Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Estimation of absolute fracture risk among middle-aged and older men and women: the EPIC-Norfolk population cohort study

  • Locomotor Diseases
  • Published:
European Journal of Epidemiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

While estimates of relative risks associated with risk factors such as age and bone mineral density (BMD) may be of interest for etiologic and comparative purposes, clinical questions such as who might benefit most from preventive interventions or BMD monitoring depend on estimates of absolute fracture risk. The European prospective investigation into cancer (EPIC)-Norfolk study included 25,311 participants (11,476 men) aged 4,079 years in 1993–1997. All participants were followed for osteoporotic fractures to March 2007. Ten-year absolute risk of fracture in men and women were calculated using the baseline survivor function in multivariable Cox proportional-hazards models adjusting for age, sex, history of fractures, body mass index, smoking, and alcohol intake. In comparison of those without history of fracture versus those with history of fracture, the 10-year absolute risk of any fracture in men ranged from 1.0 vs. 1.2% at age 40 years to 3.0 vs. 4.4% at age 75 years. The respective estimates in women ranged from 0.7 vs. 1.0% at age 40 years to 9.3 vs. 17.2% at age 75 years. Statistically significant interaction between age and sex was found (P < 0.001), which contributed to the differences in predicted absolute fracture risks for men and women at different ages. Our study shows the need for population-specific data to develop efficient well calibrated algorithms for assessment of fracture risk. The interaction observed between sex and age points to the need for further prospective studies among men.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

BMD:

Bone mineral density

EPIC:

European prospective investigation into cancer

WHO:

World Health Organization

ICD:

International classification of diseases

References

  1. Kanis JA, Johnell O, Oden A, Dawson A, De Laet C, Jonsson B. Ten year probabilities of osteoporotic fractures according to BMD and diagnostic thresholds. Osteoporos Int. 2001;12:989–95. doi:10.1007/s001980170006.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Tucker G, Metcalfe A, Pearce C, Need AG, Dick IM, Prince RL, et al. The importance of calculating absolute rather than relative fracture risk. Bone. 2007;41:937–41. doi:10.1016/j.bone.2007.07.015.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Siminoski K, Leslie WD, Frame H, Hodsman A, Josse RG, Khan A, et al. Recommendations for bone mineral density reporting in Canada. Can Assoc Radiol J. 2005;56:178–88.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Kanis JA, Borgstrom F, De Laet C, Johansson H, Johnell O, Jonsson B, et al. Assessment of fracture risk. Osteoporos Int. 2005;16:581–9. doi:10.1007/s00198-004-1780-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Leslie WD, Metge C, Ward L. Contribution of clinical risk factors to bone density-based absolute fracture risk assessment in postmenopausal women. Osteoporos Int. 2003;14:334–8. doi:10.1007/s00198-003-1375-6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Cummings SR, Bates D, Black DM. Clinical use of bone densitometry: scientific review. JAMA. 2002;288:1889–97. doi:10.1001/jama.288.15.1889.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. De Laet C, Oden A, Johansson H, Johnell O, Jonsson B, Kanis JA. The impact of the use of multiple risk indicators for fracture on case-finding strategies: a mathematical approach. Osteoporos Int. 2005;16:313–8. doi:10.1007/s00198-004-1689-z.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Ettinger B, Hillier TA, Pressman A, Che M, Hanley DA. Simple computer model for calculating and reporting 5-year osteoporotic fracture risk in postmenopausal women. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2005;14:159–71. doi:10.1089/jwh.2005.14.159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Melton LJIII, Johnell O, Lau E, Mautalen CA, Seeman E. Osteoporosis and the global competition for health care resources. J Bone Miner Res. 2004;19:1055–8. doi:10.1359/JBMR.040316.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kanis JA. World Health Organization Scientific Group. Assessment of osteoporosis at the primary health-care level. Technical Report. UK: World Health Organization Collaborating Center for Metabolic Bone Disease, University of Sheffield; 2007.

