Absolute fracture risk assessment using lumbar spine and femoral neck bone density measurements: Derivation and validation of a hybrid system

The World Health Organization (WHO) Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) computes 10‐year probability of major osteoporotic fracture from multiple risk factors, including femoral neck (FN) T‐scores. Lumbar spine (LS) measurements are not currently part of the FRAX formulation but are used widely in clinical practice, and this creates confusion when there is spine‐hip discordance. Our objective was to develop a hybrid 10‐year absolute fracture risk assessment system in which nonvertebral (NV) fracture risk was assessed from the FN and clinical vertebral (V) fracture risk was assessed from the LS. We identified 37,032 women age 45 years and older undergoing baseline FN and LS dual‐energy X‐ray absorptiometry (DXA; 1990–2005) from a population database that contains all clinical DXA results for the Province of Manitoba, Canada. Results were linked to longitudinal health service records for physician billings and hospitalizations to identify nontrauma vertebral and nonvertebral fracture codes after bone mineral density (BMD) testing. The population was randomly divided into equal‐sized derivation and validation cohorts. Using the derivation cohort, three fracture risk prediction systems were created from Cox proportional hazards models (adjusted for age and multiple FRAX risk factors): FN to predict combined all fractures, FN to predict nonvertebral fractures, and LS to predict vertebral (without nonvertebral) fractures. The hybrid system was the sum of nonvertebral risk from the FN model and vertebral risk from the LS model. The FN and hybrid systems were both strongly predictive of overall fracture risk (p < .001). In the validation cohort, ROC analysis showed marginally better performance of the hybrid system versus the FN system for overall fracture prediction (p = .24) and significantly better performance for vertebral fracture prediction (p < .001). In a discordance subgroup with FN and LS T‐score differences greater than 1 SD, there was a significant improvement in overall fracture prediction with the hybrid method (p = .025). Risk reclassification under the hybrid system showed better alignment with observed fracture risk, with 6.4% of the women reclassified to a different risk category. In conclusion, a hybrid 10‐year absolute fracture risk assessment system based on combining FN and LS information is feasible. The improvement in fracture risk prediction is small but supports clinical interest in a system that integrates LS in fracture risk assessment. © 2011 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

[1]  Eugene McCloskey,et al.  Independent clinical validation of a Canadian FRAX tool: Fracture prediction and model calibration , 2010, Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

[2]  A. Tenenhouse,et al.  Peak bone mass from longitudinal data: Implications for the prevalence, pathophysiology, and diagnosis of osteoporosis , 2010, Journal of Bone and Mineral Research.

[3]  P. Dargent-Molina,et al.  Fracture risk prediction using BMD and clinical risk factors in early postmenopausal women: Sensitivity of the WHO FRAX tool , 2010, Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

[4]  L. Lix,et al.  Simplified 10-year absolute fracture risk assessment: a comparison of men and women. , 2010, Journal of clinical densitometry : the official journal of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry.

[5]  Eve Donnelly,et al.  The assessment of fracture risk. , 2010, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[6]  Jeffrey R Curtis,et al.  Identification and Validation of Vertebral Compression Fractures Using Administrative Claims Data , 2009, Medical care.

[7]  Holly Janes,et al.  Assessing the Value of Risk Predictions by Using Risk Stratification Tables , 2008, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[8]  J. Kanis,et al.  Case finding for the management of osteoporosis with FRAX®—assessment and intervention thresholds for the UK , 2008, Osteoporosis International.

[9]  L. Melton,et al.  A reference standard for the description of osteoporosis. , 2008, Bone.

[10]  O. Johnell,et al.  FRAX™ and the assessment of fracture probability in men and women from the UK , 2008, Osteoporosis International.

[11]  L. Lix,et al.  Single-site vs multisite bone density measurement for fracture prediction. , 2007, Archives of internal medicine.

[12]  Jacques P. Brown,et al.  The use of clinical risk factors enhances the performance of BMD in the prediction of hip and osteoporotic fractures in men and women , 2007, Osteoporosis International.

[13]  W. Leslie The importance of spectrum bias on bone density monitoring in clinical practice. , 2006, Bone.

[14]  H. Kroger,et al.  The use of multiple sites for the diagnosis of osteoporosis , 2006, Osteoporosis International.

[15]  A. Silman,et al.  Predictive Value of BMD for Hip and Other Fractures , 2005, Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

[16]  L. Lix,et al.  A population-based study of osteoporosis testing and treatment following introduction of a new bone densitometry service , 2005, Osteoporosis International.

[17]  Jacques P. Brown,et al.  Recommendations for bone mineral density reporting in Canada. , 2005, Canadian Association of Radiologists journal = Journal l'Association canadienne des radiologistes.

[18]  W. Leslie,et al.  Construction and validation of a population-based bone densitometry database. , 2005, Journal of clinical densitometry : the official journal of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry.

[19]  M. Drezner,et al.  Interobserver Reproducibility of Criteria for Vertebral Body Exclusion , 2004, Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

[20]  M. Drezner,et al.  Recalculation of the NHANES Database SD Improves T‐Score Agreement and Reduces Osteoporosis Prevalence , 2004, Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

[21]  K. Knapp,et al.  Does the Combination of Two BMD Measurements Improve Fracture Discrimination? , 2003, Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

[22]  P. Miller,et al.  Discordance in patient classification using T-scores. , 1999, Journal of clinical densitometry : the official journal of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry.

[23]  N. Roos,et al.  Revisiting the Manitoba Centre for Health Policy and Evaluation and its population-based health information system. , 1999, Medical care.

[24]  C. Mustard,et al.  Validation of an Electronic, Population-Based Prescription Database , 1998, The Annals of pharmacotherapy.

[25]  O Johnell,et al.  Meta-analysis of how well measures of bone mineral density predict occurrence of osteoporotic fractures. , 1996, BMJ.

[26]  E. DeLong,et al.  Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. , 1988, Biometrics.

[27]  J. Kanis,et al.  The potential impact of new National Osteoporosis Foundation guidance on treatment patterns , 2009, Osteoporosis International.

[28]  Lisa M Lix,et al.  Effectiveness of bone density measurement for predicting osteoporotic fractures in clinical practice. , 2007, The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism.

[29]  O. Johnell,et al.  The Burden of Osteoporotic Fractures: A Method for Setting Intervention Thresholds , 2001, Osteoporosis International.

[30]  Organización Mundial de la Salud Guidelines for ATC classification and DDD assignment , 1996 .