Abstract
Objectives to propose a novel “Skeletal Age” metric as the age of an individual’s skeleton resulting from a fragility fracture to convey the combined risk of fracture and fracture-associated mortality for an individual with specific risk profile.
Design a retrospective population-based cohort study.
Setting hospital records from the Danish National Hospital Discharge Register that includes the whole-country data of all contacts to health care system.
Participants 1,667,339 adults in Denmark born on or before 1 January 1950, who were followed up to 31 December 2016 for incident low-trauma fracture and mortality.
Main outcome measures fracture and chronic diseases recorded within 5 years prior to the index fracture were identified using ICD-10 codes. Death was ascertained from the Danish Register on Causes of Death. We used Cox’s proportional hazards regression to estimate the hazard ratio of mortality following a fracture, and then used the Gompertz law of mortality to transform the hazard ratio into life expectancy for a specific fracture site. The difference between life expectancy associated with a fracture and background population life expectancy is regarded as the years of life lost. Skeletal age is then operationally defined as an individual’s current age plus the years of life lost.
Results during a median follow-up of 16.0 years, 95,372 men and 212,498 women sustained a fracture, followed by 41,017 and 81,727 deaths, respectively. A fracture was associated with 1 to 4 years of life lost dependent on fracture site, gender and age, with the greater loss being observed in younger men with a hip fracture. Hip, proximal and lower leg fractures, but not distal fractures, were associated with a substantial loss in life expectancy. A 60-year-old man with a hip fracture is expected to have a skeletal age of 66.1 years old (95% CI: 65.9, 66.2).
Conclusion we propose to use skeletal age as a metric to assess fracture risk for an individual and thus improve doctor-patient risk communication.
What have been known on this topic?Fragility fracture is associated with increased mortality risk, however it is currently underdiagnosed and undermanagement globally.
Despite the excess mortality after fracture, mortality is never a part of doctor-patient communication about treatment or risk assessment, due to a lack of an intuitive method of conveying risk as the traditional probability-based risk is counter-intuitive and hard to understand.
In engineering, “effective age” is the age of a structure based on its current conditions, and, in medicine, the effective age of an individual is the age of a typical healthy person who matches the specific risk profile of this individual.
What this study adds We advanced the concept of “Skeletal Age” as the age of an individual’s skeleton resulting from a fragility fracture using data from a nationwide cohort of 1.7 million adults aged 50+ years old in Denmark.
Unlike the existing probability-based risk metrics, skeletal age combines the risk that an individual will sustain a fracture and the risk of mortality once a fracture has occurred, making the doctor-patient communication more intuitive and possibly more effective.
Competing Interest Statement
Thach Tran, Thao Ho-Le, Dana Bliuc, and Louise Hansen have no competing interests to declare. Bo Abrahamsen has had institutional research contracts with UCB, Pharmacosmos and Novartis and received personal fees from UCB, Pharmacosmos and Amgen. Peter Vestergaard has received speaker fees and/or research contracts from Amgen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, MSD, UCB, and Servier. Jacqueline R Center has consulted for and/or given educational talks for Amgen, Actavis and Bayer. Tuan V. Nguyen has received honoraria for consulting and symposia from Merck Sharp and Dohme, Roche, Servier, Sanofi-Aventis, and Novartis.
Funding Statement
The study is supported in part by a grant from the National Health and Medical Research Council (APP1195305) and Amgen Competitive Grant Program (2019). Neither the funding sources nor the authors' institutions had any role in the study design; in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit this manuscript for publication.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This analysis (Statistics Denmark project number 706667) was approved by the National Board of Health, the Danish Data Protection Agency, and Statistics Denmark, and subject to independent control and monitoring by The Danish Health Data Authority. Written informed consent is waived for routinely collected, pseudonymized registry data.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Patient level data cannot be shared without approval from data custodians owing to local information governance and data protection regulations.
