Osteoporosis International

, Volume 22, Issue 9, pp 2507–2512 | Cite as

Evaluation of FRAX to characterise fracture risk in Poland

  • E. Czerwinski
  • J. A. Kanis
  • J. Osieleniec
  • A. Kumorek
  • A. Milert
  • H. Johansson
  • E. V. McCloskey
  • M. Gorkiewicz
Original Article

Abstract

Summary

The UK FRAX model was evaluated retrospectively in Polish women assessed 11 years previously for fracture risk. Results were compared with fracture risk observed during follow-up. The UK model can be used to stratify risk, but caution is required in interpretation of absolute fracture risk.

Introduction

In the absence of a FRAX® model for Poland, the UK FRAX tool has been widely used. The aim of this study was to evaluate the validity of the surrogate model in a Polish setting.

Methods

We studied a convenience sample of 501 women who had been referred for the assessment of bone mineral density and clinical risk factors 9–12 years previously. Incident fractures in the intervening period were self-reported by telephone interview. Fracture probabilities, calculated using the UK FRAX tool, were compared to the incidence of new fractures during follow-up.

Results

Incident fractures were reported in 106 women. Incident fractures of the major osteoporotic fractures were reported in 89 women. The observed incidence of fractures rose progressively in women according to percentile of fracture probability. Between the 10th and 90th percentiles, hip fracture probability computed with bone mineral density (BMD) differed 49-fold. The range was fivefold in the case of a major osteoporotic fracture. The observed/expected ratio for fracture was significantly greater than unity when the expected number was calculated without BMD (1.79; 95% confidence interval = 1.44–2.21) and when BMD was included in the FRAX calculation (1.94; 95% confidence interval = 1.45–2.54).

Conclusion

The UK FRAX tool categorised fracture risk well in this Polish cohort but significantly overestimated fracture risk. The UK model can be used to stratify risk in the population, but caution is required in interpretation of absolute risk.

Keywords

BMD Fracture probability FRAX Osteoporosis 

References

  1. 1.
    Kanis JA, Melton LJ, Christiansen C, Johnston CC, Khaltaev N (1994) The diagnosis of osteoporosis. J Bone Miner Res 9(8):1137–1141PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kanis JA, Gluer CC (2000) An update on the diagnosis and assessment of osteoporosis with densitometry. Osteoporos Int 11:192–202PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    World Health Organization (2004) Assessment of fracture risk and its application to screening for postmenopausal osteoporosis. Technical Report Series 843. WHO, Geneva, p 129Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    European Community (1998) Report on osteoporosis in the European community. EC, StrasbourgGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kanis JA, Delmas P, Burckhardt P, Cooper C, Torgerson D, on behalf of the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and Bone Disease (1977) Guidelines for diagnosis and management of osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int 7:390–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Royal College of Physicians, Bone and Tooth Society of Great Britain, National Osteoporosis Society (2002) Glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis: guidelines on prevention and treatment. Royal College of Physicians, LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Royal College of Physicians, Bone and Tooth Society of Great Britain (2000) Update on pharmacological interventions and an algorithm for management. Royal College of Physicians, LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    National Osteoporosis Foundation (NOF) (2003) Physician’s guide to prevention and treatment of osteoporosis. National Osteoporosis Foundation, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kanis JA, Johnell O, Oden A, De Laet C, Jonsson B, Dawson (2001) Ten year risk of osteoporotic fracture and the effect of risk factors on screening strategies. Bone 30:251–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Siris ES, Miller PD, Barrett-Connor E, Faulkner KG, Wehren LE, Abbott TA et al (2001) Identification and fracture outcomes of undiagnosed low bone mineral density in postmenopausal women: results from the National Osteoporosis Risk Assessment. JAMA 286:2815–2822PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kanis JA, Borgstrom F, De Laet C et al (2005) Assessment of fracture risk. Osteoporos Int 16:581–589PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kanis JA, Johnell O, Oden A, Johansson H, McCloskey EV (2008) FRAX™ and the assessment of fracture probability in men and women from the UK. Osteoporos Int 19:385–397PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kanis JA, Johnell O, De Laet C, Jonnson B, Oden A, Ogelsby AK (2002) International variations in hip fracture probability: implications for risk assessment. J Bone Miner Res 17:1237–1244PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Roszkowska H, Goryński P, Wojtyniak B (1998) Hospitalizacja z powodu złamania szyjki kości udowej w Polsce w latach 1979–1995 wg płci, wieku i miejsca zamieszkania (Polish). [Hospitalisation of patients with femoral neck fracture in Poland in years 1979–1995 according to gender, age and place of residence]. Postepy Osteoartrol 10:150–156Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jaworski M, Lorenc RS (2007) Risk of hip fracture in Poland. Med Sci Monit 13:206–210Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Czerwiński E, Kanis JA, Trybulec B, Johansson H, Borowy P, Osieleniec J (2009) The incidence and risk of hip fracture in Poland. Osteoporos Int 20:1363–1368PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Czerwiński E, Badurski J, Lorenc R, Osieleniec J (2010) Wytyczne w sprawie diagnostyki osteoporozy i oceny ryzyka złamania w Polsce (Polish) Guidelines of osteoporosis diagnosis and risk fracture assessment in Poland. Medycyna po Dyplomie 30:2–6Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kaastad TS, Meyer HE, Falch JA (1998) Incidence of hip fracture in Oslo, Norway: differences within the city. Bone 22(2):175–178PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sanders KM, Nicholson GC, Ugoni AM, Seeman E, Pasco JA, Kotowicz MA (2002) Fracture rates lower in rural than urban communities: the Geelong Osteoporosis Study. J Epidemiol Community Health 56(6):466–470PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Elffors L, Allander E, Kanis JA et al (1994) The variable incidence of hip fracture in Southern Europe. The MEDOS Study. Osteoporosis Intl 4:253–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kanis JA, Johnell O, Oden A et al (2000) Long-term risk of osteoporotic fracture in Malmo. Osteoporos Int 11:669–674PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kanis JA, Johansson H, Oden A, Dawson-Hughes B, Melton LJ 3rd, McCloskey EV (2010) The effects of a FRAX((R)) revision for the USA. Osteoporosis Int 21:35–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Binkley N, Kiebzak GM, Lewiecki EM et al (2005) Recalculation of the NHANES database SD improves T-score agreement and reduces osteoporosis prevalence. J Bone Miner Res 20:195–201PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Osteoporosis Foundation and National Osteoporosis Foundation 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. Czerwinski
    • 1
    • 3
  • J. A. Kanis
    • 2
  • J. Osieleniec
    • 3
  • A. Kumorek
    • 3
  • A. Milert
    • 1
  • H. Johansson
    • 2
  • E. V. McCloskey
    • 2
  • M. Gorkiewicz
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Bone and Joint Diseases, FHSJagiellonian University Medical CollegeKrakowPoland
  2. 2.WHO Collaborating Centre for Metabolic Bone DiseaseUniversity of Sheffield Medical SchoolSheffieldUK
  3. 3.Krakow Medical CentreKrakowPoland
  4. 4.Epidemiology and Population Studies DepartmentJagiellonian University Medical CollegeKrakowPoland

Personalised recommendations