Comparison of fracture risk assessment tools in older men without prior hip or spine fracture: the MrOS study
- 281 Downloads
Femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD), age plus femoral neck BMD T score, and three externally generated fracture risk tools had similar accuracy to identify older men who developed osteoporotic fractures. Risk tools with femoral neck BMD performed better than those without BMD. The externally developed risk tools were poorly calibrated.
We compared the performance of fracture risk assessment tools in older men, accounting for competing risks including mortality.
A comparative ROC curve analysis assessed the ability of the QFracture, FRAX® and Garvan fracture risk tools, and femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD) T score with or without age to identify incident fracture in community-dwelling men aged 65 years or older (N = 4994) without hip or clinical vertebral fracture or antifracture treatment at baseline.
Among risk tools calculated with BMD, the discriminative ability to identify men with incident hip fracture was similar for FRAX (AUC 0.77, 95% CI 0.73, 0.81), the Garvan tool (AUC 0.78, 95% CI 0.74, 0.82), age plus femoral neck BMD T score (AUC 0.79, 95% CI 0.75, 0.83), and femoral neck BMD T score alone (AUC 0.76, 95% CI 0.72, 0.81). Among risk tools calculated without BMD, the discriminative ability to identify hip fracture was similar for QFracture (AUC 0.69, 95% CI 0.66, 0.73), FRAX (AUC 0.70, 95% CI 0.66, 0.73), and the Garvan tool (AUC 0.71, 95% CI 0.67, 0.74). Correlated ROC curve analyses revealed better diagnostic accuracy for risk scores calculated with BMD compared with QFracture (P < 0.0001). Calibration was good for the internally generated BMD T score predictor with or without age and poor for the externally developed risk tools.
In untreated older men without fragility fractures at baseline, an age plus femoral neck BMD T score classifier identified men with incident hip fracture as accurately as more complicated fracture risk scores.
KeywordsBone density Fractures Male Osteoporosis Risk assessment
We acknowledge Carrie Gartland for her assistance with manuscript preparation.
The project described was funded by grant number R01 AG046294 (Gourlay, Ritter, Overman, Fine), grant number UL1TR001111 from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, and grant number K24 AR048841 (Lane) from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. The work of Dr. Ensrud was supported in part with resources and use of facilities at the Minneapolis VA Medical Center. The Osteoporotic Fractures in Men Study is supported by NIH funding. The following institutes provide support: the National Institute on Aging, the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, and National Institutes of Health Roadmap for Medical Research under the following grant numbers: U01 AG027810, U01 AG042124, U01 AG042139, U01 AG042140, U01 AG042143, U01 AG042145, U01 AG042168, U01 AR066160, and UL1 TR000128.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily reflect the official views of the funding agencies. The funders had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; or in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. Dr. Cawthon reports research grants from GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Orwoll has received research and consulting support from Merck, Eli Lilly, and Amgen. Dr. Lane has received research and or consulting support from Merck, Amgen, and Regeneron. Dr. Kado has received consultant support from Kalytera Therapeutics, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, and Amgen. No other financial disclosures were reported by the authors of this paper.
