David C. Lee

With the goal of preventing more hip fractures, a next generation of the VirtuOst Biomechanical Computed Tomography (BCT) test was developed that integrates measurements from a clinical CT scan related to fall risk, impact force, and femoral strength, the three main determinants of hip fracture. Here, we introduce the test and validate it against BMD and FRAX. Our source population from a large healthcare system comprised of 341364 patients (≥65 yr) with an abdominal-pelvic CT during care. Using data from 3035 patients (1790 with hip fracture), we developed a “BCT Risk Score” (range: 0-100) having input risk factors of age, femoral strength, ratio of trabecular/cortical BMD, muscle area, intramuscular fat, FN volume, hip width, and posterior fat thickness. In a geographically distinct set of 2124 patients (1293 with hip fracture), we then compared the BCT Risk Score against a DXA-equivalent hip BMD T-score (lowest hip value, measured from the CT scan by VirtuOst) and FRAX hip fracture risk (with BMD but without parental fracture history) for predicting a first incident hip fracture within 5 yr. For the women, the c-statistic for predicting fracture was higher for BCT (0.89, 95% CI: 0.87-0.90) than for BMD (0.81, 0.79-0.84) or FRAX (0.85, 0.83-0.87). Using binary thresholds to identify high-risk patients, sensitivity for BCT (Risk Score ≥ 75) was higher than for BMD (T-score ≤ −2.5) and FRAX (hip risk ≥ 3.0%): 81.4% vs 47.8% vs 75.9%, respectively; positive predictive values confirmed comparable high-risk status (BCT 13.6% vs BMD 15.3% vs FRAX 12.7%). Similar trends were observed for the men, 2-yr outcomes, and identifying very-high-risk patients. We conclude that, compared to both BMD and FRAX, the integrative BCT test better predicted hip fracture and its high sensitivity should improve fracture prevention.

The increased hip fracture risk in individuals with type 1 (T1D) and type 2 (T2D) diabetes is not explained by areal BMD (aBMD), indicating that diabetes increases fracture risk through mechanisms independent of aBMD. To investigate, we used QCT to compare femoral strength, volumetric BMD (vBMD), and geometry in cadaveric femora from older adults with T1D (n = 23; 13 female) and T2D (n = 21; 11 female) to controls of similar age, sex, and race (n = 19; 11 female). While aBMD and vBMD measures were similar across groups, femoral strength was lower in the diabetic groups compared to controls. Geometric strength, based on external bone shape, was lower in T1D (−15%, p = .001) and T2D (−12%, p = .014) compared to controls. When combining geometry and density, femoral strength was significantly lower in T1D (−19%, p = .044). The strength-to-density ratio was also lower in T1D and T2D (p ≤ .013), indicating greater skeletal fragility in the diabetic groups beyond what is predicted by BMD. Diabetic groups had smaller bone size, including lower femoral neck volume (−8%, p ≤ .030), neck cross-sectional area (CSA) (−8%, p ≤ .030), and trochanter CSA (−7%, p ≤ .010). These findings suggest that lower femoral strength and smaller geometry contribute to elevated fracture risk in diabetes, warranting further study in larger populations.

Randomized trials have not been performed, and may never be, to determine if osteoporosis treatment prevents hip fracture in men. Addressing that evidence gap, we analyzed data from an observational study of new hip fractures in a large integrated healthcare system to compare the reduction in hip fractures associated with standard-of-care osteoporosis treatment in men versus women. Sampling from 271,389 patients aged ≥ 65 who had a hip-containing CT scan during care between 2005 and 2018, we selected all who subsequently had a first hip fracture (cases) after the CT scan (start of observation) and a sex-matched equal number of randomly selected patients. From those, we analyzed all who tested positive for osteoporosis (DXA-equivalent hip BMD T-score ≤ −2.5, measured from the CT scan using VirtuOst). We defined “treated” as at least six months of any osteoporosis medication by prescription fill data during follow-up; “not-treated” was no prescription fill. Sex-specific odds ratios of hip fracture for treated vs not-treated patients were calculated by logistic regression; adjustments included age, BMD T-score, BMD-treatment interaction, BMD, race/ethnicity, and seven baseline clinical risk factors. At two-year follow-up, 33.9% of the women (750/2,211 patients) and 24.0% of the men (175/728 patients) were treated primarily with alendronate; 51.3% and 66.3%, respectively, were not-treated; and 721 and 269, respectively, had a first hip fracture since the CT scan. Odds ratio of hip fracture for treated vs not-treated was 0.26 (95% confidence interval: 0.21–0.33) for women and 0.21 (0.13–0.34) for men; the ratio of these odds ratios (men:women) was 0.81 (0.47–1.37), indicating no significant sex effect. Various sensitivity and stratified analyses confirmed these trends, including results at five-year follow-up. Given these results and considering the relevant literature, we conclude that osteoporosis treatment prevents hip fracture similarly in both sexes.

Finite element analysis has not yet been validated for measuring changes in whole‐bone strength at the hip or spine in people after treatment with an osteoporosis agent. Toward that end, we assessed the ability of a clinically approved implementation of finite element analysis to correctly quantify treatment effects on vertebral strength, comparing against direct mechanical testing, in cynomolgus monkeys randomly assigned to one of three 16‐month‐long treatments: sham surgery with vehicle (Sham‐Vehicle), ovariectomy with vehicle (OVX‐Vehicle), or ovariectomy with denosumab (OVX‐DMAb). After treatment, T12 vertebrae were retrieved, scanned with micro‐CT, and mechanically tested to measure compressive strength. Blinded to the strength data and treatment codes, the micro‐CT images were coarsened and homogenized to create continuum‐type finite element models, without explicit porosity. With clinical translation in mind, these models were then analyzed for strength using the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)‐cleared VirtuOst software application (O.N. Diagnostics, Berkeley, CA, USA), developed for analysis of human bones. We found that vertebral strength by finite element analysis was highly correlated (R² = 0.97; n = 52) with mechanical testing, independent of treatment (p = 0.12). Further, the size of the treatment effect on strength (ratio of mean OVX‐DMAb to mean OVX‐Vehicle, as a percentage) was large and did not differ (p = 0.79) between mechanical testing (+57%; 95% CI [26%, 95%]) and finite element analysis (+51% [20%, 88%]). The micro‐CT analysis revealed increases in cortical thickness (+45% [19%, 73%]) and trabecular bone volume fraction (+24% [8%, 42%]). These results show that a preestablished clinical finite element analysis implementation—developed for human bone and clinically validated in fracture‐outcome studies—correctly quantified the observed treatment effects of denosumab on vertebral strength in cynomolgus monkeys. One implication is that the treatment effects in this study are well explained by the features contained within these finite element models, namely, the bone geometry and mass and the spatial distribution of bone mass. © 2016 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Advances continue to be made in our understanding of the biology of tendon repair, increasing the potential clinical applications of stem cell scaffold technology. Stem cell bearing suture is closest on the horizon, with studies using a rat Achilles tendon model showing increased early biomechanical strength. Further nanofiber technology and additional augmentation of stem cells through genetic engineering or exogenous growth factors show potential as the field continues to innovate. All of the studies reviewed here from the past year are limited to bench and animal models, but eventually, with appropriate safeguards in place, we anticipate a transition to clinical trials as evidence gradually accumulates. Until then, stem cell scaffold technology continues to offer orthopaedic surgeons the theoretical promise of effective, targeted delivery of biologic adjuvants for faster tendon healing and earlier rehabilitation.