Development of an opportunistic diagnostic prediction algorithm for osteoporosis and fragility fracture risk estimates from forearm radiographs (The OFFER1 Study)
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER:
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10945724 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Mar
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundLow bone mineral density affects 53% of women over age 65 in the US, yet many are unaware and remain untreated. Underdiagnosis of forearm osteoporosis and related fragility fractures represent missed warning signs of more deadly, future fractures. This study aimed to determine if hand radiographs could serve as early, simple screening tools for predicting low forearm bone mineral density (BMD).MethodsWe evaluated posterior-anterior (PA) hand radiographs (x-rays) and Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans of 43 participants. The ratio of the intramedullary cavity to total cortical diameter of the second metacarpal (second metacarpal cortical percentage (2MCP)) was used as a potential diagnostic marker. Mixed-effects linear regression was performed to determine correlation of 2MCP with BMD from various anatomic regions. Repeated measures ANOVAs were used to compare BMD across sites. An optimal 2MCP cutoff for predicting forearm osteopenia and osteoporosis was found using Receiver Operating Curves.Results2MCP is directly correlated with BMD in the forearm. The optimal 2MCP of 48.3% had 80% sensitivity for detecting osteoporosis of the 1/3 distal forearm. An 2MCP cutoff of 50.8% had 84% sensitivity to detect osteoporosis of the most distal forearm. Both 2MCP cutoffs were more sensitive at predicting forearm osteoporosis than femoral neck T-scores.ConclusionsThese findings support the expansion of osteoporosis screening to include low-cost hand x-rays, aiming to increase diagnosis and treatment of low forearm BMD and fractures. Proposed next steps include confirming the optimal 2MCP cutoff at scale and integrating automatic 2MCP measurements into PAC systems.
| S-EPMC10877789 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: We investigated whether opportunistic screening for osteoporosis can be done from computed tomography (CT) scans of the wrist/forearm using machine learning. Methods: A retrospective study of 196 patients aged 50 years or greater who underwent CT scans of the wrist/forearm and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) scans within 12 months of each other was performed. Volumetric segmentation of the forearm, carpal, and metacarpal bones was performed to obtain the mean CT attenuation of each bone. The correlations of the CT attenuations of each of the wrist/forearm bones and their correlations to the DEXA measurements were calculated. The study was divided into training/validation (n = 96) and test (n = 100) datasets. The performance of multivariable support vector machines (SVMs) was evaluated in the test dataset and compared to the CT attenuation of the distal third of the radial shaft (radius 33%). Results: There were positive correlations between each of the CT attenuations of the wrist/forearm bones, and with DEXA measurements. A threshold hamate CT attenuation of 170.2 Hounsfield units had a sensitivity of 69.2% and a specificity of 77.1% for identifying patients with osteoporosis. The radial-basis-function (RBF) kernel SVM (AUC = 0.818) was the best for predicting osteoporosis with a higher AUC than other models and better than the radius 33% (AUC = 0.576) (p = 0.020). Conclusions: Opportunistic screening for osteoporosis could be performed using CT scans of the wrist/forearm. Multivariable machine learning techniques, such as SVM with RBF kernels, that use data from multiple bones were more accurate than using the CT attenuation of a single bone.
| S-EPMC8947723 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This national register study investigated osteoporosis medication prescriptions for secondary fracture prevention among older Swedish adults. Although prescription proportions are increasing for both men and women, they remain low, especially among individuals aged 90 and older. Improved Fracture Liaison Services could increase the prescription proportions and should be bolstered.PurposeDespite clear guidelines for secondary fracture prevention among older adults, it seems undertreatment persists. We aimed to describe secondary fracture prevention with medical osteoporosis treatment in the older Swedish population. Specifically, how prescription has changed over time and if these patterns differ in sociodemographic subgroups.MethodsBetween 2007 and 2020, osteoporosis medication use was studied among all Swedish residents aged 70 and older who had a fragility fracture in the previous 5 years. Previous fragility fractures were defined as fractures of the humerus, wrist, hip, or vertebrae. Osteoporosis medication was defined as any prescription of bone-enhancing medications (including bisphosphonates and denosumab).ResultsOsteoporosis medication increased over the study period, especially among men. Prescription among individuals 90 + was consistently two- to threefold lower compared to 70-79- and 80-89-year-olds. In 2018-2020, 8-17% of women and 5-9% of men, depending on age, received osteoporosis medication. At the beginning of the study period, women with higher education were more likely to be prescribed osteoporosis medication, though this difference decreased over time. Prescription of vitamin D and/or calcium as the only treatment was more common than osteoporosis medications throughout the study period.ConclusionDespite increasing prescription proportions, medical treatment for secondary fracture prevention remains low. In addition, it is more common to be prescribed vitamin D or calcium than osteoporosis medication after a fragility fracture, contrary to current guidelines. These results indicate that there is room for improvement for Fracture Liaison Services in Sweden.
| S-EPMC10386957 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This study aims to identify specific miRNAs profiles in osteoporotic patients with and without vertebral fractures. MiRNAs array analysis was performed on the plasma samples including a pool of 6 miRNA samples from osteoporotic patients with vertebral fractures, a pool of 6 miRNA samples from osteoporotic patients without fracture and another pool of 6 miRNA samples from nonosteoporotic patients to identify regulated miRNAs in the plasma.