- 1.Moyer VA (2011) Screening for osteoporosis: U.S. preventive services task force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 154(5):356–364. https://doi.org/10.1059/0003-4819-154-5-201103010-00307 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6.Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. (2017) Medicare.gov: the Official U.S. Government Site for Medicare. Your Medicare Coverage: bone mass measurement (bone density). https://www.medicare.gov/coverage/bone-density.html. Accessed 12 July 2017
- 14.World Health Organization Collaborating Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases. (2017) FRAX: WHO Fracture Risk Assessment Tool [Internet]. University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK. Available from http://www.shef.ac.uk/FRAX. Accessed 12 September 2017
- 15.Nguyen ND, Frost SA, Center JR, Eisman JA, Nguyen TV (2008) Development of prognostic nomograms for individualizing 5-year and 10-year fracture risks. Osteoporosis International: a Journal Established as Result of Cooperation Between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA 19(10):1431–1444. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-008-0588-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.Dagan N, Cohen-Stavi C, Leventer-Roberts M, Balicer RD (2017) External validation and comparison of three prediction tools for risk of osteoporotic fractures using data from population based electronic health records: retrospective cohort study. BMJ 356:i6755. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i6755 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 18.Ensrud KE, Lui LY, Taylor BC, Schousboe JT, Donaldson MG, Fink HA, Cauley JA, Hillier TA, Browner WS, Cummings SR (2009) A comparison of prediction models for fractures in older women: is more better? Arch Intern Med 169(22):2087–2094. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinternmed.2009.404 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 19.Orwoll E, Blank JB, Barrett-Connor E, Cauley J, Cummings S, Ensrud K, Lewis C, Cawthon PM, Marcus R, Marshall LM, McGowan J, Phipps K, Sherman S, Stefanick ML, Stone K (2005) Design and baseline characteristics of the osteoporotic fractures in men (MrOS) study—a large observational study of the determinants of fracture in older men. Contemp Clin Trials 26(5):569–585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2005.05.006 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 21.World Health Organization. Assessment of osteoporotic fracture risk and its role in screening for postmenopausal osteoporosis. WHO Technical report series no. 843. Geneva: World Health Organization 1994Google Scholar
- 22.Hernlund E, Svedbom A, Ivergard M, Compston J, Cooper C, Stenmark J, McCloskey EV, Jonsson B, Kanis JA (2013) Osteoporosis in the European Union: medical management, epidemiology and economic burden. A report prepared in collaboration with the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) and the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industry Associations (EFPIA). Arch Osteoporos 8(1–2):136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11657-013-0136-1 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 23.Watts NB, Leslie WD, Foldes AJ, Miller PD (2013) 2013 International Society for Clinical Densitometry Position Development Conference: task force on normative databases. Journal of clinical densitometry : the official journal of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry 16(4):472–481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocd.2013.08.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 27.SAS Knowledge Base/Samples & SAS Notes. Sample 25017: Nonparametric comparison of areas under correlated ROC curves. http://support.sas.com/kb/25/017.html. Accessed 12 September 2017
- 30.SAS Institute Inc (2011) SAS/STAT 9.3 user’s guide. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NCGoogle Scholar
- 31.R Core Team (2017). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R foundation for statistical computing, Vienna, Austria: URL: https://www.R-project.org/
- 34.Ettinger B, Ensrud KE, Blackwell T, Curtis JR, Lapidus JA, Orwoll ES, Osteoporotic Fracture in Men Study Research Group (2013) Performance of FRAX in a cohort of community-dwelling, ambulatory older men: the osteoporotic fractures in men (MrOS) study. Osteoporos Int 24(4):1185–1193. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-012-2215-3 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 35.Nayak S, Edwards DL, Saleh AA, Greenspan SL (2015) Systematic review and meta-analysis of the performance of clinical risk assessment instruments for screening for osteoporosis or low bone density. Osteoporos Int 26(5):1543–1554. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-015-3025-1 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 37.Kanis J, Oden A, Johnell O, Johansson H, DeLaet C, Brown J, Burckhardt P, Cooper C, Christiansen C, Cummings S, Eisman J, Fujiwara S, Gluer C, Goltzman D, Hans D, Krieg M-A, LaCroix A, McCloskey E, Mellstrom D, Melton LJ 3rd, Pols H, Reeve J, Sanders K, Schott A, Silman A, Torgerson D, van Staa T, Watts N, Yoshimura N (2007) 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 18:1033–1046CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 39.Boonen S, Reginster JY, Kaufman JM, Lippuner K, Zanchetta J, Langdahl B, Rizzoli R, Lipschitz S, Dimai HP, Witvrouw R, Eriksen E, Brixen K, Russo L, Claessens F, Papanastasiou P, Antunez O, Su G, Bucci-Rechtweg C, Hruska J, Incera E, Vanderschueren D, Orwoll E (2012) Fracture risk and zoledronic acid therapy in men with osteoporosis. N Engl J Med 367(18):1714–1723. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1204061 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 41.Compston J, Cooper A, Cooper C, Gittoes N, Gregson C, Harvey N, Hope S, Kanis JA, McCloskey EV, Poole KES, Reid DM, Selby P, Thompson F, Thurston A, Vine N, National Osteoporosis Guideline G (2017) UK clinical guideline for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis. Arch Osteoporos 12(1):43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11657-017-0324-5 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar