Introduction
Systematic approaches to improving the management and treatment of patients with osteoporotic fractures are increasingly advocated in many countries. One example, outlined by the Department of Health in the UK in 2009, presented a stratified approach, firstly recognizing the need to provide optimal care to those with hip fractures, followed by the provision of services that would identify, investigate and treat those presenting with non-hip fragility fractures (Fig. 1). A standardized approach to post hip fracture care published in 2007 [1] was followed by a reduction in 30-day mortality, falling by 7.6% per year in the 4 years after the introduction of a National Hip Fracture Database compared to a 1.8% per year decrease in the 4 years preceding its introduction [2]. Similar systems are being established in other countries [3, 4].
Improved management of those presenting with non-hip fractures is also addressed through the establishment of Fracture Liaison Services (FLS), usually via a hospital-based coordinator to identify patients aged 50 years and over with a fracture [5, 6]. To date, evidence has shown increased DXA testing, treatment initiation and early adherence in FLS-like settings [7,8,9,10]. Some observational studies have shown reductions in fracture risk, though interpretation is complicated by inherent biases in some though not all studies [10, 11]. The number and standard of FLS worldwide continue to increase under the auspices of the International Osteoporosis Foundation’s Capture The Fracture program (https://www.capturethefracture.org/).
Nonetheless, many patients with past fractures remain unidentified and so untreated, and contribute to a large pool of patients in the general community at high risk of fragility fracture (see Fig. 1). Here, the burden of osteoporosis assessment and management goes to primary care, but the biggest barrier to effective reduction in fracture rates remains the low awareness of osteoporosis amongst primary care physicians leading to marked under-identification of high-risk patients and low treatment rates worldwide [12,13,14,15,16]. The large and increasing treatment gap raises the question if it is now time to consider systematic approaches for the identification of high fracture risk in the wider primary care setting, including the establishment of population screening or enhanced case-finding programs.
In 2019, two reviews concluded that screening for osteoporosis could not yet be supported or recommended [17, 18]. Both recognized, however, that the ability of screening to reduce hip fracture risk had some potential and since then a meta-analysis of three prospective, randomized controlled studies of FRAX-based screening has shown a significant reduction in hip fractures [19]. Whether or not osteoporosis, or more specifically high hip fracture risk, fulfils the criteria for screening has been addressed in a recently published position statement from the Epidemiology/Quality of Life Working Group (Epi/QoL WG) of the International Osteoporosis Foundation [20]. This editorial summarises the key issues relating to the proposed screening program.
Several specific characteristics of a proposed screening program for diseases are important to consider [21]. These include whether the target population is sufficiently large to enable safe, clinically and cost-effective screening, and whether effective means exist of identifying, contacting and informing the whole target population. The subsequent formal assessment of the evidence for screening covers the key issues relating to the condition, the test, the treatment and the effectiveness of any proposed screening program.
The proposed screening program
The strategy is based on that examined in the Screening for Osteoporosis in Older People (SCOOP) study in the UK [22,23,24,25,26]. In brief, a risk factor questionnaire based on the FRAX® risk assessment tool would be completed, in paper form or electronically, by women age 70 years or older through self-completion, with family or caregiver assistance if needed. Those with low hip fracture probability would receive a letter of reassurance with general lifestyle advice, whilst the remainder would have an additional assessment of femoral neck bone mineral density using local densitometer facilities. The bone density result would then be incorporated in an updated FRAX calculation, and those that have hip fracture probabilities above an intervention threshold would be recommended for treatment. The recommendation would be communicated to both the individual and their primary care physician. A similar approach could be undertaken in those countries with a hip fracture risk comparable to or higher than that in the UK [27].
The age threshold (70 years) reflects the need to identify for a suitably high-risk group to ensure that the program would have good clinical and cost effectiveness (vide infra).
The condition
Osteoporotic fractures are undoubtedly a common public health problem [28,29,30,31]. The incidence of fragility fractures increases markedly with age; hip fractures are relatively rare at the age of 50 years but become the predominant fracture from the age of 75 years[32].
