Risk-stratified Osteoporosis Strategy Evaluation Study (ROSE) (ROSE)
|Study Design:||Allocation: Randomized
Intervention Model: Parallel Assignment
Masking: Single Blind (Participant)
Primary Purpose: Screening
|Official Title:||Risk-stratified Osteoporosis Strategy Evaluation Study (ROSE)|
- The effect of screening for osteoporosis with a two-step programme involving FRAX risk score followed by DXA for the prevention of hip fracture and other osteoporosis-related fracture events [ Time Frame: Three years follow-up on average ]Comparison of register data concerning hospitalizations for primarily hip fracture between the intervention and control group as a whole. Power calculations suggest three years of followup on average, but this time frame could be increased if participation falls short.
- Cost-effectiveness / cost-utility of a two-step screening programme. [ Time Frame: Three years follow-up on average ]Comparison of register-based health related costs due to antiosteoporotic medications combined with generated costs due to hospitalizations for osteoporosis-related fractures. Follow-up time is defined by the primary outcome measure
|Study Start Date:||January 2010|
|Estimated Study Completion Date:||January 2020|
|Estimated Primary Completion Date:||January 2017 (Final data collection date for primary outcome measure)|
Active Comparator: Screening
Two-step screening process using FRAX risk score assessment followed by DXA scanning for high risk participants.
Screening by risk factor assessment (FRAX) followed by DXA
Other Name: DXA scan
Control arm - Fracture risk assessment by FRAX without any intervention
Observation by use of register data
Osteoporosis is highly prevalent especially in postmenopausal women. Approximately 46 % of all women will suffer at least one osteoporotic fracture after the age of 50. The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) and National Osteoporosis Foundation (NOF) recommend screening with dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) in all women aged 65 years and above regardless of risk factors. Nevertheless, the use of clinical risk factors has been shown to enhance the risk-gradient and accuracy of fracture risk prediction. The FRAX risk assessment score was derived from large population-based cohorts and validated in separate validation cohorts. Its use as a risk assessment tool is endorsed by WHO, but no prospective studies examining the effect of a screening programme using a combination of FRAX and DXA in a two-step manner have been performed previously.
35,000 women aged 65-80 years were selected at random from the population in the Region of Southern Denmark and —before inclusion—randomised to either a screening group or a control group. As first step, a self- administered questionnaire regarding risk factors for osteoporosis based on FRAX® was issued to both groups. As second step, subjects in the screening group with a 10-year probability of major osteoporotic fractures ≥15 % were offered a DXA scan. Patients diagnosed with osteoporosis from the DXA scan were advised to see their GP and discuss pharmaceutical treatment according to Danish National guidelines.
The primary outcome is incident clinical fractures as evaluated through annual follow-up using the Danish National Patient Registry. The secondary outcomes are cost-effectiveness, participation rate and patient preferences. The aim of the ROSE study is to investigate the effectiveness of a two-step population based osteoporosis screening programme using FRAX® based on self-administered questionnaire to select women for DXA followed by the standard osteoporosis treatment according to national guidelines and delivered by GPs in the Region of Southern Denmark. Secondary aims are to clarify whether the screening programme is cost-effective and to assess the patients' preferences, experience and acceptance of the screening programme. Moreover, sub-studies allow assessment of the effectiveness of FRAX® alone or combined with individual clinical risk factors in the prediction of fractures and the impact of socioeconomic factors for participation and outcome.
Please refer to this study by its ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01388244
|Dept. of Endocrinology, Odense University Hospital|
|Odense, Denmark, 5000|
|Study Director:||Kim Brixen, Professor||University og Southern Denmark, Odense University Hospital, Denmark|