4.4 Article

Evaluation of the FRAX Model for Hip Fracture Predictions in the Population-based Kuopio Osteoporosis Risk Factor and Prevention Study (OSTPRE)

Journal

CALCIFIED TISSUE INTERNATIONAL
Volume 95, Issue 1, Pages 39-45

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00223-014-9860-9

Keywords

FRAX; Hip fracture probability; Osteoporosis

Funding

  1. Novartis
  2. Amgen
  3. AstraZeneca
  4. Pfizer
  5. Bayer
  6. Warner-Chilcott/Procter Gamble
  7. Lilly
  8. Roche
  9. Servier
  10. Hologic
  11. GSK
  12. Amgen, USA
  13. Amgen, Switzerland
  14. Amgen, Belgium
  15. D3A, France
  16. Gador, Argentina
  17. General Electric, USA
  18. GSK, UK
  19. GSK, USA
  20. Hologic, Belgium
  21. Hologic, USA
  22. Kissei, Japan
  23. Lilly, USA
  24. Lilly, Canada
  25. Lilly, Japan
  26. Lilly, Australia
  27. Lilly, UK
  28. Merck Research Labs, USA
  29. Merlin Ventures, UK
  30. Novartis, Switzerland
  31. Novartis, USA
  32. Novo Nordisk, Denmark
  33. Nycomed, Norway
  34. Ono, UK
  35. Ono, Japan
  36. Pfizer USA
  37. Pharmexa, Denmark
  38. ProStrakan, UK
  39. Roche, Germany
  40. Roche, Australia
  41. Roche, Switzerland
  42. Roche, USA
  43. Rotta Research, Italy
  44. Sanofi-Aventis, USA
  45. Servier, France
  46. Servier, UK
  47. Shire, UK
  48. Solvay, France
  49. Solvay, Germany
  50. Tethys, USA
  51. Teijan, Japan
  52. Teva, Israel
  53. UBS, Belgium
  54. Unigene, USA
  55. Warburg-Pincus, UK
  56. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), UK
  57. International Osteoporosis Foundation
  58. National Osteoporosis Guideline Group (NOGG), UK
  59. INSERM, France
  60. Ministry of Public Health, China
  61. Ministry of Health, Australia
  62. National Osteoporosis Society, UK
  63. World Health Organization

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Calibration of the Finnish FRAX model was evaluated using a locally derived population-based cohort of postmenopausal women (n = 13,917). Hip fractures were observed from national register-based data and verified from radiological records. For a subpopulation of 11,182 women, there were enough data to calculate the fracture probabilities using the Finnish FRAX tool (without bone mineral density). A 10-year period prevalence of hip fractures to this subpopulation was 0.66 %. The expected numbers of hip fractures were significantly higher than the self reported ones (O/E ratio 0.46; 95 % CI 0.33-0.63), had a tendency to be greater than the observed ones (O/E ratio 0.83; 95 % CI 0.65-1.04), and calibration in terms of goodness-of-fit of absolute probabilities was questionable (P = 0.015). Strikingly, the 10-year period prevalence of hip fractures to the whole cohort was higher (0.84 %) than for the women with FRAX measurements (0.66 %). This was mainly the result of difference between people who had and who had not responded to postal enquiries (0.71 vs. 1.77 %, P < 0.0001). Self-reports missed to capture 38 % of all hip fractures in those who responded and about 45 % of hip fractures in women who had a FRAX estimate. The Finnish FRAX tool seems to provide appropriate discrimination for hip fracture risk, but caution is required in the interpretation of absolute risk, especially if used for population that may not be representing general population per se. Our study also showed that patients with no response had significantly higher hip fracture risk and that the use of purely self-reported hip fractures in calculations results in biased incidence and period prevalence estimates. Such important biases may remain unnoticed if there are no data from other sources available.

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