In 2019, 4.3 million new fragility fractures were estimated to have occurred in the EU, of which approximately 827,000 were hip fractures [30]. Approximately half of the 248,487 deaths causally related to fractures were attributable to hip fractures. The cost of osteoporosis, including pharmacological intervention was estimated at €56.9 billion, with two-thirds derived from the treatment of fractures and only 3% representing the costs of pharmacological intervention. The management and consequences of hip fractures represented 54% of these costs.
The epidemiology and natural history of osteoporotic fractures, particularly hip fractures, are well documented, with a number of easily collected risk factors that can be identified prior to the occurrence of fracture. Currently, the detection of osteoporotic bone mineral density (BMD) is a recognised tool for screening for fracture risk in some countries (e.g. the US), but its low sensitivity (i.e. the majority of osteoporotic fractures occur in individuals with BMD values above the osteoporosis threshold) [33] has precluded it from being accepted as a public health screening test in many countries to date [34, 35]. A huge body of evidence on other ‘non-BMD’ risk factors has been published over the last 30 years and has contributed to the development of fracture risk assessment tools.
The test
The increasing recognition and acceptance that treatments for osteoporosis should be targeted on the basis of fracture risk requires well-validated assessment tools providing ease of use in clinical practice. Of these, the FRAX tool has achieved widespread use with incorporation into numerous guidelines worldwide, and a large number of studies evaluating its utility [36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43]. Most importantly, in the context of screening, FRAX is currently the only fracture risk assessment tool to be studied until now in randomised, controlled studies of population-based screening.
For women age 70 years and above, the intervention threshold set by the National Osteoporosis Guideline Group (NOGG) is a MOF 10-year probability of 20% (or a hip fracture probability of 4.8%). The threshold is set to be equivalent to that of a woman age 70 years with a prior fragility fracture. Assessment thresholds, between which a BMD test would be undertaken to refine the probability assessment, lie between 11 and 24%. In principle, a similar approach could be used in other high-risk countries as shown in Table 1. In practice, intervention thresholds are most appropriately determined at regional or national levels, given that each health care system will consider local/national factors such as reimbursement issues, health economic assessment, willingness to pay for health care in osteoporosis, and access to dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA).
The treatment
Of the many factors that influence the risk of fracture, age-related reductions in bone mass and increased likelihood of falling are important contributors [44]. While assessment of falls risk and appropriate interventions aimed at reducing falls risk have been shown to be effective [45], at least in the short term, their impact on the risk of fracture, particularly at the hip, is less certain [46,47,48]. In contrast, many randomised, placebo-controlled trials have shown that treatments directed at maintaining or improving bone mass can significantly reduce the incidence of fracture at vertebral and non-vertebral sites including the hip [49,50,51,52]. Recent comparative clinical trials have provided evidence of enhanced anti-fracture efficacy of anabolic compared with antiresorptive therapies [53, 54], prompting considerations of starting treatment with an anabolic agent in patients at very high risk of fracture as a more appropriate means of rapidly reducing fracture risk [16, 55, 56].
Several randomised, controlled studies have also demonstrated the benefit of osteoporosis interventions in populations unselected for BMD-defined osteoporosis. For example, in the Women’s Health Initiative study, the 34% reduction in hip fracture risk by menopause hormone therapy in women age 50–79 years with an intact uterus was independent of baseline BMD [57, 58]. A similar BMD-independent effect on fracture risk reduction was observed in a 3-year randomised, placebo-controlled study of the oral bisphosphonate, clodronate, in women age 75 years and older, again unselected for osteoporosis [59]. In contrast, a post hoc analysis demonstrated that treatment with clodronate was more effective in women at higher baseline major osteoporotic fracture risk assessed by the FRAX tool [60]. Finally, that osteoporotic BMD is not required for fracture reduction was more recently demonstrated in a study of 18-monthly infusions of zoledronate in women age 70 or older with BMD-defined osteopenia [61].