2020-01-12 | GSE93883 | GEO
Project description:Study objectiveTo determine the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound for detecting distal forearm fractures.MethodsA systematic review and diagnostic meta-analysis was performed according to the PRISMA statement. We searched MEDLINE, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library from inception to September 2015. All prospective studies of the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound versus radiography as the reference standard were included. We excluded studies with a retrospective design and those with evidence of verification bias. We assessed the methodological quality of the included studies with the QUADAS-2 tool. We performed a meta-analysis of studies evaluating ultrasound to calculate the pooled sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CI95%) using a bivariate model with random effects. Subgroup and sensitivity analysis were used to examine the effect of methodological differences and other study characteristics.ResultsOut of 867 publications we included 16 studies with 1,204 patients and 641 fractures. The pooled test characteristics for ultrasound were: sensitivity 97% (CI95% 93-99%), specificity 95% (CI95% 89-98%), positive likelihood ratio (LR) 20.0 (8.5-47.2) and negative LR 0.03 (0.01-0.08). The corresponding pooled diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) was 667 (142-3,133). Apparent differences were shown for method of viewing, with the 6-view method showing higher specificity, positive LR, and DOR, compared to the 4-view method.ConclusionThe present meta-analysis showed that ultrasound has a high accuracy for the diagnosis of distal forearm fractures in children when used by proper viewing method. Based on this, ultrasound should be considered a reliable alternative, which has the advantages of being radiation free.
| S-EPMC4873261 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In many countries, osteoporosis is predominantly managed by primary care physicians; however, management after a fragility fracture has not been widely investigated. We describe osteoporosis care gaps in a real-world patient cohort. Our findings help inform initiatives to identify and overcome obstacles to effective management of patients after fragility fracture.PurposeA fragility fracture is a major risk factor for subsequent fracture in adults aged ≥ 50 years. This retrospective observational study aimed to characterize post-fracture management in Canadian primary care.MethodsA total of 778 patients with an index fragility fracture (low-trauma, excluding small bones) occurring between 2014 and 2016 were identified from medical records at 76 primary care centers in Canada, with follow-up until January 2018.ResultsOf 778 patients (80.5% female, median age [IQR] 73 [64-80]), 215 were on osteoporosis treatment and 269 had osteoporosis diagnosis recorded prior to their index fracture. The median follow-up was 363 (IQR 91-808) days. Of patients not on osteoporosis treatment at their index fracture, 60.2% (n = 339/563) remained untreated after their index fracture and 62.2% (n = 23/37) continued untreated after their subsequent fracture. After their index fracture, fracture risk assessment (FRAX or CAROC) was not performed in 83.2% (n = 647/778) of patients, and 59.9% (n = 466/778) of patients did not receive bone mineral density testing. Of patients without osteoporosis diagnosis recorded prior to their index date, 61.3% (n = 300/489) remained undiagnosed after their index fracture. At least one subsequent fracture occurred in 11.5% (n = 86/778) of patients.ConclusionIn the primary care setting, fragility fracture infrequently resulted in osteoporosis treatment or fracture risk assessment, even after multiple fragility fractures. These results suggest a fragility fracture is not recognized as a major risk factor for subsequent fracture and its occurrence does not prompt primary care physicians to intervene. These data urge initiatives to identify and overcome obstacles to primary care physicians' effective management of patients after fragility fractures.
