Skeletal Age for mapping the impact of fracture on mortality

Study design

The Danish National Hospital Discharge Registry can be viewed as a retrospective population-based cohort. This analysis included all adults aged 50 years old and older as at 1 January 2001 in Denmark whose health status had been followed up until 31 December 2016 for mortality. Individuals who had sustained a fracture at 45+ years old between 1996 and 2000 were excluded to avoid potential bias that the incident fracture analysed in this study was a second fracture (Figure 1). This is not a clinical trial. 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.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1: Flowchart of recruitment and follow up

Ascertainment of fracture and mortality

The initial incident fracture was defined as the first low-trauma fracture reported between 1 January 2001 and 31 December 2014. When more than one fracture occurred during a single event, only the fracture at the most proximal site was considered. We used the International Statistical Classification of Disease and Related Health Problems, tenth version (ICD-10) codes to identify individuals with specific fracture sites including hip, femur, pelvis, vertebrae, humerus, rib, clavicle (collectively known as proximal fractures), forearm, lower leg, knee, ankle, foot and hand (collectively known as distal fractures) from the Danish NHDR (Table S1). Face, skull, finger or toe fractures and high-trauma fractures due to traffic accidents were excluded.

The study participants were followed up to 31 December 2016 for mortality, allowing at least two years of follow up post fracture. Death was ascertained from the Danish Register on Causes of Death.

Covariates assessment

The predefined covariates included age and comorbidities. We used the ICD-10 from the NHDR that includes any diagnosis documented between 1996 and 2000 to operationally define comorbidities at the study entry (i.e., 1 January 2001), and those within 5 years prior to the initial fracture to define comorbidities at fracture time. The severity of comorbidities was summarised using the Charlson index¹⁷.

Statistical analysis

Skeletal age is operationally defined as the sum of the chronological age and the change in life expectancy associated with fracture. The changes in life expectancy resulted from a specific fracture were computed incorporating (i) the association between individual fracture site and mortality from a Cox’s proportional hazards regression and (ii) the baseline hazards described by Gompertz distribution and the population life expectancy from the national lifetable data¹⁸.

First, a Cox’s proportional hazards regression was used to quantify the association between a specific fracture and mortality, in which both fracture and confounding variables were analysed in a time-dependent manner. The models adjusted for age and severity of comorbidities¹⁷. Age at baseline and that at the time of fracture were also used. For individuals without fracture, the follow-up time was calculated from the study entry to the study end (31 December 2016) or date of death, whichever came first; while their covariates at baseline were adjusted in the analysis model (Figure S1). By contrast, the follow-up time for those with an incident fracture was split into the pre- and post-fracture period for which the clustering effect was accounted for in the Cox’s proportional hazards regression. The pre-fracture period was the time interval between the study entry and date of fracture, and used the covariates at study entry; whereas the post-fracture period was between the date of fracture and date of death or study end, whichever came first, and included the covariates at the time of fracture. The proportional hazards assumption was graphically checked using the Schoenfeld’s residuals.

Second, we used the Gompertz law of mortality and the Danish national lifetable data to transform the fracture-mortality association into life expectancy as a result of a fracture¹⁸. The Gompertz law of mortality indicates the annual risk of dying at the age t can be expressed as h(t) = Be^kt in which B ∼ 0.0000189 in women and 0.0000347 in men¹⁹. Under the Gompertz law of mortality, the annual risk of dying associated with ageing one year is remarkably consistent between ages 50 and 95 across ethnicities and over time^{20 21}. Assuming the Gompertz baseline hazard, the log-hazards of mortality to specific fracture site i at the fracture time t is a+bt, where a and b are the estimated regression coefficients. The life expectancy for a specific fracture site at the fracture age z under the Gompertz distribution ,where E₁(b¹e^a+bz) denotes the exponential integral. The loss of life years associated with specific fracture site was then calculated as the difference between the estimate life expectancy associated with fracture e_G(a,b)(z) and the population life expectancy¹⁸. The skeletal age for each individual site of fracture was the sum of the individual’s chronological age at the time of fracture and the loss of life years as a result of the fracture. The 95% confidence interval of the skeletal age was computed using the confidence limits of the adjusted hazards ratios to account for uncertainty of the magnitude of association between individual site of fracture and mortality. The analyses were performed using Stata (Stata Statistical Software: Release 16. College Station, TX: StataCorp LLC) and the R statistical environment on a Windows platform²².

Patient involvement

This study was an analysis of routinely collected, pseudonymized registry data. Neither were patients involved in generation of the research question or development of the outcome measures, nor the design and conduct of the study. The results will be disseminated to public through the public relations department of the University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia.

Incidence of fractures

The present analysis was based on data from 793,815 men and 873,524 women aged 63.9 (standard deviation [SD] 10.3) and 65.5 (11.3) years old as at 1 January 2001 (Figure 1). During a median of 16 years of follow up (interquartile range [IQR]: 6.3, 16.0 years), 95,372 men and 212,498 women had sustained a fracture. The incidence of fractures was 10.9 fractures/1,000 person-years (95% confidence interval [CI]: 10.8, 11.0) in men and 23.2 fractures/1,000 person-years (23.1, 23.3) in women. Collectively, forearm, hip and humerus fractures accounted for 55% of all fractures in men and 70% in women.

As expected, men and women with a fracture were on average older than those without a fracture. Individuals with a fracture had more comorbidities than those who did not sustain a fracture (Table 1). For instance, the prevalence of myocardial infarction among patients with a fracture (9.3% in men and 4.7% in women) was higher than that among individuals without a fracture (4% in men and 1.5% in women). Similar trend was also observed for stroke, diabetes and cancer.

Incidence of mortality

During a median follow-up of 6.5 years (6.0 years (IQR: 2.5, 10.0) in men, 6.7 years (3.3, 10.8) in women), 272,524 men and 277,194 women had died, yielding mortality incidence rates of 6.55 deaths/100 person-years (95% CI: 6.48, 6.61) in men and 5.42 deaths/100 person-years (5.39, 5.46) in women. More importantly, the rate of mortality among patients with a fracture (5.4 per 100 person-years in men and 6.5 per 100 person-years in women) was greater than among those without a fracture (2.6 per 100 person-years in men and 2.2 per 100 person-years in women). Analysis by fracture site revealed that men and women with a fracture at the hip, pelvis or vertebra had a much greater risk of mortality than other fractures (Table 2).

However, the above observation could be confounded by age and comorbidities, because individuals with a fracture were on average older and had more comorbidities than those without a fracture. Therefore, we employed Cox’s proportional hazards model to estimate the strength of association between fracture and mortality, adjusting for age and comorbidities (Figure 2). Individuals with any fragility fracture was associated with 30-45% increased hazard of death (adjusted hazard ratio = 1.46 (95% CI: 1.45, 1.48) in men; 1.28 (1.27, 1.30) in women). For the same age and comorbidity profile, men and women with a hip or femur fracture had almost 2-fold greater risk of death than those without a fracture.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2: Association between specific fracture and mortality risk, adjusted for age and presence of comorbidities: hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval

The increased risk of mortality was also observed among those with a proximal fracture, such as pelvis, vertebrae, humerus, rib, clavicle, and lower leg fracture after controlling for age and comorbidities. However, there was no significantly increased risk of deaths following a forearm, knee or foot fracture (Figure 2).

Skeletal age

Based on the association between fracture and mortality and using the Gompertz law (see Methods), we estimated the skeletal age for each bone fracture and each chronological age (from the age of 50) in men and women (Figure 3, Table S2). Patients with a fracture -- any fracture at all -- have lost years of life, and hence their skeletal age was greater than their chronological age. For a given age, men with a fracture on average had greater skeletal age than women by approximately 1 year (54.2 vs 53.4 years). In either sex, the loss of years of life was more pronounced in younger age groups and gradually converged in the older age groups.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3: Skeletal age by specific fracture site and chronological age at fracture

Legend: dashed lines indicate perfect concordance between the chronological and skeletal ages; solid lines indicate the differences between the chronological age at the time of fracture and corresponding skeletal age for men (red) and women (blue).

As expected, patients with a hip fracture had the highest skeletal age than those with other fractures. For example, a 70-year-old man who had sustained a hip fracture would have a skeletal age of 75 years (e.g., a loss of 5 years of life); however, if a 50-year-old man with a hip fracture would have a skeletal age of 56.8 years which is equivalent to almost 7 years of life lost. Other fractures such as femur, pelvis, vertebrae, and humerus also signified a significant loss of years of life (around 5 years); thus, 50-year-old patients with one of these fractures are estimated to have a skeletal age of around 55 years.

However, fractures are the rib, clavicle and lower leg were associated with lower years of life lost, and the skeletal age of patients with one of these fractures was generally lower than patients with a more serious fracture (e.g., hip fracture). For instance, a 60-year-old patient with a lower leg fracture would be expected to have a skeletal age of 62.4 years for men or 61.9 years for women (Table S3).

Findings in context

Our finding confirmed the previous studies^23-28 that patients with a fragility fracture were associated with a significantly greater risk of mortality than their similarly aged and gender counterparts without fracture who had the same comorbidity profile. Our finding is also consistent with an earlier Danish study demonstrating reduced life expectancy in patients, with or without fractures, at the time of beginning osteoporosis treatment²⁹. However, the magnitude of the association between individual sites of fracture observed in our study is slightly lower than that documented in several previous cohort studies^24-28, with hip fractures being associated with 1.7-to-6-fold increased risk of death²⁷. This discrepancy could be due to the difference in study populations. While cohort studies usually recruit healthy participants, our national registry-based study was able to document all individuals in Denmark. As a result, our control group (i.e., those without a fracture) included individuals in poor health conditions with multiple comorbidities who are usually unable to be recruited in a cohort study.

Whether the association between fracture and mortality is causal or not is a matter of contention. It is commonly assumed that the association is confounded by comorbidities, but multiple studies have found that comorbidities contributed little to the excess risk of mortality among fractured patients^30,31. In the present analysis we have also adjusted for comorbidities, and the fracture - mortality remained unchanged, suggesting that the association is unlikely due to comorbidities. The Study of Osteoporotic Fracture³² found that women who died after a vertebral fracture often had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and pneumonia. Logically, if fracture is a causal factor that increases mortality risk, then treatment of patients with a fracture should reduce mortality risk, and that has been observed in a randomized controlled trial. Indeed, Lyles and colleagues showed that osteoporotic patients on zoledronic acid had a 28 per cent lower risk of all-cause mortality compared to those on placebo³³, which was confirmed by a subsequent re-analysis³⁴ that adjusted for baseline fracture risk. The beneficial effect of zoledronic acid on mortality was further observed in a recent study, in which osteopenic patients with a fracture on zoledronic acid had a lower risk of mortality (average relative risk reduction of 35 per cent) than those on placebo, although the difference did not reach the conventional statistical significance.

Regardless of the nature of the association, mortality is not a component of doctor-patient communication. Existing fracture risk assessment models such as Garvan³⁵ and FRAX³⁶ provide the probability (i.e., absolute risk) of fracture over a 10-year period without any information on mortality. However, doctors and patients have difficulty in understanding and interpreting probability¹⁰. Only a fifth of a sample of highly educated American adults could understand one in 1000 is equivalent to 0.01%³⁷. Conveying a low, though clinically significant absolute risk (e.g., “Your risk of hip fracture over the next 10 years is 5%”) might provide a false peace of mind and underestimated risk perception, leading to increasing possibilities of refusing the recommended treatment⁷. Thus, poor communication about fracture risk and mortality consequence might have contributed to the global crisis of undertreatment of osteoporosis.

Potential implications

Based on the concept of effective age, we proposed the idea of Skeletal Age as a new metric for communicating the risk of mortality following a fracture. Unlike relative risk and absolute risk metrics which are based on probability, skeletal age is a natural frequency metric that has been consistently shown to be easier and more friendly to doctors and patients^8,10,38. It is not straightforward to appreciate the importance of the two-fold increased risk of death (i.e., relative risk = 2.0) without knowing the background risk (i.e., 2 folds of 1% would remarkably differ from 2 folds of 10%). By contrast, for the same 2-fold mortality risk of hip fracture, telling a 60-year man with a hip fracture that his skeletal age would be 66 years old, equivalent to a 6-year loss of life, is more intuitive. In addition, the skeletal age can be also used to convey the possible benefit of treatment, providing an alternative metric to the conventional metrics such as relative risk or relative risk reduction. For instance, a patient might find the statement “Zoledronic acid treatment helps a patient with a hip fracture gain 3 years of life” much easier to understand and probably more persuasive than “Zoledronic acid treatment reduced the risk of death by 28%”³³.

Skeletal Age is an addition to the already available metrics such as “Heart Age”, “Lung Age”, and more recently “Covid Age” that have been demonstrated to be superior to the conventional risk metrics^39-43 in terms of positive behavioral changes. For instance, compared with usual care, individuals who were given heart age had a greater smoking cessation rate^41,42, substantial improvement in weight, body mass index and physical activity⁴¹ and greater proportion of high-risk patients returning for a follow-up appointment⁴⁰. The use of heart age also led to significantly greater improvement at 12 months in metabolic parameters⁴¹ or lipid profiles³⁹. A recent cluster randomised controlled trial in Norway also found that heart age was a good way to communicate cardiovascular risk and to motivate individuals to reduce cardiovascular risk factors⁴³. Similarly, the use of lung age could also lead to a clinically significant increase in the reported smoking cessation rates^44,45,46. Collectively, these data suggest that effective age metrics can help patients better understand their risk and lead to preventive changes.

Strengths and limitations of the study

Our findings should be interpreted within the context of their strengths and limitations. First, we included a whole-country population with long follow up and robust diagnostic data, minimizing potential selection bias and misclassification⁴⁷, and allowing us to examine mortality risk following individual fracture sites. Second, the current study analysed both fracture and covariates, such as aging and the presence of comorbidities in a time-dependent manner, making it statistically rigorous in minimizing an immortal bias and sufficiently accounting for confounding effects. The analysis thus provided accurate estimates of the association between specific fracture sites and mortality risk as it was able to control for confounding effects at both the study entry and the time of fracture.

However, the use of registry-based data, originally documented and coded for administrative or reimbursement purposes is prone to variable data accuracy, the lack of specific clinical information and non-medical factors⁴⁸. Fortunately, all essential study variables (i.e., comorbidities, fracture and death) were systematically obtained from the Danish NHDR that includes excellent, complete medical records and precise diagnoses for all individuals living in Denmark since 1995^49,50. The use of diagnosis-based comorbidities, though possibly associated with lower sensitivity than the self-reported ones⁵¹ is able to capture the severe health disorders that prompt the participants to seek for medical assistance. Secondly, the analyses could not make adjustments for lifestyle factors and physical activity, which are usually obtained in a cohort study. As they are closely related to aging and the presence of comorbidities which were already accounted for in our analysis, making further adjustments for these lifestyle factors is unlikely to substantially modify the findings.