4.4 Review

FRAX(A (R)) with and without Bone Mineral Density

Journal

CALCIFIED TISSUE INTERNATIONAL
Volume 90, Issue 1, Pages 1-13

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00223-011-9544-7

Keywords

FRAX; Fracture probability; Clinical risk factor; Intervention threshold; Risk assessment

Funding

  1. Abiogen, Italy
  2. Amgen, USA
  3. Amgen, Switzerland
  4. Amgen, Belgium
  5. Bayer, Germany
  6. Besins-Iscovesco, France
  7. Biosintetica, Brazil
  8. Boehringer Ingelheim, UK
  9. Celtrix, USA
  10. D3A, France
  11. European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industry and Associations, (EFPIA) Brussels
  12. Gador, Argentina
  13. General Electric, USA
  14. GSK, UK
  15. GSK, USA
  16. Hologic, Belgium
  17. Hologic, USA
  18. Kissei, Japan
  19. Leo Pharma, Denmark
  20. Lilly, USA
  21. Lilly, Canada
  22. Lilly, Japan
  23. Lilly, Australia
  24. Lilly, UK
  25. Merck Research Labs, USA
  26. Merlin Ventures, UK
  27. MRL, China
  28. Novartis, Switzerland
  29. Novartis, USA
  30. Novo Nordisk, Denmark
  31. Nycomed, Norway
  32. Ono, UK
  33. Ono, Japan
  34. Organon, Holland
  35. Parke-Davis, USA
  36. Pfizer USA
  37. Pharmexa, Denmark
  38. Procter and Gamble, UK
  39. Procter and Gamble, USA
  40. ProStrakan, UK
  41. Roche, Germany
  42. Roche, Australia
  43. Roche, Switzerland
  44. Roche, USA
  45. Rotta Research, Italy
  46. Servier, France
  47. Servier, UK
  48. Shire, UK
  49. Solvay, France
  50. Solvay, Germany
  51. Strathmann, Germany
  52. Tarsa Therapeutics, US
  53. Tethys, USA
  54. Teijin, Japan
  55. Teva, Israel
  56. UBS, Belgium
  57. Unigene, USA
  58. Warburg-Pincus, UK
  59. Warner-Chilcott, USA
  60. Wyeth, USA
  61. Amgen
  62. Bayer
  63. Hologic
  64. Lilly
  65. Merck
  66. Novartis
  67. Pfizer
  68. Procter & Gamble Pharmaceuticals
  69. Roche
  70. Sanofi-Aventis
  71. Servier
  72. Tethys
  73. Merck Frosst Canada Ltd.
  74. Amgen Pharmaceuticals
  75. Genzyme
  76. Sanofi-Aventis, USA

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The use of FRAX, particularly in the absence of BMD, has been the subject of some debate and is the focus of this review. The clinical risk factors used in FRAX have high validity as judged from an evidence-based assessment and identify a risk that is responsive to pharmaceutical intervention. Moreover, treatment effects, with the possible exception of alendronate, are not dependent on baseline BMD and strongly suggest that FRAX identifies high-risk patients who respond to pharmaceutical interventions. In addition, the selection of high-risk individuals with FRAX, without knowledge of BMD, preferentially selects for low BMD. The prediction of fractures with the use of clinical risk factors alone in FRAX is comparable to the use of BMD alone to predict fractures and is suitable, therefore, in the many countries where DXA facilities are sparse. In countries where access to BMD is greater, FRAX can be used without BMD in the majority of cases and BMD tests reserved for those close to a probability-based intervention threshold. Whereas the efficacy for agents to reduce fracture risk has not been tested prospectively in randomized controlled trials in patients selected on the basis of FRAX probabilities, there is compelling evidence that FRAX with or without the use of BMD provides a well-validated instrument for targeting patients most likely to benefit from an intervention.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available