Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 1/2016

Open Access 01-12-2016 | Research article

Rationale of the Spanish FRAX model in decision-making for predicting osteoporotic fractures: an update of FRIDEX cohort of Spanish women

Authors: Rafael Azagra, Marta Zwart, Gloria Encabo, Amada Aguyé, Juan Carlos Martin-Sánchez, Nuria Puchol-Ruiz, Paula Gabriel-Escoda, Sergio Ortiz-Alinque, Emilio Gené, Milagros Iglesias, David Moriña, Miguel Angel Diaz-Herrera, Mireia Utzet, Josep Maria Manresa, On behalf of GROIMAP study group

Published in: BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders | Issue 1/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The FRAX® tool estimates the risk of a fragility fracture among the population and many countries have been evaluating its performance among their populations since its creation in 2007.
The purpose of this study is to update the first FRIDEX cohort analysis comparing FRAX with the bone mineral density (BMD) model, and its predictive abilities.

Methods

The discriminatory ability of the FRAX was assessed using the ‘area under curve’ of the receiver operating characteristic (AUC-ROC). Predictive ability was assessed by comparing estimated risk fractures with incidence fractures after a 10-year follow up period.

Results

One thousand three hundred eight women ≥ 40 and ≤ 90 years followed up during a 10-year period. The AUC for major osteoporotic fractures using FRAX without DXA was 0.686 (95 % CI 0.630–0.742) and using FN T-score of DXA 0.714 (95 % CI 0.661–0.767). Using only the traditional parameters of DXA (FN T-score), the AUC was 0.706 (95 % CI 0.652–0.760). The AUC for hip osteoporotic fracture was 0.883 (95 % CI 0.827–0.938), 0.857 (95 % CI 0.773–0.941), and 0.814 (95 % CI 0.712–0.916) respectively. For major osteoporotic fractures, the overall predictive value using the ratio Observed fractures/Expected fractures calculated with FRAX without T-score of DXA was 2.29 and for hip fractures 2.28 and with the inclusion of the T-score 2.01 and 1.83 respectively. However, for hip fracture in women < 65 years was 1.53 and 1.24 respectively.

Conclusions

The FRAX tool has been found to show a good discriminatory capacity for detecting women at high risk of fragility fracture, and is better for hip fracture than major fracture. The test of sensibility shows that it is, at least, not inferior than when using BMD model alone. The predictive capacity of FRAX tool needs some adjustment. This capacity is better for hip fracture prediction and better for women < 65 years. Further studies in Catalonia and other regions of Spain are needed to fine tune the FRAX tool’s predictive capability.
Literature
29.
go back to reference World Health Organization. Assessment of fracture risk and its application to screening for postmenopausal osteoporosis, Technical Report Series. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1994. p. 843. World Health Organization. Assessment of fracture risk and its application to screening for postmenopausal osteoporosis, Technical Report Series. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1994. p. 843.
32.
go back to reference Prieto-Alhambra D, Premaor MO, Fina Avilés F, Hermosilla E, Martinez-Laguna D, Carbonell-Abella C, et al. The association between fracture and obesity is site-dependent: a population-based study in postmenopausal women. J Bone Miner Res Off J Am Soc Bone Miner Res. 2012;27(2):294–300. Available from: http://view.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22095911. Accessed 2 May 2016.CrossRef Prieto-Alhambra D, Premaor MO, Fina Avilés F, Hermosilla E, Martinez-Laguna D, Carbonell-Abella C, et al. The association between fracture and obesity is site-dependent: a population-based study in postmenopausal women. J Bone Miner Res Off J Am Soc Bone Miner Res. 2012;27(2):294–300. Available from: http://​view.​ncbi.​nlm.​nih.​gov/​pubmed/​22095911. Accessed 2 May 2016.CrossRef
35.
42.
go back to reference Kanterewicz E, Puigoriol E, Garcia-Barrionuevo J, del Rio L, Casellas M, Peris P, et al. Prevalence of vertebral fractures and minor vertebral deformities evaluated by DXA-assisted vertebral fracture assessment (VFA) in a population-based study of postmenopausal women: the FRODOS study. Osteoporos Int. 2014;25(5):1455–64. Available from: http://view.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24599272. Accessed 2 May 2016.PubMed Kanterewicz E, Puigoriol E, Garcia-Barrionuevo J, del Rio L, Casellas M, Peris P, et al. Prevalence of vertebral fractures and minor vertebral deformities evaluated by DXA-assisted vertebral fracture assessment (VFA) in a population-based study of postmenopausal women: the FRODOS study. Osteoporos Int. 2014;25(5):1455–64. Available from: http://​view.​ncbi.​nlm.​nih.​gov/​pubmed/​24599272. Accessed 2 May 2016.PubMed
43.
go back to reference Sanfélix-Genovés J, Sanfélix-Gimeno G, Peiró S, Hurtado I, Fluixà C, Fuertes A, et al. Prevalence of osteoporotic fracture risk factors and antiosteoporotic treatments in the Valencia region, Spain. The baseline characteristics of the ESOSVAL cohort. Osteoporos Int. 2013;24(3):1045–55. Available from: http://view.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22618269. Accessed 2 May 2016.CrossRefPubMed Sanfélix-Genovés J, Sanfélix-Gimeno G, Peiró S, Hurtado I, Fluixà C, Fuertes A, et al. Prevalence of osteoporotic fracture risk factors and antiosteoporotic treatments in the Valencia region, Spain. The baseline characteristics of the ESOSVAL cohort. Osteoporos Int. 2013;24(3):1045–55. Available from: http://​view.​ncbi.​nlm.​nih.​gov/​pubmed/​22618269. Accessed 2 May 2016.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Rationale of the Spanish FRAX model in decision-making for predicting osteoporotic fractures: an update of FRIDEX cohort of Spanish women
Authors
Rafael Azagra
Marta Zwart
Gloria Encabo
Amada Aguyé
Juan Carlos Martin-Sánchez
Nuria Puchol-Ruiz
Paula Gabriel-Escoda
Sergio Ortiz-Alinque
Emilio Gené
Milagros Iglesias
David Moriña
Miguel Angel Diaz-Herrera
Mireia Utzet
Josep Maria Manresa
On behalf of GROIMAP study group
Publication date
01-12-2016
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders / Issue 1/2016
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2474
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-016-1096-6

Other articles of this Issue 1/2016

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 1/2016 Go to the issue