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 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

LIVE: Thursday 2nd May 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

Quality sleep is essential for health. But what happens to our brains when sleep patterns are disturbed? Join our experts to explore the interplay between sleep disruption and neurological diseases, and the questions that you need to be asking your patients to help you prevent the harmful effects of sleep deprivation.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Osteoporosis International
Published in: Osteoporosis International 3/2012

01-03-2012 | Original Article

A comparative study of using non-hip bone density inputs with FRAX®

Authors: W. D. Leslie, L. M. Lix, H. Johansson, A. Oden, E. McCloskey, J. A. Kanis, for the Manitoba Bone Density Program

Published in: Osteoporosis International | Issue 3/2012

Login to get access

Abstract

Summary

Use of lumbar spine T-score or minimum T-score as a bone mineral density (BMD) input to the FRAX® algorithm led to miscalibration compared with the recommended femoral neck input. Use of a weighted mean between the lumbar spine and femoral neck T-scores was found to provide an arithmetically equivalent result to a previously described offset adjustment.

Introduction

FRAX assumes that the BMD input, when used in the calculation, is from the femoral neck. Use of other BMD inputs is not recommended, but there are no studies describing how this affects the performance of FRAX.

Methods

Ten-year probabilities of a major osteoporotic fracture were calculated with different BMD inputs for 20,477 women and men aged 50 years and older from Manitoba, Canada. FRAX probability calculated with femoral neck BMD was designated the reference method. We also derived FRAX probabilities where the BMD input was based upon the lumbar spine T-score, minimum T-score (lumbar spine or femoral neck), weighted mean T-score (lumbar spine or femoral neck), or used an adjustment for the spine–hip T-score difference (offset). Fracture outcomes were assessed using a population-based administrative data repository.

Results

All FRAX models showed good risk stratification with minimal differences. There was no consistent improvement in FRAX performance when lumbar spine or minimum T-score were used as inputs, but calibration was adversely affected due to higher mean fracture probabilities compared with the femoral neck. The weighted mean T-score was found to be equivalent to the spine–hip T-score offset adjustment, and both slightly improved risk classification without a change in calibration.

Conclusions

The choice of BMD input to the FRAX model has a large effect on performance. The lumbar spine T-score or minimum T-score should not be used as inputs to the FRAX algorithm. Use of a weighted mean between the lumbar spine and femoral neck T-scores slightly improves risk classification.
Literature
1.
Kanis JA, Melton LJ III, Christiansen C et al (1994) The diagnosis of osteoporosis. J Bone Miner Res 9:1137–1141PubMedCrossRef
2.
Looker AC, Wahner HW, Dunn WL et al (1998) Updated data on proximal femur bone mineral levels of US adults. Osteoporos Int 8:468–489PubMedCrossRef
3.
Kanis JA, McCloskey EV, Johansson H et al (2008) A reference standard for the description of osteoporosis. Bone 42:467–475PubMedCrossRef
4.
Siris ES, Chen YT, Abbott TA et al (2004) Bone mineral density thresholds for pharmacological intervention to prevent fractures. Arch Intern Med 164:1108–1112PubMedCrossRef
5.
Cranney A, Jamal SA, Tsang JF et al (2007) Low bone mineral density and fracture burden in postmenopausal women. CMAJ 177:575–580PubMedCrossRef
6.
Kanis JA, Oden A, Johnell O 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
7.
Kanis JA, Oden A, Johansson H et al (2009) FRAX and its applications to clinical practice. Bone 44:734–743PubMedCrossRef
8.
Leslie WD, MacWilliam L, Lix L et al (2005) A population-based study of osteoporosis testing and treatment following introduction of a new bone densitometry service. Osteoporos Int 16:773–782PubMedCrossRef
9.
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.
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
11.
Hansen KE, Binkley N, Christian R et al (2005) Interobserver reproducibility of criteria for vertebral body exclusion. J Bone Miner Res 20:501–508PubMedCrossRef
12.
Leslie WD (2006) The importance of spectrum bias on bone density monitoring in clinical practice. Bone 39:361–368PubMedCrossRef
13.
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–JS14PubMedCrossRef
14.
Leslie WD, Tsang JF, Caetano PA et al (2007) Effectiveness of bone density measurement for predicting osteoporotic fractures in clinical practice. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 92:77–81PubMedCrossRef
15.
WHO Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology (eds) (2005) Guidelines for ATC classification and DDD assignment. Oslo
16.
Leslie WD, Lix LM, Johansson H et al (2010) Independent clinical validation of a Canadian FRAX tool: fracture prediction and model calibration. J Bone Miner Res 25:2350–2358PubMedCrossRef
17.
Leslie WD, Berger C, Langsetmo L et al (2011) Construction and validation of a simplified fracture risk assessment tool for Canadian women and men: results from the CaMos and Manitoba cohorts. Osteoporos Int 22:1873–1883PubMedCrossRef
18.
Fraser LA, Langsetmo L, Berger C et al (2011) Fracture prediction and calibration of a Canadian FRAX(R) tool: a population-based report from CaMos. Osteoporos Int 22:829–837PubMedCrossRef
19.
Kanis JA, Johnell O, Oden A et al (2000) Long-term risk of osteoporotic fracture in Malmo. Osteoporos Int 11:669–674PubMedCrossRef
20.
Leslie WD, Lix LM, Johansson H et al (2011) Spine-hip discordance and fracture risk assessment: a physician-friendly FRAX enhancement. Osteoporos Int 22:839–847PubMedCrossRef
21.
Dawson-Hughes B (2008) A revised clinician’s guide to the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 93:2463–2465PubMedCrossRef
22.
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
23.
Siminoski K, Leslie WD, Frame H et al (2005) Recommendations for bone mineral density reporting in Canada. Can Assoc Radiol J 56:178–188PubMed
24.
Papaioannou A, Morin S, Cheung AM et al (2010) 2010 clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in Canada: summary. CMAJ 182:1864–1873PubMedCrossRef
25.
Cook NR (2007) Use and misuse of the receiver operating characteristic curve in risk prediction. Circulation 115:928–935PubMedCrossRef
26.
Pencina MJ, D’Agostino RB Sr, D’Agostino RB Jr et al (2008) Evaluating the added predictive ability of a new marker: from area under the ROC curve to reclassification and beyond. Stat Med 27:157–172PubMedCrossRef
27.
Kanis JA, Hans D, Cooper C et al (2011) Interpretation and use of FRAX in clinical practice. Osteoporos Int 22:2395–2411PubMedCrossRef
28.
Hans DB, Kanis JA, Baim S et al (2011) Joint Official Positions of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry and International Osteoporosis Foundation on FRAX((R)) Executive Summary of the 2010 Position Development Conference on Interpretation and Use of FRAX((R)) in Clinical Practice. J Clin Densitom 14:171–180PubMedCrossRef
29.
Leslie WD, Lix LM, Manitoba Bone DensityProgram (2011) Effects of FRAX® model calibration on intervention rates: a simulation study. J Clin Densitom 14:272–278PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
A comparative study of using non-hip bone density inputs with FRAX®
Authors
W. D. Leslie
L. M. Lix
H. Johansson
A. Oden
E. McCloskey
J. A. Kanis
for the Manitoba Bone Density Program
Publication date
01-03-2012
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Osteoporosis International / Issue 3/2012
Print ISSN: 0937-941X
Electronic ISSN: 1433-2965
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-011-1814-8

Other articles of this Issue 3/2012

Osteoporosis International 3/2012 Go to the issue

Original Article

Comparative trends in hospitalizations for osteoporotic fractures and other frequent diseases between 2000 and 2008

Letter

Strontium uptake and effects in bone: reply to Fogelman and Blake

Original Article

Treatment for older men with fractures

Original Article

Impact of bone turnover markers and/or educational information on persistence to oral bisphosphonate therapy: a community setting-based trial

Original Article

The potential impact of the National Osteoporosis Foundation guidance on treatment eligibility in the USA: an update in NHANES 2005–2008

Original Article

Estimation of the lifetime risk of hip fracture for women and men in Canada