Fracture risk assessment in patients prescribed pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV: An audit and comparative evaluation of screening tools.

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q4 IMMUNOLOGY
International Journal of STD & AIDS Pub Date : 2026-06-01 Epub Date: 2026-03-17 DOI:10.1177/09564624261436937
Quin Healey, Martyn Wood, Emily Clarke
{"title":"Fracture risk assessment in patients prescribed pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV: An audit and comparative evaluation of screening tools.","authors":"Quin Healey, Martyn Wood, Emily Clarke","doi":"10.1177/09564624261436937","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>BackgroundTenofovir disoproxil, a component of most pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV (PrEP), is associated with reduced bone mineral density. UK guidelines recommend assessing fracture risk for PrEP users aged over 50 years, and in 2025 QFracture joined FRAX as a suggested screening tool. Awareness of fracture risk supports decision making including the need for bone mineral density measurement or use of tenofovir alafenamide-based PrEP. We audited staff adherence to assessment and characterised the clinical impact, including any effect of screening tool choice.MethodsThis study reviewed the patient records of PrEP users at nine sexual health services in northwest England during January-April 2025 who met UK guideline criteria for osteoporosis risk assessment. FRAX and QFracture were calculated for each patient and used to determine clinical outcome.ResultsFracture risk assessment had been completed for 156/220 (71%) eligible patients. 6/15 (40%) indicated dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) scans had been requested. 129/220 (59%) patients had sufficient available data for inclusion in the comparison of FRAX and QFracture outcomes.10-year major osteoporotic fracture risk was significantly lower using QFracture (1.4%) compared to FRAX (3.5%; <i>p</i> < .001), as was the indication for DEXA scan (QFracture 0.8%, FRAX 11.6%; <i>p</i> < .001). Based on FRAX assessment, three patients were switched to PrEP containing tenofovir alafenamide and two started a bisphosphonate for osteoporosis. Use of QFracture would have missed both patients.ConclusionsChoice of screening tool impacts both estimated fracture risk and clinical outcome. FRAX may be preferable to QFracture due to increased sensitivity and may be more feasible by incorporating fewer variables. Fracture risk assessment in line with national guidelines supports best practice for patient case, and services should therefore audit practice and optimise processes to maximise staff adherence.</p>","PeriodicalId":14408,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of STD & AIDS","volume":" ","pages":"794-797"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2026-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of STD & AIDS","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09564624261436937","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/3/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"IMMUNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

BackgroundTenofovir disoproxil, a component of most pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV (PrEP), is associated with reduced bone mineral density. UK guidelines recommend assessing fracture risk for PrEP users aged over 50 years, and in 2025 QFracture joined FRAX as a suggested screening tool. Awareness of fracture risk supports decision making including the need for bone mineral density measurement or use of tenofovir alafenamide-based PrEP. We audited staff adherence to assessment and characterised the clinical impact, including any effect of screening tool choice.MethodsThis study reviewed the patient records of PrEP users at nine sexual health services in northwest England during January-April 2025 who met UK guideline criteria for osteoporosis risk assessment. FRAX and QFracture were calculated for each patient and used to determine clinical outcome.ResultsFracture risk assessment had been completed for 156/220 (71%) eligible patients. 6/15 (40%) indicated dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) scans had been requested. 129/220 (59%) patients had sufficient available data for inclusion in the comparison of FRAX and QFracture outcomes.10-year major osteoporotic fracture risk was significantly lower using QFracture (1.4%) compared to FRAX (3.5%; p < .001), as was the indication for DEXA scan (QFracture 0.8%, FRAX 11.6%; p < .001). Based on FRAX assessment, three patients were switched to PrEP containing tenofovir alafenamide and two started a bisphosphonate for osteoporosis. Use of QFracture would have missed both patients.ConclusionsChoice of screening tool impacts both estimated fracture risk and clinical outcome. FRAX may be preferable to QFracture due to increased sensitivity and may be more feasible by incorporating fewer variables. Fracture risk assessment in line with national guidelines supports best practice for patient case, and services should therefore audit practice and optimise processes to maximise staff adherence.

HIV暴露前预防患者骨折风险评估:筛查工具的审计和比较评价。
替诺福韦二氧吡酯是大多数HIV暴露前预防(PrEP)的一种成分,与骨密度降低有关。英国指南建议评估50岁以上PrEP使用者的骨折风险,QFracture于2025年加入FRAX,作为推荐的筛查工具。对骨折风险的认识支持决策,包括需要进行骨密度测量或使用替诺福韦阿拉芬胺为基础的PrEP。我们审核了员工对评估的依从性,并描述了临床影响,包括筛查工具选择的任何影响。方法本研究回顾了2025年1 - 4月英格兰西北部9个性健康服务机构中符合英国骨质疏松症风险评估指南标准的PrEP使用者的病历。计算每位患者的FRAX和QFracture,并用于确定临床结果。结果156/220例(71%)符合条件的患者完成了骨折风险评估。6/15(40%)表示要求双能x射线吸收仪(DEXA)扫描。129/220(59%)患者有足够的可用数据纳入FRAX和q骨折结果的比较。与FRAX相比,使用QFracture的10年主要骨质疏松性骨折风险(1.4%)显著降低(3.5%,p < 0.001), DEXA扫描的适应症(QFracture 0.8%, FRAX 11.6%, p < 0.001)也是如此。根据FRAX评估,3名患者改用含有替诺福韦阿拉芬胺的PrEP, 2名开始使用双膦酸盐治疗骨质疏松症。使用QFracture会错过两个病人。结论筛查工具的选择影响骨折风险评估和临床预后。FRAX可能比QFracture更可取,因为它灵敏度更高,而且由于纳入的变量更少,可能更可行。骨折风险评估符合国家指导方针,支持患者病例的最佳实践,因此服务部门应审计实践并优化流程,以最大限度地提高员工的依从性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
7.10%
发文量
144
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: The International Journal of STD & AIDS provides a clinically oriented forum for investigating and treating sexually transmissible infections, HIV and AIDS. Publishing original research and practical papers, the journal contains in-depth review articles, short papers, case reports, audit reports, CPD papers and a lively correspondence column. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书