» Articles » PMID: 35566539

Predictive Performance of the FRAX Tool Calibrated for Spain Vs. an Age and Sex Model: Prospective Cohort Study with 9082 Women and Men Followed for Up to 8 Years

Overview
Journal J Clin Med
Specialty General Medicine
Date 2022 May 14
PMID 35566539
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

In Spain, the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) was adapted using studies with a small number of patients, and there are only a few external validation studies that present limitations. In this prospective cohort study, we compared the performance of FRAX and a simple age and sex model. We used data from the ESOSVAL cohort, a cohort composed of a Mediterranean population of 11,035 women and men aged 50 years and over, followed for up to 8 years, to compare the discrimination, calibration, and reclassification of FRAX calibrated for Spain and a logistic model including only age and sex as variables. We found virtually identical AUC, 83.55% for FRAX (CI 95%: 80.46, 86.63) and 84.10% for the age and sex model (CI 95%: 80.91, 87.29), and there were similar observed-to-predicted ratios. In the reclassification analyses, patients with a hip fracture that were reclassified correctly as high risk by FRAX, compared to the age and sex model, were -2.86%, using either the 3% threshold or the observed incidence, 1.54% (95%CI: -8.44, 2.72 for the 3% threshold; 95%CI: -7.68, 1.97 for the incidence threshold). Remarkably simple and inexpensive tools that are easily transferable into electronic medical record environments may offer a comparable predictive ability to that of FRAX.

Citing Articles

Fragility Score: a REMS-based indicator for the prediction of incident fragility fractures at 5 years.

Pisani P, Conversano F, Muratore M, Adami G, Brandi M, Caffarelli C Aging Clin Exp Res. 2023; 35(4):763-773.

PMID: 36752950 PMC: 10115670. DOI: 10.1007/s40520-023-02358-2.

References
1.
Kanis J, Johnell O, De Laet C, Jonsson B, Oden A, Ogelsby A . International variations in hip fracture probabilities: implications for risk assessment. J Bone Miner Res. 2002; 17(7):1237-44. DOI: 10.1359/jbmr.2002.17.7.1237. View

2.
Roux C, Wyman A, Hooven F, Gehlbach S, Adachi J, Chapurlat R . Burden of non-hip, non-vertebral fractures on quality of life in postmenopausal women: the Global Longitudinal study of Osteoporosis in Women (GLOW). Osteoporos Int. 2012; 23(12):2863-71. PMC: 4881739. DOI: 10.1007/s00198-012-1935-8. View

3.
Moons K, Royston P, Vergouwe Y, Grobbee D, Altman D . Prognosis and prognostic research: what, why, and how?. BMJ. 2009; 338:b375. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.b375. View

4.
Hurtado-Navarro I, Garcia-Sempere A, Rodriguez-Bernal C, Sanfelix-Genoves J, Peiro S, Sanfelix-Gimeno G . Impact of Drug Safety Warnings and Cost-Sharing Policies on Osteoporosis Drug Utilization in Spain: A Major Reduction But With the Persistence of Over and Underuse. Data From the ESOSVAL Cohort From 2009 to 2015. Front Pharmacol. 2019; 10:768. PMC: 6635591. DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2019.00768. View

5.
Azagra R, Lopez-Exposito F, Martin-Sanchez J, Aguye A, Moreno N, Cooper C . Changing trends in the epidemiology of hip fracture in Spain. Osteoporos Int. 2013; 25(4):1267-74. PMC: 4890654. DOI: 10.1007/s00198-013-2586-0. View