidance on adjustments which should be made to the 10-year risk based on the dose, duration of use and mode of delivery of glucocorticoids preparations. A subcommittee of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry and International Osteoporosis Foundation joint Position Development Conference presented its findings to an expert panel and the following recommendations were selected. 1) There is a dose relationship between glucocorticoid use of greater than 3 months and fracture risk. The average dose exposure captured within FRAX(®) is likely to be a prednisone dose of 2.5-7.5 mg/day or its equivalent. Fracture probability is under-estimated when prednisone dose is greater than 7.5 mg/day and is over-estimated when the prednisone dose is less than 2.5 mg/day. 2) Frequent intermittent use of higher doses of glucocorticoids increases fracture risk. Because of the variability in dose and dosing schedule, quantification of this risk is not possible. 3) High dose inhaled glucocorticoids may be a risk factor for fracture. FRAX(®) may underestimate fracture probability in users of high dose inhaled glucocorticoids. 4) Appropriate glucocorticoid replacement in individuals with adrenal insufficiency has not been found to increase fracture risk. In such patients, use of glucocorticoids should not be included in FRAX(®) calculations.

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.

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

The worldwide prevalence of smoking has been estimated at about 50% in men, and 10% in women, with larger variations among different populations studied. Smoking has been shown to affect many organ systems resulting in severe morbidity and increased mortality. In addition, smoking has been identified as a predictor of ten-year fracture risk in men and women, largely independent of an individual's bone mineral density. This finding has eventually lead to incorporation of this risk factor into FRAX®, an algorithm that has been developed to calculate an individual's ten-year fracture risk. However, only little, or conflicting data is available on a possible association between smoking dose, duration, length of time after cessation, type of tobacco and fracture risk, limiting this risk factor's applicability in the context of FRAX®.

Joint Official Positions of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry and International Osteoporosis Foundation on FRAX(®). Executive Summary of the 2010 Position Development Conference on Interpretation and use of FRAX® in clinical practice.

The International Society for Clinical Densitometry (ISCD) and the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) convened the FRAX(®) Position Development Conference (PDC) in Bucharest, Romania, on November 14, 2010, following a two-day joint meeting of the ISCD and IOF on the "Interpretation and Use of FRAX(®) in Clinical Practice." These three days of critical discussion and debate, led by a panel of international experts from the ISCD, IOF and dedicated task forces, have clarified a number of important issues pertaining to the interpretation and implementation of FRAX(®) in clinical practice. The Official Positions resulting from the PDC are intended to enhance the quality and clinical utility of fracture risk assessment worldwide. Since the field of skeletal assessment is still evolving rapidly, some clinically important issues addressed at the PDCs are not associated with robust medical evidence. Accordingly, some Official Positions are based largely on expert opinion. Despite limitations inherent in such a process, the ISCD and IOF believe it is important to provide clinicians and technologists with the best distillation of current knowledge in the discipline of bone densitometry and provide an important focus for the scientific community to consider. This report describes the methodology and results of the ISCD-IOF PDC dedicated to FRAX(®).

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

Rheumatoid arthritis is the only secondary cause of osteoporosis that is considered independent of bone density in the FRAX(®) algorithm. Although input for rheumatoid arthritis in FRAX(®) is a dichotomous variable, intuitively, one would expect that more severe or active disease would be associated with a greater risk for fracture. We reviewed the literature to determine if specific disease parameters or medication use could be used to better characterize fracture risk in individuals with rheumatoid arthritis. Although many studies document a correlation between various parameters of disease activity or severity and decreased bone density, fewer have associated these variables with fracture risk. We reviewed these studies in detail and concluded that disability measures such as HAQ (Health Assessment Questionnaire) and functional class do correlate with clinical fractures but not morphometric vertebral fractures. One large study found a strong correlation with duration of disease and fracture risk but additional studies are needed to confirm this. There was little evidence to correlate other measures of disease such as DAS (disease activity score), VAS (visual analogue scale), acute phase reactants, use of non-glucocorticoid medications and increased fracture risk. We concluded that FRAX(®) calculations may underestimate fracture probability in patients with impaired functional status from rheumatoid arthritis but that this could not be quantified at this time. At this time, other disease measures cannot be used for fracture prediction. However only a few, mostly small studies addressed other disease parameters and further research is needed. Additional questions for future research are suggested.

