Sören Möller1,2, Michael K Skjødt3,4, Lin Yan5, Bo Abrahamsen3,4, Lisa M Lix5, Eugene V McCloskey6,7, Helena Johansson6,8, Nicholas C Harvey9,10, John A Kanis6,8, Katrine Hass Rubin11,3, William D Leslie5. 1. Open Patient data Explorative Network, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark. soren.moller@rsyd.dk. 2. Research unit OPEN, Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark. soren.moller@rsyd.dk. 3. Research unit OPEN, Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark. 4. Department of Medicine, Holbæk Hospital, Holbæk, Denmark. 5. University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada. 6. Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield Medical School, Sheffield, UK. 7. Centre for Integrated Research in Musculoskeletal Ageing (CIMA), Mellanby Centre for Bone Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK. 8. Mary MacKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia. 9. MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK. 10. NIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, University of Southampton and University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK. 11. Open Patient data Explorative Network, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.
Abstract
The Fracture Risk Evaluation Model (FREM) identifies individuals at high imminent risk of major osteoporotic fractures. We validated FREM on 74,828 individuals from Manitoba, Canada, and found significant fracture risk stratification for all FREM scores. FREM performed better than age alone but not as well as FRAX® with BMD. INTRODUCTION: The FREM is a tool developed from Danish public health registers (hospital diagnoses) to identify individuals over age 45 years at high imminent risk of major osteoporotic fractures (MOF) and hip fracture (HF). In this study, our aim was to examine the ability of FREM to identify individuals at high imminent fracture risk in women and men from Manitoba, Canada. METHODS: We used the population-based Manitoba Bone Mineral Density (BMD) Program registry, and identified women and men aged 45 years or older undergoing baseline BMD assessment with 2 years of follow-up data. From linked population-based data sources, we constructed FREM scores using up to 10 years of prior healthcare information. RESULTS: The study population comprised 74,828 subjects, and during the 2 years of observation, 1612 incident MOF and 299 incident HF occurred. We found significant fracture risk stratification for all FREM scores, with AUC estimates of 0.63-0.66 for MOF for both sexes and 0.84 for women and 0.65-0.67 for men for HF. FREM performed better than age alone but not as well as FRAX® with BMD. The inclusion of physician claims data gave slightly better performance than hospitalization data alone. Overall calibration for 1-year MOF prediction was reasonable, but HF prediction was overestimated. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, the FREM algorithm shows significant fracture risk stratification when applied to an independent clinical population from Manitoba, Canada. Overall calibration for MOF prediction was good, but hip fracture risk was systematically overestimated indicating the need for recalibration.
The Fracture Risk Evaluation Model (FREM) identifies individuals at high imminent risk of major osteoporotic fractures. We validated FREM on 74,828 individuals from Manitoba, Canada, and found significant fracture risk stratification for all FREM scores. FREM performed better than age alone but not as well as FRAX® with BMD. INTRODUCTION: The FREM is a tool developed from Danish public health registers (hospital diagnoses) to identify individuals over age 45 years at high imminent risk of major osteoporotic fractures (MOF) and hip fracture (HF). In this study, our aim was to examine the ability of FREM to identify individuals at high imminent fracture risk in women and men from Manitoba, Canada. METHODS: We used the population-based Manitoba Bone Mineral Density (BMD) Program registry, and identified women and men aged 45 years or older undergoing baseline BMD assessment with 2 years of follow-up data. From linked population-based data sources, we constructed FREM scores using up to 10 years of prior healthcare information. RESULTS: The study population comprised 74,828 subjects, and during the 2 years of observation, 1612 incident MOF and 299 incident HF occurred. We found significant fracture risk stratification for all FREM scores, with AUC estimates of 0.63-0.66 for MOF for both sexes and 0.84 for women and 0.65-0.67 for men for HF. FREM performed better than age alone but not as well as FRAX® with BMD. The inclusion of physician claims data gave slightly better performance than hospitalization data alone. Overall calibration for 1-year MOF prediction was reasonable, but HF prediction was overestimated. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, the FREM algorithm shows significant fracture risk stratification when applied to an independent clinical population from Manitoba, Canada. Overall calibration for MOF prediction was good, but hip fracture risk was systematically overestimated indicating the need for recalibration.
Authors: Jonathan D Adachi; Claudie Berger; Rich Barron; Derek Weycker; Tassos P Anastassiades; K Shawn Davison; David A Hanley; George Ioannidis; Stuart A Jackson; Robert G Josse; Stephanie M Kaiser; Christopher S Kovacs; William D Leslie; Suzanne N Morin; Alexandra Papaioannou; Jerilynn C Prior; Erinda Shyta; Amanda Silvia; Tanveer Towheed; David Goltzman Journal: Arch Osteoporos Date: 2019-05-16 Impact factor: 2.617
Authors: H Johansson; K Siggeirsdóttir; N C Harvey; A Odén; V Gudnason; E McCloskey; G Sigurdsson; J A Kanis Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2016-12-27 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Katrine Hass Rubin; Teresa Friis-Holmberg; Anne Pernille Hermann; Bo Abrahamsen; Kim Brixen Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2013-08 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: John A Kanis; Nicholas Norton; Nicholas C Harvey; Trolle Jacobson; Helena Johansson; Mattias Lorentzon; Eugene V McCloskey; Carl Willers; Fredrik Borgström Journal: Arch Osteoporos Date: 2021-06-02 Impact factor: 2.617
Authors: J A Kanis; C Cooper; R Rizzoli; B Abrahamsen; N M Al-Daghri; M L Brandi; J Cannata-Andia; B Cortet; H P Dimai; S Ferrari; P Hadji; N C Harvey; M Kraenzlin; A Kurth; E McCloskey; S Minisola; T Thomas; J-Y Reginster Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2017-04-27 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: M T Löffler; M Kallweit; E Niederreiter; T Baum; M R Makowski; C Zimmer; J S Kirschke Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2021-10-14 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Elizabeth M Curtis; Jean-Yves Reginster; Nasser Al-Daghri; Emmanuel Biver; Maria Luisa Brandi; Etienne Cavalier; Peyman Hadji; Philippe Halbout; Nicholas C Harvey; Mickaël Hiligsmann; M Kassim Javaid; John A Kanis; Jean-Marc Kaufman; Olivier Lamy; Radmila Matijevic; Adolfo Diez Perez; Régis Pierre Radermecker; Mário Miguel Rosa; Thierry Thomas; Friederike Thomasius; Mila Vlaskovska; René Rizzoli; Cyrus Cooper Journal: Aging Clin Exp Res Date: 2022-03-24 Impact factor: 4.481