19
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Opportunistic diagnosis of osteoporosis, fragile bone strength and vertebral fractures from routine CT scans; a review of approved technology systems and pathways to implementation

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Osteoporosis causes bones to become weak, porous and fracture more easily. While a vertebral fracture is the archetypal fracture of osteoporosis, it is also the most difficult to diagnose clinically. Patients often suffer further spine or other fractures, deformity, height loss and pain before diagnosis. There were an estimated 520,000 fragility fractures in the United Kingdom (UK) in 2017 (costing £4.5 billion), a figure set to increase 30% by 2030. One way to improve both vertebral fracture identification and the diagnosis of osteoporosis is to assess a patient’s spine or hips during routine computed tomography (CT) scans. Patients attend routine CT for diagnosis and monitoring of various medical conditions, but the skeleton can be overlooked as radiologists concentrate on the primary reason for scanning. More than half a million CT scans done each year in the National Health Service (NHS) could potentially be screened for osteoporosis (increasing 5% annually). If CT-based screening became embedded in practice, then the technique could have a positive clinical impact in the identification of fragility fracture and/or low bone density. Several companies have developed software methods to diagnose osteoporosis/fragile bone strength and/or identify vertebral fractures in CT datasets, using various methods that include image processing, computational modelling, artificial intelligence and biomechanical engineering concepts. Technology to evaluate Hounsfield units is used to calculate bone density, but not necessarily bone strength. In this rapid evidence review, we summarise the current literature underpinning approved technologies for opportunistic screening of routine CT images to identify fractures, bone density or strength information. We highlight how other new software technologies have become embedded in NHS clinical practice (having overcome barriers to implementation) and highlight how the novel osteoporosis technologies could follow suit. We define the key unanswered questions where further research is needed to enable the adoption of these technologies for maximal patient benefit.

          Related collections

          Most cited references83

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Osteoporosis

          Fractures resulting from osteoporosis become increasingly common in women after age 55 years and men after age 65 years, resulting in substantial bone-associated morbidities, and increased mortality and health-care costs. Research advances have led to a more accurate assessment of fracture risk and have increased the range of therapeutic options available to prevent fractures. Fracture risk algorithms that combine clinical risk factors and bone mineral density are now widely used in clinical practice to target high-risk individuals for treatment. The discovery of key pathways regulating bone resorption and formation has identified new approaches to treatment with distinctive mechanisms of action. Osteoporosis is a chronic condition and long-term, sometimes lifelong, management is required. In individuals at high risk of fracture, the benefit versus risk profile is likely to be favourable for up to 10 years of treatment with bisphosphonates or denosumab. In people at a very high or imminent risk of fracture, therapy with teriparatide or abaloparatide should be considered; however, since treatment duration with these drugs is restricted to 18-24 months, treatment should be continued with an antiresorptive drug. Individuals at high risk of fractures do not receive adequate treatment and strategies to address this treatment gap-eg, widespread implementation of Fracture Liaison Services and improvement of adherence to therapy-are important challenges for the future.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Beyond Adoption: A New Framework for Theorizing and Evaluating Nonadoption, Abandonment, and Challenges to the Scale-Up, Spread, and Sustainability of Health and Care Technologies

            Background Many promising technological innovations in health and social care are characterized by nonadoption or abandonment by individuals or by failed attempts to scale up locally, spread distantly, or sustain the innovation long term at the organization or system level. Objective Our objective was to produce an evidence-based, theory-informed, and pragmatic framework to help predict and evaluate the success of a technology-supported health or social care program. Methods The study had 2 parallel components: (1) secondary research (hermeneutic systematic review) to identify key domains, and (2) empirical case studies of technology implementation to explore, test, and refine these domains. We studied 6 technology-supported programs—video outpatient consultations, global positioning system tracking for cognitive impairment, pendant alarm services, remote biomarker monitoring for heart failure, care organizing software, and integrated case management via data sharing—using longitudinal ethnography and action research for up to 3 years across more than 20 organizations. Data were collected at micro level (individual technology users), meso level (organizational processes and systems), and macro level (national policy and wider context). Analysis and synthesis was aided by sociotechnically informed theories of individual, organizational, and system change. The draft framework was shared with colleagues who were introducing or evaluating other technology-supported health or care programs and refined in response to feedback. Results The literature review identified 28 previous technology implementation frameworks, of which 14 had taken a dynamic systems approach (including 2 integrative reviews of previous work). Our empirical dataset consisted of over 400 hours of ethnographic observation, 165 semistructured interviews, and 200 documents. The final nonadoption, abandonment, scale-up, spread, and sustainability (NASSS) framework included questions in 7 domains: the condition or illness, the technology, the value proposition, the adopter system (comprising professional staff, patient, and lay caregivers), the organization(s), the wider (institutional and societal) context, and the interaction and mutual adaptation between all these domains over time. Our empirical case studies raised a variety of challenges across all 7 domains, each classified as simple (straightforward, predictable, few components), complicated (multiple interacting components or issues), or complex (dynamic, unpredictable, not easily disaggregated into constituent components). Programs characterized by complicatedness proved difficult but not impossible to implement. Those characterized by complexity in multiple NASSS domains rarely, if ever, became mainstreamed. The framework showed promise when applied (both prospectively and retrospectively) to other programs. Conclusions Subject to further empirical testing, NASSS could be applied across a range of technological innovations in health and social care. It has several potential uses: (1) to inform the design of a new technology; (2) to identify technological solutions that (perhaps despite policy or industry enthusiasm) have a limited chance of achieving large-scale, sustained adoption; (3) to plan the implementation, scale-up, or rollout of a technology program; and (4) to explain and learn from program failures.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Osteoporosis in the European Union: medical management, epidemiology and economic burden

              Summary This report describes the epidemiology, burden, and treatment of osteoporosis in the 27 countries of the European Union (EU27). Introduction Osteoporosis is characterized by reduced bone mass and disruption of bone architecture, resulting in increased risk of fragility fractures which represent the main clinical consequence of the disease. Fragility fractures are associated with substantial pain and suffering, disability and even death for affected patients and substantial costs to society. The aim of this report was to characterize the burden of osteoporosis in the EU27 in 2010 and beyond. Methods The literature on fracture incidence and costs of fractures in the EU27 was reviewed and incorporated into a model estimating the clinical and economic burden of osteoporotic fractures in 2010. Results Twenty-two million women and 5.5 million men were estimated to have osteoporosis; and 3.5 million new fragility fractures were sustained, comprising 610,000 hip fractures, 520,000 vertebral fractures, 560,000 forearm fractures and 1,800,000 other fractures (i.e. fractures of the pelvis, rib, humerus, tibia, fibula, clavicle, scapula, sternum and other femoral fractures). The economic burden of incident and prior fragility fractures was estimated at € 37 billion. Incident fractures represented 66 % of this cost, long-term fracture care 29 % and pharmacological prevention 5 %. Previous and incident fractures also accounted for 1,180,000 quality-adjusted life years lost during 2010. The costs are expected to increase by 25 % in 2025. The majority of individuals who have sustained an osteoporosis-related fracture or who are at high risk of fracture are untreated and the number of patients on treatment is declining. Conclusions In spite of the high social and economic cost of osteoporosis, a substantial treatment gap and projected increase of the economic burden driven by the aging populations, the use of pharmacological interventions to prevent fractures has decreased in recent years, suggesting that a change in healthcare policy is warranted.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Ther Adv Musculoskelet Dis
                Ther Adv Musculoskelet Dis
                TAB
                sptab
                Therapeutic Advances in Musculoskeletal Disease
                SAGE Publications (Sage UK: London, England )
                1759-720X
                1759-7218
                10 July 2021
                2021
                : 13
                : 1759720X211024029
                Affiliations
                [1-1759720X211024029]Kingston Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Kingston Upon Thames, UK
                [2-1759720X211024029]Health Evidence Matters, Bristol, UK
                [3-1759720X211024029]Imperial College London, London, UK
                [4-1759720X211024029]The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
                [5-1759720X211024029]The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
                [6-1759720X211024029]University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
                [7-1759720X211024029]Department of Medicine, UK
                [8-1759720X211024029]Birmingham Women’s and Children’s NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK
                [9-1759720X211024029]University of Aberdeen School of Medicine Medical Sciences and Nutrition, Aberdeen, UK
                [10-1759720X211024029]The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
                [11-1759720X211024029]University of Southampton Faculty of Medicine, Southampton, UK
                [12-1759720X211024029]University of Southampton, Southampton, Hampshire, UK
                [13-1759720X211024029]University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Addenbrooke’s Hospital, NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK
                Author notes
                [*]

                Joint first authors

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3641-6388
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6328-4560
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4546-7352
                Article
                10.1177_1759720X211024029
                10.1177/1759720X211024029
                8274099
                34290831
                97c20d94-c8b0-41bf-b193-a30d55965cf3
                © The Author(s), 2021

                This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page ( https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).

                History
                : 17 November 2020
                : 18 May 2021
                Funding
                Funded by: research for patient benefit programme, FundRef https://doi.org/10.13039/501100009128;
                Award ID: PB_PG_0816_20027
                Funded by: royal osteoporosis society, FundRef https://doi.org/10.13039/501100013703;
                Award ID: Osteoporosis and Bone Research Academy
                Funded by: nihr cambridge biomedical research centre, FundRef https://doi.org/10.13039/501100018956;
                Award ID: BRC-1215-20014
                Categories
                Review
                Custom metadata
                January-December 2021
                ts1

                artificial intelligence,computed tomography,epidemiology,fragility fracture,innovation,osteoporosis,qct,screening,technology,vertebral fracture

                Comments

                Comment on this article