Effectiveness of the screening program
The proposed screening program is based on the randomised, controlled SCOOP study [23]. Two additional randomised studies, namely the Risk-stratified Osteoporosis Strategy Evaluation study (ROSE) from Denmark [62] and the SALT Osteoporosis Study (SOS) from the Netherlands [63], have also used FRAX-based approaches for population screening. The design and screening approaches used in these trials have been published previously and are outlined in Table 2.
Overall, of the screened women in each of the studies, the proportion identified as requiring treatment was similar in ROSE (13.3%) and SCOOP (14.4%), but was higher in SOS (25%).
Bearing in mind the relatively small proportions recommended for treatment, none of the three studies individually showed a significant overall reduction in the incidence of osteoporotic fractures, but a meta-analysis of all three studies showed a small but significant 5% reduction (HR 0.95, 95%CI 0.89–1.00) [19]. When the analysis was confined to major osteoporotic fractures, screening resulted in a 9–10% significant decrease (Fig. 2B) [20]. More importantly, the largest impact of the three studies combined was on the rate of hip fractures; again bearing in mind the relatively small proportion treated, the meta-analysis showed a 20% reduction (HR 0.80, 95%CI 0.71–0.91) in hip fractures (Fig. 2A) [19]. In the pooled cohorts, the numbers needed to screen (NNS) and treat (NNT) for hip fractures were 272 and 28 respectively. The meta-analysis clearly showed population screening to be effective, with the biggest reduction observed in the outcome of hip fracture, leading the authors to conclude that implementation of screening in older women should be considered a serious option.
Several cost-effectiveness analyses of potential population screening strategies in osteoporosis have been published over the last 20 years, but relatively few have been tested in randomized controlled trials [64,65,66]. Of the three recent randomised controlled studies using FRAX, only the SCOOP study has published cost-effectiveness analyses to date. A recent analysis using a well-established health economic Markov model study design, and populated with costs derived from the SCOOP study, was found to be cost-saving. The analysis reported that for every 1000 women screened, 9 hip fractures and 20 non-hip fractures would be saved over the remaining lifetime (mean 14 years), with a cost reduction or saving of £286 in comparison to usual management. Thus, the opportunity costs of the screening program are low or even cost-saving, and are comparable to or better than many public health measures [67] or other established screening programs [68, 69].
Conclusion
The IOF EpiQOL Working Group has recently assessed the potential of a program that screens for high hip fracture risk in the community against criteria set by the UK National Screening Committee. In this editorial, we have summarized the performance of the proposed screening program against the four established key criteria of condition, test, treatment and effectiveness. We would contend that a program based on self-reported assessment of FRAX 10-year probability of hip fracture with subsequent measurement of femoral neck BMD where appropriate, and treatment with licensed treatments predominantly oral bisphosphonates, fulfils these criteria. The data considered here and conclusions drawn should be of value in many healthcare settings, and research should now focus on strategies for optimal implementation of this approach. Transitioning towards screening to improve identification of hip fracture risk in older women in primary care (e.g., enhanced case-finding) will also have a positive impact on the burden of this most serious of osteoporotic fractures.
