Xiao-Ke Kong1,2, Zhi-Yun Zhao1,2, Deng Zhang1,2, Rui Xie1,2, Li-Hao Sun1,2, Hong-Yan Zhao1,2, Guang Ning1,2, Wei-Qing Wang3,4, Jian-Min Liu5,6, Bei Tao7,8. 1. Department of Endocrine and Metabolic Diseases, Shanghai Institute of Endocrine and Metabolic Diseases, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China. 2. Shanghai National Clinical Research Center for Metabolic Diseases, Key Laboratory for Endocrine and Metabolic Diseases of the National Health Commission of the PR China, Shanghai Key Laboratory for Endocrine Tumor, State Key Laboratory of Medical Genomics, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China. 3. Department of Endocrine and Metabolic Diseases, Shanghai Institute of Endocrine and Metabolic Diseases, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China. wqingw@163.com. 4. Shanghai National Clinical Research Center for Metabolic Diseases, Key Laboratory for Endocrine and Metabolic Diseases of the National Health Commission of the PR China, Shanghai Key Laboratory for Endocrine Tumor, State Key Laboratory of Medical Genomics, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China. wqingw@163.com. 5. Department of Endocrine and Metabolic Diseases, Shanghai Institute of Endocrine and Metabolic Diseases, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China. ljm10586@rjh.com.cn. 6. Shanghai National Clinical Research Center for Metabolic Diseases, Key Laboratory for Endocrine and Metabolic Diseases of the National Health Commission of the PR China, Shanghai Key Laboratory for Endocrine Tumor, State Key Laboratory of Medical Genomics, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China. ljm10586@rjh.com.cn. 7. Department of Endocrine and Metabolic Diseases, Shanghai Institute of Endocrine and Metabolic Diseases, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China. taobei1981@hotmail.com. 8. Shanghai National Clinical Research Center for Metabolic Diseases, Key Laboratory for Endocrine and Metabolic Diseases of the National Health Commission of the PR China, Shanghai Key Laboratory for Endocrine Tumor, State Key Laboratory of Medical Genomics, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China. taobei1981@hotmail.com.
Abstract
The widely recommended fracture prediction tool FRAX was developed based on and for the general population. Although several adjusted FRAX methods were suggested for type 2 diabetes (T2DM), they still need to be evaluated in T2DM cohort. INTRODUCTION: This study was undertaken to develop a prediction model for Chinese diabetes fracture risk (CDFR) and compare its performance with those of FRAX. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, 1730 patients with T2DM were enrolled from 2009.08 to 2013.07. Major osteoporotic fractures (MOFs) during follow-up were collected from Electronic Health Records (EHRs) and telephone interviews. Multivariate Cox regression with backward stepwise selection was used to fit the model. The performances of the CDFR model, FRAX, and adjusted FRAX were compared in the aspects of discrimination and calibration. RESULTS: 6.3% of participants experienced MOF during a median follow-up of 10 years. The final model (CDFR) included 8 predictors: age, gender, previous fracture, insulin use, diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN), total cholesterol, triglycerides, and apolipoprotein A. This model had a C statistic of 0.803 (95%CI 0.761-0.844) and calibration χ2 of 4.63 (p = 0.86). The unadjusted FRAX underestimated the MOF risk (calibration χ2 134.5, p < 0.001; observed/predicted ratio 2.62, 95%CI 2.17-3.08), and there was still significant underestimation after diabetes adjustments. Comparing FRAX, the CDFR had a higher AUC, lower calibration χ2, and better reclassification of MOF. CONCLUSION: The CDFR model has good performance in 10-year MOF risk prediction in T2DM, especially in patients with insulin use or DPN. Future work is needed to validate our model in external cohort(s).
The widely recommended fracture prediction tool FRAX was developed based on and for the general population. Although several adjusted FRAX methods were suggested for type 2 diabetes (T2DM), they still need to be evaluated in T2DM cohort. INTRODUCTION: This study was undertaken to develop a prediction model for Chinese diabetes fracture risk (CDFR) and compare its performance with those of FRAX. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, 1730 patients with T2DM were enrolled from 2009.08 to 2013.07. Major osteoporotic fractures (MOFs) during follow-up were collected from Electronic Health Records (EHRs) and telephone interviews. Multivariate Cox regression with backward stepwise selection was used to fit the model. The performances of the CDFR model, FRAX, and adjusted FRAX were compared in the aspects of discrimination and calibration. RESULTS: 6.3% of participants experienced MOF during a median follow-up of 10 years. The final model (CDFR) included 8 predictors: age, gender, previous fracture, insulin use, diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN), total cholesterol, triglycerides, and apolipoprotein A. This model had a C statistic of 0.803 (95%CI 0.761-0.844) and calibration χ2 of 4.63 (p = 0.86). The unadjusted FRAX underestimated the MOF risk (calibration χ2 134.5, p < 0.001; observed/predicted ratio 2.62, 95%CI 2.17-3.08), and there was still significant underestimation after diabetes adjustments. Comparing FRAX, the CDFR had a higher AUC, lower calibration χ2, and better reclassification of MOF. CONCLUSION: The CDFR model has good performance in 10-year MOF risk prediction in T2DM, especially in patients with insulin use or DPN. Future work is needed to validate our model in external cohort(s).
Authors: Joshua N Farr; Matthew T Drake; Shreyasee Amin; L Joseph Melton; Louise K McCready; Sundeep Khosla Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 6.741
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