A FRAX® model for the assessment of fracture probability in Belgium
- 249 Downloads
A country-specific FRAX® model was developed from the epidemiology of fracture and death in Belgium. Fracture probabilities were identified that corresponded to currently accepted reimbursement thresholds.
The objective of this study was to evaluate a Belgian version of the WHO fracture risk assessment (FRAX®) tool to compute 10-year probabilities of osteoporotic fracture in men and women. A particular aim was to determine fracture probabilities that corresponded to the reimbursement policy for the management of osteoporosis in Belgium and the clinical scenarios that gave equivalent fracture probabilities.
Fracture probabilities were computed from published data on the fracture and death hazards in Belgium. Probabilities took account of age, sex, the presence of clinical risk factors and femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD). Fracture probabilities were determined that were equivalent to intervention (reimbursement) thresholds currently used in Belgium.
Fracture probability increased with age, lower BMI, decreasing BMD T-score and all clinical risk factors used alone or combined. The 10-year probabilities of a major osteoporosis-related fracture that corresponded to current reimbursement guidelines ranged from approximately 7.5% at the age of 50 years to 26% at the age of 80 years where a prior fragility fracture was used as an intervention threshold. For women at the threshold of osteoporosis (femoral neck T-score = −2.5 SD), the respective probabilities ranged from 7.4% to 15%. Several combinations of risk-factor profiles were identified that gave similar or higher fracture probabilities than those currently accepted for reimbursement in Belgium.
The FRAX® tool has been used to identify possible thresholds for therapeutic intervention in Belgium, based on equivalence of risk with current guidelines. The FRAX® model supports a shift from the current DXA-based intervention strategy, towards a strategy based on fracture probability of a major osteoporotic fracture that in turn may improve identification of patients at increased fracture risk. The approach will need to be supported by health economic analyses.
Keywords10-year fracture probability Clinical risk factors FRAX® Hip fracture Osteoporotic fracture
- 5.Kanis on behalf of the World Health Organization Scientific Group. JA (2008) Assessment of osteoporosis at the primary health-care level. Technical Report. WHO Collaborating Centre, University of Sheffield, UK.Google Scholar
- 6.European Community. Report on osteoporosis in the European Community. 1998. EC, StrasbourgGoogle Scholar
- 7.Royal College of Physicians (1999) Osteoporosis: clinical guidelines for the prevention and treatment. Royal College of Physicians, LondonGoogle Scholar
- 16.Lippuner K, Johansson H, Rizzoli R, Kanis JA (2009) Remaining lifetime and absolute 10-year probabilities of osteoporotic fracture in Swiss men and women. Osteoporosis Int 20:1131–1140Google Scholar
- 18.United Nations population division (2003). World population prospects: the 2002 revision and world urban prospects. Population Division of the Dept Economic and Social Affairs of the UN Secretariat.Google Scholar
- 20.Boonen S, Kaufman JM, Reginster JY, Devogelaer JP, on behalf of the Belgian Bone Club (BBC) (2003) Patient assessment using standardized bone mineral density values and a national reference database: implementing uniform thresholds for the reimbursement of osteoporosis treatments in Belgium. Osteoporos Int 14:110–115PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 21.Goemaere S, Vanderschueren D, Kaufman JM, On behalf of the Belgian Bone Club (BBC), the Network on Male Osteoporosis in Europe (NEMO) et al (2007) Dual energy x-ray absorptiometry-based assessment of male patients using standardized bone density values and a national reference database. J Clin Densitom 10:25–33PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 28.Carroll J, Testa MA, Erat K, LeBoff MS, El-Hajj Fuleihan G (1997) Modelling fracture risk using bone density, age, and years since menopause. Amer J Prevent Med 13:447–452Google Scholar
- 37.van Staa TP, Geusens P, Pols HA, de Laet C, Leufkens HG, Cooper C (2005) A simple score for estimating the long-term risk of fracture in patients using oral glucocorticoids. Quart J Med 98:191–198Google Scholar
- 43.Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) (2006) Guideline on the evaluation of Medicinal products in the treatment of primary osteoporosis. Ref CPMP/EWP/552/95Rev.2. London, CHMP. Nov 2006.Google Scholar
- 45.Adachi JD, Saag KG, Delmas PD, Liberman UA, Emkey RD, Seeman E et al (2001) Two year effects of alendronate on bone mineral density and vertebral fracture in patients receiving glucocorticoids: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled extension trial. Arthritis Rheum 44:202–211PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 48.McCloskey EV, Beneton M, Charlesworth D, Kayan K, deTakats D, Dey A et al (2007) Clodronate reduces the incidence of fractures in community dwelling elderly women unselected for osteoporosis: results of a double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized study. J Bone Miner Res 22:135–141PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 56.McCloskey EV, Johansson H, Oden A, Vasireddy S, Kayan K, Pande K, Jalava T, Kanis JA (2009) Ten-year fracture probability identifies women who will benefit from clodronate therapy—additional results from a double blind, placebo controlled randomised study. Osteoporos Int 20:811–818PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 57.Kanis JA, Johansson H, Oden A, McCloskey EV (2009) Bazedoxifene reduces vertebral and clinical fractures in postmenopausal women at high risk assessed with FRAX®. Bone 44:49–54Google Scholar
- 58.Johansson H, Kanis JA, Borgström F, Ström O, Svensson O, Mellström D (2009) FRAX® ett stöd för frakturprevention. Lakar TidningenGoogle Scholar
- 59.Kanis JA, McCloskey EV, Johansson H, Strom O, Borgstrom F, Oden A, and the National Osteoporosis Guideline Group (2008) Case finding for the management of osteoporosis with FRAX®—assessment and intervention thresholds for the UK. Osteoporos Int 19:1395–1408, Erratum published 2009 Osteoporos Int 20, 499–502PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar