FRAX fracture risk in women with a recent fracture of the distal forearm: agreement between assessments with and without bone mineral density and impact of measurement side in the individual patient

FRAX 10-yr Fracture Risk in Rheumatoid Arthritis-Assessments With and Without Bone Mineral Density May Lead to Very Different Results in the Individual Patient

OBJECTIVES

FRAX is a computer-based algorithm developed by the World Health Organisation for estimation of the 10-yr risk of a hip or major osteoporotic fracture. Inclusion of femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD) in the estimation is optional. The study aimed to investigate the intra-individual agreement between FRAX fracture risk calculated with and without BMD in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

Clinical data and BMD results from 50 RA patients registered in the Danish rheumatology registry (DANBIO) were used for analysis. Using the Bland-Altman method, lower and upper 95% limits of agreement [LLoA;ULoA] between intraindividual assessments of fracture risk with and without BMD and the bias (mean of individual differences) were calculated. Categorization of patients according to the National Osteoporosis foundation (NOF) treatment thresholds were also assessed with and without BMD.

RESULTS

Mean age was 63.6 ± 11.7 yr, mean disease activity score (DAS28-CRP) 3.3 ± 3.5 and mean femoral neck T-score -1.43 ± 1.15. The mean 10-yr risk of a major fracture and a hip fracture calculated with BMD was 22.9 ± 15.8% and 8.5 ± 10.8%, respectively. The LLoA and ULoA [bias] calculated without vs with BMD were -14.5 and 20.4 percent point (pp) [2.9 pp] for major fracture risk and -14.0 and 23.2 pp [4.6 pp] for hip fracture. NOF treatment categorization was only dependent on BMD in 4% of the patients.

CONCLUSION

The FRAX fracture risk estimated with and without BMD may disagree substantially in individual patients with RA but this seems to have only little impact on treatment categorization based on the NOF guidelines.

Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX®) Results Calculated With and Without Bone Mineral Density Values for the Evaluation of Fracture Risk in Postmenopausal Women With Osteopenia

The aim of this study was to evaluate the agreement between fracture risk predictions based on calculations made with and without bone mineral density (BMD) values using the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX®) in Turkish postmenopausal women with osteopenia and to compare the treatment recommendations. This descriptive, cross-sectional study included postmenopausal women aged 50-79 yr with a diagnosis of osteoporosis who were not receiving any treatment. A questionnaire was administered to the participants face-to-face to obtain sociodemographic characteristics, medical history, and fracture history. Fracture risk was calculated with FRAX® separately with and without BMD. The study included 230 postmenopausal patients with osteopenia. The mean age of the patients was determined as 63.16 ± 7.59 yr, and the mean body mass index was 30.61 ± 5.02. The intraclass correlation coefficient values of the 10-yr major osteoporotic (MO) fracture and hip fracture score agreement with FRAX® with and without BMD were mean 0.486 and 0.462, respectively. The risk of MO fracture with an intervention threshold of ≥20 was determined in 227/230 patients (98.7%), and the risk of hip fracture with treatment recommendations of ≥3 was determined in 204/230 patients (88.7%). Treatment recommendations in patients with no fracture history and secondary osteoporosis were 100% for MO fracture and 94.7% (123/130) for hip fracture risk. The treatment recommendation rates of FRAX® with and without BMD were similar for the majority of postmenopausal women with osteopenia. The agreement between the values was of a moderate level. When patients with a fracture history and secondary osteoporosis were excluded, the agreement increased. Even though values with BMD are of basic importance for medical treatment in postmenopausal women, the use of measurements evaluating fracture risk, such as FRAX® without BMD, could be useful in postmenopausal women with osteopenia.

Stability of clinical outcome measures in rheumatoid arthritis patients with stable disease defined on the basis of the EULAR response criteria

Natural variation also known as measurement error is assessed in individuals in "steady state." The study aimed to examine inter-visit variations in clinical outcome measures in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients with stable disease defined on the basis of the EULAR response criteria. Two hundred thirty-three RA patients with stable disease defined as a change in Disease Activity Score (DAS28-CRP) ≤0.6 between two consecutive visits were identified in the Danish rheumatology registry for biological treatment (DANBIO). Clinical data from a single set of such two visits were extracted for each patient. Using the Bland-Altman method, lower and upper 95 % limits of agreement (LLoA; ULoA) between the consecutive assessments and the bias were calculated for each measure. Associations were characterized by Pearson's r-values and standard errors of estimation (SEE). The mean change in DAS28-CRP was 0.0 ± 0.3. Agreements between the assessments were close on the group level but poor on the individual level. For example, LLoA; ULoA [bias] for patient global assessment (0-100) was -28.3; 29.7 [0.7], for fatigue (0-100) -38.1; 36.3 [-0.9] and for 28 swollen joint count -3.3; 3.3 [0.0]. Inter-visit differences were poorly explained by the baseline values (r [SEE] ranging from 0.15 [12.6] for fatigue to 0.58 [1.4] for 28 tender joint count) and by changes in other outcome variables. In conclusion, outcome measures fluctuated substantially and unpredictably in individual RA patients considered in steady state. The observed between-visit differences may be interpreted to reflect natural variation or measurement error that should be taken into account when monitoring patients in the daily clinic.

A combination of clinical balance measures and FRAX® to improve identification of high-risk fallers

Background

The FRAX® algorithm quantifies a patient’s 10-year probability of a hip or major osteoporotic fracture without taking an individual’s balance into account. Balance measures assess the functional ability of an individual and the FRAX® algorithm is a model that integrates the individual patients clinical risk factors [not balance] and bone mineral density. Thus, clinical balance measures capture aspects that the FRAX® algorithm does not, and vice versa. It is therefore possible that combining FRAX® and clinical balance measures can improve the identification of patients at high fall risk and thereby high fracture risk.

Our study aim was to explore whether there is an association between clinical balance measures and fracture prediction obtained from FRAX®.

Method

A cross-sectional study design was used where post hoc was performed on a dataset of 82 participants (54 to 89 years of age, mean age 71.4, 77 female), with a fall-related wrist-fracture between 2008 and 2012. Balance was measured by tandem stance, standing one leg, walking in the figure of eight, walking heel to toe on a line, walking as fast as possible for 30 m and five times sit to stand balance measures [tandem stance and standing one leg measured first with open and then with closed eyes] and each one analyzed for bivariate relations with the 10-year probability values for hip and major osteoporotic fractures as calculated by FRAX® using Spearman’s rank correlation test.

Results

Individuals with high FRAX® values had poor outcome in balance measures; however the significance level of the correlation differed between tests. Standing one leg eyes closed had strongest correlation to FRAX® (0.610 p = < 0.01) and Five times sit to stand was the only test that did not correlate with FRAX® (0.013).

Conclusion

This study showed that there is an association between clinical balance measures and FRAX®. Hence, the use of clinical balance measures and FRAX® in combination, might improve the identification of individuals with high risk of falls and thereby following fractures. Results enable healthcare providers to optimize treatment and prevention of fall-related fractures.

Trial registration

The study has been registered in Clinical Trials.gov, registration number NCT00988572.

Correlation between osteoporotic fracture risk in Brazilian postmenopausal women calculated using the FRAX with and without the inclusion of bone densitometry data

The risks of fracture were calculated in 402 postmenopausal Brazilian women by FRAX with or without the inclusion of bone densitometry values. The correlation between the risk of major osteoporosis fracture or hip fracture calculated by FRAX with or without BMD was similar in this population, 0.76 and 0.64, respectively.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to evaluate the degree of agreement between the 10-year fracture risk in postmenopausal Brazilian women, calculated using the WHO Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX)-Brazil, with and without the inclusion of bone mineral density (BMD) values.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted with 402 postmenopausal women (≥40 years) who had undergone bone densitometry prior to initiating any pharmacological treatment for osteopenia or osteoporosis. The risks of a major osteoporosis fracture or hip fracture were calculated according to FRAX-Brazil either using clinical risk factors alone or with the inclusion of BMD value. The tests used were intraclass correlation coefficient, Mann-Whitney test, and univariate linear regression analysis.

RESULTS

When the patients were classified according to the cutoff point defined as determining a high risk of a major osteoporosis fracture (≥20 %), 0.75 % were defined as high risk when BMD values were included and 1 % when they were not. With respect to the hip, 5.22 % were defined as having a high risk of fracture (≥3 %) when BMD values were included and 11.44 % when they were not. Intraclass correlation coefficient between the FRAX-Brazil assessed risk with and without the inclusion of BMD values was 0.76 (95 % CI 0.716-0.799) for a major osteoporosis fracture and 0.64 (95 %CI 0.583-0.698) for a hip fracture.

CONCLUSION

The correlation found for the FRAX-Brazil score obtained with and without the inclusion of BMD values was good for the risk of a major osteoporosis fracture and moderate for the risk of a hip fracture. The fracture risk calculated was similar in this population irrespective of whether or not BMD values were included in the algorithm.