Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Current Osteoporosis Reports
Published in: Current Osteoporosis Reports 4/2010

Open Access 01-12-2010

The Utility and Limitations of FRAX: A US Perspective

Authors: Stuart L. Silverman, Andrew D. Calderon

Published in: Current Osteoporosis Reports | Issue 4/2010

Login to get access

Abstract

The FRAX calculator is a major achievement in terms of our understanding of measuring fracture risk. Along with being an easily accessible web-based tool, it is the only model based on extensive data on multiple cohorts. FRAX will help clinicians identify individuals who need osteoporosis treatments, while also screening out those who do not require osteoporosis treatments. However, FRAX is limited by a number of factors. Although it is web based, few physicians have the means to access it. It also assumes that body mass index and mortality are constant across different racial and ethnic groups. FRAX is further limited by the exclusion of variables known to be associated with fracture risk, lack of dose-response relationships for variables, increased subsequent fracture risk after initial fracture, restriction to only one bone mineral density site, racial and ethnic differences that may influence fracture risk, and availability of racial and ethnic fracture risk data to be used in the FRAX calculator. Finally, the values obtained from FRAX should not take the place of good clinical judgment.
Literature
1.
Nguyen TV, Center JR, Eisman JA: Osteoporosis: underrated, underdiagnosed and undertreated. Med J Aust 2004, 180:S18–S22.PubMed
2.
Delmas PD, van de Langerijt L, Watts NB, et al.: Underdiagnosis of vertebral fractures is a worldwide problem: the IMPACT study. J Bone Miner Res 2005, 20:557–563.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Vestergaard P, Rejnmark L, Mosekilde L: Osteoporosis is markedly underdiagnosed: a nationwide study from Denmark. Osteoporos Int 2005, 16:134–141.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Iba K, Takada J, Hatakeyama N, et al.: Underutilization of antiosteoporotic drugs by orthopedic surgeons for prevention of a secondary osteoporotic fracture. J Orthop Sci 2006, 11:446–449.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Siris ES, Chen YT, Abbott TA, et al.: Bone mineral density thresholds for pharmacological intervention to prevent fractures. Arch Intern Med 2004, 164:1108–1112.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Wainwright SA, Marshall LM, Ensrud KE, et al.: Hip fracture in women without osteoporosis. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2005, 90:2787–2793.CrossRefPubMed
7.
van der Klift M, de Laet CE, McCloskey EV, et al.: Risk factors for incident vertebral fractures in men and women: the Rotterdam Study. J Bone Miner Res 2004, 19:1172–1180.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Sornay-Rendu E, Munoz F, Garnero P, et al.: Identification of osteopenic women at high risk of fracture: the OFELY Study. J Bone Miner Res 2005, 20:1813–1819.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Kanis JA, Johnell O, Oden A, et al.: Ten year probabilities of osteoporotic fractures according to BMD and diagnostic thresholds. Osteoporos Int 2001, 12:989–995.CrossRefPubMed
10.
• Kanis JA, Johnell O, De Laet C, et al.: A meta-analysis of previous fracture and subsequent fracture risk. Bone 2004, 35:375–382. This paper demonstrates the importance of a history of previous fracture as a risk factor for fracture independent of BMD.
11.
• Kanis JA, Johansson H, Oden A, et al.: A family history of fracture and fracture risk: a meta-analysis. Bone 2004, 35:1029–1037. This paper demonstrates the importance of family history of fracture as a risk factor for fracture independent of BMD.
12.
De Laet C, Kanis JA, Oden A, et al.: Body mass index as a predictor of fracture risk: a meta-analysis. Osteoporos Int 2005, 16:1330–1338.CrossRefPubMed
13.
• Kanis JA, Johansson H, Oden A, et al.: A meta-analysis of prior corticosteroid use and fracture risk. J Bone Miner Res 2004, 19:893–899. This paper demonstrates the importance of prior corticosteroid use as a risk factor for fracture independent of BMD.
14.
Kanis JA, Borgstrom F, De Laet C, et al.: Assessment of fracture risk. Osteoporos Int 2005, 16:581–589.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Kanis JA, Johnell O, Oden A, et al.: Smoking and fracture risk: a meta-analysis. Osteoporos Int 2005, 16:155–162.CrossRefPubMed
16.
• Kanis JA, Johansson H, Johnell O, et al.: Alcohol intake as a risk factor for fracture. Osteoporos Int 2005, 16:737–742. This paper demonstrates alcohol intake as a risk factor for fracture independent of BMD.
17.
Kanis JA, Johnell O, Oden A, et al.: FRAX and the assessment of fracture probability in men and women from the UK. Osteoporos Int 2008, 19:385–397.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Kanis JA, Oden A, Johansson H, et al.: FRAX and its applications to clinical practice. Bone 2009, 44:734–743.CrossRefPubMed
19.
20.
21.
Lewiecki EM: Review of guidelines for bone mineral density testing and treatment of osteoporosis. Curr Osteoporos Rep 2005, 3:75–83.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Kanis JA, Torgerson D, Cooper C: Comparison of the European and USA practice guidelines for osteoporosis. Trends Endocrinol Metab 2000, 11:28–32.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Physician’s Guide to Prevention and Treatment of Osteoporosis. Washington, DC: National Osteoporosis Foundation; 2003.
24.
Kanis JA, Oden A, Johnell O, et al.: 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 2007, 18:1033–1046.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Watts NB, Ettinger B, LeBoff MS: FRAX facts. J Bone Miner Res 2009, 76:1–3.
26.
Jones G, Nguyen TV, Sambrook PN, et al.: Symptomatic fracture incidence in elderly men and women. The Dubbo Osteoporosis Epidemiology Study (DOES). Osteoporos Int 1994, 4:277–282.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Nguyen TV, Eisman JA, Kelly PJ, Sambrook PN: Risk factors for osteoporotic fractures in elderly men. Am J Epidemiol 1996, 144:255–263.PubMed
28.
Fujiwara S, Kasagi F, Yamada M, Kodama K: Risk factors for hip fracture in Japanese cohort. J Bone Miner Res 1997, 12:998–1004.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Fujiwara S, Fumiyoshi K, Masunari N, et al.: Fracture prediction from bone mineral density in Japanese men and women. J Bone Miner Res 2003, 18:1547–1553.CrossRefPubMed
30.
O’Neill TW, Felsenberg D, Varlow J, et al.: The prevalence of vertebral deformity in European men and women: the European Vertebral Osteoporosis Study. J Bone Miner Res 1996, 11:1010–1017.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Felsenberg D, Silman AJ, Lunt M, et al.: Incidence of vertebral fracture in Europe: results from the European Prospective Osteoporosis Study (EPOS). J Bone Miner Res 2002, 17:716–724.CrossRef
32.
Ismail AA, Pye SR, Cockerill WC, et al.: Incidence of limb fracture across Europe: results from the European Prospective Osteoporosis Study (EPOS). Osteoporos Int 2002, 13:565–571.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Robbins JA, Schott AM, Garnero P, et al.: Risk factors for hip fracture in women with high BMD: the EPIDOS study. Osteopor Int 2005, 16:149–154.CrossRef
34.
Svanborg A: Seventy-year-old people in Gothenburg. A population study in an industrialized Swedish city. II. General presentation of social and medical conditions. Acta Med Scand Suppl 1977, 611:5–37.PubMed
35.
Johansson C, Black D, Johnell O, et al.: Bone mineral density is a predictor of survival. Calcif Tissue Int 1998, 63:190–196.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Stenstrom M, Olsson JO, Mellstrom D: Thyroid hormone replacement is not related to increased risk of osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int 2000, 11(Suppl 2):S144.
37.
Johansson H, Oden A, Johnell O, et al.: Optimization of BMD measurements to identify high risk groups for treatment—a test analysis. J Bone Miner Res 2004, 19:906–913.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Honkanen R, Kroger H, Tuppurainen M, et al.: Fractures and low axial bone density in perimenopausal women. J Clin Epidemiol 1995, 48:881–888.CrossRefPubMed
39.
Albrand G, Munoz F, Sornay-Rendu E, et al.: Independent predictors of all osteoporosis related fractures in healthy postmenopausal women: the OFELY study. Bone 2003, 32:78–85.CrossRefPubMed
40.
Sawka AM, Thabane L, Papaioannou A, et al.: Health-related quality of life measurements in elderly Canadians with osteoporosis compared to other chronic medical conditions: a population-based study from the Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study (CaMos). Osteoporos Int 2005, 16:1836–1840.CrossRefPubMed
41.
Melton LJ 3 rd, Crowson CS, O’Fallon WM, et al.: Relative contributions of bone density, bone turnover and clinical risk factors to long-term fracture prediction. J Bone Miner Res 2003, 18:312–318.CrossRefPubMed
42.
Melton LJ 3 rd, Atkinson EJ, O’Connor MK, et al.: Bone density and fracture risk in men. J Bone Miner Res 1998, 13:1915–1923.CrossRefPubMed
43.
Nanes MS, Kallen CB: Clinical assessment of fracture risk and novel therapeutic strategies to combat osteoporosis. Fertil Steril 2009, 92:403–412.CrossRefPubMed
44.
•• De Laet C, Oden A, Johansson H, et al.: The impact of the use of multiple risk indicators for fracture on case-finding strategies: a mathematical approach. Osteoporos Int 2005, 16:313–318. This paper explains how multiple risk factors can be integrated to improve the prediction of fracture risk.
45.
Ettinger B: A personal perspective on fracture risk assessment tools. Menopause 2008, 15:1023–1026.CrossRefPubMed
46.
McCloskey EV, Johansson H, Oden A, et al.: Ten-year fracture probability identifies women who will benefit from clodronate therapy—additional results from a double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized study. Osteoporos Int 2009, 20:811–817.CrossRefPubMed
47.
Kanis JA, Johansson H, Oden A, McCloskey EV: Bazedoxifene reduces vertebral and clinical fractures in postmenopausal women at high risk assessed with FRAX. Bone 2009, 22:1049–1054.CrossRef
48.
49.
Ettinger B, Black Dm, Mitlak BH, et al.: Reduction in vertebral fracture risk in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis with raloxifene: results from a 3 year randomized clinical trial. Multiple Outcomes of Raloxifene Evaluation (MORE) investigators. JAMA 1999, 282:637–645.CrossRefPubMed
50.
Kanis JA, Johnell O, Oden A, et al.: Intervention thresholds for osteoporosis in men and women: a study based on data from Sweden. Osteoporos Int 2005, 16:6–14.CrossRefPubMed
51.
Lewiecki EM, Watts NB: New guidelines for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis. South Med J 2009, 102:175–179.PubMed
52.
Kanis JA on behalf of the World Health Organization Scientific group: Assessment of Osteoporosis at the Primary Health-Care Level. Technical Report. Sheffield, UK: Edited by the World Health Organization Collaborating Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases. Printed by the University of Sheffield; 2007.
53.
Cummings S, Melton L: Epidemiology and outcomes of osteoporotic fractures. Lancet 2002, 359:1761–1767.CrossRefPubMed
54.
Black DL, Dalziel R, Young D, Shimmin A: Early results of primary Birmingham hip resurfacings: an independent prospective study of the first 230 hips. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2005, 87:324–329.CrossRef
55.
Brown JP, Josse RG; Scientific Advisory Council of the Osteoporosis Society of Canada: 2002 clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in Canada. CMAJ 2002, 167(10 Suppl):S1–S34.
56.
Pluskiewicz W, Adamczy KP, Franek E, et al.: 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 2010, 46:1661-1667.CrossRefPubMed
57.
Plumijm S, Koes B, de Laet C, et al. : A simple risk score for the assessment of absolute fracture risk in general practice based on two longitudinal studies. J Bone Miner Res 2009, 24:768–774.CrossRef
58.
Galesic M, Garcia-Retamero R: Statistical numeracy for health: a cross-cultural comparison with probabilistic national samples. Arch Intern Med 2010, 170:462–468.CrossRefPubMed
59.
Ettinger B, Hillier TA, Pressman A, et al.: Simple computer model for calculating and reporting 5-year osteoporotic fracture risk in postmenopausal women. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 2005, 14:159–171.CrossRef
60.
Sheridan SL, Viera AJ, Krantz MJ, et al.; the Cardiovascular Health Intervention Research and Translation Network Work Group on Global Coronary Heart Disease Risk: The effect of giving global coronary risk information to adults: a systematic review. Arch Intern Med 2010, 170:230–239.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
The Utility and Limitations of FRAX: A US Perspective
Authors
Stuart L. Silverman
Andrew D. Calderon
Publication date
01-12-2010
Publisher
Current Science Inc.
Published in
Current Osteoporosis Reports / Issue 4/2010
Print ISSN: 1544-1873
Electronic ISSN: 1544-2241
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11914-010-0032-1

Other articles of this Issue 4/2010

Current Osteoporosis Reports 4/2010 Go to the issue

ReviewPaper

The Role of FSH and TSH in Bone Loss and Its Clinical Relevance

ReviewPaper

Depression, Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors, and Osteoporosis

INVITED COMMENTARY

Denosumab for the Treatment of Osteoporosis

ReviewPaper

The Skeletal Subsystem as an Integrative Physiology Paradigm

ReviewPaper

The Pathophysiology of the Aging Skeleton

ReviewPaper

The Definition and Clinical Significance of Nonvertebral Fractures