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

The best indirect evidence that increased bone turnover contributes to fracture risk is the fact that most of the proven therapies for osteoporosis are inhibitors of bone turnover. The evidence base that we can use biochemical markers of bone turnover in the assessment of fracture risk is somewhat less convincing. This relates to natural variability in the markers, problems with the assays, disparity in the statistical analyses of relevant studies and the independence of their contribution to fracture risk. More research is clearly required to address these deficiencies before biochemical markers might contribute a useful independent risk factor for inclusion in FRAX(®).

Official Positions for FRAX® clinical regarding falls and frailty: can falls and frailty be used in FRAX®? From Joint Official Positions Development Conference of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry and International Osteoporosis Foundation on FRAX®.

Risk factors for fracture can be purely skeletal, e.g., bone mass, microarchitecture or geometry, or a combination of bone and falls risk related factors such as age and functional status. The remit of this Task Force was to review the evidence and consider if falls should be incorporated into the FRAX® model or, alternatively, to provide guidance to assist clinicians in clinical decision-making for patients with a falls history. It is clear that falls are a risk factor for fracture. Fracture probability may be underestimated by FRAX® in individuals with a history of frequent falls. The substantial evidence that various interventions are effective in reducing falls risk was reviewed. Targeting falls risk reduction strategies towards frail older people at high risk for indoor falls is appropriate. This Task Force believes that further fracture reduction requires measures to reduce falls risk in addition to bone directed therapy. Clinicians should recognize that patients with frequent falls are at higher fracture risk than currently estimated by FRAX® and include this in decision-making. However, quantitative adjustment of the FRAX® estimated risk based on falls history is not currently possible. In the long term, incorporation of falls as a risk factor in the FRAX® model would be ideal.

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

The 2010 Position Development Conference addressed four questions related to the impact of previous fractures on 10-year fracture risk as calculated by FRAX(®). To address these questions, PubMed was searched on the keywords "fracture, epidemiology, osteoporosis." Titles of retrieved articles were reviewed for an indication that risk for future fracture was discussed. Abstracts of these articles were reviewed for an indication that one or more of the questions listed above was discussed. For those that did, the articles were reviewed in greater detail to extract the findings and to find additional past work and citing works that also bore on the questions. The official positions and the supporting literature review are presented here. FRAX(®) underestimates fracture probability in persons with a history of multiple fractures (good, A, W). FRAX(®) may underestimate fracture probability in individuals with prevalent severe vertebral fractures (good, A, W). While there is evidence that hip, vertebral, and humeral fractures appear to confer greater risk of subsequent fracture than fractures at other sites, quantification of this incremental risk in FRAX(®) is not possible (fair, B, W). FRAX(®) may underestimate fracture probability in individuals with a parental history of non-hip fragility fracture (fair, B, W). Limitations of the methodology include performance by a single reviewer, preliminary review of the literature being confined to titles, and secondary review being limited to abstracts. Limitations of the evidence base include publication bias, overrepresentation of persons of European descent in the published studies, and technical differences in the methods used to identify prevalent and incident fractures. Emerging topics for future research include fracture epidemiology in non-European populations and men, the impact of fractures in family members other than parents, and the genetic contribution to fracture risk.

Official Positions for FRAX® Bone Mineral Density and FRAX® simplification from Joint Official Positions Development Conference of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry and International Osteoporosis Foundation on FRAX®.

