FRAX(R) and its applications to clinical practice

WHO Collaborating Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Bone (Impact Factor: 4.46). 03/2009; 44(5):734-43. DOI: 10.1016/j.bone.2009.01.373
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The introduction of the WHO FRAX algorithms has facilitated the assessment of fracture risk on the basis of fracture probability. FRAX integrates the influence of several well validated risk factors for fracture with or without the use of BMD. Its use in fracture risk prediction poses challenges for patient assessment, the development of practice guidelines, the evaluation of drug efficacy and reimbursement, as well as for health economics which are the topics outlined in this review.

  • Source
    • "These findings were also consistent with the main results using the whole population (Table 2), implying no significant effect of the baseline anti-osteoporotic treatment and/or supplementation on the prediction of FRAX and FI in major osteoporotic fracture. Some studies argued that previous falls should be included into FRAX, since previous falls were an independent and significant risk factor for future fractures [12] [28]. Nevertheless, evidence showed that models incorporating falls as a risk factor may not be superior to FRAX alone in predicting future risk of fractures [41]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A frailty index (FI) of deficit accumulation could quantify and predict the risk of fractures based on the degree of frailty in the elderly. We aimed to compare the predictive powers between the FI and the fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX) in predicting risk of major osteoporotic fracture (hip, upper arm or shoulder, spine, or wrist) and hip fracture, using the data from the Global Longitudinal Study of Osteoporosis in Women (GLOW) 3-year Hamilton cohort. There were 3,985 women included in the study, with the mean age of 69.4 years (standard deviation [SD] = 8.89). During the follow-up, there were 149 (3.98%) incident major osteoporotic fractures and 18 (0.48%) hip fractures reported. The FRAX and FI were significantly related to each other. Both FRAX and FI significantly predicted risk of major osteoporotic fracture, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.03 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.02-1.05) and 1.02 (95% CI: 1.01-1.04) for per-0.01 increment for the FRAX and FI respectively. The HRs were 1.37 (95% CI: 1.19 - 1.58) and 1.26 (95% CI: 1.12 - 1.42) for an increase of per-0.10 (approximately one SD) in the FRAX and FI respectively. Similar discriminative ability of the models was found: c-index = 0.62 for the FRAX and c-index = 0.61 for the FI. When cut-points were chosen to trichotomize participants into low-risk, medium-risk and high-risk groups, a significant increase in fracture risk was found in the high-risk group (HR = 2.04, 95% CI: 1.36-3.07) but not in the medium-risk group (HR = 1.23, 95% CI: 0.82-1.84) compared with the low-risk women for the FI, while for FRAX the medium-risk (HR = 2.00, 95% CI: 1.09-3.68) and high-risk groups (HR = 2.61, 95% CI: 1.48-4.58) predicted risk of major osteoporotic fracture significantly only when survival time exceeded 18 months (550 days). Similar findings were observed for hip fracture and in sensitivity analyses. In conclusion, the FI is comparable with FRAX in the prediction of risk of future fractures, indicating that measures of frailty status may aid in fracture risk assessment and fracture prevention in the elderly. Further evidence from randomized controlled trials of osteoporosis medication interventions is needed to support the FI and FRAX as validated measures of fracture risk. Copyright © 2015. Published by Elsevier Inc.
    Bone 04/2015; 77. DOI:10.1016/j.bone.2015.04.028 · 4.46 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Most fractures arise in the intermediate-risk " osteopenic " population rather than among those classified as having osteoporosis by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) [1]. To increase the assessment gradient-of-risk, and thereby improve both sensitivity and specificity [2], bone mineral density (BMD) has been combined with clinical risk factors in the World Health Organization's fracture risk assessment tool, FRAX [3], which calculates a 10-year fracture probability (%). Like most such scoring systems, discordant results inevitably arise whereby some patients at predicted low risk will fracture and vice versa [4]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To determine if the revised US FRAX can identify those at high risk for fractures at any skeletal site, we studied 250 women and 249 men ≥40 years old from an age-stratified random sample of Rochester, MN residents. At baseline, femoral neck (FN) bone density was assessed, as were the clinical risk factors included in FRAX, along with additional fracture risk factors such as bone turnover markers and fall history. Fracture ascertainment through periodic interviews and comprehensive medical record review was performed over 10 years of followup. In both women and men, a higher FRAX probability at baseline was associated with greater subsequent likelihood of a major osteoporotic fracture. However, a relative 10% increase in the FRAX 10-year fracture probability was also associated with a 1.4-fold increase (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.1-1.7) in other fractures in women and a 1.7-fold increase (95% CI 0.8-3.1) in men. Furthermore, FRAX predicted asymptomatic vertebral fractures and fractures generally in both sexes. The addition of risk factors not currently included in FRAX did not appear to improve the accuracy of fracture risk prediction. FRAX may provide a conservative estimate of risk for major osteoporotic fractures, but it also predicts fractures generally.
    08/2012; 2012:528790. DOI:10.1155/2012/528790
  • Source
    • "Several retrospective studies have assessed the actual management of bone health compared to current recommendations for monitoring and treatment, and these studies have shown that a care gap indeed exists in this population [29] [30] [31]. As a result of the potential consequences of ADT, expert guideline recommendations advocate for assessing men prescribed ADT for osteoporosis and to estimate the baseline fracture risk using an assessment tool, such as the World Health Organization fracture risk assessment tool [6] [21] [32] [33]. It is also recommended that these patients should receive a baseline DXA scan prior to initiating treatment [6] [21]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Introduction. ADT is used in the management of locally advanced and metastatic disease. The detrimental effect of ADT on bone density is well documented. This study assesses care gaps in screening, prevention and treatment of osteoporosis among prostate cancer patients. Methods. We conducted a retrospective cohort study for patients diagnosed with non-metastatic prostate cancer on ADT. Charts from a tertiary oncology center were assessed for utilization of DXA scan, prescription of calcium, vitamin D, calcitonin and bisphosphonates.Bivariate analysis was used to determine the effect of patient characteristics and likelihood for osteoporosis screening. Results. 149 charts were reviewed, with 3-year mean follow-up. 58.8% of men received a baseline DXA, of which 20.3% had a repeat DXA within their follow-up periods.In all, 28% were appropriately screened and managed for osteoporosis (received repeat DXA, bisphosphonate). In bivariate analysis, the number of ADT injections which correlate with the duration of androgen suppression was significantly associated with the number of DXA scans. Conclusions. Our study found a care gap in the screening, prevention, and treatment of osteoporosis in this population. Patients receiving the most ADT injections were more likely to be screened. Our results suggest healthcare providers treating prostate cancer are insufficiently screening and treating this susceptible population. We suggest baseline measurement of BMD at the initiation of ADT with periodic reassessment during therapy.
    Journal of Oncology 04/2012; 2012:958596. DOI:10.1155/2012/958596
Show more