  11. Kanis JA, Johnell O, Oden A, Johansson H, McCloskey E. FRAX and the assessment of fracture probability in men and women from the UK. Osteoporos Int. 2008;19:385–97. doi:10.1007/s00198-007-0543-5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Cooper C, Campion G, Melton LJIII. Hip fractures in the elderly: a world-wide projection. Osteoporos Int. 1992;2:285–9. doi:10.1007/BF01623184.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Schwartz AV, Kelsey JL, Maggi S, Tuttleman M, Ho SC, Jonsson PV, et al. International variation in the incidence of hip fractures: cross-national project on osteoporosis for the World Health Organization Program for research on aging. Osteoporos Int. 1999;9:242–53. doi:10.1007/s001980050144.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Kannus P, Parkkari J, Sievanen H, Heinonen A, Vuori I, Jarvinen M. Epidemiology of hip fractures. Bone. 1996;18:57S–63S. doi:10.1016/8756-3282(95)00381-9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Cooper C. Epidemiology and public health impact of osteoporosis. Baillieres Clin Rheumatol. 1993;7:459–77. doi:10.1016/S0950-3579(05)80073-1.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Day N, Oakes S, Luben R, Khaw KT, Bingham S, Welch A, et al. EPIC-Norfolk: study design and characteristics of the cohort. European Prospective Investigation of Cancer. Br J Cancer. 1999;80(Suppl 1):95–103.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Cox DR, Oakes D. Analysis of survival data. London: Chapman and Hall; 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Royston P, Ambler G, Sauerbrei W. The use of fractional polynomials to model continuous risk variables in epidemiology. Int J Epidemiol. 1999;28:964–74. doi:10.1093/ije/28.5.964.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Harrell FE Jr, Lee KL, Califf RM, Pryor DB, Rosati RA. Regression modelling strategies for improved prognostic prediction. Stat Med. 1984;3:143–52. doi:10.1002/sim.4780030207.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S. Applied survival analysis. New York: Wiley; 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Nguyen ND, Frost SA, Center JR, Eisman JA, Nguyen TV. Development of a nomogram for individualizing hip fracture risk in men and women. Osteoporos Int. 2007;18:1109–17. doi:10.1007/s00198-007-0362-8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Nguyen ND, Ahlborg HG, Center JR, Eisman JA, Nguyen TV. Residual lifetime risk of fractures in women and men. J Bone Miner Res. 2007;22:781–8. doi:10.1359/jbmr.070315.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Abrahamsen B, Vestergaard P, Rud B, Barenholdt O, Jensen JE, Nielsen SP, et al. Ten-year absolute risk of osteoporotic fractures according to BMD T score at menopause: the Danish osteoporosis prevention study. J Bone Miner Res. 2006;21:796–800. doi:10.1359/jbmr.020604.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Kanis JA, Johnell O, De Laet C, Jonsson B, Oden A, Ogelsby AK. International variations in hip fracture probabilities: implications for risk assessment. J Bone Miner Res. 2002;17:1237–44. doi:10.1359/jbmr.2002.17.7.1237.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Marshall D, Johnell O, Wedel H. Meta-analysis of how well measures of bone mineral density predict occurrence of osteoporotic fractures. BMJ. 1996;312:1254–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Kanis JA, Oden A, Johnell O, Johansson H, De Laet C, Brown J, et al. 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. 2007;18:1033–46. doi:10.1007/s00198-007-0343-y.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Richards JB, Leslie WD, Joseph L, Siminoski K, Hanley DA, Adachi JD, et al. Changes to osteoporosis prevalence according to method of risk assessment. J Bone Miner Res. 2007;22:228–34. doi:10.1359/jbmr.061109.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Leslie WD, Siminoski K, Brown JP. Comparative effects of densitometric and absolute fracture risk classification systems on projected intervention rates in postmenopausal women. J Clin Densitom. 2007;10:124–31. doi:10.1016/j.jocd.2007.01.003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Jackson SA, Tenenhouse A, Robertson L. Vertebral fracture definition from population-based data: preliminary results from the Canadian Multicenter Osteoporosis Study (CaMos). Osteoporos Int. 2000;11:680–7. doi:10.1007/s001980070066.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Leslie WD, Metge C. Establishing a regional bone density program: lessons from the Manitoba experience. J Clin Densitom. 2003;6:275–82. doi:10.1385/JCD:6:3:275.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Khaw KT, Reeve J, Luben R, Bingham S, Welch A, Wareham N, et al. Prediction of total and hip fracture risk in men and women by quantitative ultrasound of the calcaneus: EPIC-Norfolk prospective population study. Lancet. 2004;363:197–202. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(03)15325-1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

EPIC-Norfolk is supported by program grants from the Medical Research Council and Cancer Research UK with additional support from the Stroke Association, Research into Ageing, the Academy of Medical Sciences, British Heart Foundation, Department of Health, and the Wellcome Trust. The sponsors had no role in the design and conduct of the study, collection, management, analysis and interpretation of the data, and preparation, review or approval of the manuscript.

Conflict of interest statement

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest in conducting this study and publication of the results.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Institute of Public Health, Strangeways Research Laboratory, University of Cambridge, Worts Causeway, Cambridge, CB1 8RN, UK

    Alireza Moayyeri, Stephen Kaptoge, Robert N. Luben & Kay Tee Khaw

  2. MRC Epidemiology Unit, Institute of Metabolic Science, Cambridge, UK

    Nicholas J. Wareham

  3. MRC Dunn Human Nutrition Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

    Sheila Bingham

  4. Department of Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

    Jonathan Reeve

Authors
  1. Alireza Moayyeri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stephen Kaptoge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Robert N. Luben
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nicholas J. Wareham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sheila Bingham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jonathan Reeve
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Kay Tee Khaw
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alireza Moayyeri.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Moayyeri, A., Kaptoge, S., Luben, R.N. et al. Estimation of absolute fracture risk among middle-aged and older men and women: the EPIC-Norfolk population cohort study. Eur J Epidemiol 24, 259–266 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-009-9337-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-009-9337-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation