Literature DB >> 27465509

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

John A Kanis1,2, Nicholas C Harvey3, Cyrus Cooper3, Helena Johansson4, Anders Odén4, Eugene V McCloskey4.   

Abstract

UNLABELLED: This systematic review identified assessment guidelines for osteoporosis that incorporate FRAX. The rationale for intervention thresholds is given in a minority of papers. Intervention thresholds (fixed or age-dependent) need to be country-specific.
INTRODUCTION: In most assessment guidelines, treatment for osteoporosis is recommended in individuals with prior fragility fractures, especially fractures at spine and hip. However, for those without prior fractures, the intervention thresholds can be derived using different methods. The aim of this report was to undertake a systematic review of the available information on the use of FRAX® in assessment guidelines, in particular the setting of thresholds and their validation.
METHODS: We identified 120 guidelines or academic papers that incorporated FRAX of which 38 provided no clear statement on how the fracture probabilities derived are to be used in decision-making in clinical practice. The remainder recommended a fixed intervention threshold (n = 58), most commonly as a component of more complex guidance (e.g. bone mineral density (BMD) thresholds) or an age-dependent threshold (n = 22). Two guidelines have adopted both age-dependent and fixed thresholds.
RESULTS: Fixed probability thresholds have ranged from 4 to 20 % for a major fracture and 1.3-5 % for hip fracture. More than one half (39) of the 58 publications identified utilised a threshold probability of 20 % for a major osteoporotic fracture, many of which also mention a hip fracture probability of 3 % as an alternative intervention threshold. In nearly all instances, no rationale is provided other than that this was the threshold used by the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA. Where undertaken, fixed probability thresholds have been determined from tests of discrimination (Hong Kong), health economic assessment (USA, Switzerland), to match the prevalence of osteoporosis (China) or to align with pre-existing guidelines or reimbursement criteria (Japan, Poland). Age-dependent intervention thresholds, first developed by the National Osteoporosis Guideline Group (NOGG), are based on the rationale that if a woman with a prior fragility fracture is eligible for treatment, then, at any given age, a man or woman with the same fracture probability but in the absence of a previous fracture (i.e. at the 'fracture threshold') should also be eligible. Under current NOGG guidelines, based on age-dependent probability thresholds, inequalities in access to therapy arise especially at older ages (≥70 years) depending on the presence or absence of a prior fracture. An alternative threshold using a hybrid model reduces this disparity.
CONCLUSION: The use of FRAX (fixed or age-dependent thresholds) as the gateway to assessment identifies individuals at high risk more effectively than the use of BMD. However, the setting of intervention thresholds needs to be country-specific.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Assessment guidelines; Calibration; Discrimination; FRAX; Intervention threshold

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27465509      PMCID: PMC4978487          DOI: 10.1007/s11657-016-0278-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Osteoporos            Impact factor:   2.617


  178 in total

1.  2010 clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in Canada: summary.

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

2.  Can fall risk be incorporated into fracture risk assessment algorithms: a pilot study of responsiveness to clodronate.

Authors:  K Kayan; H Johansson; A Oden; S Vasireddy; K Pande; J Orgee; J A Kanis; E V McCloskey
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2009-05-13       Impact factor: 4.507

3.  FRAX® International Task Force of the 2010 Joint International Society for Clinical Densitometry & International Osteoporosis Foundation Position Development Conference.

Authors:  Jane A Cauley; Ghada El-Hajj Fuleihan; Marjorie M Luckey
Journal:  J Clin Densitom       Date:  2011 Jul-Sep       Impact factor: 2.617

4.  American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists Medical Guidelines for Clinical Practice for the diagnosis and treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis.

Authors:  Nelson B Watts; John P Bilezikian; Pauline M Camacho; Susan L Greenspan; Steven T Harris; Stephen F Hodgson; Michael Kleerekoper; Marjorie M Luckey; Michael R McClung; Rachel Pessah Pollack; Steven M Petak
Journal:  Endocr Pract       Date:  2010 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 3.443

5.  Construction and validation of a simplified fracture risk assessment tool for Canadian women and men: results from the CaMos and Manitoba cohorts.

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

6.  Official Positions for FRAX® Bone Mineral Density and FRAX® simplification from Joint Official Positions Development Conference of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry and International Osteoporosis Foundation on FRAX®.

Authors:  E Michael Lewiecki; Juliet E Compston; Paul D Miller; Jonathan D Adachi; Judith E Adams; William D Leslie; John A Kanis; Alireza Moayyeri; Robert A Adler; Didier B Hans; David L Kendler; Adolfo Diez-Perez; Marc-Antoine Krieg; Basel K Masri; Roman R Lorenc; Douglas C Bauer; Glen M Blake; Robert G Josse; Patricia Clark; Aliya A Khan
Journal:  J Clin Densitom       Date:  2011 Jul-Sep       Impact factor: 2.617

Review 7.  Screening for osteoporosis in the adult U.S. population: ACPM position statement on preventive practice.

Authors:  Lionel S Lim; Laura J Hoeksema; Kevin Sherin
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 5.043

8.  Clinician's Guide to Prevention and Treatment of Osteoporosis.

Authors:  F Cosman; S J de Beur; M S LeBoff; E M Lewiecki; B Tanner; S Randall; R Lindsay
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2014-08-15       Impact factor: 4.507

9.  SCOPE: a scorecard for osteoporosis in Europe.

Authors:  J A Kanis; F Borgström; J Compston; K Dreinhöfer; E Nolte; L Jonsson; W F Lems; E V McCloskey; R Rizzoli; J Stenmark
Journal:  Arch Osteoporos       Date:  2013-09-13       Impact factor: 2.617

10.  Guidelines for the prevention and treatment of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis.

Authors:  Rosa Maria Rodrigues Pereira; Jozélio Freire de Carvalho; Ana Patrícia Paula; Cristiano Zerbini; Diogo S Domiciano; Helenice Gonçalves; Jaime S Danowski; João F Marques Neto; Laura M C Mendonça; Mailze C Bezerra; Maria Teresa Terreri; Marta Imamura; Pedro Weingrill; Perola G Plapler; Sebastião Radominski; Tatiana Tourinho; Vera L Szejnfeld; Nathalia C Andrada
Journal:  Rev Bras Reumatol       Date:  2012-08
View more
  116 in total

1.  Comparison of Methods for Improving Fracture Risk Assessment in Diabetes: The Manitoba BMD Registry.

Authors:  William D Leslie; Helena Johansson; Eugene V McCloskey; Nicholas C Harvey; John A Kanis; Didier Hans
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2018-07-16       Impact factor: 6.741

2.  FRAX: a coming of age.

Authors:  W D Leslie
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2018-09-25       Impact factor: 4.507

3.  Comparison of strategies for setting intervention thresholds for Chinese postmenopausal women using the FRAX model.

Authors:  Shu-Ying Liu; Meng Huang; Rong Chen; Na Ding; Hong Liu; Zhong-Jian Xie; Zhi-Feng Sheng; Bi-Hua Luo; Yang-Na Ou
Journal:  Endocrine       Date:  2019-05-20       Impact factor: 3.633

4.  FRAX-based intervention and assessment thresholds in seven Latin American countries.

Authors:  P Clark; E Denova-Gutiérrez; C Zerbini; A Sanchez; O Messina; J J Jaller; C Campusano; C H Orces; G Riera; H Johansson; J A Kanis
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2017-12-23       Impact factor: 4.507

5.  Cost-effective but clinically inappropriate: new NICE intervention thresholds in osteoporosis (Technology Appraisal 464).

Authors:  N C Harvey; E McCloskey; J A Kanis; J Compston; C Cooper
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2018-06-08       Impact factor: 4.507

6.  Underestimated fracture risk in postmenopausal women-application of the hybrid intervention threshold.

Authors:  Y Wang; S Yu; C Hsu; C Tsai; T Cheng
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2019-11-06       Impact factor: 4.507

7.  FRAX and ethnicity.

Authors:  J A Kanis; C Cooper; B Dawson-Hughes; N C Harvey; H Johansson; M Lorentzon; E V McCloskey; J-Y Reginster; R Rizzoli
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2020-09-04       Impact factor: 4.507

8.  Risk-equivalent T-score adjustment for using lumbar spine trabecular bone score (TBS): the Manitoba BMD registry.

Authors:  W D Leslie; E Shevroja; H Johansson; E V McCloskey; N C Harvey; J A Kanis; D Hans
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2018-02-01       Impact factor: 4.507

9.  Fracture prediction from self-reported falls in routine clinical practice: a registry-based cohort study.

Authors:  W D Leslie; S N Morin; L M Lix; P Martineau; M Bryanton; E V McCloskey; H Johansson; N C Harvey; J A Kanis
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2019-08-02       Impact factor: 4.507

10.  FRAX-based intervention and assessment thresholds for osteoporosis in Iran.

Authors:  P Khashayar; A Keshtkar; A Ostovar; B Larijani; H Johansson; N C Harvey; M Lorentzon; E McCloskey; J A Kanis
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2019-08-01       Impact factor: 4.507

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.