Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Osteoporosis International 2/2015

01-02-2015 | Original Article

An evaluation of clinical risk factors for estimating fracture risk in postmenopausal osteoporosis using an electronic medical record database

Authors: S. Unni, Y. Yao, N. Milne, K. Gunning, J. R. Curtis, J. LaFleur

Published in: Osteoporosis International | Issue 2/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Summary

Many of the clinical risk factors used in fracture risk assessment (FRAX) calculator are available in electronic medical record (EMR) databases and are good sources of osteoporosis risk factor information. The EPIC EMR database showed a lower prevalence of FRAX risk factors and, consequently, proportion of patients who would be deemed “high risk.”

Introduction

The FRAX tool is underutilized for osteoporosis screening. Many of the clinical risk factors for FRAX may be available in EMR databases and may enable health systems to perform fracture risk assessments. We intended to identify variables in an EMR database for calculating FRAX score in a cohort of postmenopausal women, to estimate absolute fracture risk, and to determine the proportions of women whose absolute fracture risks exceed the National Osteoporosis Foundation (NOF) thresholds.

Methods

Our cohort was selected using an EMR database with demographic, inpatient, outpatient, and clinical information for female patients age ≥50 in a family practice, internal medicine, or obstetrics/gynecology clinic in 2007–2008. The latest physician encounter was the index date. Variables, problem and medication lists, diagnosis codes, and histories from the EMR were used to populate the 11 clinical risk factor variables used in the FRAX. These risk factor prevalence and treatment-eligible proportions were compared to those of published epidemiology studies.

Results

The study included 345 patients. Mean (SD) 10-year risk for any major fracture was 11.1 % (6.8) when bone mineral density (BMD) was used and 11.2 % (6.5) when BMI was used. About 10.1 % of the cohort exceeded the NOF’s 20 % major fracture risk threshold and 32.5 % exceeded the NOF’s 3 % hip fracture risk threshold when BMD was used. Overall, the number of treatment-eligible patients was slightly lower when FRAX was calculated using BMD versus BMI (13.6 and 36.8 %).

Conclusion

Our cohort using EMR data most likely underestimated the mean 10-year probability of any major fracture compared to other cohorts in published literature. The difference may be in the nature of EMRs for supporting only passive data collection of risk factor information.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference NIH Consensus Development Panel on Osteoporosis Prevention, and Therapy (2001). Osteoporosis prevention, diagnosis, and therapy. JAMA 285:785–795 NIH Consensus Development Panel on Osteoporosis Prevention, and Therapy (2001). Osteoporosis prevention, diagnosis, and therapy. JAMA 285:785–795
3.
go back to reference Burge R et al (2007) Incidence and economic burden of osteoporosis-related fractures in the United States, 2005-2025. J Bone Miner Res 22:465–475PubMedCrossRef Burge R et al (2007) Incidence and economic burden of osteoporosis-related fractures in the United States, 2005-2025. J Bone Miner Res 22:465–475PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Siris ES et al (2004) Bone mineral density thresholds for pharmacological intervention to prevent fractures. Arch Intern Med 164:1108–1112PubMedCrossRef Siris ES et al (2004) Bone mineral density thresholds for pharmacological intervention to prevent fractures. Arch Intern Med 164:1108–1112PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Kanis JA et al (2007) The use of clinical risk factors enhances the performance of BMD in the prediction of hip and osteoporotic fractures in men and women. Osteoporos Int 18:1033–1046PubMedCrossRef Kanis JA et al (2007) The use of clinical risk factors enhances the performance of BMD in the prediction of hip and osteoporotic fractures in men and women. Osteoporos Int 18:1033–1046PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Sandhu SK et al (2010) Prognosis of fracture: evaluation of predictive accuracy of the FRAX algorithm and Garvan nomogram. Osteoporos Int 21:863–871PubMedCrossRef Sandhu SK et al (2010) Prognosis of fracture: evaluation of predictive accuracy of the FRAX algorithm and Garvan nomogram. Osteoporos Int 21:863–871PubMedCrossRef
14.
15.
go back to reference Lafleur J, Nelson RE, Yao Y, Adler RA, Nebeker JR (2012) Validated risk rule using computerized data to identify males at high risk for fracture. Osteoporos Int 23(3): 1017–1027 Lafleur J, Nelson RE, Yao Y, Adler RA, Nebeker JR (2012) Validated risk rule using computerized data to identify males at high risk for fracture. Osteoporos Int 23(3): 1017–1027
16.
go back to reference De Laet C et al (2005) Body mass index as a predictor of fracture risk: a meta-analysis. Osteoporos Int 16:1330–1338PubMedCrossRef De Laet C et al (2005) Body mass index as a predictor of fracture risk: a meta-analysis. Osteoporos Int 16:1330–1338PubMedCrossRef
17.
go back to reference Sorney-Rendu E, Munoz F, Delmas PD, Chapurlat RD (2010) The FRAX tool in French women: how well does it describe the real incidence of fracture in the OFELY cohort. J Bone Miner Res 25(10):2101–2107 Sorney-Rendu E, Munoz F, Delmas PD, Chapurlat RD (2010) The FRAX tool in French women: how well does it describe the real incidence of fracture in the OFELY cohort. J Bone Miner Res 25(10):2101–2107
18.
go back to reference Sandhu SK et al. (2009) Prognosis of fracture: evaluation of predictive accuracy of the FRAX algorithm and Garvan nomogram, Osteoporos Int 21(5):863–871 Sandhu SK et al. (2009) Prognosis of fracture: evaluation of predictive accuracy of the FRAX algorithm and Garvan nomogram, Osteoporos Int 21(5):863–871
19.
go back to reference Arlot ME et al (1997) Apparent pre- and postmenopausal bone loss evaluated by DXA at different skeletal sites in women: the OFELY cohort. J Bone Miner Res 12:683–690PubMedCrossRef Arlot ME et al (1997) Apparent pre- and postmenopausal bone loss evaluated by DXA at different skeletal sites in women: the OFELY cohort. J Bone Miner Res 12:683–690PubMedCrossRef
20.
go back to reference Pluskiewicz W et al (2010) Ten-year probability of osteoporotic fracture in 2012 Polish women assessed by FRAX and nomogram by Nguyen et al.—conformity between methods and their clinical utility. Bone 46:1661–1667PubMedCrossRef Pluskiewicz W et al (2010) Ten-year probability of osteoporotic fracture in 2012 Polish women assessed by FRAX and nomogram by Nguyen et al.—conformity between methods and their clinical utility. Bone 46:1661–1667PubMedCrossRef
21.
go back to reference Lo JC et al (2011) Fracture risk tool validation in an integrated healthcare delivery system. Am J Manag Care 17:188–194PubMed Lo JC et al (2011) Fracture risk tool validation in an integrated healthcare delivery system. Am J Manag Care 17:188–194PubMed
22.
go back to reference Leslie WD et al (2008) Validation of ten-year fracture risk prediction: a clinical cohort study from the Manitoba Bone Density Program. Bone 43:667–671PubMedCrossRef Leslie WD et al (2008) Validation of ten-year fracture risk prediction: a clinical cohort study from the Manitoba Bone Density Program. Bone 43:667–671PubMedCrossRef
23.
go back to reference Ahmed LA et al (2009) The gender- and age-specific 10-year and lifetime absolute fracture risk in Tromso, Norway. Eur J Epidemiol 24:441–448PubMedCrossRef Ahmed LA et al (2009) The gender- and age-specific 10-year and lifetime absolute fracture risk in Tromso, Norway. Eur J Epidemiol 24:441–448PubMedCrossRef
24.
go back to reference Leslie WD, Lix LM, Johansson H, Oden A, McCloskey E, Kanis JA, Manotiba Bone Density Program (2010) Independent clinical validation of a Canadian FRAX((R)) tool: fracture prediction and model calibration. J Bone Miner Res 25(11):2350–2358 Leslie WD, Lix LM, Johansson H, Oden A, McCloskey E, Kanis JA, Manotiba Bone Density Program (2010) Independent clinical validation of a Canadian FRAX((R)) tool: fracture prediction and model calibration. J Bone Miner Res 25(11):2350–2358
25.
go back to reference Nguyen ND et al (2008) Development of prognostic nomograms for individualizing 5-year and 10-year fracture risks. Osteoporos Int 19:1431–1444PubMedCrossRef Nguyen ND et al (2008) Development of prognostic nomograms for individualizing 5-year and 10-year fracture risks. Osteoporos Int 19:1431–1444PubMedCrossRef
27.
go back to reference Curtis JR et al (2009) Population-based fracture risk assessment and osteoporosis treatment disparities by race and gender. J Gen Intern Med 24:956–962PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Curtis JR et al (2009) Population-based fracture risk assessment and osteoporosis treatment disparities by race and gender. J Gen Intern Med 24:956–962PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
28.
go back to reference Nguyen ND et al (2007) Development of a nomogram for individualizing hip fracture risk in men and women. Osteoporos Int 18:1109–1117PubMedCrossRef Nguyen ND et al (2007) Development of a nomogram for individualizing hip fracture risk in men and women. Osteoporos Int 18:1109–1117PubMedCrossRef
29.
go back to reference LaFleur J et al (2012) Validated risk rule using computerized data to identify males at high risk for fracture. Osteoporos Int 23:1017–1027PubMedCrossRef LaFleur J et al (2012) Validated risk rule using computerized data to identify males at high risk for fracture. Osteoporos Int 23:1017–1027PubMedCrossRef
30.
go back to reference Robbins J et al (2007) Factors associated with 5-year risk of hip fracture in postmenopausal women. JAMA 298:2389–2398PubMedCrossRef Robbins J et al (2007) Factors associated with 5-year risk of hip fracture in postmenopausal women. JAMA 298:2389–2398PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
An evaluation of clinical risk factors for estimating fracture risk in postmenopausal osteoporosis using an electronic medical record database
Authors
S. Unni
Y. Yao
N. Milne
K. Gunning
J. R. Curtis
J. LaFleur
Publication date
01-02-2015
Publisher
Springer London
Published in
Osteoporosis International / Issue 2/2015
Print ISSN: 0937-941X
Electronic ISSN: 1433-2965
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-014-2899-7

Other articles of this Issue 2/2015

Osteoporosis International 2/2015 Go to the issue