Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Incidence of hip fracture in Brazil and the development of a FRAX model

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Archives of Osteoporosis Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Summary

The Brazilian FRAX model is described and used to determine intervention thresholds for the treatment of osteoporosis.

Introduction

A FRAX model for Brazil was released May 1, 2013. This paper describes the data used to develop the Brazilian FRAX® model, illustrates its features and develops intervention thresholds.

Methods

Age- and sex-stratified hip fracture incidence rates were extracted from four regional estimates from the age of 40 years. For other major fractures, Brazilian incidence rates were estimated using Swedish ratios for hip to other major osteoporotic fracture (humerus, forearm or clinical vertebral fractures). Assessment and intervention thresholds were determined using the approach recommended by the National Osteoporosis Guideline Group (UK) applied to the Brazilian FRAX model.

Results

Fracture incidence rates increased with increasing age: for hip fracture, incidence rates were higher amongst younger men than women but with a female preponderance from the age of 50 years. Ten-year probability of hip or major fracture was increased in patients with a clinical risk factor, lower BMI, female gender, a higher age and a decreased BMD T-score. Of the clinical risk factors, prior fracture accounted for the greatest increase in 10-year fracture probability at younger ages while a parental hip fracture history was the strongest risk factor at ages 80–90 years. Age-dependent probability-based intervention thresholds were developed equivalent to women with a prior fragility fracture.

Conclusions

The FRAX tool is the first to provide a country-specific fracture prediction model for Brazil. It is based on the original FRAX methodology, which has been externally validated in several independent cohorts. Despite some limitations, the strengths make the Brazilian FRAX tool a good candidate for implementation into clinical practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kanis JA, Johansson H, Oden A, Cooper C, McCloskey EV, the Epidemiology and Quality of Life Working Group of IOF (2013) Worldwide uptake of FRAX. Arch Osteoporos 8:166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 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. Accessible at http://www.shef.ac.uk/FRAX. Accessed 26th February 2015

  3. 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 19:385–397

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Kanis JA, Oden A, Johnell O, Johansson H, De Laet C, Brown J et al (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 18:1033–1046

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Kanis JA, Odén A, McCloskey EV, Johansson H, Wahl D, Cyrus Cooper C on behalf of the IOF Working Group on Epidemiology and Quality of Life (2012) A systematic review of hip fracture incidence and probability of fracture worldwide. Osteoporos Int 23:2239–2256

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Elffors I, Allander E, Kanis JA, Gullberg B, Johnell O, Dequeker J et al (1994) The variable incidence of hip fracture in southern Europe: the MEDOS study. Osteoporos Int 4:253–263

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Zanchetta J, Campusano C, Musi B, Terront A, Cerdas S, Molina FC, Clark P, Messina O, Zerbini C, McDonald S (2012) The Latin America Regional Audit. Epidemiology, costs & burden of osteoporosis in 2012. International Osteoporosis Foundation, Nyon. Available at www.iofbonehealth.org

  8. Clark P, Cons-Molina F, Delezé M, Ragi-Eis S, Haddock L, Zanchetta JR et al (2009) The prevalence of vertebral fractures in Latin American countries: the Latin-American vertebral osteoporosis study (LAVOS). Osteoporos Int 20:275–282

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Castro da Rocha FA, Ribeiro AR (2013) Low incidence of hip fractures in an equatorial area. Osteoporos Int 14:496–499

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Silveira VA, Medeiros MM, Coelho-Filho JM, Mota RS, Noleto JC, Costa FS et al (2005) Incidência de fratura do quadril em área urbana do Nordeste brasileir; o [Hip fracture incidence in an urban area in Northeast Brazil]. Cad Saude Publica 21(3):907–912

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Komatsu RS, Ramos LR, Szejnfeld VL (2004) Incidence of proximal femur fractures in Marilia, Brazil. J Nutr Health Aging 8:362–367

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Schwartz AV, Kelsey JL, Maggi S, Tuttleman M, Ho SC, Jónsson PV et al (1999) International variation in the incidence of hip fractures: cross-national project on osteoporosis for the World Health Organization program for research on aging. Osteoporos Int 1999(9):242–253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE). Demographic Census 2000–2010 http://www.ibge.gov.br/english/#sub_populacao Accessed 11th May 2015

  14. UN Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat, World Population Prospects: The 2010 Revision, http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/index.htm

  15. Kanis JA, Hans D, Cooper C, Baim S, Bilezikian JP, Binkley N et al (2011) Interpretation and use of FRAX in clinical practice. Osteoporos Int 22:395–411

    Google Scholar 

  16. Siggeirsdottir K, Aspelund T, Johansson H, Gudmundsson EF, Mogensen B, Jonsson BY et al (2014) The incidence of a first major osteoporotic fracture in Iceland and implications for FRAX. Osteoporos Int 25:2445–2451

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Lam A, Leslie WD, Lix LM, Yogendran M, Morin SN, Majumdar SR (2014) Major osteoporotic to hip fracture ratios in Canadian men and women with Swedish comparisons: a population-based analysis. J Bone Miner Res 29:1067–1073

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kanis JA, McCloskey EV, Johansson H, Strom O, Borgstrom F, Oden A (2008) Case finding for the management of osteoporosis with FRAX-assessment and intervention thresholds for the UK. Osteoporos Int 19:1395–1408

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Compston J, Cooper A, Cooper C, Francis R, Kanis JA, Marsh D et al (2009) Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women and men from the age of 50 years in the UK. Maturitas 62:105–108

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Johansson H, Oden A, Johnell O, Jonsson B, de Laet C, Oglesby A et al (2004) Optimization of BMD measurements to identify high risk groups for treatment—a test analysis. J Bone Miner Res 19:906–913

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Leslie WD, Majumdar SR, Lix LM, Johansson H, Oden A, McCloskey E et al (2012) High fracture probability with FRAX usually indicates densitometric osteoporosis: implications for clinical practice. Osteoporos Int 23:391–397

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Kanis JA, McCloskey EV, Johansson H, Cooper C, Rizzoli R, Reginster JY (2013) European guidance for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women. Osteoporos Int 24:23–57

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Johansson H, Kanis JA, Oden A, Johnell O, McCloskey E (2009) BMD, clinical risk factors and their combination for hip fracture prevention. Osteoporos Int 20:1675–1682

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Kanis JA, Oden A, Johnell O, Jonsson B, de Laet C, Dawson A (2001) The burden of osteoporotic fractures: a method for setting intervention thresholds. Osteoporosis Int 12:417–427

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are indebted with Dr. Michael R. McClung and Dr. Ghada El-Hajj Fuleihan for their friendly help and advice.

Conflicts of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centro Paulista de Investigação Clinica, São Paulo, Brazil

    C. A. F. Zerbini

  2. Department of Rheumatology, Federal University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil

    V. L. Szejnfeld

  3. Department of Public Health, Federal University of Espirito Santo, Espirito Santo, Brazil

    B. H. Abergaria

  4. Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK

    E. V. McCloskey, H. Johansson & J. A. Kanis

  5. Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield Medical School, Beech Hill Road, Sheffield, S10 2RX, UK

    J. A. Kanis

Authors
  1. C. A. F. Zerbini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. V. L. Szejnfeld
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. B. H. Abergaria
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. E. V. McCloskey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. H. Johansson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. J. A. Kanis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. A. Kanis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zerbini, C.A.F., Szejnfeld, V.L., Abergaria, B.H. et al. Incidence of hip fracture in Brazil and the development of a FRAX model. Arch Osteoporos 10, 28 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11657-015-0224-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11657-015-0224-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation