Comparison of screening tools for optimizing fracture prevention in Canada.


Journal

Archives of osteoporosis
ISSN: 1862-3514
Titre abrégé: Arch Osteoporos
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101318988

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
27 10 2020
Historique:
received: 25 06 2020
accepted: 20 10 2020
entrez: 28 10 2020
pubmed: 29 10 2020
medline: 2 1 2021
Statut: epublish

Résumé

The best screening strategy to identify treatment qualification based upon indicators of high fracture risk (low-trauma fractures of the hip, spine, or multiple fracture episodes at other sites; high fracture probability with the Canadian fracture risk assessment [FRAX®] tool major osteoporotic fracture [MOF] computed with bone mineral density [BMD] > 20%; or vertebral fracture on vertebral fracture assessment [VFA]) was FRAX-MOF without BMD using a cutoff of ≥ 10%. To inform clinical practice guidelines in Canada, we compared multiple screening tools using the population-based Manitoba BMD Program registry. The study populations consisted of (a) 28,906 individuals > 50 years or older, and (b) 15,429 women age > 65 years undergoing baseline BMD assessment (2010-2018). We considered two treatment qualifications: Treatment Approach 1: prior high-risk fracture, high fracture probability (FRAX-MOF with BMD > 20%), or vertebral fracture on VFA; Treatment Approach 2: Approach 1 or an osteoporotic BMD T score. Candidate screening tools were FRAX-MOF without BMD, age alone, weight alone, SCORE, ORAI, SOFSURF, OSIRIS, ABONE, and OST. Healthcare records were assessed for the presence of incident fracture diagnoses. Among all individuals, FRAX-MOF without BMD demonstrated the best ability to identify those satisfying Treatment Approach 1 (area under the curve [AUC 0.863]) and was significantly better than all other screening tools (P < 0.001). For identification of individuals satisfying Treatment Approach 2, FRAX-MOF without BMD showed moderate stratification (AUC 0.735), slightly lower than OSIRIS (AUC 0.752, P < 0.05), similar to SCORE (AUC 0.739, P > 0.05) and significantly better than all other screening tools (P < 0.05). For prediction of incident MOF, FRAX-MOF without BMD achieved the highest performance (AUC 0.652), and was significantly better than all other screening tools except OSIRIS. AUCs among women age > 65 years tended to be greater with a similar ranking, and no tool outperformed FRAX-MOF without BMD. Based upon a summary score, the highest ranked strategy was FRAX-MOF without BMD using a cutoff of 10%. All screening tools show some ability to identify individuals qualifying for treatment and stratify risk for incident fracture. For treatment based upon indicators of high fracture risk, the best performing strategy was FRAX-MOF without BMD using a cutoff of ≥ 10%.

Identifiants

pubmed: 33111193
doi: 10.1007/s11657-020-00846-w
pii: 10.1007/s11657-020-00846-w
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

170

Commentaires et corrections

Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn

Auteurs

William D Leslie (WD)

Department of Medicine (C5121), University of Manitoba, 409 Tache Avenue, Winnipeg, Manitoba, R2H 2A6, Canada. bleslie@sbgh.mb.ca.

Lisa M Lix (LM)

Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.

Neil Binkley (N)

University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH