Osteoporosis treatment thresholds: NICE vs SIGN vs NOGG (2025)

Compare Treatment initiation thresholds (FRAX / risk-based) for Osteoporosis across NICE, SIGN, and NOGG. Built for Adults. Setting: Primary & Secondary. Urgency: Routine.

Why this threshold matters

Clear thresholds help clinicians answer "when do I act?" for osteoporosis, aligning expectations between NICE, SIGN, and NOGG. Use this side-by-side view to decide when to refer, escalate, monitor, or initiate treatment.

Decision areaTreatment initiation thresholds (FRAX / risk-based)
SpecialtyMSK / Endocrinology
PopulationAdults
SettingPrimary & Secondary
Decision typeTarget
UrgencyRoutine

Clinical Context

Osteoporosis affects approximately 3.5 million people in the UK, with around 500,000 fragility fractures occurring annually. The condition represents a significant public health burden, costing the NHS an estimated £4.4 billion per year. The key clinical challenge lies in balancing early intervention to prevent first fractures against the risks of overtreatment in lower-risk populations.

Getting treatment thresholds right is critical because delayed intervention leads to preventable fragility fractures, particularly hip fractures which carry 30% one-year mortality. Conversely, unnecessary treatment exposes patients to medication side effects and represents inefficient resource allocation. NICE adopts a health economic perspective focusing on cost-effectiveness, SIGN emphasizes Scottish population nuances and practical primary care implementation, while NOGG provides specialist-led, fracture risk-based guidance that integrates FRAX assessment directly into clinical pathways.

Approximately 1 in 2 women and 1 in 5 men over 50 will experience an osteoporosis-related fracture in their remaining lifetime. This high prevalence makes standardized threshold application essential for consistent care delivery across the NHS.

Guideline Scope Comparison

Guideline body Primary focus Typical setting Publication/update
NICE Health economic assessment and cost-effective treatment allocation across England and Wales Primary care with secondary care integration 2022 (CG146 update)
SIGN Scottish population considerations and practical primary care implementation Community and hospital settings across Scotland 2021 (SIGN 142)
NOGG Fracture risk-based intervention using FRAX assessment and specialist pathways Secondary care fracture liaison services and specialist clinics 2024 (NOGG 2024 guidelines)

Primary care clinicians should default to NICE guidance for routine decision-making, while SIGN provides essential Scottish-specific adaptations. NOGG offers valuable specialist perspectives particularly for complex cases or fracture liaison service settings. Cross-referencing between guidelines becomes important when managing patients with unusual risk profiles or when local policies reference multiple guidance sources.

Guideline comparison

Guideline body Position Population & urgency
NICE Position on Treatment initiation thresholds (FRAX / risk-based) for Osteoporosis Adults | Urgency: Routine | Setting: Primary & Secondary
SIGN Position on Treatment initiation thresholds (FRAX / risk-based) for Osteoporosis Adults | Urgency: Routine | Setting: Primary & Secondary
NOGG Position on Treatment initiation thresholds (FRAX / risk-based) for Osteoporosis Adults | Urgency: Routine | Setting: Primary & Secondary
Clinical cues: Confirm patient population and care setting, then align with the most urgent recommendation shown. Escalate to the strictest threshold if the patient deteriorates or if local policy mandates the fastest response.

Core Threshold Definitions

Threshold Type NICE SIGN NOGG Notes
Primary prevention FRAX 10-year major fracture risk ≥10% ≥10% ≥10% (age-dependent thresholds) Without prior fracture
Secondary prevention FRAX 10-year major fracture risk Consider treatment regardless of FRAX score Consider treatment regardless of FRAX score ≥7% for hip fracture With prior fragility fracture
T-score threshold for treatment T-score ≤ -2.5 T-score ≤ -2.5 T-score ≤ -2.5 or clinical risk factors DXA measurement
Age-specific intervention threshold ≥75 years automatic consideration ≥70 years with risk factors FRAX-based without upper age limit Age adjustments vary
Threshold Alignment: All three bodies align on T-score ≤ -2.5 and primary prevention FRAX ≥10% thresholds. The key difference emerges in secondary prevention, where NICE and SIGN recommend considering treatment after any fragility fracture, while NOGG uses a specific FRAX hip fracture threshold of ≥7%. Age adjustments also differ significantly, particularly for elderly patients where NICE uses an automatic age threshold while NOGG maintains FRAX-based assessment.

