The ten-year probability of fractures with the FRAX tool: which threshold for intervention to be used and how?

Objective: to analyze the clinical and organizational feasibility of using different intervention thresholds for the Russian population.

Subjects and methods. The probability of fractures using the Russian FRAX model was calculated on a sample of 3,866 postmenopausal female residents from 6 cities of the Russian Federation. Different intervention thresholds, including fixed (20% for major fractures and 3% for hip fractures), age-dependent (European and Russian) ones, as well as alternative models, were analyzed. The proportion of women to be treated was estimated using different intervention thresholds.

Results and discussion. The analysis of the effectiveness of the thresholds showed that the European threshold was the least appropriate one for the formed sample, since more than half (53.6%) of the women to be treated using the threshold, while the vast majority (90%) of the patients were in the younger age groups (50—54 years). There were very similar results of the effectiveness analysis of the fixed threshold (according to the USA National Osteoporosis Foundation — NOF) recommendations and that of the age-dependent threshold for Russia (in the context of the national clinical recommendations). Using the NOF approach in our sample could identify 47.8% of the postmenopausal women to be treated for osteoporosis. Their proportion rose from 29.6% of the patients aged 50—54 years to 80.6% of those aged 85 years and older. The alternative analyses of age-dependent thresholds showed great effectiveness when the fracture was considered not as a risk factor for future fractures, but as a clinical disease manifestation that was sufficient to recommend that the patient should be treated without FRAX counting. However, with their use, the proportion of older people to be treated remains not high enough. In this connection, there remains a need to search for the more adequate application of the existing intervention threshold or to develop a new, for example, hybrid variant of the age-dependent threshold.

1. Assessment of fracture risk and its application to screening for postmenopausal osteoporosis. Report of WHO Study Group. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1994 (WHO Report Series, No. 843).

2. Lesnyak OM, Baranova IA, Belova KYu, et al. Osteoporosis in Russian Federation: Epidemiology, socio-medical and economical aspects (Review). Travmatologiya i Ortopediya Rossii. 2018;24(1):155-68 (In Russ.).

3. Kanis JA, Cooper C, Rizzoli R, Reginster JY, on behalf of the Scientific Advisory Board of the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis (ESCEO) and the Committees of Scientific Advisors and National Societies of the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF). European guidance for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women. Osteoporos Int. 2019;30:3-44. doi: 10.1007/s00198-018-4704-5

4. Weinwright SA, Marshall LM, Ensrud KE, et al. Hip fracture in women without osteoporosis. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2005;90(5):2787-93. doi: 10.1210/jc.2004-1568

5. Kanis JA, Hans D, Cooper C, et al. Task Force of the FRAX Initiative. Interpretation and use of FRAX in clinical practice. Osteoporos Int. 2011 Sep; 22(9):2395-411. doi: 10.1007/s00198-011-1713-z

6. Melnichenko GA, Belaya ZhE, Rozhinskaya LYa, et al. Russian federal clinical guidelines on the diagnostics, treatment, and prevention of osteoporosis. Problemy Endokrinologii. 2017;63(6):392-426 (In Russ.).

7. Lesnyak О, Ershova О, Belova К, et al. Epidemiology of fracture in the Russian Federation and the development of a FRAX model. Arch Osteoporos. 2012;7(1-2):67-73. doi: 10.1007/s11657-012-0082-3

8. Cosman F, de Beur SJ, LeBoff MS, et al. Clinician’s Guide to Prevention and Treatment of Osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int. 2014;25(10):2359-81. doi: 10.1007/s00198-014-2794-2

9. Papaioannou A, Morin S, Cheung AM, et al. 2010 clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in Canada: summary. Can Med Assoc J. 2010;182(17):1864-73. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.100771

10. Orimo H, Nakamura T, Hosoi T, et al. Japanese 2011 guidelines for prevention and treatment of osteoporosis — executive summary. Arch Osteoporos. 2012;7(1-2):3-20. doi: 10.1007/s11657-012-0109-9

11. Johansson H, Kanis JA, Ljunggren O, et al. FRAX-model for 10-year fracture risk assessment. Support in the treatment of osteoporosis, according to preliminary Swedish guidelines. Lakartidningen. 2011;108(7):336-9.

12. Kanis JA, Harvey NC, Cooper C, et al. A systematic review of intervention thresholds based on FRAX. Arch Osteoporos. 2016;11(1):25. doi: 10.1007/s11657-016-0278-z

13. Tosteson AN, Melton LJ 3rd, Dawson-Hughes B, et al. National Osteoporosis Foundation Guide Committee. Cost-effective osteoporosis treatment thresholds: the United States perspective. Osteoporos Int. 2008;19(4):437-47. doi: 10.1007/s00198-007-0550-6

14. McCloskey E, Kanis JA, Johansson H, et al. FRAX-based assessment and intervention thresholds — an exploration of thresholds in women aged 50 years and older in the UK. Osteoporos Int. 2015;26(8):2091-9. doi: 10.1007/s00198-015-3176-0

15. Skripnikova IA, Myagkova MA, Shalnova SA, et al. Estimation of bone fracture risk using FRAX® model in urban population of Russian Federation. Int J Clin Rheumatol. 2018;13(2):63-70. doi: 10.4172/1758-4272.1000164

16. Nikitinskaya OA, Toroptsova NV. Progress of osteoporosis: stratification of fracture risk. Osteoporoz i Osteopatii. 2018;21(1):4-9 (In Russ.).

17. Harvey NC, McCloskey E, Kanis JA, et al. Cost-effective but clinically inappropriate: new NICE intervention thresholds in osteoporosis (Technology Appraisal 464). Osteoporos Int. 2018;29(7):1511-3. doi: 10.1007/s00198-018-4505-x

18. Borgstrom F, Johnell O, Kanis JA, et al. At what hip fracture risk is it cost-effective to treat? International intervention thresholds for the treatment of osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int. 2006;17(10):1459-71. doi: 10.1007/s00198-006-0107-0

19. Shepstone L, Lenaghan E, Cooper C, et al; SCOOP Study Team. Screening in the community to reduce fractures in older women (SCOOP): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2018;391(10122):741-7. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32640-5

20. Dawson-Hughes B, Looker AC, Tosteson AN, et al. The potential impact of the National Osteoporosis Foundation guidance on treatment eligibility in the USA: an update in NHANES 2005-2008. Osteoporos Int. 2012;23(3):811-20. doi: 10.1007/s00198-011-1694-y

21. Kanis JA, Melton LJ 3rd, Christiansen C, et al. The diagnosis of osteoporosis. J Bone Miner Res. 1994;9(8):1137-41. doi: 10.1002/jbmr.5650090802

22. Kanis JA, Johnell O, Oden A, et al. Risk of hip fracture according to the World Health Organization criteria for osteopenia and osteoporosis. Bone. 2000 Nov;27(5):585-90. doi: 10.1016/S8756-3282(00)00381-1

23. Kanis JA, McCloskey EV, Harvey NC, et al. Intervention thresholds and the diagnosis of osteoporosis. J Bone Miner Res. 2015;30(10):1747-53. doi: 10.1002/jbmr.2531