Tools to predict fracture risk are useful for selecting patients for pharmacological therapy in order to reduce fracture risk and redirect limited healthcare resources to those who are most likely to benefit. FRAX® is a World Health Organization fracture risk assessment algorithm for estimating the 10-year probability of hip fracture and major osteoporotic fracture. Effective application of FRAX® in clinical practice requires a thorough understanding of its limitations as well as its utility. For some patients, FRAX® may underestimate or overestimate fracture risk. In order to address some of the common issues encountered with the use of FRAX® for individual patients, the International Society for Clinical Densitometry (ISCD) and International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) assigned task forces to review the medical evidence and make recommendations for optimal use of FRAX® in clinical practice. Among the issues addressed were the use of bone mineral density (BMD) measurements at skeletal sites other than the femoral neck, the use of technologies other than dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, the use of FRAX® without BMD input, the use of FRAX® to monitor treatment, and the addition of the rate of bone loss as a clinical risk factor for FRAX®. The evidence and recommendations were presented to a panel of experts at the Joint ISCD-IOF FRAX® Position Development Conference, resulting in the development of Joint ISCD-IOF Official Positions addressing FRAX®-related issues.

Information transfer between large and small two-dimensional polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis.

To determine the feasibility of data transfer, an interlaboratory comparison was conducted on colon carcinoma cell line (DLD-1) proteins resolved by two-dimensional polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis either on small (6 x 7 cm) or large (16x18 cm) gels. The gels were silver-stained and scanned by laser densitometry, and the image obtained was analyzed using Melanie software. The number of spots detected was 1337+/-161 vs. 2382+/-176 for small vs. large format gels, respectively. After gel calibration using landmarks determined using pl and Mr markers, large- and small-format gels were matched and 712+/-36 proteins were found on both types of gels. Having performed accurate gel matching it was possible to acquire additional information after accessing a 2-D PAGE reference database (http://www.expasy.ch/ cgibin/map2/def?DLD1_HUMAN). Thus, the difference in gel size is not an obstacle for data transfer. This will facilitate exchanges between laboratories or consultation concerning existing databases.

Utilité clinique des ultrasons osseux quantitatifs dans le dépistage de l'ostéoporose [Clinical utility of quantitative bone ultrasonography in the staging of osteoporosis]

Osteoporosis is well recognized as a public health problem in industrialized countries. Because of the efficiency of new treatments to decrease fracture risk, it is of a major interest to detect the patients who should benefit from such treatments. A diagnosis of osteoporosis is necessary before to start a specific treatment. This diagnosis is based on the measurement of the skeleton (hip and spine) with dual X-ray absorptiometry, using diagnostic criteria established by the World Health Organisation (WHO). In Switzerland, indications for bone densitometry are limited to precise situations. This technique cannot be applied for screening. For this purpose, peripheral measurements and particularly quantitative ultrasounds of bone seem to be promising. Indeed, several prospective studies clearly showed their predictive power for hip fracture risk in women aged more than 65 years. In order to facilitate the clinical use of bone ultrasounds, thresholds of risk of fracture and osteoporosis of the hip will be shortly published. This will integrate bone ultrasound in a global concept including bone densitometry and its indications, but also other risk factors for osteoporosis recognized by the Swiss association against osteoporosis (ASCO).

Faut-il traiter l'osteoporose liee a la thalassemie majeure: deux cas cliniques [Should we treat thalassemia-induced osteoporosis: two case reports].

We report two cases of beta-thalassemia-induced osteoporosis. A man and a woman presented an osteoporosis at the densitometry and were treated with bisphoshonate iv. All the studies analysed the efficacity of bisphosphonate, in particular zoledronate seems to be effective. Concerning the pathogenesis, the RANK-RANK-Ligand and OPG play a major role in bone-resorption and seem to be the principal implicated mechanism for the development of osteoporosis in BTM. At the moment there is no study evaluating the efficacity of denosumab in the BTM.

