Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Calcified Tissue International 2/2016

01.04.2016 | Original Research

How Good is Our Best Guess? Clinical Application of the WHO FRAX Tool in Osteoporotic Fracture Risk Determination and Treatment Decisions

verfasst von: Laura Hinz, Elizabeth Freiheit, Gregory Kline

Erschienen in: Calcified Tissue International | Ausgabe 2/2016

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Historically, treatment decisions for osteoporosis were based on bone mineral density. However, many fractures occur in patients with T-scores outside the osteoporotic range, emphasizing the importance of multi-factorial risk assessments. The World Health Organization Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) predicts 10-year risk of osteoporotic fracture. We hypothesized that physicians’ clinical estimates of osteoporotic fracture risk would differ significantly from that calculated by FRAX. Thus, treatment decisions would differ depending whether or not physicians used FRAX. A survey consisting of five clinical scenarios was administered to 76 endocrinologists, family physicians, internists, and internal medicine residents. They were asked to estimate the osteoporotic fracture risk and decide whether they would offer preventative treatment. Their estimates were compared to the risk predicted by FRAX and national treatment threshold guidelines. The primary outcome was the difference between the participant’s estimate and the FRAX-based estimate of the 10-year risk of osteoporotic fracture for each scenario. In each scenario, physicians statistically significantly over-estimated fracture risk compared to that predicted by FRAX. Estimates for hip fracture risk were 2–4 times higher than FRAX estimates. The major osteoporotic fracture risk at which participants would offer treatment varied with physician group, with endocrinologists, family physicians, and residents requiring a 10–20 % 10-year risk, while internal medicine physician thresholds ranged from 2 to 20 %. Physicians greatly over-estimated the risk of hip fracture based on clinical information. FRAX is necessary to accurately quantify risk, but because physicians varied in the level of risk required before they would offer treatment, uniform approaches to risk estimation may still not result in uniform clinical treatment decisions.
Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Setty N, LeBoff M, Thornhill T et al (2011) Underestimated fracture probability in patients with unilateral hip osteoarthritis as calculated by FRAX. J clin densitom 14:447–452CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Setty N, LeBoff M, Thornhill T et al (2011) Underestimated fracture probability in patients with unilateral hip osteoarthritis as calculated by FRAX. J clin densitom 14:447–452CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Cosman F (2013) Clinician’s guide to prevention and treatment of osteoporosis. National Osteoporosis Foundation, Washington, DC Cosman F (2013) Clinician’s guide to prevention and treatment of osteoporosis. National Osteoporosis Foundation, Washington, DC
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Watts N (2011) The fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX): Applications in clinical practice. J Women’s Health 20:525–531CrossRef Watts N (2011) The fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX): Applications in clinical practice. J Women’s Health 20:525–531CrossRef
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Badurski J, Kanis J, Johansson H et al (2011) The application of FRAX to determine intervention thresholds in osteoporosis treatment in Poland. Pol Arch Med Wewnetrzejej 121:148–154 Badurski J, Kanis J, Johansson H et al (2011) The application of FRAX to determine intervention thresholds in osteoporosis treatment in Poland. Pol Arch Med Wewnetrzejej 121:148–154
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Hillier T, Cauley J, Rizzo J et al (2011) WHO absolute fracture risk models (FRAX): do clinical risk factors improve fracture prediction in older women without osteoprosis? J Bone Miner Res 26:1774–1782CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Hillier T, Cauley J, Rizzo J et al (2011) WHO absolute fracture risk models (FRAX): do clinical risk factors improve fracture prediction in older women without osteoprosis? J Bone Miner Res 26:1774–1782CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Papaioannou A, Morin S, Cheung A et al (2010) 2010 Clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in Canada: summary. Can Med Assoc J 182:1864–1873CrossRef Papaioannou A, Morin S, Cheung A et al (2010) 2010 Clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in Canada: summary. Can Med Assoc J 182:1864–1873CrossRef
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Hamilton-Craig C, Tonkin A, Jobling R (2000) How accurate are hypertension treatment decisions? Absolute risk assessment and prescribing for moderate hypertension-a study of Cambridge general practitioners. Blood Press 9:323–327CrossRefPubMed Hamilton-Craig C, Tonkin A, Jobling R (2000) How accurate are hypertension treatment decisions? Absolute risk assessment and prescribing for moderate hypertension-a study of Cambridge general practitioners. Blood Press 9:323–327CrossRefPubMed
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Steel N (2000) Thresholds for taking antihypertensive drugs in different professional and lay groups: questionnaire survey. Br Med J 320:1446–1447CrossRef Steel N (2000) Thresholds for taking antihypertensive drugs in different professional and lay groups: questionnaire survey. Br Med J 320:1446–1447CrossRef
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Friedmann P, Brett A, Mayo-Smith M (1996) Differences in generalists’ and cardiologists’ perceptions of cardiovascular risk and the outcomes of preventive therapy in cardiovascular disease. Ann Intern Med 124:414–421CrossRefPubMed Friedmann P, Brett A, Mayo-Smith M (1996) Differences in generalists’ and cardiologists’ perceptions of cardiovascular risk and the outcomes of preventive therapy in cardiovascular disease. Ann Intern Med 124:414–421CrossRefPubMed
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Persson M, Carlberg B, Tavelin B, Lindholm L (2003) Doctors’ estimation of cardiovascular risk and willingness to give drug treatment in hypertension: fair risk assessment but defensive treatment policy. J Hypertens 22:65–71CrossRef Persson M, Carlberg B, Tavelin B, Lindholm L (2003) Doctors’ estimation of cardiovascular risk and willingness to give drug treatment in hypertension: fair risk assessment but defensive treatment policy. J Hypertens 22:65–71CrossRef
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Neuner JM, Schapira MM (2012) The importance of physicians’ risk perception in osteoporosis treatment decision making. J Clin Densitom 15:49–54CrossRefPubMed Neuner JM, Schapira MM (2012) The importance of physicians’ risk perception in osteoporosis treatment decision making. J Clin Densitom 15:49–54CrossRefPubMed
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Kanis J, Oden A, Johnell O et al (2007) The use of clinical risk factors enhances the performance of BMD in the prediction of hip and osteoporotic fractures in men and women. Osteoporos Int 18:1033–1046CrossRefPubMed Kanis J, Oden A, Johnell O et al (2007) The use of clinical risk factors enhances the performance of BMD in the prediction of hip and osteoporotic fractures in men and women. Osteoporos Int 18:1033–1046CrossRefPubMed
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Solomon DH, Connelly MT, Rosen CJ et al (2003) Factors related to the use of bone densitometry: survey responses of 494 primary care physicians in New England. Osteoporos Int 14:123–129PubMed Solomon DH, Connelly MT, Rosen CJ et al (2003) Factors related to the use of bone densitometry: survey responses of 494 primary care physicians in New England. Osteoporos Int 14:123–129PubMed
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Briot K, Cortet B, Thomas T et al (2012) 2012 update of French guidelines for the pharmacological treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Joint Bone Spine 79:304–313CrossRefPubMed Briot K, Cortet B, Thomas T et al (2012) 2012 update of French guidelines for the pharmacological treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Joint Bone Spine 79:304–313CrossRefPubMed
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Compston J, Bowring C, Cooper A et al (2013) Diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women and older men in the UK: National Osteoporosis Guideline Group (NOGG) update 2013. Maturitas 75:392–396CrossRefPubMed Compston J, Bowring C, Cooper A et al (2013) Diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women and older men in the UK: National Osteoporosis Guideline Group (NOGG) update 2013. Maturitas 75:392–396CrossRefPubMed
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Hagino H (2014) New diagnostic criteria and guidelines on osteoporosis: Criteria for initiation of pharmacologic treatment by Japanese 2011 guidelines for prevention and treatment of osteoporosis. Clin Calcium 24:339–347PubMed Hagino H (2014) New diagnostic criteria and guidelines on osteoporosis: Criteria for initiation of pharmacologic treatment by Japanese 2011 guidelines for prevention and treatment of osteoporosis. Clin Calcium 24:339–347PubMed
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Douglas F, Petrie KJ, Cundy T et al (2012) Differing perceptions of intervention thresholds for fracture risk: a survey of patients and doctors. Osteoporos Int 23:2135–2140CrossRefPubMed Douglas F, Petrie KJ, Cundy T et al (2012) Differing perceptions of intervention thresholds for fracture risk: a survey of patients and doctors. Osteoporos Int 23:2135–2140CrossRefPubMed
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Ensrud K, Lui L-Y, Taylor B et al (2009) A comparison of prediction models for fractures in older women: is more better? Arch intern Med 169:2087–2094CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Ensrud K, Lui L-Y, Taylor B et al (2009) A comparison of prediction models for fractures in older women: is more better? Arch intern Med 169:2087–2094CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Solomon DH, Patrick AR, Schousboe J, Losina E (2014) The potential economic benefits of improved post-fracture care: a cost-effectiveness analysis of a fracture liaison service in the US health care system. J Bone Miner Res 29:1667–1674CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Solomon DH, Patrick AR, Schousboe J, Losina E (2014) The potential economic benefits of improved post-fracture care: a cost-effectiveness analysis of a fracture liaison service in the US health care system. J Bone Miner Res 29:1667–1674CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Tosteson A, Melton L, Dawson-Hughes B et al (2008) Cost-effective osteoporosis treatment thresholds: the United States perspective. Osteoporos Int 16:437–447CrossRef Tosteson A, Melton L, Dawson-Hughes B et al (2008) Cost-effective osteoporosis treatment thresholds: the United States perspective. Osteoporos Int 16:437–447CrossRef
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Adami S, Bertoldo F, Gatti D et al (2013) Treatment thresholds for osteoporosis and reimbursability criteria: perspectives associated with fracture risk-assessment tools. Calcif Tissue Int 93:195–200CrossRefPubMed Adami S, Bertoldo F, Gatti D et al (2013) Treatment thresholds for osteoporosis and reimbursability criteria: perspectives associated with fracture risk-assessment tools. Calcif Tissue Int 93:195–200CrossRefPubMed
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Nayak S, Edwards DL, Saleh AA, Greenspan SL (2014) Performance of risk assessment instruments for predicting osteoporotic fracture risk: a systematic review. Osteoporos Int 25:23–49CrossRefPubMed Nayak S, Edwards DL, Saleh AA, Greenspan SL (2014) Performance of risk assessment instruments for predicting osteoporotic fracture risk: a systematic review. Osteoporos Int 25:23–49CrossRefPubMed
Metadaten
Titel
How Good is Our Best Guess? Clinical Application of the WHO FRAX Tool in Osteoporotic Fracture Risk Determination and Treatment Decisions
verfasst von
Laura Hinz
Elizabeth Freiheit
Gregory Kline
Publikationsdatum
01.04.2016
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
Calcified Tissue International / Ausgabe 2/2016
Print ISSN: 0171-967X
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-0827
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00223-016-0134-6

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2016

Calcified Tissue International 2/2016 Zur Ausgabe

Leitlinien kompakt für die Innere Medizin

Mit medbee Pocketcards sicher entscheiden.

Seit 2022 gehört die medbee GmbH zum Springer Medizin Verlag

Update Innere Medizin

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.