| S-EPMC9072526 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeWrist fractures are common, contribute significantly to morbidity in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis, and occur predominantly at the ultradistal radius, a site rich in trabecular bone. This exploratory analysis of the phase 3 ACTIVE study evaluated effects of abaloparatide versus placebo and teriparatide on forearm bone mineral density (BMD) and risk of wrist fracture.MethodsForearm BMD was measured by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry in a subset of 982 women from ACTIVE, evenly distributed across the three treatment groups. Wrist fractures were ascertained in the total cohort (N = 2463).ResultsAfter 18 months, ultradistal radius BMD changes from baseline were 2.25 percentage points greater for abaloparatide compared with placebo (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.38, 3.12, p < 0.001) and 1.54 percentage points greater for abaloparatide compared with teriparatide (95% CI 0.64, 2.45, p < 0.001). At 18 months, 1/3 radius BMD losses (versus baseline) were similar for abaloparatide compared with placebo (-0.42; 95% CI -1.03, 0.20; p = 0.19) but losses with teriparatide exceeded those of placebo (-1.66%; 95% CI -2.27, -1.06; p < 0.001). The decline with abaloparatide was less than that seen with teriparatide (group difference 1.22%; 95% CI 0.57, 1.87; p < 0.001). The radius BMD findings, at both ultradistal and 1/3 sites, are consistent with the numerically lower incidence of wrist fractures observed in women treated with abaloparatide compared with teriparatide (HR = 0.43; 95% CI 0.18, 1.03; p = 0.052) and placebo (HR = 0.49, 95% CI 0.20, 1.19, p = 0.11).ConclusionsCompared with teriparatide, abaloparatide increased BMD at the ultradistal radius (primarily trabecular bone) and decreased BMD to a lesser extent at the 1/3 radius (primarily cortical bone), likely contributing to the numerically lower wrist fracture incidence observed with abaloparatide.
| S-EPMC6546661 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMany health plans have outreach programs aimed at appropriately screening, evaluating, and treating women experiencing fragility fractures; however, few programs exist for men.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to develop, implement, and evaluate an osteoporosis outreach program for men with a recent fragility fracture and their physicians.Research design and subjectsA total of 10,934 male patients enrolled in a Medicare Advantage with Prescription Drug Plan with a recent fragility fracture were randomized to a program or control group. Patients and their physicians received letters followed by phone calls on osteoporosis and the importance of screening and treatment. The evaluation compared bone mineral density (BMD) test utilization and osteoporosis medication treatment (OPT) among patients who received the outreach versus no outreach at 12 months. The effect of the program was estimated through univariate and multivariable logistic regressions.ResultsThe program had a significant impact on BMD evaluation and OPT initiation. At 12 months, 10.7% of participants and 4.9% of nonparticipants received a BMD evaluation. The odds ratio (OR) (95% confidence interval) was 2.31 (1.94, 2.76), and the number needed to outreach to receive a BMD test was 18. OPT was initiated in 4.0% of participants and 2.5% of nonparticipants. The OR (95% confidence interval) of receiving OPT was 1.60 (1.24, 2.07), and the number needed to outreach was 69. Adjusted ORs were similar in magnitude and significance.ConclusionThe program was highly effective by more than doubling the rate of BMD evaluation; however, more intensive interventions may yield an even higher screening rate.
| S-EPMC7899217 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionPostmenopausal osteoporosis (PMO) increases the risk of fragility fractures (FF), leading to disability, higher mortality, and elevated healthcare costs. Despite available treatments, osteoporosis (OP) remains undertreated, especially in women over 50 years at high risk for FF. Real-world data on OP care in Spain are limited. This study aims to assess the OP treatment gap, healthcare resource utilisation (HCRU), and costs among Spanish women following a first FF or PMO diagnosis.MethodsThis retrospective study used data from the BIG-PAC® administrative database on women aged ≥ 50 years with a first FF (cohort 1) or newly diagnosed PMO (cohort 2) between 2014 and 2018. Patients were followed for 2 years after the index event. The primary outcome was the proportion of women not prescribed OP medication within 6 months after the index event (treatment gap). Secondary outcomes included fracture incidence, mortality, HCRU, and costs.ResultsThe study included 22,142 women: 3190 in cohort 1 and 18,952 in cohort 2. The OP treatment gap was higher in cohort 1 vs cohort 2 (41.5% vs 23.6%). In cohort 1, 59.2% were diagnosed with PMO after the first FF, with 88% experiencing subsequent fracture(s). OP treatment persistence decreased over time in both cohorts. Fracture rates were lower in women prescribed OP treatment vs those who were not (8.35 vs 13.8 per 1000 patient-years) and in those who showed 24-month-persistence and 12-month adherence to treatment vs those who did not (8.98 and 7.66 vs 10.79 and 10.76). The 2-year mean cost per patient was higher in cohort 1 (€10,601) than in cohort 2 (€1659), with the highest costs incurred for hip (€15,833) and vertebral (€10,593) fractures.ConclusionThis study highlights a significant treatment gap in Spanish women aged ≥ 50 with a first FF or newly diagnosed PMO. Costs are particularly high for those with a first FF, especially for hip or vertebral fractures. Improving treatment adherence could reduce fracture risk, healthcare costs, and resource utilisation.
| S-EPMC11920490 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The original version of this article, published on 21 March 2019, unfortunately contains some typos in Figs. 2, 3, 4, and Supplemental Fig. 1. The corrected figures are given below.
| S-EPMC7360655 | biostudies-literature