W D Leslie1,2, S R Majumdar3, L M Lix4, R G Josse5, H Johansson6, A Oden6, E V McCloskey6, J A Kanis6. 1. University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada. bleslie@sbgh.mb.ca. 2. Department of Medicine (C5121), St. Boniface Hospital, 409 Tache Avenue, Winnipeg, MB, R2H 2A6, Canada. bleslie@sbgh.mb.ca. 3. University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada. 4. University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada. 5. University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. 6. Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield Medical School, Sheffield, UK.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: FRAX(R) incrementally improved prediction of incident major osteoporotic fractures compared with the simplified Canadian Association of Radiologists and Osteoporosis Canada (CAROC) tool. INTRODUCTION: There is debate over the value of seemingly more complex fracture prediction tools over simpler fracture prediction tools. FRAX(R) and the simplified CAROC tool are both widely used in Canada for estimating 10-year probability of major osteoporotic fractures. We compared the performance of these tools for predicting fracture outcomes. METHODS: Using a bone densitometry registry for Manitoba, Canada, we identified 34,060 individuals age ≥50 years not receiving anti-osteoporosis therapy. Fracture Risk Assessment (FRAX) and CAROC were used to classify 10-year fracture risk as low (<10 %), moderate (10-20 %) and high (>20 %). Net reclassification improvement (NRI) was used to quantify the performance of FRAX versus CAROC. RESULTS: During mean 9.8 years of follow-up, 3905 individuals sustained fractures. There were 10 (of 35 total) situations where observed fracture risk fell outside of the predicted range, and all 10 discordances favoured FRAX. NRI among incident fracture cases was not significantly changed, but there was a significant improvement in risk categorization for those who remained fracture-free (+1.7 %, P < 0.001) resulting in overall improvement (NRI overall +0.028, P < 0.001). Within nine pre-specified subgroups, there was no case of significant worsening in NRI when using FRAX instead of CAROC. In absolute terms, only 36 individuals would need to be assessed using FRAX instead of CAROC to yield an improvement in prediction (8 among individuals with prior fracture and 4 among those with prolonged glucocorticoid use). CONCLUSIONS: FRAX provides improvement in fracture risk prediction compared with the simplified CAROC tool in individuals referred for osteoporosis screening, supporting the use of FRAX as the international reference tool for fracture risk assessment.
UNLABELLED: FRAX(R) incrementally improved prediction of incident major osteoporotic fractures compared with the simplified Canadian Association of Radiologists and Osteoporosis Canada (CAROC) tool. INTRODUCTION: There is debate over the value of seemingly more complex fracture prediction tools over simpler fracture prediction tools. FRAX(R) and the simplified CAROC tool are both widely used in Canada for estimating 10-year probability of major osteoporotic fractures. We compared the performance of these tools for predicting fracture outcomes. METHODS: Using a bone densitometry registry for Manitoba, Canada, we identified 34,060 individuals age ≥50 years not receiving anti-osteoporosis therapy. Fracture Risk Assessment (FRAX) and CAROC were used to classify 10-year fracture risk as low (<10 %), moderate (10-20 %) and high (>20 %). Net reclassification improvement (NRI) was used to quantify the performance of FRAX versus CAROC. RESULTS: During mean 9.8 years of follow-up, 3905 individuals sustained fractures. There were 10 (of 35 total) situations where observed fracture risk fell outside of the predicted range, and all 10 discordances favoured FRAX. NRI among incident fracture cases was not significantly changed, but there was a significant improvement in risk categorization for those who remained fracture-free (+1.7 %, P < 0.001) resulting in overall improvement (NRI overall +0.028, P < 0.001). Within nine pre-specified subgroups, there was no case of significant worsening in NRI when using FRAX instead of CAROC. In absolute terms, only 36 individuals would need to be assessed using FRAX instead of CAROC to yield an improvement in prediction (8 among individuals with prior fracture and 4 among those with prolonged glucocorticoid use). CONCLUSIONS: FRAX provides improvement in fracture risk prediction compared with the simplified CAROC tool in individuals referred for osteoporosis screening, supporting the use of FRAX as the international reference tool for fracture risk assessment.
Entities:
Keywords:
Bone mineral density; Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry; Fracture; Fracture risk; Osteoporosis
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: John A Kanis; Anders Oden; Helena Johansson; Fredrik Borgström; Oskar Ström; Eugene McCloskey Journal: Bone Date: 2009-02-03 Impact factor: 4.398
Authors: Maarten J G Leening; Moniek M Vedder; Jacqueline C M Witteman; Michael J Pencina; Ewout W Steyerberg Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2014-01-21 Impact factor: 25.391
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
Authors: W D Leslie; C Berger; L Langsetmo; L M Lix; J D Adachi; D A Hanley; G Ioannidis; R G Josse; C S Kovacs; T Towheed; S Kaiser; W P Olszynski; J C Prior; S Jamal; N Kreiger; D Goltzman Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2010-10-22 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Katie L Stone; Dana G Seeley; Li-Yung Lui; Jane A Cauley; Kristine Ensrud; Warren S Browner; Michael C Nevitt; Steven R Cummings Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: Ethel S Siris; Ya-Ting Chen; Thomas A Abbott; Elizabeth Barrett-Connor; Paul D Miller; Lois E Wehren; Marc L Berger Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2004-05-24
Authors: Shivraj Riar; A Lynn Feasel; Fariba Aghajafari; Dean Frohlich; Christopher J Symonds; Greg A Kline; Emma O Billington Journal: CMAJ Open Date: 2021-06-23