Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

The effects of a FRAX® revision for the USA

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Osteoporosis International Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Summary

A revision (version 3.0) of the fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX®) is developed based on an update of epidemiological information for the USA. With the revised tool, there were strong correlations (r > 0.99) between versions 2.0 and 3.0 for FRAX® estimates of fracture probability, but the revised models gave lower probability estimates.

Introduction

The aim of this study was to determine the effects of a revision of the epidemiological data used to compute fracture probabilities in the USA with FRAX®.

Methods

Models were constructed to compute fracture probabilities based on updated fracture incidence and mortality rates in the USA. The models comprised the ten-year probability of hip fracture and the ten-year probability of a major osteoporotic fracture, both including femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD). For each model, fracture and death hazards were computed as continuous functions. The effect of the revised rates on fracture probability was examined by piecewise linear regression using multiple combinations of clinical risk factors and BMD.

Results

At all ages, there was a strong correlation (r > 0.99) between version 2.0 and revised FRAX® estimates of fracture probability. For a major osteoporotic fracture, the revised model gave lower median probabilities by 13% to 24% in men, depending on age, and by 19% to 24% in women. For hip fracture probability, the revised model gave lower median fracture probabilities by 40% and 27% at the ages of 50 and 60 years in men and by 43% and 30%, respectively, in women. At the ages of 70 years and older the revised model gave similar hip fracture probabilities as version 2.0 in both men and women.

Conclusion

The revised FRAX® model for the USA (version 3.0) does not alter the ranking of fracture probabilities but provides lower probability estimates than version 2.0, particularly, in younger women and men.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kanis JA, on behalf of the World Health Organization Scientific Group (2008) Assessment of osteoporosis at the primary health-care level. Technical Report. WHO Collaborating Centre, University of Sheffield, UK

    Google Scholar 

  2. Kanis JA, Johnell O, Oden A, Johansson H, McCloskey E (2008) FRAX™ and the assessment of fracture probability in men and women from the UK. Osteoporos Int 19:385–397

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. World Health Organization (2007) Assessment of osteoporosis at the primary health care level. WHO, Geneva. www.who.int/chp/topics/rheumatic/en/index.html. Accessed 1 May 2009

  4. Looker AC, Wahner HW, Dunn WL, Calvo MS, Harris TB, Heyse SP (1998) Updated data on proximal femur bone mineral levels of US adults. Osteoporos Int 8:468–486

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Kanis JA, Oden A, Johnell O et al (2007) The use of clinical risk factors enhances the performance of BMD in the prediction of hip and osteoporotic fractures in men and women. Osteoporos Int 18:1033–1046

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kanis JA, Johnell O, De Laet C, Jonsson B, Oden A, Oglesby A (2002) International variations in hip fracture probabilities: implications for risk assessment. J Bone Miner Res 17:1237–1244

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Melton LJ III, Crowson CS, O’Fallon WM (1999) Fracture incidence in Olmsted County, Minnesota: Comparison of urban with rural rates and changes in urban rates over time. Osteoporos Int 9:29–37

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Melton LJ III, Kearns AE, Atkinson EJ et al (2009) Secular trends in hip fracture incidence and recurrence. Osteoporos Int 20:687–694

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Zingmond DS, Melton LJ III, Silverman SL (2004) Increasing hip fracture incidence in California Hispanics, 1983 to 2000. Osteoporos Int 15:603–610

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Hiebert R, Aharonoff GB, Capla EL et al (2005) Temporal and geographic variation in hip fracture rates for people aged 65 or older, New York State, 1985–1996. Am J Orthop 34:252–255

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kung HC, Hoyert DL, Xu J, et al. (September 2007) Deaths: Preliminary Data for 2005. Health E-Stats. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/pubs/pubd/hestats/prelimdeaths05/prelimdeaths05.htm. Accessed 21 April 2009

  12. Ettinger B, Black D, Dawson-Hughes B, Pressman AR, Melton LJ III (2009) Updated fracture incidence rates for the US version of FRAX®. Osteoporos Int. doi:10.1007/s00198-009-1032-9

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Burge R, Dawson-Hughes B, Solomon DH et al (2007) Incidence and economic burden of osteoporosis-related fractures in the United States, 2005–2025. J Bone Miner Res 22:465–475

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kanis JA, Oden A, Johnell O, Jonsson B, de Laet C, Dawson A (2001) The burden of osteoporotic fractures: a method for setting intervention thresholds. Osteoporos Int 12:417–427

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Dawson-Hughes B, Tosteson AN, Melton LJ III et al (2008) Implications of absolute fracture risk assessment for osteoporosis practice guidelines in the USA. Osteoporos Int 19:449–458

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Melton LJ 3rd, Kanis JA, Johnell O (2005) Potential impact of osteoporosis treatment on hip fracture trends. J Bone Miner Res 20:895–897

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kanis JA, Johnell O, Oden A et al (2000) Long-term risk of osteoporotic fracture in Malmo. Osteoporos Int 11:669–674

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Binkley N, Kiebzak GM, Michael Lewiecki EM E et al (2005) Recalculation of the NHANES Database SD improves T-score agreement and reduces osteoporosis prevalence. J Bone Miner Res 20:195–201

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kanis JA, Borgstrom F, Zethraeus N, Johnell O, Oden A, Jonsson B (2005) Intervention thresholds for osteoporosis in the UK. Bone 36:22–32

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kanis JA, Johnell O, Oden A, Borgstrom F, Johansson H, De Laet C et al (2005) Intervention thresholds for osteoporosis in men and women: a study based on data from Sweden. Osteoporos Int 16:6–14

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Borgstrom F, Johnell O, Kanis JA, Jonsson B, Rehnberg C (2006) At what hip fracture risk is it cost-effective to treat? International Intervention thresholds for the treatment of osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int 17:1459–1471

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Kanis JA, McCloskey EV, Johansson H, Strom O, Borgstrom F, Oden A, National Osteoporosis Guideline Group (2008) Case finding for the management of osteoporosis with FRAX®—assessment and intervention thresholds for the UK. Osteoporos Int 19:1395–1408 Erratum Osteoporos Int 2009;20: 499–502

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Tosteson AN, Melton LJ III, Dawson-Hughes B, Baim S, Favus MJ, Khosla S, National Osteoporosis Foundation Guide Committee et al (2008) Cost-effective osteoporosis treatment thresholds: the United States perspective. Osteoporos Int 19:437–447

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the International Osteoporosis Foundation for their support of the work.

Conflicts of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. A. Kanis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kanis, J.A., Johansson, H., Oden, A. et al. The effects of a FRAX® revision for the USA. Osteoporos Int 21, 35–40 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-009-1033-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-009-1033-8

Keywords

Navigation