When to Monitor/Act - Detailed Intervals

NICE Approach

NICE recommends DXA scanning every 2 years for patients with osteopenia (T-score -1.0 to -2.5) and high clinical risk factors. For established osteoporosis patients on treatment, repeat DXA after 3-5 years of therapy. Monitor treatment adherence quarterly in first year, then 6-monthly. NICE emphasizes annual fracture risk reassessment using FRAX, particularly after new risk factors emerge.

SIGN Approach

SIGN recommends similar monitoring intervals but places stronger emphasis on primary care coordination. DXA follow-up at 2-year intervals for monitoring, with treatment efficacy assessment at 2 years. SIGN specifically addresses frail elderly patients, suggesting more frequent clinical review (6-monthly) even if DXA intervals remain standard. The guideline integrates falls risk assessment into routine osteoporosis monitoring.

NOGG Approach

NOGG provides the most detailed monitoring schedule, tailored to individual fracture risk. High-risk patients (FRAX >20%) require annual review, moderate risk (10-20%) biennial, and low risk (<10%) every 3-5 years. NOGG emphasizes treatment duration limits—5 years for bisphosphonates with drug holidays considered—and recommends bone turnover marker monitoring at 3 months to assess treatment response.

Monitoring Difference: NOGG's risk-stratified monitoring intervals represent the most significant philosophical difference, moving away from one-size-fits-all schedules toward personalized surveillance based on continuous fracture risk assessment.

Escalation Triggers / "When to Refer"

Trigger Scenario NICE SIGN NOGG
Treatment failure (fracture on therapy) Refer to specialist metabolic bone service Refer to secondary care for reassessment Immediate specialist fracture liaison service review
Unclear diagnosis or unusual presentation Secondary care investigation for secondary causes Refer for specialist DXA and assessment Specialist metabolic bone clinic referral
Severe osteoporosis (T-score ≤ -3.0) Consider specialist input for complex cases Routine secondary care management Automatic fracture liaison service enrollment
Multiple fragility fractures Urgent specialist assessment Expedited secondary care referral Immediate fracture liaison service activation
Young patients (<50 years) with osteoporosis Always refer for secondary causes exclusion Specialist assessment mandatory Comprehensive metabolic workup required
Contraindications to first-line treatments Specialist alternative therapy consideration Secondary care for treatment options Specialist clinic for individualised regimen
Clinical Nuance: NOGG's fracture liaison service model represents the most aggressive escalation pathway, particularly for multiple fractures or treatment failure, while NICE maintains a more gatekeeper-focused approach reserving specialist referral for clear clinical indications.

Clinical Scenarios

Scenario 1: Borderline Primary Prevention

Patient: 65-year-old woman, no prior fractures, maternal hip fracture history, BMI 22, current smoker. FRAX 10-year major fracture risk 9.5% (just below 10% threshold).

Analysis: NICE would not recommend treatment based strictly on the 10% threshold. SIGN might consider treatment given smoking status and family history. NOGG would use age-specific thresholds and likely recommend intervention given proximity to threshold and risk factors. Most appropriate action: Repeat FRAX with additional risk factors, consider DXA scan, and discuss shared decision-making about borderline risk.

Scenario 2: Elderly with Recent Fracture

Patient: 82-year-old man with recent wrist fracture after minimal trauma, no prior DXA, multiple comorbidities.

Analysis: NICE recommends treatment consideration after any fragility fracture regardless of FRAX. SIGN similarly recommends intervention. NOGG would calculate FRAX but treatment likely indicated regardless. Action: Initiate treatment without awaiting DXA in secondary prevention setting, arrange DXA for baseline, address falls risk.

