UNLABELLED: The FRAX® tool estimates a 10-year probability of fracture based upon multiple clinical risk factors and an optional bone mineral density (BMD) measurement obtained from the femoral neck. We describe a simple procedure for using lumbar spine BMD to enhance fracture risk assessment under the FRAX system. INTRODUCTION: Discordance between lumbar spine (LS) and femoral neck (FN) T-scores is common and a source of clinical confusion since the LS measurement is not an input variable for the FRAX algorithm. The purpose of this study is to develop a procedure for adjusting FRAX probability based upon the T-score difference between the LS and FN (termed offset). METHODS: The Manitoba BMD database was used to identify baseline LS and FN dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry examinations (33,850 women and 2,518 men age 50 and older) with FRAX estimates for a major osteoporotic fracture categorized as low (<10%), moderate (10-20%), and high (>20%). Fracture outcomes were assessed from population-based administrative data. An approach was developed and internally validated using a split-cohort design. RESULTS: The offset was found to significantly affect fracture risk [HR, 1.12 (95% CI, 1.06-1.18) per SD LS below FN] independent of the FRAX probability. The following rule was formulated: "Increase/decrease FRAX estimate for a major fracture by one tenth for each rounded T-score difference between LS and FN." In the validation subgroup, there was a significant improvement in the fracture prediction using FRAX with the proposed offset adjustment for major osteoporotic (P = 0.007) and vertebral fracture prediction (P < 0.001). For those at moderate risk under FRAX, 12.6% showed reclassification using the offset to a risk level that more accurately reflected their observed risk (25.2% reclassification for moderate risk discordant cases). CONCLUSION: A simple procedure that incorporates the offset between the LS and FN T-scores can enhance fracture risk prediction under the FRAX system.
UNLABELLED: The FRAX® tool estimates a 10-year probability of fracture based upon multiple clinical risk factors and an optional bone mineral density (BMD) measurement obtained from the femoral neck. We describe a simple procedure for using lumbar spine BMD to enhance fracture risk assessment under the FRAX system. INTRODUCTION: Discordance between lumbar spine (LS) and femoral neck (FN) T-scores is common and a source of clinical confusion since the LS measurement is not an input variable for the FRAX algorithm. The purpose of this study is to develop a procedure for adjusting FRAX probability based upon the T-score difference between the LS and FN (termed offset). METHODS: The Manitoba BMD database was used to identify baseline LS and FN dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry examinations (33,850 women and 2,518 men age 50 and older) with FRAX estimates for a major osteoporotic fracture categorized as low (<10%), moderate (10-20%), and high (>20%). Fracture outcomes were assessed from population-based administrative data. An approach was developed and internally validated using a split-cohort design. RESULTS: The offset was found to significantly affect fracture risk [HR, 1.12 (95% CI, 1.06-1.18) per SD LS below FN] independent of the FRAX probability. The following rule was formulated: "Increase/decrease FRAX estimate for a major fracture by one tenth for each rounded T-score difference between LS and FN." In the validation subgroup, there was a significant improvement in the fracture prediction using FRAX with the proposed offset adjustment for major osteoporotic (P = 0.007) and vertebral fracture prediction (P < 0.001). For those at moderate risk under FRAX, 12.6% showed reclassification using the offset to a risk level that more accurately reflected their observed risk (25.2% reclassification for moderate risk discordant cases). CONCLUSION: A simple procedure that incorporates the offset between the LS and FN T-scores can enhance fracture risk prediction under the FRAX system.
Authors: Karen E Hansen; Neil Binkley; Rose Christian; Nellie Vallarta-Ast; Diane Krueger; Marc K Drezner; Robert D Blank Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2004-11-29 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: Neil Binkley; Gary M Kiebzak; E Michael Lewiecki; Diane Krueger; Ronald E Gangnon; Paul D Miller; John A Shepherd; Marc K Drezner Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2004-11-16 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: J A Kanis; O Johnell; A Oden; H Johansson; J A Eisman; S Fujiwara; H Kroger; R Honkanen; L J Melton; T O'Neill; J Reeve; A Silman; A Tenenhouse Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2006-01-10 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Jeffrey R Curtis; Amy S Mudano; Daniel H Solomon; Juan Xi; Mary Elkins Melton; Kenneth G Saag Journal: Med Care Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Alexandra Papaioannou; Suzanne Morin; Angela M Cheung; Stephanie Atkinson; Jacques P Brown; Sidney Feldman; David A Hanley; Anthony Hodsman; Sophie A Jamal; Stephanie M Kaiser; Brent Kvern; Kerry Siminoski; William D Leslie Journal: CMAJ Date: 2010-10-12 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: William D Leslie; Christopher S Kovacs; Wojciech P Olszynski; Tanveer Towheed; Stephanie M Kaiser; Jerilynn C Prior; Robert G Josse; Sophie A Jamal; Nancy Kreiger; David Goltzman Journal: J Clin Densitom Date: 2011-07-01 Impact factor: 2.617
Authors: John A Kanis; Nicholas C Harvey; Cyrus Cooper; Helena Johansson; Anders Odén; Eugene V McCloskey Journal: Arch Osteoporos Date: 2016-07-27 Impact factor: 2.617