Low Predictive Value of FRAX Adjusted by Trabecular Bone Score for Osteoporotic Fractures in Korean Women: A Community-Based Cohort Study.
Bone density
Fracture risk assessment tool
Osteoporotic fracture
Risk assessment
Trabecular bone score
Osteoporosis
Journal
Endocrinology and metabolism (Seoul, Korea)
ISSN: 2093-5978
Titre abrégé: Endocrinol Metab (Seoul)
Pays: Korea (South)
ID NLM: 101554139
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 2020
06 2020
Historique:
received:
13
02
2020
accepted:
14
04
2020
entrez:
4
7
2020
pubmed:
4
7
2020
medline:
12
6
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The value of the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) and the trabecular bone score (TBS) for assessing osteoporotic fracture risk has not been fully elucidated in Koreans. We conducted this study to clarify the predictive value of FRAX adjusted by TBS for osteoporotic fractures in Korean women. After screening 7,192 eligible subjects from the Ansung cohort, 1,165 women aged 45 to 76 years with available bone mineral density (BMD) and TBS data were enrolled in this study. We assessed their clinical risk factors for osteoporotic fractures and evaluated the predictive value of FRAX with or without BMD and TBS. During the mean follow-up period of 7.5 years, 99 (8.5%) women suffered major osteoporotic fractures (MOFs) and 28 (2.4%) experienced hip fractures. FRAX without BMD, BMD-adjusted FRAX, and TBS-adjusted FRAX were significantly associated with the risk of MOFs (hazard ratio [HR] per percent increase, 1.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03 to 1.14; HR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.15; and HR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.13, respectively). However, BMD-adjusted FRAX and TBS-adjusted FRAX did not predict MOFs better than FRAX without BMD based on the Harrell's C statistic. FRAX probabilities showed limited value for predicting hip fractures. The cut-off values of FRAX without BMD, FRAX with BMD, and FRAX with BMD adjusted by TBS for predicting MOFs were 7.2%, 5.0%, and 6.7%, respectively. FRAX with BMD and TBS adjustment did not show better predictive value for osteoporotic fractures in this study than FRAX without adjustment. Moreover, the cut-off values of FRAX probabilities for treatment might be lower in Korean women than in other countries.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The value of the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) and the trabecular bone score (TBS) for assessing osteoporotic fracture risk has not been fully elucidated in Koreans. We conducted this study to clarify the predictive value of FRAX adjusted by TBS for osteoporotic fractures in Korean women.
METHODS
After screening 7,192 eligible subjects from the Ansung cohort, 1,165 women aged 45 to 76 years with available bone mineral density (BMD) and TBS data were enrolled in this study. We assessed their clinical risk factors for osteoporotic fractures and evaluated the predictive value of FRAX with or without BMD and TBS.
RESULTS
During the mean follow-up period of 7.5 years, 99 (8.5%) women suffered major osteoporotic fractures (MOFs) and 28 (2.4%) experienced hip fractures. FRAX without BMD, BMD-adjusted FRAX, and TBS-adjusted FRAX were significantly associated with the risk of MOFs (hazard ratio [HR] per percent increase, 1.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03 to 1.14; HR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.15; and HR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.13, respectively). However, BMD-adjusted FRAX and TBS-adjusted FRAX did not predict MOFs better than FRAX without BMD based on the Harrell's C statistic. FRAX probabilities showed limited value for predicting hip fractures. The cut-off values of FRAX without BMD, FRAX with BMD, and FRAX with BMD adjusted by TBS for predicting MOFs were 7.2%, 5.0%, and 6.7%, respectively.
CONCLUSION
FRAX with BMD and TBS adjustment did not show better predictive value for osteoporotic fractures in this study than FRAX without adjustment. Moreover, the cut-off values of FRAX probabilities for treatment might be lower in Korean women than in other countries.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32615720
pii: EnM.2020.35.2.359
doi: 10.3803/EnM.2020.35.2.359
pmc: PMC7386105
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
359-366Références
J Bone Miner Res. 2002 Jul;17(7):1237-44
pubmed: 12096837
Osteoporos Int. 2013 Sep;24(9):2455-60
pubmed: 23468074
Lancet. 1999 Mar 13;353(9156):878-82
pubmed: 10093980
Osteoporos Int. 1994 Nov;4(6):368-81
pubmed: 7696835
Osteoporos Int. 2012 Mar;23(3):871-8
pubmed: 21562875
Asian Spine J. 2012 Mar;6(1):22-8
pubmed: 22439084
Osteoporos Int. 2005 Nov;16(11):1330-8
pubmed: 15928804
Calcif Tissue Int. 2015 Jun;96(6):500-9
pubmed: 25796374
Osteoporos Int. 2017 Jan;28(1):151-160
pubmed: 27725999
Osteoporos Int. 2011 Dec;22(12):3037-45
pubmed: 21279504
J Korean Med Sci. 2010 Nov;25(11):1657-60
pubmed: 21060757
Osteoporos Int. 2005 Feb;16(2):155-62
pubmed: 15175845
J Bone Miner Res. 2011 Aug;26(8):1774-82
pubmed: 21351144
J Bone Miner Res. 2005 Feb;20(2):185-94
pubmed: 15647811
Bone. 2004 Nov;35(5):1029-37
pubmed: 15542027
J Bone Miner Res. 2002 Dec;17(12):2222-30
pubmed: 12469916
Osteoporos Int. 2008 Apr;19(4):399-428
pubmed: 18266020
Clin Imaging. 2002 Jan-Feb;26(1):43-9
pubmed: 11814753
Osteoporos Int. 2004 Jan;15(1):38-42
pubmed: 14593451
JAMA. 2009 Feb 4;301(5):513-21
pubmed: 19190316
Osteoporos Int. 2005 Jul;16(7):737-42
pubmed: 15455194
Bone. 2015 Oct;79:259-66
pubmed: 26092650
J Bone Miner Metab. 2011 Nov;29(6):744-51
pubmed: 21644058
J Clin Densitom. 2011 Jul-Sep;14(3):302-12
pubmed: 21724435
J Bone Miner Res. 2005 Jul;20(7):1185-94
pubmed: 15940371
Osteoporos Int. 2010 May;21(5):863-71
pubmed: 19633880
Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Jun;57(3):389-393
pubmed: 29880171
J Bone Metab. 2015 Aug;22(3):113-8
pubmed: 26389086
J Bone Miner Res. 2004 Jun;19(6):893-9
pubmed: 15125788
J Bone Miner Res. 2011 Nov;26(11):2762-9
pubmed: 21887701
J Bone Miner Res. 2016 May;31(5):940-8
pubmed: 26498132
Med Arch. 2018 Feb;72(1):46-50
pubmed: 29416218
J Bone Miner Res. 2016 Mar;31(3):690-7
pubmed: 26378772
Am J Med. 1993 Jun;94(6):646-50
pubmed: 8506892