The effects of a FRAX revision for the USA.
A revision (version 3.0) of the fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX) is developed based on an update of epidemiological information for the USA. With the revised tool, there were strong correlations (r > 0.99) between versions 2.0 and 3.0 for FRAX estimates of fracture probability, but the revised models gave lower probability estimates.


BACKGROUND
The aim of this study was to determine the effects of a revision of the epidemiological data used to compute fracture probabilities in the USA with FRAX.


METHODS
Models were constructed to compute fracture probabilities based on updated fracture incidence and mortality rates in the USA. The models comprised the ten-year probability of hip fracture and the ten-year probability of a major osteoporotic fracture, both including femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD). For each model, fracture and death hazards were computed as continuous functions. The effect of the revised rates on fracture probability was examined by piecewise linear regression using multiple combinations of clinical risk factors and BMD.


RESULTS
At all ages, there was a strong correlation (r > 0.99) between version 2.0 and revised FRAX estimates of fracture probability. For a major osteoporotic fracture, the revised model gave lower median probabilities by 13% to 24% in men, depending on age, and by 19% to 24% in women. For hip fracture probability, the revised model gave lower median fracture probabilities by 40% and 27% at the ages of 50 and 60 years in men and by 43% and 30%, respectively, in women. At the ages of 70 years and older the revised model gave similar hip fracture probabilities as version 2.0 in both men and women.


CONCLUSIONS
The revised FRAX model for the USA (version 3.0) does not alter the ranking of fracture probabilities but provides lower probability estimates than version 2.0, particularly, in younger women and men.
Kanis
J A
JA
WHO Collaborating Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield Medical School, Sheffield, UK. w.j.pontefract@shef.ac.uk
Johansson
H
H
Oden
A
A
Dawson-Hughes
B
B
Melton
L J
LJ
McCloskey
E V
EV
D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D000465:Algorithms; D015519:Bone Density / Q000502:physiology; D005260:Female; D005272:Femur Neck / Q000503:physiopathology; D006620:Hip Fractures / Q000453:epidemiology* / Q000503:physiopathology; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D058866:Osteoporotic Fractures / Q000453:epidemiology* / Q000503:physiopathology; D018570:Risk Assessment / Q000379:methods; D014481:United States / Q000453:epidemiology
J Bone Miner Res. 2002 Jul;17(7):1237-44
12096837
Osteoporos Int. 2004 Aug;15(8):603-10
15004666
Osteoporos Int. 2006 Oct;17(10):1459-71
16847588
Osteoporos Int. 2010 Jan;21(1):25-33
19705048
Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2005 May;34(5):252-5
15954693
Osteoporos Int. 2007 Aug;18(8):1033-46
17323110
Bone. 2005 Jan;36(1):22-32
15663999
Osteoporos Int. 2008 Apr;19(4):385-97
18292978
J Bone Miner Res. 2005 Feb;20(2):195-201
15647812
Osteoporos Int. 2008 Apr;19(4):449-58
18292975
Osteoporos Int. 2008 Apr;19(4):437-47
18292976
Osteoporos Int. 2000;11(8):669-74
11095169
Osteoporos Int. 2005 Jan;16(1):6-14
15103452
Osteoporos Int. 2001;12(5):417-27
11444092
Osteoporos Int. 2009 May;20(5):687-94
18797813
J Bone Miner Res. 2007 Mar;22(3):465-75
17144789
Osteoporos Int. 1999;9(1):29-37
10367027
Osteoporos Int. 2008 Oct;19(10):1395-408
18751937
Osteoporos Int. 1998;8(5):468-89
9850356
J Bone Miner Res. 2005 Jun;20(6):895-7
15883627