Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Calcified Tissue International 2/2016

01-08-2016 | Original Research

How Good is Our Best Guess? Clinical Application of the WHO FRAX Tool in Osteoporotic Fracture Risk Determination and Treatment Decisions

Authors: Laura Hinz, Elizabeth Freiheit, Gregory Kline

Published in: Calcified Tissue International | Issue 2/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Historically, treatment decisions for osteoporosis were based on bone mineral density. However, many fractures occur in patients with T-scores outside the osteoporotic range, emphasizing the importance of multi-factorial risk assessments. The World Health Organization Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) predicts 10-year risk of osteoporotic fracture. We hypothesized that physicians’ clinical estimates of osteoporotic fracture risk would differ significantly from that calculated by FRAX. Thus, treatment decisions would differ depending whether or not physicians used FRAX. A survey consisting of five clinical scenarios was administered to 76 endocrinologists, family physicians, internists, and internal medicine residents. They were asked to estimate the osteoporotic fracture risk and decide whether they would offer preventative treatment. Their estimates were compared to the risk predicted by FRAX and national treatment threshold guidelines. The primary outcome was the difference between the participant’s estimate and the FRAX-based estimate of the 10-year risk of osteoporotic fracture for each scenario. In each scenario, physicians statistically significantly over-estimated fracture risk compared to that predicted by FRAX. Estimates for hip fracture risk were 2–4 times higher than FRAX estimates. The major osteoporotic fracture risk at which participants would offer treatment varied with physician group, with endocrinologists, family physicians, and residents requiring a 10–20 % 10-year risk, while internal medicine physician thresholds ranged from 2 to 20 %. Physicians greatly over-estimated the risk of hip fracture based on clinical information. FRAX is necessary to accurately quantify risk, but because physicians varied in the level of risk required before they would offer treatment, uniform approaches to risk estimation may still not result in uniform clinical treatment decisions.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Setty N, LeBoff M, Thornhill T et al (2011) Underestimated fracture probability in patients with unilateral hip osteoarthritis as calculated by FRAX. J clin densitom 14:447–452CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Setty N, LeBoff M, Thornhill T et al (2011) Underestimated fracture probability in patients with unilateral hip osteoarthritis as calculated by FRAX. J clin densitom 14:447–452CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
2.
go back to reference Cosman F (2013) Clinician’s guide to prevention and treatment of osteoporosis. National Osteoporosis Foundation, Washington, DC Cosman F (2013) Clinician’s guide to prevention and treatment of osteoporosis. National Osteoporosis Foundation, Washington, DC
3.
go back to reference Watts N (2011) The fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX): Applications in clinical practice. J Women’s Health 20:525–531CrossRef Watts N (2011) The fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX): Applications in clinical practice. J Women’s Health 20:525–531CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Badurski J, Kanis J, Johansson H et al (2011) The application of FRAX to determine intervention thresholds in osteoporosis treatment in Poland. Pol Arch Med Wewnetrzejej 121:148–154 Badurski J, Kanis J, Johansson H et al (2011) The application of FRAX to determine intervention thresholds in osteoporosis treatment in Poland. Pol Arch Med Wewnetrzejej 121:148–154
5.
go back to reference Hillier T, Cauley J, Rizzo J et al (2011) WHO absolute fracture risk models (FRAX): do clinical risk factors improve fracture prediction in older women without osteoprosis? J Bone Miner Res 26:1774–1782CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Hillier T, Cauley J, Rizzo J et al (2011) WHO absolute fracture risk models (FRAX): do clinical risk factors improve fracture prediction in older women without osteoprosis? J Bone Miner Res 26:1774–1782CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
6.
go back to reference Papaioannou A, Morin S, Cheung A et al (2010) 2010 Clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in Canada: summary. Can Med Assoc J 182:1864–1873CrossRef Papaioannou A, Morin S, Cheung A et al (2010) 2010 Clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in Canada: summary. Can Med Assoc J 182:1864–1873CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Hamilton-Craig C, Tonkin A, Jobling R (2000) How accurate are hypertension treatment decisions? Absolute risk assessment and prescribing for moderate hypertension-a study of Cambridge general practitioners. Blood Press 9:323–327CrossRefPubMed Hamilton-Craig C, Tonkin A, Jobling R (2000) How accurate are hypertension treatment decisions? Absolute risk assessment and prescribing for moderate hypertension-a study of Cambridge general practitioners. Blood Press 9:323–327CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Steel N (2000) Thresholds for taking antihypertensive drugs in different professional and lay groups: questionnaire survey. Br Med J 320:1446–1447CrossRef Steel N (2000) Thresholds for taking antihypertensive drugs in different professional and lay groups: questionnaire survey. Br Med J 320:1446–1447CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Friedmann P, Brett A, Mayo-Smith M (1996) Differences in generalists’ and cardiologists’ perceptions of cardiovascular risk and the outcomes of preventive therapy in cardiovascular disease. Ann Intern Med 124:414–421CrossRefPubMed Friedmann P, Brett A, Mayo-Smith M (1996) Differences in generalists’ and cardiologists’ perceptions of cardiovascular risk and the outcomes of preventive therapy in cardiovascular disease. Ann Intern Med 124:414–421CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Persson M, Carlberg B, Tavelin B, Lindholm L (2003) Doctors’ estimation of cardiovascular risk and willingness to give drug treatment in hypertension: fair risk assessment but defensive treatment policy. J Hypertens 22:65–71CrossRef Persson M, Carlberg B, Tavelin B, Lindholm L (2003) Doctors’ estimation of cardiovascular risk and willingness to give drug treatment in hypertension: fair risk assessment but defensive treatment policy. J Hypertens 22:65–71CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Neuner JM, Schapira MM (2012) The importance of physicians’ risk perception in osteoporosis treatment decision making. J Clin Densitom 15:49–54CrossRefPubMed Neuner JM, Schapira MM (2012) The importance of physicians’ risk perception in osteoporosis treatment decision making. J Clin Densitom 15:49–54CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Kanis J, 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 18:1033–1046CrossRefPubMed Kanis J, 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 18:1033–1046CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Solomon DH, Connelly MT, Rosen CJ et al (2003) Factors related to the use of bone densitometry: survey responses of 494 primary care physicians in New England. Osteoporos Int 14:123–129PubMed Solomon DH, Connelly MT, Rosen CJ et al (2003) Factors related to the use of bone densitometry: survey responses of 494 primary care physicians in New England. Osteoporos Int 14:123–129PubMed
15.
go back to reference Briot K, Cortet B, Thomas T et al (2012) 2012 update of French guidelines for the pharmacological treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Joint Bone Spine 79:304–313CrossRefPubMed Briot K, Cortet B, Thomas T et al (2012) 2012 update of French guidelines for the pharmacological treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Joint Bone Spine 79:304–313CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Compston J, Bowring C, Cooper A et al (2013) Diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women and older men in the UK: National Osteoporosis Guideline Group (NOGG) update 2013. Maturitas 75:392–396CrossRefPubMed Compston J, Bowring C, Cooper A et al (2013) Diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women and older men in the UK: National Osteoporosis Guideline Group (NOGG) update 2013. Maturitas 75:392–396CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Hagino H (2014) New diagnostic criteria and guidelines on osteoporosis: Criteria for initiation of pharmacologic treatment by Japanese 2011 guidelines for prevention and treatment of osteoporosis. Clin Calcium 24:339–347PubMed Hagino H (2014) New diagnostic criteria and guidelines on osteoporosis: Criteria for initiation of pharmacologic treatment by Japanese 2011 guidelines for prevention and treatment of osteoporosis. Clin Calcium 24:339–347PubMed
19.
go back to reference Douglas F, Petrie KJ, Cundy T et al (2012) Differing perceptions of intervention thresholds for fracture risk: a survey of patients and doctors. Osteoporos Int 23:2135–2140CrossRefPubMed Douglas F, Petrie KJ, Cundy T et al (2012) Differing perceptions of intervention thresholds for fracture risk: a survey of patients and doctors. Osteoporos Int 23:2135–2140CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Ensrud K, Lui L-Y, Taylor B et al (2009) A comparison of prediction models for fractures in older women: is more better? Arch intern Med 169:2087–2094CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Ensrud K, Lui L-Y, Taylor B et al (2009) A comparison of prediction models for fractures in older women: is more better? Arch intern Med 169:2087–2094CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
21.
go back to reference Solomon DH, Patrick AR, Schousboe J, Losina E (2014) The potential economic benefits of improved post-fracture care: a cost-effectiveness analysis of a fracture liaison service in the US health care system. J Bone Miner Res 29:1667–1674CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Solomon DH, Patrick AR, Schousboe J, Losina E (2014) The potential economic benefits of improved post-fracture care: a cost-effectiveness analysis of a fracture liaison service in the US health care system. J Bone Miner Res 29:1667–1674CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
22.
go back to reference Tosteson A, Melton L, Dawson-Hughes B et al (2008) Cost-effective osteoporosis treatment thresholds: the United States perspective. Osteoporos Int 16:437–447CrossRef Tosteson A, Melton L, Dawson-Hughes B et al (2008) Cost-effective osteoporosis treatment thresholds: the United States perspective. Osteoporos Int 16:437–447CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Adami S, Bertoldo F, Gatti D et al (2013) Treatment thresholds for osteoporosis and reimbursability criteria: perspectives associated with fracture risk-assessment tools. Calcif Tissue Int 93:195–200CrossRefPubMed Adami S, Bertoldo F, Gatti D et al (2013) Treatment thresholds for osteoporosis and reimbursability criteria: perspectives associated with fracture risk-assessment tools. Calcif Tissue Int 93:195–200CrossRefPubMed
25.
go back to reference Nayak S, Edwards DL, Saleh AA, Greenspan SL (2014) Performance of risk assessment instruments for predicting osteoporotic fracture risk: a systematic review. Osteoporos Int 25:23–49CrossRefPubMed Nayak S, Edwards DL, Saleh AA, Greenspan SL (2014) Performance of risk assessment instruments for predicting osteoporotic fracture risk: a systematic review. Osteoporos Int 25:23–49CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
How Good is Our Best Guess? Clinical Application of the WHO FRAX Tool in Osteoporotic Fracture Risk Determination and Treatment Decisions
Authors
Laura Hinz
Elizabeth Freiheit
Gregory Kline
Publication date
01-08-2016
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Calcified Tissue International / Issue 2/2016
Print ISSN: 0171-967X
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0827
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00223-016-0134-6

Other articles of this Issue 2/2016

Calcified Tissue International 2/2016 Go to the issue