Search

Purpose: Since vertebral fragility fractures (VFFs) might increase the risk of subsequent fractures, we evaluated the incidence rate and the refracture risk of subsequent vertebral and non-vertebral fragility fractures (nVFFs) in untreated patients with a previous VFF., Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library up to February 2022 for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that analyzed the occurrence of subsequent fractures in untreated patients with prior VFFs. Two authors independently extracted data and appraised the risk of bias in the selected studies. Primary outcomes were subsequent VFFs, while secondary outcomes were further nVFFs. The outcome of refracture within ≥ 2 years after the index fracture was measured as (i) rate, expressed per 100 person-years (PYs), and (ii) risk, expressed in percentage., Results: Forty RCTs met our inclusion criteria, ranging from medium to high quality. Among untreated patients with prior VFFs, the rate of subsequent VFFs and nVFFs was 12 [95% confidence interval (CI) 9-16] and 6 (95% CI 5-8%) per 100 PYs, respectively. The higher the number of previous VFFs, the higher the incidence. Moreover, the risk of VFFs and nVFFs increased within 2 (16.6% and 8%) and 4 years (35.1% and 17.4%) based on the index VFF., Conclusion: The highest risk of subsequent VFFs or nVFFs was already detected within 2 years following the initial VFF. Thus, prompt interventions should be designed to improve the detection and treatment of VFFs, aiming to reduce the risk of future FFs and properly implement secondary preventive measures., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Purpose: Preventing fragility fractures by treating osteoporosis may reduce disability and mortality worldwide. Algorithms combining clinical risk factors with bone mineral density have been developed to better estimate fracture risk and possible treatment thresholds. This systematic review supported panel members of the Italian Fragility Fracture Guidelines in recommending the use of best-performant tool. The clinical performance of the three most used fracture risk assessment tools (DeFRA, FRAX, and FRA-HS) was assessed in at-risk patients., Methods: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched till December 2020 for studies investigating risk assessment tools for predicting major osteoporotic or hip fractures in patients with osteoporosis or fragility fractures. Sensitivity (Sn), specificity (Sp), and areas under the curve (AUCs) were evaluated for all tools at different thresholds. Quality assessment was performed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2; certainty of evidence (CoE) was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach., Results: Forty-three articles were considered (40, 1, and 2 for FRAX, FRA-HS, and DeFRA, respectively), with the CoE ranging from very low to high quality. A reduction of Sn and increase of Sp for major osteoporotic fractures were observed among women and the entire population with cut-off augmentation. No significant differences were found on comparing FRAX to DeFRA in women (AUC 59-88% vs. 74%) and diabetics (AUC 73% vs. 89%). FRAX demonstrated non-significantly better discriminatory power than FRA-HS among men., Conclusion: The task force formulated appropriate recommendations on the use of any fracture risk assessment tools in patients with or at risk of fragility fractures, since no statistically significant differences emerged across different prediction tools., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Randomized clinical trials and observational studies on the implementation of clinical governance models, in patients who had experienced a fragility fracture, were examined. Literature was systematically reviewed and summarized by a panel of experts who formulated recommendations for the Italian guideline., Purpose: After experiencing a fracture, several strategies may be adopted to reduce the risk of recurrent fragility fractures and associated morbidity and mortality. Clinical governance models, such as the fracture liaison service (FLS), have been introduced for the identification, treatment, and monitoring of patients with secondary fragility fractures. A systematic review was conducted to evaluate the association between multidisciplinary care systems and several outcomes in patients with a fragility fracture in the context of the development of the Italian Guidelines., Methods: PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were investigated up to December 2020 to update the search of the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies that analyzed clinical governance models in patients who had experienced a fragility fracture were eligible. Three authors independently extracted data and appraised the risk of bias in the included studies. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. Effect sizes were pooled in a meta-analysis using random-effects models. Primary outcomes were bone mineral density values, antiosteoporotic therapy initiation, adherence to antiosteoporotic medications, subsequent fracture, and mortality risk, while secondary outcomes were quality of life and physical performance., Results: Fifteen RCTs and 62 observational studies, ranging from very low to low quality for bone mineral density values, antiosteoporotic initiation, adherence to antiosteoporotic medications, subsequent fracture, mortality, met our inclusion criteria. The implementation of clinical governance models compared to their pre-implementation or standard care/non-attenders significantly improved BMD testing rate, and increased the number of patients who initiated antiosteoporotic therapy and enhanced their adherence to the medications. Moreover, the treatment by clinical governance model respect to standard care/non-attenders significantly reduced the risk of subsequent fracture and mortality. The integrated structure of care enhanced the quality of life and physical function among patients with fragility fractures., Conclusions: Based on our findings, clinicians should promote the management of patients experiencing a fragility fracture through structured and integrated models of care. The task force has formulated appropriate recommendations on the implementation of multidisciplinary care systems in patients with, or at risk of, fragility fractures., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Noncommunicable, chronic diseases need pharmacological interventions for long periods or even throughout life. The temporary or permanent cessation of medication for a specific period, known as a 'medication holiday,' should be planned by healthcare professionals., Objectives: We evaluated the association between continuity (adherence or persistence) of treatment and several outcomes in patients with fragility fractures in the context of the development of the Italian Guidelines., Design: Systematic review., Data Sources and Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library up to November 2020 for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies that analyzed medication holidays in patients with fragility fracture. Three authors independently extracted data and appraised the risk of bias of the included studies. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. Effect sizes were pooled in a meta-analysis using random effects models. Primary outcomes were refracture and quality of life; secondary outcomes were mortality and treatment-related adverse events., Results: Six RCTs and nine observational studies met our inclusion criteria, ranging from very low to moderate quality. The adherence to antiosteoporotic drugs was associated with a lower risk of nonvertebral fracture [relative risk (RR) 0.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20-0.87; three studies] than nonadherence, whereas no difference was detected in the health-related quality of life. A reduction in refracture risk was observed when continuous treatment was compared to discontinuous therapy (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.25-0.98; three studies). A lower mortality rate was detected for the adherence and persistence measures, while no significant differences were noted in gastrointestinal side effects in individuals undergoing continuous versus discontinuous treatment., Conclusion: Our findings suggest that clinicians should promote adherence and persistence to antiosteoporotic treatment in patients with fragility fractures unless serious adverse effects occur., Competing Interests: GA declares personal fees from Theramex, Amgen, BMS, Lilly, Fresenius Kabi and Galapagos. LC declares personal fees from UCB Pharma, Abiogen Pharma, Bruno Farmaceutici, Sandoz, Metagenics. DG has received honoraria as consultant for Eli-Lilly, Organon, MSD Italia. SG has received honoraria as consultant for UCB Pharma. SM has received honoraria as consultant for UCB, Eli-Lilly, Amgen. MLB has received (i) honoraria from Amgen, Bruno Farmaceutici, Calcilytix, Kyowa Kirin, UCB, (ii) grants and/or speaker: Abiogen, Alexion, Amgen, Bruno Farmaceutici, Echolight, Eli Lilly, Kyowa Kirin, SPA, Theramex, UCB Pharma, (iii) consultant: Alexion, Amolyt, Bruno Farmaceutici, Calcilytix, Kyowa Kirin, UCB Pharma. GC received research support from the European Community (EC), the Italian Agency of Drug (AIFA), and the Italian Ministry for University and Research (MIUR). He took part to a variety of projects that were funded by pharmaceutical companies (i.e., Novartis, GSK, Roche, AMGEN and BMS). He also received honoraria as member of Advisory Board from Roche. No other potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were disclosed. MR declares personal fees from Amgen, ABBvie, BMS, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Menarini, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Theramex and UCB outside the submitted work. RM took part to a project funded by Abiogen Pharma. GI received honoraria as speaker by Eli-Lilly, Menarini, UCB Pharma. The other authors declare that they have no conflict of interest., (© The Author(s), 2023.)

Background: Fragility fractures are a major public health concern owing to their worrying and growing burden and their onerous burden upon health systems. There is now a substantial body of evidence that individuals who have already suffered a fragility fracture are at a greater risk for further fractures, thus suggesting the potential for secondary prevention in this field., Purpose: This guideline aims to provide evidence-based recommendations for recognizing, stratifying the risk, treating, and managing patients with fragility fracture. This is a summary version of the full Italian guideline., Methods: The Italian Fragility Fracture Team appointed by the Italian National Health Institute was employed from January 2020 to February 2021 to (i) identify previously published systematic reviews and guidelines on the field, (ii) formulate relevant clinical questions, (iii) systematically review literature and summarize evidence, (iv) draft the Evidence to Decision Framework, and (v) formulate recommendations., Results: Overall, 351 original papers were included in our systematic review to answer six clinical questions. Recommendations were categorized into issues concerning (i) frailty recognition as the cause of bone fracture, (ii) (re)fracture risk assessment, for prioritizing interventions, and (iii) treatment and management of patients experiencing fragility fractures. Six recommendations were overall developed, of which one, four, and one were of high, moderate, and low quality, respectively., Conclusions: The current guidelines provide guidance to support individualized management of patients experiencing non-traumatic bone fracture to benefit from secondary prevention of (re)fracture. Although our recommendations are based on the best available evidence, questionable quality evidence is still available for some relevant clinical questions, so future research has the potential to reduce uncertainty about the effects of intervention and the reasons for doing so at a reasonable cost., Competing Interests: GC received research support from the European Community EC, the Italian Agency of Drug AIFA, and the Italian Ministry for University and Research MIUR. He took part to a variety of projects that were funded by pharmaceutical companies i.e., Novartis, GSK, Roche, AMGEN, and BMS. He also received honoraria as member of Advisory Board from Roche. No other potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were disclosed. MLB has received i honoraria from Amgen, Bruno Farmaceutici, Calcilytix, Kyowa Kirin, UCB; ii grants and/or speaker: Abiogen, Alexion, Amgen, Bruno Farmaceutici, Echolight, Eli Lilly, Kyowa Kirin, SPA, Theramex, UCB Pharma; and iii honoraria as consultant for Alexion, Amolyt, Bruno Farmaceutici, Calcilytix, Kyowa Kirin, and UCB Pharma. LC has received honoraria as member of the Advisory Board from UCB Pharma and speaking fee of Dynamicom Education and took part to the Italian project for the introduction of Fracture Liaison Service. GA has received honoraria as consultant for Theramex. He took part to a project funded by the Italian Society of Rheumatology. DG has received honoraria as consultant for Eli-Lilly, Organon, and MSD Italia. SG has received honoraria as consultant for UCB Pharma. SM has received honoraria as consultant for UCB, Eli-Lilly, and Amgen. MR has received honoraria as consultant for UCB, Eli-Lilly, Theramex, and Amgen. He took part to a project funded by Savio Pharma Italia and UCB Pharma. RM took part to a project funded by Abiogen Pharma. GI received honoraria as speaker by Eli-Lilly, Menarini, and UCB Pharma. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Corrao, Biffi, Porcu, Ronco, Adami, Alvaro, Bogini, Caputi, Cianferotti, Frediani, Gatti, Gonnelli, Iolascon, Lenzi, Leone, Michieli, Migliaccio, Nicoletti, Paoletta, Pennini, Piccirilli, Rossini, Tarantino and Brandi.)