References
British Orthopaedic Association (2007) The care of patients with fragility fracture. Available at: http://www.boaacuk/Publications/Documents/TheCareofPatientswithFragilityFracturepdf. Accessed 18 Aug 2021
Neuburger J, Currie C, Wakeman R, Tsang C, Plant F, De Stavola B, Cromwell DA, van der Meulen J (2015) The impact of a national clinician-led audit initiative on care and mortality after hip fracture in England: an external evaluation using time trends in non-audit data. Med Care 53:686–691
Chesser TJS, Inman D, Johansen A et al (2020) Hip fracture systems-European experience. OTA Int 3:e050
Tarrrant SM, Ajgaonkar A, Babhulkar S et al (2020) Hip fracture care and national systems: Australia and Asia. OTA Int 3:e058
Marsh D, Akesson K, Beaton DE et al (2011) Coordinator-based systems for secondary prevention in fragility fracture patients. Osteoporos Int 22:2051–2065
Akesson K, Marsh D, Mitchell PJ, McLellan AR, Stenmark J, Pierroz DD, Kyer C, Cooper C, Group IOFFW (2013) Capture the fracture: a best practice framework and global campaign to break the fragility fracture cycle. Osteoporos Int 24:2135–2152
Majumdar SR, McAlister FA, Johnson JA et al (2018) Comparing strategies targeting osteoporosis to prevent fractures after an upper extremity fracture (C-STOP Trial): a randomized controlled trial. J Bone Miner Res 33:2114–2121
Majumdar SR, Johnson JA, McAlister FA, Bellerose D, Russell AS, Hanley DA, Morrish DW, Maksymowych WP, Rowe BH (2008) Multifaceted intervention to improve diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis in patients with recent wrist fracture: a randomized controlled trial. CMAJ 178:569–575
Majumdar SR, Rowe BH, Folk D et al (2004) A controlled trial to increase detection and treatment of osteoporosis in older patients with a wrist fracture. Ann Intern Med 141:366–373
Axelsson KF, Johansson H, Lundh D, Moller M, Lorentzon M (2020) Association between recurrent fracture risk and implementation of fracture liaison services in four swedish hospitals: a cohort study. J Bone Miner Res 35:1216–1223
Javaid MK (2021) Efficacy and efficiency of fracture liaison services to reduce the risk of recurrent osteoporotic fractures. Aging Clin Exp Res 33:2061–2067
McCloskey E, Rathi J, Heijmans S et al (2021) The osteoporosis treatment gap in patients at risk of fracture in European primary care: a multi-country cross-sectional observational study. Osteoporos Int 32:251–259
Skjodt MK, Ernst MT, Khalid S et al (2021) The treatment gap after major osteoporotic fractures in Denmark 2005–2014: a combined analysis including both prescription-based and hospital-administered anti-osteoporosis medications. Osteoporos Int 32:1961–1971
Galli S, Weiss D, Beck A, Scerpella T (2021) Osteoporosis care gap after hip fracture - worse with low healthcare access and quality. J Clin Densitom S1094–6950(21)00076–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocd.2021.09.002
Nakatoh S, Fujimori K, Ishii S, Tamaki J, Okimoto N, Ogawa S, Iki M (2021) Insufficient persistence to pharmacotherapy in Japanese patients with osteoporosis: an analysis of the National Database of Health Insurance Claims and Specific Health Checkups in Japan. Arch Osteoporos 16:131
Kanis JA, Cooper C, Rizzoli R et al (2017) Identification and management of patients at increased risk of osteoporotic fracture: outcomes of an ESCEO expert consensus meeting. Osteoporos Int 28:2023–2034
UK National Screening Committee (2019) Screening for Osteoporosis in Postmenopausal Women 08 November 2019. https://view-health-screening-recommendations.service.gov.uk/osteoporosis/. Accessed 18 Aug 2021
EUnetHTA OTCA19 Assessment Team (2019) Screening for osteoporosis in the general population. Collaborative Assessment. Diemen (The Netherlands): EUnetHTA; 2019. Report No.: OTCA19. Available from https://www.eunethta.eu. Accessed 18 Aug 2021
Merlijn T, Swart KMA, van der Horst HE, Netelenbos JC, Elders PJM (2020) Fracture prevention by screening for high fracture risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Osteoporos Int 31:251–257
Chotiyarnwong P, McCloskey EV, Harvey NC et al (2022) Is it time to consider population screening for fracture risk in postmenopausal women? A position paper from the International Osteoporosis Foundation Epidemiology/Quality of Life Working Group. Arch Osteoporos (submitted)