Santé au travail : approche moléculaire pour évaluer le risque de l'exposition aux bioaérosols sur les lieux de travail

RESUME : Dans de nombreux environnements professionnels, des travailleurs sont exposés à des bioaérosols, que ce soit des bactéries, champignons, virus ou fragments de microorganismes. Ces bioaérosols peuvent être responsables de maladies infectieuses (p.ex. légionellose), ou de maladies non infectieuses (touchant principalement les voies respiratoires). Cependant, pour une majorité des bioaérosols, les relations entre une exposition à une certaine dose et les effets sur la santé humaine sont peu connues. Ce manque de connaissances étant dû principalement à une absence de méthodes adéquates permettant de quantifier cette exposition. La real-time quantitative PCR (Q-PCR) est un outil basé sur la quantification du DNA dont le potentiel de quantification des bioaérosols dans des environnements professionnels n'a pas été exploré. Le but de ce travail est de développer une méthode de Q-PCR permettant de quantifier des bioaérosols - en particulier des bactéries - et d'appliquer ces techniques pour des mesures préventives sur les lieux de travail. Dans ce travail, la Q-PCR a été appliquée à 1a quantification de pathogènes, de groupes taxonomiques spécifiques et de la charge bactérienne totale dans des environnements de travail, stations d'épuration et élevages industriels de volailles. Nous avons montré que la Q-PCR : 1) est capable de quantifier des pathogènes difficilement cultivables si ceux-ci sont présents en concentration importante, 2) a le potentiel pour être un outil performant dans l'étude des communautés bactériennes présentes dans l'air d'environnements professionnels, 3) est aussi performante que le comptage total des bactéries par DAPI pour quantifier 1a charge bactérienne totale et est donc une alternative prometteuse aux techniques culture-dépendantes. La Q-PCR pourrait être utilisée afin d'établir des relations doses-réponses pour la charge bactérienne ; soit dans des populations de travailleurs hautement exposés (p.ex. les éleveurs de volailles), soit en exposant des cellules à des concentrations de bioaérosols mesurées par Q-PCR. ABSTRACT : Many workers are exposed to bioaerosols such as bacteria, fungi, viruses or fragments of microorganisms. These bioaerosols can be responsible of infectious (e.g. legionellosis) or non infectious diseases (mainly respiratory symptoms). However, for a majority of them, the relationship between exposure and effects on human health is not clearly established. This is mainly due to the lack of valid quantitative assessment methods. Real-time quantitative PCR (Q-PCR) is a tool based on the quantification of DNA, of which the potential for the quantification of bioaerosols in work environments has not yet been explored. The aim of this work was to develop a Q-PCR method permitting to quantify bioaerosols -mainly bacteria and to apply those techniques in occupational environments. In this work, Q-PCR was applied to the quantification of pathogens, of specific taxonomic groups and of the total bacterial load in two different occupational settings, namely wastewater treatment plants and poultry houses. We showed that Q-PCR : 1) is capable of quantifying difficult to cultivate pathogens; when they are present at high concentrations, 2) has the potential to be a useful tool for studying bacterial communities in the air of work environments, 3) is as efficient as epifluorescence for the quantification of total bacterial load, and is a promising alternative to the culture-dependent methods. Q-PCR could be used to establish doses-responses relationships for bacterial load, either in populations of highly exposed workers such as poultry farmers, or by exposing cells to concentrations of bioaerosols quantified with Q-PCR.

Official positions of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry (ISCD) on DXA evaluation in children and adolescents.

Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is the most widely used technical instrument for evaluating bone mineral content (BMC) and density (BMD) in patients of all ages. However, its use in pediatric patients, during growth and development, poses a much more complex problem in terms of both the technical aspects and the interpretation of the results. For the adults population, there is a well-defined term of reference: the peak value of BMD attained by young healthy subjects at the end of skeletal growth. During childhood and adolescence, the comparison can be made only with healthy subjects of the same age, sex and ethnicity, but the situation is compounded by the wide individual variation in the process of skeletal growth (pubertal development, hormone action, body size and bone size). The International Society for Clinical Densitometry (ISCD) organized a Pediatric Position Development Conference to discuss the specific problems of bone densitometry in growing subjects (9-19 years of age) and to provide essential recommendations for its clinical use.