Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

High fracture probability with FRAX® usually indicates densitometric osteoporosis: implications for clinical practice

  • Short Communication
  • Published:
Osteoporosis International Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Summary

Most patients designated as high risk of fracture using fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX®) with femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD) (i.e., 10-year major osteoporotic fracture probability exceeding 20% or hip fracture exceeding 3%) have one or more T-scores in the osteoporotic range; conversely, almost no high risk patients have normal T-scores at all bone mineral density measurement sites.

Introduction

We determined the agreement between a FRAX® designation of high risk of fracture [defined as 10-year major osteoporotic fracture probability (≥20%) or hip fracture probability (≥3%)] and the WHO categorizations of bone mineral density according to T-score.

Methods

Ten-year FRAX® probabilities calculated with femoral neck BMD were derived using both Canadian and US white tools for a large clinical cohort of 36,730 women and 2,873 men age 50 years and older from Manitoba, Canada. Individuals were classified according to FRAX fracture probability and BMD T-scores alone.

Results

Most individuals designated by FRAX as high risk of major osteoporotic fracture had a T-score in the osteoporotic range at one or more BMD measurement sites (85% with Canadian tool and 83% with US white tool). The majority of individuals deemed at high risk of hip fracture had one or more T-scores in the osteoporotic range (66% with Canadian tool and 64% with US white tool). Conversely, there were extremely few individuals (<1%) who were at high risk of major osteoporotic or hip fracture with normal T-scores at all BMD measurement sites.

Conclusions

A FRAX designation of high risk of fracture is usually associated with a densitometric diagnosis of osteoporosis.

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

References

  1. Kanis JA, Melton LJ III, Christiansen C et al (1994) The diagnosis of osteoporosis. J Bone Miner Res 9:1137–1141

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Looker AC, Wahner HW, Dunn WL et al (1998) Updated data on proximal femur bone mineral levels of US adults. Osteoporos Int 8:468–489

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Kanis JA, McCloskey EV, Johansson H et al (2008) A reference standard for the description of osteoporosis. Bone 42:467–475

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Cranney A, Jamal SA, Tsang JF et al (2007) Low bone mineral density and fracture burden in postmenopausal women. CMAJ 177:575–580

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Kanis JA, Oden A, Johnell O 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 

  6. Kanis JA, Oden A, Johansson H et al (2009) FRAX and its applications to clinical practice. Bone 44:734–743

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Dawson-Hughes B (2008) A revised clinician’s guide to the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 93:2463–2465

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Dawson-Hughes B, Tosteson AN, Melton LJ III et al (2008) Implications of absolute fracture risk assessment for osteoporosis practice guidelines in the USA. Osteoporos Int 19:449–458

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Kanis JA, Johnell O, Oden A et al (2008) FRAX and the assessment of fracture probability in men and women from the UK. Osteoporos Int 19:385–397

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Kanis JA, McCloskey EV, Johansson H et al (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 

  11. Lippuner K, Johansson H, Kanis JA et al (2010) FRAX assessment of osteoporotic fracture probability in Switzerland. Osteoporos Int 21:381–389

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Kanis JA, Burlet N, Cooper C et al (2008) European guidance for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women. Osteoporos Int 19:399–428

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Fujiwara S, Kasagi F, Masunari N et al (2003) Fracture prediction from bone mineral density in Japanese men and women. J Bone Miner Res 18:1547–1553

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Papaioannou A, Morin S, Cheung AM et al (2010) 2010 Clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in Canada: summary. CMAJ 182:1864–1873

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Grossman JM, Gordon R, Ranganath VK et al (2010) American College of Rheumatology 2010 recommendations for the prevention and treatment of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 62:1515–1526

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Siminoski K, Leslie WD, Frame H et al (2005) Recommendations for bone mineral density reporting in Canada. Can Assoc Radiol J 56:178–188

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kanis JA, Johansson H, Oden A et al (2009) Bazedoxifene reduces vertebral and clinical fractures in postmenopausal women at high risk assessed with FRAX. Bone 44:1049–1054

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. McCloskey EV, Johansson H, Oden A et al (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 20:811–817

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Kanis JA, Johansson H, Oden A et al (2010) A meta-analysis of the efficacy of raloxifene on all clinical and vertebral fractures and its dependency on FRAX. Bone 47:729–735

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Leslie WD, MacWilliam L, Lix L et al (2005) A population-based study of osteoporosis testing and treatment following introduction of a new bone densitometry service. Osteoporos Int 16:773–782

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Leslie WD, Caetano PA, MacWilliam LR et al (2005) Construction and validation of a population-based bone densitometry database. J Clin Densitom 8:25–30

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 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 20:195–201

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Hansen KE, Binkley N, Christian R et al (2005) Interobserver reproducibility of criteria for vertebral body exclusion. J Bone Miner Res 20:501–508

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Leslie WD (2006) The importance of spectrum bias on bone density monitoring in clinical practice. Bone 39:361–368

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Roos NP, Shapiro E (1999) Revisiting the Manitoba Centre for Health Policy and Evaluation and its population-based health information system. Med Care 37:JS10–JS14

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Leslie WD, Tsang JF, Caetano PA et al (2007) Effectiveness of bone density measurement for predicting osteoporotic fractures in clinical practice. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 92:77–81

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. WHO Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology (eds) (2005) Guidelines for ATC classification and DDD assignment. Oslo

  28. Leslie WD, Lix LM, Johansson H et al (2010) Independent clinical validation of a Canadian FRAX tool: fracture prediction and model calibration. J Bone Miner Res 25:2350–2358

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Watts NB, Siris ES, Cummings SR et al (2010) Filtering FRAX. Osteoporos Int 21:537–541

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. McCloskey E, Compston J, Cooper C (2010) The US FRAX filter: avoiding confusion or hindering progress? Osteoporos Int 21:885

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Leslie WD, Lix LM, Langsetmo et al. (2011) Construction of a FRAX® model for the assessment of fracture probability in Canada and implications for treatment. Osteoporos Int [in press]

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors are indebted to Manitoba Health for the provision of data (HIPC File No. 2007/2008-49). The results and conclusions are those of the authors, and no official endorsement by Manitoba Health is intended or should be inferred. This article has been reviewed and approved by the members of the Manitoba Bone Density Program Committee.

Conflicts of interest

William D. Leslie: Speaker fees and unrestricted research grants from Merck Frosst Canada Ltd; unrestricted research grants from Sanofi-Aventis, Procter & Gamble Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Amgen Pharmaceuticals, Genzyme; advisory boards for Genzyme, Novartis, and Amgen Pharmaceuticals.

Lisa M. Lix: Unrestricted research grants from Amgen Pharmaceuticals.

John A Kanis: Nothing to declare for FRAX and the context of this paper, but numerous ad hoc consultancies for:

Industry: Abiogen, Italy; Amgen, USA, Switzerland, and Belgium; Bayer, Germany; Besins-Iscovesco, France; Biosintetica, Brazil; Boehringer Ingelheim, UK; Celtrix, USA; D3A, France; Gador, Argentina; General Electric, USA; GSK, UK and USA; Hologic, Belgium and USA; Kissei, Japan; Leiras, Finland; Leo Pharma, Denmark; Lilly, USA, Canada, Japan, Australia, and UK; Merck Research Labs, USA; Merlin Ventures, UK; MRL, China; Novartis, Switzerland, and USA; Novo Nordisk, Denmark; Nycomed, Norway; Ono, UK and Japan; Organon, Holland; Parke-Davis, USA; Pfizer, USA; Pharmexa, Denmark; Procter and Gamble, UK and USA; ProStrakan, UK; Roche, Germany, Australia, Switzerland, and USA; Rotta Research, Italy; Sanofi-Aventis, USA; Schering, Germany and Finland; Servier, France and UK; Shire, UK; Solvay, France and Germany; Strathmann, Germany; Tethys, USA; Teijin, Japan; Teva, Israel; UBS, Belgium; Unigene, USA; Warburg-Pincus, UK; Warner-Lambert, USA; Wyeth, USA.

Governmental and NGOs: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), UK; International Osteoporosis Foundation; INSERM, France; Ministry of Public Health, China; Ministry of Health, Australia; National Osteoporosis Society (UK); WHO.

Others: None.

Sources of support:

SRM is a health scholar supported by the Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research. LML is supported by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) New Investigator Award and a Centennial Research Chair at the University of Saskatchewan.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada

    W. D. Leslie

  2. University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada

    S. R. Majumdar

  3. University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada

    L. M. Lix

  4. Gothenburg, Sweden

    H. Johansson & A. Oden

  5. Osteoporosis Centre, Northern General Hospital, Sheffield, UK

    E. McCloskey

  6. WHO Collaborating Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK

    J. A. Kanis

  7. Department of Medicine (C5121), St. Boniface General Hospital, 409 Tache Avenue, Winnipeg, MB, R2H 2A6, Canada

    W. D. Leslie

Authors
  1. W. D. Leslie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. S. R. Majumdar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. L. M. Lix
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. H. Johansson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. A. Oden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. E. McCloskey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. J. A. Kanis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Consortia

for the Manitoba Bone Density Program

Corresponding author

Correspondence to W. D. Leslie.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Leslie, W.D., Majumdar, S.R., Lix, L.M. et al. High fracture probability with FRAX® usually indicates densitometric osteoporosis: implications for clinical practice. Osteoporos Int 23, 391–397 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-011-1592-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-011-1592-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation