Literature DB >> 24190425

FRAX provides robust fracture prediction regardless of socioeconomic status.

S L Brennan1, W D Leslie, L M Lix, H Johansson, A Oden, E McCloskey, J A Kanis.   

Abstract

UNLABELLED: We investigated the fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX) Canada calibration and discrimination according to income quintile in 51,327 Canadian women, with and without a competing mortality framework. Our data show that, under a competing mortality framework, FRAX provides robust fracture prediction and calibration regardless of socioeconomic status (SES).
INTRODUCTION: FRAX® predicts 10-year fracture risk. Social factors may independently affect fracture risk. We investigated FRAX calibration and discrimination according to SES.
METHODS: Women aged ≥50 years with baseline femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD) were identified from the Manitoba Bone Density Program, Canada (n = 51,327), 1996-2011. Mean household income, extracted from 2006 census files, was categorized into quintiles. Ten-year fracture probabilities were calculated using FRAX Canada. Incident non-traumatic fractures were studied in relation to income quintile in adjusted Cox proportional hazards models. We compared observed versus predicted fractures with and without a competing mortality framework.
RESULTS: During mean 6.2 ± 3.7 years of follow up, there were 6,392 deaths, 3,723 women with ≥1 major osteoporotic fracture (MOF), and 1,027 with hip fractures. Lower income was associated with higher risk for death, MOF, and hip fracture in adjusted models (all p < 0.005). More women in income quintile 1 (lowest) versus quintile 5 experienced death (19 vs. 8%), MOF (10 vs. 6%), or hip fracture (3.0 vs. 1.3 %) (all p ≤ 0.001). Adjustment for competing mortality mitigated the effect of SES on FRAX calibration, and good calibration was observed. FRAX provided good fracture discrimination for MOF and hip fracture within each income quintile (all p < 0.001). Area under the curve was slightly lower for income quintiles 1 versus 5 for FRAX with BMD to predict MOF (0.68, 95% CI 0.66-0.70 vs. 0.71, 95% CI 0.69-0.74) and hip fracture (0.79, 95% CI 0.76-0.81 vs. 0.87, 95% CI 0.84-0.89).
CONCLUSION: Increased fracture risk in individuals of lower income is offset by increased mortality. Under a competing mortality framework, FRAX provides robust fracture prediction and calibration regardless of SES.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24190425     DOI: 10.1007/s00198-013-2525-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Osteoporos Int        ISSN: 0937-941X            Impact factor:   4.507


  56 in total

1.  Revisiting the Manitoba Centre for Health Policy and Evaluation and its population-based health information system.

Authors:  N P Roos; E Shapiro
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 2.983

2.  Do rates of hospital admission for falls and hip fracture in elderly people vary by socio-economic status?

Authors:  J West; J Hippisley-Cox; C A C Coupland; G M Price; L M Groom; D Kendrick; E Webber
Journal:  Public Health       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 2.427

3.  Psychosocial factors associated with fall-related hip fractures.

Authors:  Nancye M Peel; Roderick J McClure; Joan K Hendrikz
Journal:  Age Ageing       Date:  2007-01-27       Impact factor: 10.668

4.  Educational attainment and cigarette smoking: a causal association?

Authors:  Stephen E Gilman; Laurie T Martin; David B Abrams; Ichiro Kawachi; Laura Kubzansky; Eric B Loucks; Richard Rende; Rima Rudd; Stephen L Buka
Journal:  Int J Epidemiol       Date:  2008-01-06       Impact factor: 7.196

Review 5.  Gait disorders and balance disturbances in Parkinson's disease: clinical update and pathophysiology.

Authors:  Tjitske A Boonstra; Herman van der Kooij; Marten Munneke; Bastiaan R Bloem
Journal:  Curr Opin Neurol       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 5.710

6.  Social position affects bone mass in childhood through opposing actions on height and weight.

Authors:  Emma M Clark; Andy Ness; Jon H Tobias
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2005-08-08       Impact factor: 6.741

7.  Sarcopenia in premenopausal and postmenopausal women with osteopenia, osteoporosis and normal bone mineral density.

Authors:  Marianne C Walsh; Gary R Hunter; Margaret Barbara Livingstone
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2005-07-02       Impact factor: 4.507

8.  Competing mortality and fracture risk assessment.

Authors:  W D Leslie; L M Lix; X Wu
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2012-06-27       Impact factor: 4.507

9.  Fracture prediction and calibration of a Canadian FRAX® tool: a population-based report from CaMos.

Authors:  L-A Fraser; L Langsetmo; C Berger; G Ioannidis; D Goltzman; J D Adachi; A Papaioannou; R Josse; C S Kovacs; W P Olszynski; T Towheed; D A Hanley; S M Kaiser; J Prior; S Jamal; N Kreiger; J P Brown; H Johansson; A Oden; E McCloskey; J A Kanis; W D Leslie
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2010-12-16       Impact factor: 4.507

10.  Smoking and socioeconomic status in a population-based inner city sample of African-Americans, Latinos and whites.

Authors:  D Siegel; B Faigeles
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Risk       Date:  1996-06
View more
  10 in total

1.  Bone: Which model to predict fracture risk?

Authors:  Roger Bouillon; Dirk Vanderschueren
Journal:  Nat Rev Endocrinol       Date:  2014-02-11       Impact factor: 43.330

2.  Prediction of major osteoporotic and hip fractures in Australian men using FRAX scores adjusted with trabecular bone score.

Authors:  K L Holloway; M Mohebbi; A G Betson; D Hans; N K Hyde; S L Brennan-Olsen; M A Kotowicz; J A Pasco
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2017-09-23       Impact factor: 4.507

3.  European guidance for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women.

Authors:  J A Kanis; C Cooper; R Rizzoli; J-Y Reginster
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2018-10-15       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 4.  UK clinical guideline for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis.

Authors:  Celia L Gregson; David J Armstrong; Jean Bowden; Cyrus Cooper; John Edwards; Neil J L Gittoes; Nicholas Harvey; John Kanis; Sarah Leyland; Rebecca Low; Eugene McCloskey; Katie Moss; Jane Parker; Zoe Paskins; Kenneth Poole; David M Reid; Mike Stone; Julia Thomson; Nic Vine; Juliet Compston
Journal:  Arch Osteoporos       Date:  2022-04-05       Impact factor: 2.879

Review 5.  A systematic review of intervention thresholds based on FRAX : A report prepared for the National Osteoporosis Guideline Group and the International Osteoporosis Foundation.

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

Review 6.  Risk Assessment Tools for Osteoporosis Screening in Postmenopausal Women: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Carolyn J Crandall
Journal:  Curr Osteoporos Rep       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 5.096

7.  Fracture prediction from repeat BMD measurements in clinical practice.

Authors:  W D Leslie; S L Brennan-Olsen; S N Morin; L M Lix
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2015-08-05       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 8.  Overview of Fracture Prediction Tools.

Authors:  John A Kanis; Nicholas C Harvey; Helena Johansson; Anders Odén; Eugene V McCloskey; William D Leslie
Journal:  J Clin Densitom       Date:  2017-07-14       Impact factor: 2.617

9.  What Do We Know about Individuals Who Are Assessed as Being at Moderate Risk for Future Fracture in Canada?

Authors:  Joanna E M Sale; Ravi Jain; Kosalan Akilan; Kevin Senior; Dorcas Beaton; Earl Bogoch; Gilles Boire; Marie-Claude Beaulieu; David Lightfoot; Larry Funnell
Journal:  Health (Irvine Calif)       Date:  2015-05

Review 10.  Fractures in indigenous compared to non-indigenous populations: A systematic review of rates and aetiology.

Authors:  Sharon L Brennan-Olsen; Sara Vogrin; William D Leslie; Rita Kinsella; Maree Toombs; Gustavo Duque; Sarah M Hosking; Kara L Holloway; Brianna J Doolan; Lana J Williams; Richard S Page; Julie A Pasco; Shae E Quirk
Journal:  Bone Rep       Date:  2017-04-27
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.