Wilson JMG, Jungner G (1968) Principles and practice of screening for disease. World Health Organization https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/37650. Accessed 18 Aug 2021
Shepstone L, Fordham R, Lenaghan E et al (2012) A pragmatic randomised controlled trial of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of screening older women for the prevention of fractures: rationale, design and methods for the SCOOP study. Osteoporos Int 23:2507–2515
Shepstone L, Lenaghan E, Cooper C et al (2018) Screening in the community to reduce fractures in older women (SCOOP): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 391:741–747
McCloskey E, Johansson H, Harvey NC et al (2018) Management of patients with high baseline hip fracture risk by FRAX reduces hip fractures-a post hoc analysis of the SCOOP study. J Bone Miner Res 33:1020–1026
Parsons CM, Harvey N, Shepstone L et al (2019) Systematic screening using FRAX((R)) leads to increased use of, and adherence to, anti-osteoporosis medications: an analysis of the UK SCOOP trial. Osteoporos Int
Turner DA, Khioe RFS, Shepstone L et al (2018) The cost-effectiveness of screening in the community to reduce osteoporotic fractures in older women in the UK: Economic Evaluation of the SCOOP Study. J Bone Miner Res 33:845–851
Kanis JA, Oden A, McCloskey EV, Johansson H, Wahl DA, Cooper C (2012) A systematic review of hip fracture incidence and probability of fracture worldwide. Osteoporos Int 23:2239–2256
Leslie WD, Morin S (2011) Fracture burden in relation to low bone mineral density and FRAX((R)) probability. J Clin Densitom 14:279–285
Svedbom A, Ivergard M, Hernlund E, Rizzoli R, Kanis JA (2014) Epidemiology and economic burden of osteoporosis in Switzerland. Arch Osteoporos 9:187
Kanis JA, Norton N, Harvey NC, Jacobson T, Johansson H, Lorentzon M, McCloskey EV, Willers C, Borgstrom F (2021) SCOPE 2021: a new scorecard for osteoporosis in Europe. Arch Osteoporos 16:82
Borgstrom F, Karlsson L, Ortsater G et al (2020) Fragility fractures in Europe: burden, management and opportunities. Arch Osteoporos 15:59
Kanis JA, Oden A, Johnell O, Jonsson B, de Laet C, Dawson A (2001) The burden of osteoporotic fractures: a method for setting intervention thresholds. Osteoporos Int 12:417–427
WHO (1994) Assessment of fracture risk and its application to screening for postmenopausal osteoporosis. World Health Organization, Geneva
US Preventive Services Task Force (2011) Screening for osteoporosis: U.S. preventive services task force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 154:356–364
US Preventive Services Task Force (2018) Screening for osteoporosis to prevent fractures. US preventive services task force recommendation statement. JAMA 319(24):2521–2531. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama20187498
Kanis JA, Harvey NC, Cooper C, Johansson H, Oden A, McCloskey EV, Advisory Board of the National Osteoporosis Guideline G (2016) A systematic review of intervention thresholds based on FRAX: a report prepared for the National Osteoporosis Guideline Group and the International Osteoporosis Foundation. Arch Osteoporos 11:25
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2012) NICE Clinical Guideline 146. Osteoporosis: assessing the risk of fragility fracture. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg146. Accessed 18 Aug 2021
Leslie WD, Lix LM (2014) Comparison between various fracture risk assessment tools. Osteoporos Int 25:1–21
Marques A, Ferreira RJ, Santos E, Loza E, Carmona L, da Silva JA (2015) The accuracy of osteoporotic fracture risk prediction tools: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Rheum Dis 74:1958–1967
Viswanathan M, Reddy S, Berkman N, Cullen K, Middleton JC, Nicholson WK, Kahwati LC (2018) Screening to prevent osteoporotic fractures: updated evidence report and systematic review for the US preventive services task force. JAMA 319:2532–2551
Nayak S, Edwards DL, Saleh AA, Greenspan SL (2015) Systematic review and meta-analysis of the performance of clinical risk assessment instruments for screening for osteoporosis or low bone density. Osteoporos Int 26:1543–1554
Kanis JA, Oden A, Johansson H, McCloskey E (2012) Pitfalls in the external validation of FRAX. Osteoporos Int 23:423–431
Dagan N, Cohen-Stavi C, Leventer-Roberts M, Balicer RD (2017) External validation and comparison of three prediction tools for risk of osteoporotic fractures using data from population based electronic health records: retrospective cohort study. BMJ 356:i6755
Cummings SR, Nevitt MC (1989) A hypothesis: the causes of hip fractures. J Gerontol 44:M107-111
Gillespie LD, Robertson MC, Gillespie WJ, Sherrington C, Gates S, Clemson LM, Lamb SE (2012) Interventions for preventing falls in older people living in the community. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012(9):CD007146. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007146.pub3
Bhasin S, Gill TM, Reuben DB et al (2020) A randomized trial of a multifactorial strategy to prevent serious fall injuries. N Engl J Med 383:129–140
Lamb SE, Bruce J, Hossain A et al (2020) Screening and intervention to prevent falls and fractures in older people. N Engl J Med 383:1848–1859
Guirguis-Blake JM, Michael YL, Perdue LA, Coppola EL, Beil TL (2018) Interventions to prevent falls in older adults: updated evidence report and systematic review for the US preventive services task force. JAMA 319:1705–1716
Crandall CJ, Newberry SJ, Diamant A, Lim YW, Gellad WF, Booth MJ, Motala A, Shekelle PG (2014) Comparative effectiveness of pharmacologic treatments to prevent fractures: an updated systematic review. Ann Intern Med 161:711–723
Black DM, Cummings SR, Karpf DB et al (1996) Randomised trial of effect of alendronate on risk of fracture in women with existing vertebral fractures Fracture Intervention Trial Research Group. Lancet 348:1535–1541
McClung MR, Geusens P, Miller PD et al (2001) Effect of risedronate on the risk of hip fracture in elderly women. Hip Intervention Program Study Group. N Engl J Med 344:333–340
Black DM, Delmas PD, Eastell R et al (2007) Once-yearly zoledronic acid for treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. N Engl J Med 356:1809–1822
Kendler DL, Marin F, Zerbini CAF et al (2018) Effects of teriparatide and risedronate on new fractures in post-menopausal women with severe osteoporosis (VERO): a multicentre, double-blind, double-dummy, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 391:230–240
Saag KG, Petersen J, Brandi ML, Karaplis AC, Lorentzon M, Thomas T, Maddox J, Fan M, Meisner PD, Grauer A (2017) Romosozumab or alendronate for fracture prevention in women with osteoporosis. N Engl J Med 377:1417–1427
Cosman F, Nieves JW, Dempster DW (2017) Treatment sequence matters: anabolic and antiresorptive therapy for osteoporosis. J Bone Miner Res 32:198–202
Kanis JA, Harvey NC, McCloskey E, Bruyere O, Veronese N, Lorentzon M, ... Reginster J (2019) Algorithm for the management of patients at low, high and very high risk of osteoporotic fractures. Osteoporos Int 31(1):1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-019-05176-3
Rossouw JE, Anderson GL, Prentice RL et al (2002) Risks and benefits of estrogen plus progestin in healthy postmenopausal women: principal results From the Women’s Health Initiative randomized controlled trial. JAMA 288:321–333
Cauley JA, Robbins J, Chen Z et al (2003) Effects of estrogen plus progestin on risk of fracture and bone mineral density: the Women’s Health Initiative randomized trial. JAMA 290:1729–1738
McCloskey EV, Beneton M, Charlesworth D et al (2007) Clodronate reduces the incidence of fractures in community-dwelling elderly women unselected for osteoporosis: results of a double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized study. J Bone Miner Res 22:135–141
McCloskey EV, Johansson H, Oden A, Vasireddy S, Kayan K, Pande K, Jalava T, Kanis JA (2009) Ten-year fracture probability identifies women who will benefit from clodronate therapy–additional results from a double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised study. Osteoporos Int 20:811–817
Reid IR, Horne AM, Mihov B, Stewart A, Garratt E, Wong S, Wiessing KR, Bolland MJ, Bastin S, Gamble GD (2018) Fracture Prevention with zoledronate in older women with osteopenia. N Engl J Med 379:2407–2416
Rubin KH, Rothmann MJ, Holmberg T et al (2018) Effectiveness of a two-step population-based osteoporosis screening program using FRAX: the randomized Risk-stratified Osteoporosis Strategy Evaluation (ROSE) study. Osteoporos Int 29:567–578
Merlijn T, Swart KM, van Schoor NM et al (2019) The effect of a screening and treatment program for the prevention of fractures in older women: a randomized pragmatic trial. J Bone Miner Res 34:1993–2000
