Implications of absolute fracture risk assessment for osteoporosis practice guidelines in the USA
Application of the WHO fracture prediction algorithm in conjunction with an updated US economic analysis indicates that osteoporosis treatment is cost-effective in patients with fragility fractures or osteoporosis, in older individuals at average risk and in younger persons with additional clinical risk factors for fracture, supporting existing practice recommendations.
The new WHO fracture prediction algorithm was combined with an updated economic analysis to evaluate existing NOF guidance for osteoporosis prevention and treatment.
The WHO fracture prediction algorithm was calibrated to the US population using national age-, sex- and race-specific death rates and age- and sex-specific hip fracture incidence rates from the largely white population of Olmsted County, MN. Fracture incidence for other races was estimated by ratios to white women and men. The WHO algorithm estimated the probability (%) of a hip fracture (or a major osteoporotic fracture) over 10 years, given specific age, gender, race and clinical profiles. The updated economic model suggested that osteoporosis treatment was cost-effective when the 10-year probability of hip fracture reached 3%.
It is cost-effective to treat patients with a fragility fracture and those with osteoporosis by WHO criteria, as well as older individuals at average risk and osteopenic patients with additional risk factors. However, the estimated 10-year fracture probability was lower in men and nonwhite women compared to postmenopausal white women.
This analysis generally endorsed existing clinical practice recommendations, but specific treatment decisions must be individualized. An estimate of the patient’s 10-year fracture risk should facilitate shared decision-making.
KeywordsFracture prediction National Osteoporosis Foundation Osteoporosis Practice guidelines World Health Organization
- 1.NOF (2005) National Osteoporosis Foundation: Physician Guide to Prevention and Treatment of Osteoporosis. www.nof.org/physguide/index.htm
- 4.U. S. Preventive Services Task Force (2002) Screening for osteoporosis in postmenopausal women: recommendations and rationale. Ann Intern Med 137:526–528Google Scholar
- 5.Eddy D, Johnston CC, Cummings SR et al (1998) Osteoporosis: review of the evidence for prevention, diagnosis and treatment and cost-effectiveness analysis. Osteoporos Int 8 Suppl 4:S7–80Google Scholar
- 9.U.S.D.H.H.S. (2004) Chapter 4. The Frequency of Bone Disease. Bone Health and Osteoporosis: A Report of the Surgeon General. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Rockville, MD, pp 69–87Google Scholar
- 12.Kanis JA, Johnell O, Oden A et al. (2008) FRAX™ and the assessment of fracture probability in men and women from the UK. Osteoporos Int DOI 10.1007/s00198-007-0543-5
- 13.Tosteson AN (2008) Cost-effective osteoporosis treatment thresholds: the United States perspective. Osteoporos Int DOI 10.1007/s00198-007-0550-6
- 14.Murphy DJ, Gahm GJ, Santilli S et al (2002) Seniors’ preferences for cancer screening and medication use based on absolute risk reduction. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 57A:M100–105Google Scholar
- 16.Bonjour P, Clark P, Cooper C et al. (2007) Assessment of Osteoporosis at the Primary Care Level. WHO Technical Report Series. WHO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
- 51.U.S.D.H.H.S. (2004) Chapter 3. Diseases of Bone. In Bone Health and Osteoporosis: A Report of the Surgeon General. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Surgeon General, Rockville, MD, pp 41–65Google Scholar
- 57.Hanlon JT, Landerman LR, Fillenbaum GG et al (2002) Falls in African American and white community-dwelling elderly residents. J Gerontol: Med Sci 57A:M473–478Google Scholar
- 63.Browner WS (2007) Predicting fracture risk: tougher than it looks. BoneKEy 4:226–230Google Scholar