G Model MAT-6218; No. of Pages 7

ARTICLE IN PRESS Maturitas xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Maturitas journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/maturitas

Review

Use of FRAX® -based fracture risk assessments to identify patients who will benefit from osteoporosis therapy Stuart L. Silverman a,∗ , Barry S. Komm b,1 , Sebastian Mirkin c,2 a b c

Cedars-Sinai Medical Center and University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA Pfizer Inc., Collegeville, PA, USA Therapeutics MD, Boca Raton, FL, USA

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 28 May 2014 Accepted 8 July 2014 Available online xxx Keywords: FRAX Fracture Osteoporosis Bazedoxifene Selective estrogen receptor modulator (SERM) Bisphosphonates

a b s t r a c t Several pharmacological interventions, including selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs), bisphosphonates, denosumab, and strontium ranelate have demonstrated efficacy in reducing the incidence of osteoporotic fractures, the most severe consequence of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Until recently, bone mineral density (BMD) was the primary factor used to determine which postmenopausal women may require osteoporosis treatment. However, clinical guidelines now recommend the use of the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX® ), a computer-based algorithm introduced by the World Health Organization, to help primary care physicians identify postmenopausal women who may be candidates for pharmacological osteoporosis therapy based on the level of fracture risk. Beyond its utility as a resource for determining whether or not to initiate osteoporosis treatment, clinical studies have begun to evaluate the correlation between FRAX® -based 10-year fracture probability and efficacy of different osteoporosis treatments. Bazedoxifene, clodronate, and denosumab have shown greater fracture risk reduction at higher FRAX® -based 10-year fracture probabilities, but the efficacy of raloxifene, alendronate, and strontium ranelate were relatively stable regardless of fracture probability. In summary, these data suggest that the relationship between FRAX® -based fracture probability and efficacy of different osteoporosis treatments varies depending upon the agent in question. © 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents 1. 2. 3.

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Uses of FRAX® in clinical practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The efficacy of osteoporosis treatments By FRAX® -based fracture risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1. Selective estrogen receptor modulators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.1. Bazedoxifene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.2. Raloxifene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2. Bisphosphonates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.1. Alendronate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.2. Clodronate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3. RANK ligand inhibitor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.1. Denosumab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00

Abbreviations: BMD, bone mineral density; BZA, bazedoxifene; FRAX, Fracture Risk Assessment Tool; RLX, raloxifene; SERMs, selective estrogen receptor modulators. ∗ Corresponding author at: 8641 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 301, Beverly Hills, CA 90211, USA. Tel.: +1 310 358 2234; fax: +1 310 659 2841. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (S.L. Silverman), [email protected]fizer.com (B.S. Komm), [email protected] (S. Mirkin). 1 Pfizer Inc., 500 Arcola Road, Collegeville, PA 19426, USA. 2 Formerly with Pfizer. Current address: 6800 Broken Sound Parkway NW, 3rd Floor, Boca Raton, FL 33487, USA http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.maturitas.2014.07.007 0378-5122/© 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Silverman SL, et al. Use of FRAX® -based fracture risk assessments to identify patients who will benefit from osteoporosis therapy. Maturitas (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.maturitas.2014.07.007

G Model MAT-6218; No. of Pages 7

ARTICLE IN PRESS S.L. Silverman et al. / Maturitas xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

2

3.4.

4.

Elemental . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.1. Strontium ranelate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Competing interests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Provenance and peer review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1. Introduction The burden of osteoporosis is substantial, affecting more than 8 million women over the age of 50 in the United States [1] and from 40% to 90% of women over the age of 50 in Europe, with prevalence increasing with age [2]. Fractures represent the most severe consequence of osteoporosis and are associated with functional impairment, reduced quality of life, and increased mortality [3–5]. Pharmacological interventions, including selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs), bisphosphonates, denosumab, teriparatide, and strontium ranelate, have been shown to reduce the incidence of osteoporotic fractures [6] and are recommended for the treatment of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis [7]. Until recently, the identification of candidates for osteoporosis treatment represented a significant challenge. Bone mineral density (BMD) was considered to be the primary criterion for identifying individuals at an increased risk for osteoporotic fracture, but BMD measures alone provide an incomplete view of fracture risk [8,9]. Additional clinical risk factors need to be considered for assessing osteoporotic fracture risk [9]. The Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX® ), which was introduced by the World Health Organization in 2008, is a computer-based algorithm (http://www.shef.ac.uk/FRAX) that uses key clinical factors to calculate the 10-year probability of hip fracture and major osteoporotic fracture (wrist, humerus, hip, or clinical vertebral fracture) [10–13]. This tool was originally developed for use by primary care physicians to help identify patients at risk of fracture who would benefit from osteoporosis treatment [13,14]. FRAX® models are country-specific and incorporate age, sex, body mass index, and 7 dichotomized risk variables (prior fragility fracture, parental history of hip fracture, tobacco use, consumption of ≥3 units of alcohol daily, long-term oral glucocorticoid use, rheumatoid arthritis, and other causes of secondary osteoporosis), with or without femoral neck BMD [11,12]. Intervention thresholds may be determined using FRAX® score alone, or a combination of FRAX® score and economic modeling data [14,15]. FRAX® is becoming more widely accepted for use in treatment decisions and as a post hoc method of evaluating clinical trial data [11]. This article describes the current use of FRAX® in clinical practice and reviews the association between FRAX® -based fracture risk assessments and anti-fracture efficacy of current and emerging osteoporosis treatments. 2. Uses of FRAX® in clinical practice In recent clinical guidelines, FRAX® has been recommended to assist in the identification of patients who are candidates for pharmacological osteoporosis therapy [7,15]. For example, the National Osteoporosis Foundation recommends treatment for postmenopausal women at least 50 years of age with a low bone mass (T-score between −1.0 and −2.5) who have a FRAX® -based 10-year hip fracture risk ≥3% or a FRAX® -based 10-year major osteoporotic fracture risk ≥20% [15]. However, the use of FRAX® is context-specific. It is currently recommended only to assist with the decision to initiate pharmacological treatment [7,15] and may

00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00

be used to identify patients who would benefit from BMD testing [16]. FRAX® is not indicated for patients who are already receiving osteoporosis therapy or for those in whom treatment is clearly required [12]. Nevertheless, new evidence suggests that FRAX® may predict fracture risk even for patients currently receiving osteoporosis therapy [17]. FRAX® -predicted fracture rates correlated with the observed incidence of major osteoporotic fractures in both untreated patients and in women who were adherent to osteoporosis treatment, indicating that FRAX® could potentially evaluate the need for continued treatment [17]. However, FRAX® cannot be used to monitor decreases in fracture risk over time, as the BMD changes as a result of therapy represent only a small proportion of factors that make up FRAX® . Beyond assisting clinicians with the decision to initiate osteoporosis treatment, FRAX® has been applied to the efficacy evaluations of several osteoporosis treatments according to individual fracture risk [18–23] (Table 1). 3. The efficacy of osteoporosis treatments By FRAX® -based fracture risk 3.1. Selective estrogen receptor modulators 3.1.1. Bazedoxifene Bazedoxifene (BZA) is a novel SERM that is currently in development for the prevention and treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis [25]. BZA has been shown to reduce the risk of fractures in a phase 3 study of 7492 postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, significantly reducing the incidence of new vertebral fractures compared with placebo [26]. BZA was also associated with a significant reduction in the risk of nonvertebral fractures compared with placebo in a subgroup of women with a higher fracture risk (femoral neck BMD T-score ≤ −3.0 and/or ≥1 moderate or severe vertebral fracture) [26]. A post hoc analysis from this phase 3 treatment study assessed the efficacy of BZA for preventing fractures as a function of FRAX® -based fracture risk [18]. Ten-year fracture probabilities were evaluated by FRAX® using patient demographic and baseline clinical data, including femoral neck BMD [18]. BZA (20 and 40 mg daily combined) was associated with a significant 39% decrease in incident morphometric vertebral fractures compared with placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.61; 95% CI, 0.43–0.86; p = 0.005) and a 16% decrease in all clinical fractures compared with placebo, but the difference failed to reach statistical significance (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.67–1.06; p = 0.14). HRs for BZA compared with placebo for both morphometric vertebral and all clinical fractures decreased with increasing baseline FRAX® -based 10-year probability of a major osteoporotic fracture (Fig. 1 and Table 1), although the interactions failed to reach statistical significance [18]. Of note, BZA treatment was associated with significant decreases in risk of morphometric vertebral and all clinical fractures for patients with 10-year major osteoporotic fracture probabilities at or above 6.9% and 16%, respectively (equivalent to the 41st and 80th percentile of the distribution of the study population, respectively) [18].

Please cite this article in press as: Silverman SL, et al. Use of FRAX® -based fracture risk assessments to identify patients who will benefit from osteoporosis therapy. Maturitas (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.maturitas.2014.07.007

G Model

ARTICLE IN PRESS

MAT-6218; No. of Pages 7

S.L. Silverman et al. / Maturitas xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

3

Table 1 Interaction between osteoporosis treatments and FRAX® -based 10-year probability of a major osteoporotic fracture calculated with femoral neck BMD. Drug

Bazedoxifene BZA 20/40 mg vs placebog [18]

Percentile

10th 25th 50th 75th 90th

BZA 20/40 mg vs placebo [24]

Raloxifene RLX 60 mg vs placebo [24]

RLX 60/120 mg vs placeboh [20]

10th 25th 50th 75th 90th

Alendronate Alendronate vs placebo [19] Clodronate Clodronate vs placebo [22] Denosumab Denosumab vs placebo [23] Strontium ranelate Strontium ranelate vs placebo [21]

Probability (%)

All clinical fractures

Morphometric vertebral fractures

Nonvertebral fractures

HR

95% CI

HR

95% CI

HR

95% CI

2.8 4.5 8.2–8.3 14.0–14.5 21.7–22.4 ≥5.0 ≥10.0 ≥15.0 ≥20.0

1.02 0.98 0.91 0.80 0.68 0.756 0.711 0.654 0.395

0.74–1.40 0.73–1.32 0.71–1.17 0.63–1.02 0.49–0.93 0.582–0.983 0.506–0.999 0.432–0.991 0.223–0.701

0.73 0.71 0.65 0.58 0.49 0.524 0.459 0.469 0.244

0.45–1.18 0.45–1.10 0.45–0.95 0.41–0.82 0.31–0.79 0.357–0.769 0.285–0.738 0.254–0.865 0.097–0.611

NR NR NR NR NR 0.771 0.722 0.673 0.447

NR NR NR NR NR 0.584–1.018 0.499–1.044 0.427–1.061 0.244–0.819

≥5.0 ≥10.0 ≥15.0 ≥20.0 8.4 13.3 21.1 30.3 40.1

0.963 1.063 0.746 0.697 0.74 0.76 0.80 0.84 0.90

0.720–1.288 0.738–1.530 0.463–1.200 0.387–1.255 0.59–0.92 0.63–0.91 0.69–0.92 0.72–0.99 0.72–1.12

0.570 0.581 0.595 0.458 0.48 0.50 0.54 0.59 0.64

0.361–0.899 0.338–0.999 0.298–1.187 0.183–1.149 0.35–0.64 0.39–0.64 0.44–0.65 0.49–0.70 0.51–0.81

0.945 1.075 0.755 0.700 NR NR NR NR NR

0.692–1.289 0.723–1.598 0.447–1.274 0.369–1.326 NR NR NR NR NR

≥20

Use of FRAX®-based fracture risk assessments to identify patients who will benefit from osteoporosis therapy.

Several pharmacological interventions, including selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs), bisphosphonates, denosumab, and strontium ranelate ha...
655KB Sizes 0 Downloads 4 Views

Recommend Documents


High SPDEF may identify patients who will have a prolonged response to androgen deprivation therapy.
Due to the indolent nature of prostate cancer, new prognostic measures are needed to identify patients with life threatening disease. SAM pointed domain-containing Ets transcription factor (SPDEF) has been associated with good prognosis and demonstra

Combining moderators to identify clinical profiles of patients who will, and will not, benefit from aripiprazole augmentation for treatment resistant late-life major depressive disorder.
Personalizing treatment for late-life depression requires identifying and integrating information from multiple factors that influence treatment efficacy (moderators). We performed exploratory moderator analyses using data from a multi-site, randomiz

Predictors of tertiary hyperparathyroidism: Who will benefit from parathyroidectomy?
Tertiary hyperparathyroidism (3°HPT) is hyperparathyroidism with hypercalcemia after renal transplantation. With unclear guidelines for parathyroidectomy (PTX), this study aims to determine which renal transplant patients develop 3°HPT and would bene

Selecting those to refer for joint replacement: who will likely benefit and who will not?
Osteoarthritis (OA) is one of the 10 most disabling diseases in developed countries and worldwide estimates are that 10% of men and 18% of women aged over 60 years have symptomatic OA, including moderate and severe forms. Total joint replacement (TJR

A Prognostic Index to Identify Patients With Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma Who Could Benefit From Gemcitabine Plus Cisplatin.
Biliary tract cancer is a heterogenous group. Gemcitabine plus cisplatin has been the standard chemotherapy for advanced biliary tract cancer, but there is lack of evidence on treatment in patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (IHC). We analy

Osteoporosis management in older patients who experienced a fracture.
Fractures in older patients are common, morbid, and associated with increased risk of subsequent fractures. Inpatient and outpatient management and treatment of fractures can be costly. With more emphasis placed on quality care for Medicare beneficia

Cost-effectiveness of a new strategy to identify uncomplicated gallstone disease patients that will benefit from a cholecystectomy.
The aim of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of a new strategy for the preoperative detection of patients that will likely benefit from a cholecystectomy, using simple criteria that can be applied by surgeons. Criteria for a cholecys

Can paramedics use FRAX (the WHO Fracture Risk Assessment Tool) to help GPs improve future fracture risk in patients who fall? Protocol for a randomised controlled feasibility study.
Currently identification, and therefore, management of patients at risk of osteoporotic fracture in the UK is suboptimal. As the majority of patients who fracture have fallen, it follows that people who fall can usefully be targeted in any programme