Top

Archives of Osteoporosis

Published in:

01-12-2013

Direct comparison of eight national FRAX® tools for fracture prediction and treatment qualification in Canadian women

Authors: W. D. Leslie, S. L. Brennan, L. M. Lix, H. Johansson, A. Oden, E. McCloskey, J. A. Kanis

Published in: Archives of Osteoporosis | Issue 1-2/2013

Abstract

Summary

We compared the calibration of FRAX tools from Canada, the US (white), UK, Sweden, France, Australia, New Zealand, and China when used to assess fracture risk in 36,730 Canadian women. Our data underscores the importance of applying country-specific FRAX tools that are based upon high-quality national fracture epidemiology.

Purpose

A FRAX® model for Canada was constructed for prediction of hip fracture and major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) using national hip fracture and mortality data. We examined the calibration of this model in Canadian women and compared it with seven other FRAX tools.

Methods

In women aged ≥50 years with baseline bone mineral density (BMD) measures identified from the Manitoba Bone Density Program, Canada (n = 36,730), 10-year fracture probabilities were calculated with and without BMD using selected country-specific FRAX tools. FRAX risk estimates were compared with observed fractures ≤10 years (506 hip, 2,380 MOF). Ten-year fracture risk was compared with predicted probabilities, and proportions exceeding specific treatment thresholds contrasted.

Results

For hip fracture prediction, good calibration was observed for FRAX Canada and most other country-specific FRAX tools, excepting Sweden (risk overestimated) and China (risk underestimated). For MOF prediction, greater between-country differences were seen; FRAX Sweden and FRAX China showed the largest over- and underestimation in this Canadian population. Relative to treatment qualification based upon FRAX Canada, treatment of high-hip fracture probability (≥3 %) was greater by FRAX Sweden (ratio 1.41 without and 1.55 with BMD), and markedly less by FRAX China (ratio 0.09 without and 0.11 with BMD). Greater between-country differences were observed for treat4ment of high MOF (≥20 %); FRAX Sweden again greatly increased (ratio 1.76 without and 1.83 with BMD), and FRAX China severely reduced treatment qualification (ratio 0.00 without and 0.01 with BMD).

Conclusions

The use of country-specific FRAX tools, accurately calibrated to the target population, is essential. Relatively small calibration differences can have large effects on high-risk categorization and treatment qualification.

Kanis JA, Oden A, Johansson H, Borgstrom F, Strom O, McCloskey E (2009) FRAX and its applications to clinical practice. Bone 44:734–743PubMedCrossRef

Kanis JA et al (2002) International variations in hip fracture probabilities: implications for risk assessment. J Bone Miner Res 17:1237–1244PubMedCrossRef

Steverberg EW (2008) Clinical prediction models: a practical approach to development, validation, and updating. Springer, New York

Ettinger B, Black DM, Dawson-Hughes B, Pressman AR, Melton LJ III (2010) Updated fracture incidence rates for the US version of FRAX. Osteoporos Int 21:25–33PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

CaMos Research Group, Fraser LA, Langsetmo L, Berger C, Ionnidis G, Goltzman D, Adachi JD, Papaoiannou A, Josse R, Kovacs CS, Olszynski WP, Towheed T, Hanley DA, Kaiser SM, Prior J, Jamal S, Kreiger N, Brown JP, Johansson H, Oden A, McCloskey E, Kanis JA, Leslie WD (2011) Fracture prediction and calibration of a Canadian FRAX tool: a population-based report from CaMos. Osteoporos Int 22:829–837PubMedCrossRef

NOF (2013) Clinician's Guide to Prevention and Treatment of Osteoporosis. In. National Osteoporosis Foundation, Washington, DC. http://www.nof.org/files/nof/public/content/file/950/upload/523.pdf. Accessed 14 Jan 2013

Dawson-Hughes B, Tosteson AN, Melton LJ III et al (2008) Implications of absolute fracture risk assessment for osteoporosis practice guidelines in the USA. Osteoporos Int 19:449–458PubMedCrossRef

Dawson-Hughes B (2008) A revised clinician's guide to the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 93:2463–2465PubMedCrossRef

Leslie WD, Caetano PA, MacWilliam LR et al (2005) Construction and validation of a population-based bone densitometry database. J Clin Densitom 8:25–30PubMedCrossRef

10.

Roos NP, Shapiro E (1999) Revisiting the Manitoba Centre for Health Policy and Evaluation and its population-based health information system. Med Care 37:JS10–JS14PubMed

11.

Norwegian Institute of Public Health, World Health Organization, Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology (2005) Guidelines for ATC classification and DDD assignment. Norwegian Institute of Public Health, WHO, Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology, Oslo

12.

Leslie WD, Lix LM, Johansson H, Oden A, McCloskey E, Kanis JA, Program MBD (2010) Independent clinical validation of a Canadian FRAX tool: fracture prediction and model calibration. J Bone Miner Res 25:2350–2358PubMedCrossRef

13.

Leslie WD, Majumdar SR, Lix LM, Johansson H, Oden A, McCloskey E, Kanis JA, Program MBD (2012) High fracture probability with FRAX usually indicates densitometric osteoporosis: implications for clinical practice. Osteoporos Int 23:391–397PubMedCrossRef

14.

Binkley N, Kiebzak GM, Lewiecki EM et al (2005) Recalculation of the NHANES database SD improves T score agreement and reduces osteoporosis prevalence. J Bone Miner Res 20:195–201PubMedCrossRef

15.

Kanis JA, McCloskey EV, Johansson H, Oden A, Melton LJ III (2008) A reference standard for the description of osteoporosis. Bone 42:467–475PubMedCrossRef

16.

Leslie WD, Lix LM, Wu X, Manitoba Bone Density Program (2013) Competing mortality and fracture risk assessment. Osteoporos Int 24(2):681–688PubMedCrossRef

17.

Leslie WD, Lix LM, Langsetmo L, Berger C, Goltzman D, Hanley DA, Adachi JD, Johansson H, Oden A, McCloskey E, Kanis JA (2011) Construction of a FRAX model for the assessment of fracture probability in Canada and implications for treatment. Osteoporos Int 22:817–827PubMedCrossRef

18.

Harris ST, Watts NB, Genant HK, McKeever CD, Hangartner T, Keller M, Chesnut CG III, Brown J, Eriksen EF, Hosevni MS, Axelrod DW, Miller PD (1999) Effects of risedronate treatment on vertebral and nonvertebral fractures in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis: a randomized controlled trial. Vertebral efficacy with risedronate therapy (VERT) study group. JAMA 282:1344–1352PubMedCrossRef

19.

Cranney A, Guyatt G, Griffith L, Wells G, Tugwell P, Rosen C (2002) Meta-analyses of therapies for postmenopausal osteoporosis, IX: summary of meta-analyses of therapies for postmenopausal osteoporosis. Endocr Rev 23:570–578PubMedCrossRef

20.

Goeree R, Blackhouse G, Adachi J (2006) Cost-effectiveness of alternative treatments for women with osteoporosis in Canada. Curr Med Res Opin 22:1425–1436PubMedCrossRef

21.

Siminoski K, Leslie WD, Frame H et al (2005) Recommendations for bone mineral density reporting in Canada. Can Assoc Radiol J 56:178–188PubMed

22.

Leslie WD, Lix LM, Program MBD (2011) Effects of FRAX model calibration on intervention rates: a simulation study. J Clin Densitom 14:272–278PubMedCrossRef

23.

Leslie WD, O'Donnell S, Lagace C, Walsh P, Bancej C, Jean S, Siminoski K, Kaiser S, Kendler DL, Jaglal S (2009) Population based Canadian hip fracture rates with international comparisons. Osteoporos Int 21:1317–1322PubMedCrossRef

24.

Lix LM, Azimaee M, Osman BA, Caetano P, Morin S, Metge C, Goltzman D, Kreiger N, Prior J, Leslie WD (2012) Osteoporosis-related fracture case definitions for population-based administrative data. BMC Publ Health 12:301CrossRef

Title: Direct comparison of eight national FRAX® tools for fracture prediction and treatment qualification in Canadian women
Authors: W. D. Leslie
S. L. Brennan
L. M. Lix
H. Johansson
A. Oden
E. McCloskey
J. A. Kanis
Publication date: 01-12-2013
Publisher: Springer London
Published in: Archives of Osteoporosis / Issue 1-2/2013
Print ISSN: 1862-3522
Electronic ISSN: 1862-3514
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11657-013-0145-0

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Direct comparison of eight national FRAX® tools for fracture prediction and treatment qualification in Canadian women

Abstract

Summary

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Summary

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1-2/2013

Testing for vitamin D and other trends in the clinical management of osteoporosis

Prevalence of osteoporosis in otherwise healthy Indian males aged 50 years and above

SCOPE: a scorecard for osteoporosis in Europe

Factors related to osteoporosis of postmenopausal women in Phayao, Thailand

Vitamin D homeostasis, bone mineral metabolism, and seasonal affective disorder during 1 year of Antarctic residence

Incidence of hip fractures in Germany, 1995–2010