Kanis JA, Dawson A, Oden A, Johnell O, de Laet C, Jonsson B (2001) Cost-effectiveness of preventing hip fracture in the general female population. Osteoporos Int 12:356–361
Torgerson DJ, Thomas RE, Campbell MK, Reid DM (1997) Randomized trial of osteoporosis screening. Use of hormone replacement therapy and quality-of-life results. Arch Intern Med 157:2121–2125
Barr RJ, Stewart A, Torgerson DJ, Reid DM (2010) Population screening for osteoporosis risk: a randomised control trial of medication use and fracture risk. Osteoporos Int 21:561–568
Owen L, Pennington B, Fischer A, Jeong K (2017) The cost-effectiveness of public health interventions examined by NICE from 2011 to 2016. J Public Health 40(3):557–566. https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdx119
Pharoah PD, Sewell B, Fitzsimmons D, Bennett HS, Pashayan N (2013) Cost effectiveness of the NHS breast screening programme: life table model. BMJ 346:f2618
Lee D, Muston D, Sweet A, Cunningham C, Slater A, Lock K (2010) Cost effectiveness of CT colonography for UK NHS colorectal cancer screening of asymptomatic adults aged 60–69 years. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 8(13):141–154
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Consortia
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflicts of interest
E.V.M reports consultant/advisor fees, speaker honoraria and or, research funding from AgNovos, Amgen, Consilient Healthcare, Fresenius Kabi, Gedeon Richter, Internis, Lilly, Novartis, ObsEva, Synexus, and UCB, all outside the submitted work.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
This narrative article contains no original data and thus issues of ethics, informed consent and patient confidentiality do not apply.
E.M.C. reports lecture fees and travel support from Eli Lilly, Pfizer and UCB, outside the submitted work.
N.C.H. reports personal fees, consultancy, lecture fees and honoraria from Alliance for Better Bone Health, AMGEN, MSD, Eli Lilly, UCB, Kyowa Kirin, Servier, Shire, Consilient Healthcare and Internis Pharma, outside the submitted work.
J.A.K. reports a grant from UCB, outside the submitted work. He is the architect of FRAX® but has no financial interest.
C.C. reports personal fees from ABBH, Amgen, Eli Lilly, GSK, Medtronic, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Servier and Takeda, outside the submitted work.
B.A. reports grants and personal fees from UCB, personal fees from Amgen, grants from Novartis, grants and personal fees from Pharma-cosmos, grants and personal fees from Kyowa Kirin, personal fees for Gedeon Richter outside the submitted work. BA also serves on the NovoNordisk Foundation Grants Committee on Endocrinology and Metabolism.
M.L. reports lecture fees from Amgen, Astellas, Lilly, Meda, Renapharma, and UCB Pharma and consulting fees from Amgen, Radius Health, UCB Pharma, Renapharma, and Consilient Health, outside the submitted work.
D.P-A. reports institutional receipt of speaker fees from AMGEN and UCB Biopharma; consultancy fees from UCB Biopharma; research grants from UCB, Amgen, and Les Laboratoires Servier, all outside of the submitted work.
J. A. reports grants and personal fees from Amgen outside the submitted work, grants from Radius and has been an advisor to Gilead and is part of their speaker’s bureau, outside the submitted work.
F.B. is employed and is a shareholder in Quantify Research, a health economic research consultancy, outside of the submitted work.
O.B. reports grant support from IBSA, MSD, Nutraveris, Novartis, Pfizer, Rottapharm, Servier, and Theramex; consulting or lecture fees from Bayer, Genevrier, IBSA, Rottapharm, Servier, SMB and TRB Chemedica; all outside the submitted work.
All other authors have no relevant conflicts of interest in relation to the submitted work.
Additional information
Publisher's note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
McCloskey, E.V., Chotiyarnwong, P., Harvey, N.C. et al. Population screening for fracture risk in postmenopausal women — a logical step in reducing the osteoporotic fracture burden?. Osteoporos Int 33, 1631–1637 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-022-06419-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-022-06419-6