BMD, clinical risk factors and their combination for hip fracture prevention
- 336 Downloads
This study examined the effects of the use of clinical risk factors (CRFs) alone, BMD alone or the combination using the FRAX® tool for the detection of women at risk of hip fracture. BMD tests alone selected women at higher risk and a greater number of hip fracture cases were identified compared to the use of CRFs alone. The combined use of CRFs and BMD identified fewer women above a threshold risk than the use of BMD alone, but with a higher hip fracture risk and thus had the more favourable positive predictive value (PPV) and number needed to treat (NNT).
Algorithms have recently become available for the calculation of hip fracture probability from CRFs with and without information on femoral neck BMD. The aim of this study was to examine the effects of the use of CRFs alone, BMD alone or their combination using the FRAX® tool for the detection of women at risk of hip fracture.
Data from 10 prospective population based cohorts, in which BMD and CRFs were documented, were used to compute the 10-year probabilities of hip fracture calibrated to the fracture and death hazards of the UK. The effects of the use of BMD tests were examined in simulations where BMD tests were used alone, CRFs alone or their combined use. The base case examined the effects in women at the age of 65 years. The principal outcome measures were the number of women identified above an intervention threshold, the number of hip fracture cases that would be identified, the positive predicted value and the NNT to prevent a hip fracture during a hypothetical treatment with an effectiveness of 35% targeted to those above the threshold fracture risk. We also examined BMD values in women selected for treatment. Sensitivity analysis examined the effect of age and limited use of BMD resources.
BMD tests alone selected women at higher risk of hip fracture than the use of CRFs alone (6.1% versus 5.3%). BMD tests alone also identified a greater number of hip fracture cases (219/1,000) compared to the use of CRFs alone (140/1,000). The combined use of CRFs and BMD identified fewer women above a threshold risk than the use of BMD alone (168/1,000 versus 219/1,000, respectively), but with a higher hip fracture risk (PPV, 8.6% versus 6.1%), and consequently a lower number needed to treat (NNT) (33 versus 47). In sensitivity analyses, the PPV and NNT were always better for the combination than either BMD or CRFs alone across all ages studied (50–70 years).
The use of FRAX® in combination with BMD increases the performance characteristics of fracture risk assessment.
KeywordsFRAX® Hip fracture Number needed to treat Positive predictive value
- 1.Marshall D, Johnell O, Wedel H (1996) Meta-analysis of how well measures of bone mineral density predict occurrence of osteoporotic fractures. Br Med J 312:1254–1259Google Scholar
- 5.De Laet CEDH, van Hout BA, Burger H, Hofman A, Pols HAP (1997) Bone density and risk of hip fracture in men and women: cross sectional analysis. Br Med J 315:221–225Google Scholar
- 6.World Health Organization (1994) Assessment of fracture risk and its application to screening for postmenopausal osteoporosis. WHO Technical Report Series 843. WHO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
- 20.Kanis JA on behalf of the World Health Organization Scientific Group (2008) Assessment of osteoporosis at the primary health-care level. Technical Report. WHO Collaborating Centre, University of Sheffield, UK, 2008Google Scholar
- 23.Royal College of Physicians (1999) Osteoporosis: clinical guidelines for prevention and treatment. The Royal College of Physicians of LondonGoogle Scholar
- 24.Royal College of Physicians (2001) Osteoporosis: clinical guidelines for prevention and treatment. Update on pharmacological interventions and an algorithm for management. RCP, LondonGoogle Scholar
- 28.Kreiger N, Tenenhouse A, Joseph L et al (1999) The Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study CaMos: background, rationale, methods. Can J Aging 18:376–387Google Scholar
- 31.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
- 33.Svanborg A (1977) 70 year old people in Gothenburg. A population study in an industrialised Swedish city. II. Journal presentation of social and medical conditions. Acta Med Scand 611(suppl):5Google Scholar
- 38.National Osteoporosis Foundation (NOF) (2003) Physician’s Guide to prevention and treatment of osteoporosis. National Osteoporosis Foundation, Washington, DC (http://www.nof.org/physguide/Physicians_Guide.pdf)
- 43.Brown J, Josse RG, The Scientific Advisory Council of the Osteoporosis Society of Canada (2002) Clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in Canada. Canad Med Assoc J 167(suppl 10):S1–S34Google Scholar
- 44.Community European (1998) Report on osteoporosis in the European Community. EC, StrasbourgGoogle Scholar
- 48.McCloskey E, Johansson H, Oden A, Jalava T, Kanis J (2008) Efficacy of clodronate on fracture risk in women selected by 10-year fracture probability. J Bone Miner Res 22(1):S17Google Scholar
- 49.Kanis JA, Johansson H, Oden A, McCloskey EV (2008) Bazedoxifene reduces vertebral and clinical fractures in postmenopausal women at high risk assessed with FRAX®. Bone, in pressGoogle Scholar