William D Leslie1, Lisa M Lix2, Neil Binkley3. 1. Department of Medicine (C5121), University of Manitoba, 409 Tache Avenue, Winnipeg, Manitoba, R2H 2A6, Canada. bleslie@sbgh.mb.ca. 2. Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. 3. University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA.
Abstract
The best screening strategy to identify treatment qualification based upon indicators of high fracture risk (low-trauma fractures of the hip, spine, or multiple fracture episodes at other sites; high fracture probability with the Canadian fracture risk assessment [FRAX®] tool major osteoporotic fracture [MOF] computed with bone mineral density [BMD] > 20%; or vertebral fracture on vertebral fracture assessment [VFA]) was FRAX-MOF without BMD using a cutoff of ≥ 10%. PURPOSE: To inform clinical practice guidelines in Canada, we compared multiple screening tools using the population-based Manitoba BMD Program registry. METHODS: The study populations consisted of (a) 28,906 individuals > 50 years or older, and (b) 15,429 women age > 65 years undergoing baseline BMD assessment (2010-2018). We considered two treatment qualifications: Treatment Approach 1: prior high-risk fracture, high fracture probability (FRAX-MOF with BMD > 20%), or vertebral fracture on VFA; Treatment Approach 2: Approach 1 or an osteoporotic BMD T score. Candidate screening tools were FRAX-MOF without BMD, age alone, weight alone, SCORE, ORAI, SOFSURF, OSIRIS, ABONE, and OST. Healthcare records were assessed for the presence of incident fracture diagnoses. RESULTS: Among all individuals, FRAX-MOF without BMD demonstrated the best ability to identify those satisfying Treatment Approach 1 (area under the curve [AUC 0.863]) and was significantly better than all other screening tools (P < 0.001). For identification of individuals satisfying Treatment Approach 2, FRAX-MOF without BMD showed moderate stratification (AUC 0.735), slightly lower than OSIRIS (AUC 0.752, P < 0.05), similar to SCORE (AUC 0.739, P > 0.05) and significantly better than all other screening tools (P < 0.05). For prediction of incident MOF, FRAX-MOF without BMD achieved the highest performance (AUC 0.652), and was significantly better than all other screening tools except OSIRIS. AUCs among women age > 65 years tended to be greater with a similar ranking, and no tool outperformed FRAX-MOF without BMD. Based upon a summary score, the highest ranked strategy was FRAX-MOF without BMD using a cutoff of 10%. CONCLUSIONS: All screening tools show some ability to identify individuals qualifying for treatment and stratify risk for incident fracture. For treatment based upon indicators of high fracture risk, the best performing strategy was FRAX-MOF without BMD using a cutoff of ≥ 10%.
The best screening strategy to identify treatment qualification based upon indicators of high fracture risk (low-trauma fractures of the hip, spine, or multiple fracture episodes at other sites; high fracture probability with the Canadian fracture risk assessment [FRAX®] tool major osteoporotic fracture [MOF] computed with bone mineral density [BMD] > 20%; or vertebral fracture on vertebral fracture assessment [VFA]) was FRAX-MOF without BMD using a cutoff of ≥ 10%. PURPOSE: To inform clinical practice guidelines in Canada, we compared multiple screening tools using the population-based Manitoba BMD Program registry. METHODS: The study populations consisted of (a) 28,906 individuals > 50 years or older, and (b) 15,429 women age > 65 years undergoing baseline BMD assessment (2010-2018). We considered two treatment qualifications: Treatment Approach 1: prior high-risk fracture, high fracture probability (FRAX-MOF with BMD > 20%), or vertebral fracture on VFA; Treatment Approach 2: Approach 1 or an osteoporotic BMD T score. Candidate screening tools were FRAX-MOF without BMD, age alone, weight alone, SCORE, ORAI, SOFSURF, OSIRIS, ABONE, and OST. Healthcare records were assessed for the presence of incident fracture diagnoses. RESULTS: Among all individuals, FRAX-MOF without BMD demonstrated the best ability to identify those satisfying Treatment Approach 1 (area under the curve [AUC 0.863]) and was significantly better than all other screening tools (P < 0.001). For identification of individuals satisfying Treatment Approach 2, FRAX-MOF without BMD showed moderate stratification (AUC 0.735), slightly lower than OSIRIS (AUC 0.752, P < 0.05), similar to SCORE (AUC 0.739, P > 0.05) and significantly better than all other screening tools (P < 0.05). For prediction of incident MOF, FRAX-MOF without BMD achieved the highest performance (AUC 0.652), and was significantly better than all other screening tools except OSIRIS. AUCs among women age > 65 years tended to be greater with a similar ranking, and no tool outperformed FRAX-MOF without BMD. Based upon a summary score, the highest ranked strategy was FRAX-MOF without BMD using a cutoff of 10%. CONCLUSIONS: All screening tools show some ability to identify individuals qualifying for treatment and stratify risk for incident fracture. For treatment based upon indicators of high fracture risk, the best performing strategy was FRAX-MOF without BMD using a cutoff of ≥ 10%.