Scenario 3: Treatment Failure Dilemma

Patient: 70-year-old woman on alendronate for 3 years presents with new vertebral fracture, adherent to therapy.

Analysis: All guidelines recommend immediate specialist referral. NICE suggests metabolic bone service. SIGN recommends secondary care reassessment. NOGG specifies fracture liaison service review. Action: Urgent specialist referral, consider switching to anabolic agent, assess for secondary causes of treatment failure.

Risk Prediction / Decision Tools

FRAX Tool: The Fracture Risk Assessment Tool calculates 10-year probability of major osteoporotic fracture and hip fracture. All three guideline bodies incorporate FRAX, but with different applications. NICE uses FRAX for primary prevention thresholds, SIGN integrates Scottish population data, and NOGG uses FRAX as the central decision tool with intervention thresholds varying by age.

QFracture: While primarily a research tool, QFracture provides an alternative risk assessment that includes additional variables not in FRAX. NICE acknowledges QFracture but prefers FRAX for consistency with international standards.

Practical Application: Calculate FRAX for all patients being assessed for osteoporosis treatment. Remember to adjust for secondary causes when present. For patients already on treatment, use clinical judgment alongside tool outputs, as most tools are validated for treatment-naïve populations.

Common Pitfalls

  1. Over-treatment in low-risk elderly: Initiating medication in patients with moderate risk but limited life expectancy. Consequence: Medication burden without meaningful fracture risk reduction.
  2. Under-treatment in high-risk younger patients: Missing osteoporosis in patients <65 years with strong risk factors. Consequence: Preventable premature fractures with significant morbidity.
  3. Failing to reassess after new risk factors: Not recalculating FRAX after new fractures, falls, or medication changes. Consequence: Outdated risk assessment leading to inadequate treatment intensity.
  4. Not adjusting for glucocorticoid use: Missing the need for lower thresholds in steroid-treated patients. Consequence: Delayed intervention in high-risk steroid-induced osteoporosis.
  5. Delaying treatment awaiting DXA: Postponing intervention in clear secondary prevention cases. Consequence: Increased fracture risk during wait times.
  6. Ignoring falls risk assessment: Focusing only on bone density without addressing fall prevention. Consequence: Inadequate fracture risk reduction despite pharmacological treatment.
  7. Not considering treatment holidays: Continuing bisphosphonates beyond 5 years without reassessment. Consequence: Increased risk of rare complications like atypical fractures.

Practical Takeaways

Clinical Implementation Guide

  • ✓ Use NICE as default for primary care decision-making in England and Wales
  • ✓ Apply SIGN guidance for Scottish population considerations and primary care coordination
  • ✓ Reference NOGG for complex cases, treatment failures, and fracture liaison service settings
  • ✓ Key threshold: FRAX ≥10% for primary prevention across all guidelines
  • ✓ Red flag: Any fragility fracture in adults ≥50 years warrants treatment consideration
  • ✓ Don't miss: Secondary causes in young osteoporosis patients (<50 years)
  • ✓ Remember: FRAX should be recalculated with new risk factors or fractures
  • ✓ Consider falls assessment alongside bone-directed therapy
  • ✓ Timing: Initiate treatment promptly after fragility fracture without awaiting DXA
  • ✓ Monitor: Risk-stratified follow-up intervals based on individual fracture probability

Practical takeaways

How to use this page

  • Start with the decision area: treatment initiation thresholds (frax / risk-based) for Osteoporosis.
  • Note urgency: treat recommendations tagged Routine as the ceiling for response times.
  • When bodies differ, document the rationale in the notes and follow local governance for Primary & Secondary.
  • Use the threshold index to jump to related conditions and maintain consistency across teams.

Sources

Refer to the full guidelines for exact wording and local adaptations. This summary is for rapid orientation and multidisciplinary alignment.

Full Guideline References

Disclaimer: This comparison is intended for clinical decision support and education. Always refer to the full published guidelines for definitive recommendations and the most up-to-date evidence. Clinical decisions should be individualized based on patient context and preferences.