Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Revised FRAX®-based intervention thresholds for the management of osteoporosis among postmenopausal women in Sri Lanka

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Archives of Osteoporosis Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Summary

This paper revised the fixed intervention thresholds (ITs) based on the Sri Lankan fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX) published in 2013 and introduced new ITs, hybrid and two-tier, aiming to help clinicians in the management of postmenopausal osteoporosis. The hybrid and two-tier ITs have a better discriminatory power than age-dependent and revised fixed ITs.

Introduction

This study revised the Sri Lankan FRAX®-based intervention thresholds (ITs) previously published in 2013.

Method

Age-dependent ITs were estimated, from 50–80 years with 5-year intervals, using a Sri Lankan FRAX® algorithm for a woman with a BMI of 24.8 kg/m2 and history of prior fragility fracture without other clinical risk factors. Data of 653 postmenopausal women were used in estimating fixed, hybrid, and two-tier ITs. ITs were determined using the ROC curve and partial Youden index. New ITs were validated using data of 356 postmenopausal women who underwent DXA and 62 women who had a recent fragility fracture. Women in the two groups (n = 653 and n = 356) came from the Southern Province and had undergone DXA in our state-owned tertiary care hospital as a part of their routine clinical assessment.

Results

The mean (SD) age and BMI of the subjects (n = 653) were 62 (8) years and 24.8 (1.2) kg/m2, respectively. Age-dependent ITs of major osteoporotic fracture risk (MOFR) and hip fracture risk (HFR) ranged from 2.7 to 18% and from 0.4 to 7.1%. The best fixed ITs for women aged 50–80 years were 9% for MOFR and 3% for HFR. In the hybrid method, MOFR of 6% and HFR of 2% were found appropriate for women aged < 70 years. These were combined with age-dependent ITs for women aged 70 years and above. In the two-tier system, two sets of ITs were calculated (ITs of MOFR/HFR for women aged < 70 years and ≥ 70 years were 6%/2% and 12%/5%, respectively). When age-dependent ITs were considered the reference standard, sensitivities of the fixed, hybrid, and two-tier ITs were 0.63, 0.73, and 0.74, respectively. The specificities were 0.76, 0.86, and 0.80 in the same order. Sensitivities of the age-dependent, fixed, hybrid, and two-tier ITs in identifying a woman with an incident fracture were 26%, 48%, 61%, and 61%, respectively.

Conclusions

The new fixed MOFR is slightly lower than the previous value and hybrid and two-tier ITs perform better than age-dependent and fixed ITs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kanis JA, Harvey NC, Johansson H, Oden A, Leslie WD, McCloskey EV (2017) FRAX update. J Clin Densitom 20:360–367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Compston J, Cooper C, McCloskey E, Kanis JA (2012) FRAX updates 2012. Osteoporos Int 24:554–560

    Google Scholar 

  3. McCloskey EV, Harvey NC, Johansson H, Kanis JA (2016) FRAX updates 2016. Curr Opin Rheumatol 28:433–441

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Lippuner K, Johansson H, Borgstrom F, Kanis JA, Rizzoli R (2012) Cost-effective intervention thresholds against osteoporotic fractures based on FRAX(R) in Switzerland. Osteoporos Int 23:2579–2589

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Harvey NC, Kanis JA, Oden A, Burge RT, Mitlak BH, Johansson H, McCloskey EV (2015) FRAX and the effect of teriparatide on vertebral and non-vertebral fracture. Osteoporos Int 26:2677–2684

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Paulden M, O’Mahony J, McCabe C (2017) Determinants of change in the cost-effectiveness threshold. Med Decis Mak 37:264–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Cheung E, Cheung CL, Kung AW, Tan KC (2014) Possible FRAX-based intervention thresholds for a cohort of Chinese postmenopausal women. Osteoporos Int 25:1017–1023

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Lekamwasam S (2013) Sri Lankan FRAX model and country-specific intervention thresholds. Arch Osteoporos 8:148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Chandran M, McCloskey EV, Thu WPP, Logan S, Hao Y, Tay D, Ang WC, Aung TKK, Choo KS, Ali A et al (2018) FRAX(R) based intervention thresholds for management of osteoporosis in Singaporean women. Arch Osteoporos 13:130

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Wu CH, McCloskey EV, Lee JK, Itabashi A, Prince R, Yu W, Li-Yu J, Chionh SB, Zhao Y, Shin CS, Gunawan T, Tsai KS, Chieng PU, Changlai SP, Chan DC, Chen JF, Tanner SB, Hans DB, Kanis JA, Chang YF, Sun ZJ, Yang RS, Asia Pacific Panel of ISCD (2014) Consensus of official position of IOF/ISCD FRAX initiatives in Asia-Pacific region. J Clin Densitom 17:150–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Chakhtoura M, Leslie WD, McClung M, Cheung AM, Fuleihan GE (2017) The FRAX-based Lebanese osteoporosis treatment guidelines: rationale for a hybrid model. Osteoporos Int 28:127–137

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Kanis JA, Harvey NC, Cooper C, Johansson H, Oden A, McCloskey EV (2016) A systematic review of intervention thresholds based on FRAX : a report prepared for the National Osteoporosis Guideline Group and the International Osteoporosis Foundation. Arch Osteoporos 11:25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Youden WJ (1950) Index for rating diagnostic tests. Cancer 3:32–35

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Li C, Chen J, Qin G (2018) Partial Youden index and its inferences. J Biopharm Stat 1–15

  15. Aubry-Rozier B, Stoll D, Krieg MA, Lamy O, Hans D (2013) What was your fracture risk evaluated by FRAX(R) the day before your osteoporotic fracture? Clin Rheumatol 32:219–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Chen XF, Li XL, Zhang H, Liu GJ (2014) Were you identified to be at high fracture risk by FRAX(R) before your osteoporotic fracture occurred? Clin Rheumatol 33:693–698

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Cosman F, de Beur SJ, LeBoff MS, Lewiecki EM, Tanner B, Randall S, Lindsay R (2014) Clinician’s guide to prevention and treatment of osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int 25:2359–2381

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Compston J, Bowring C, Cooper A, Cooper C, Davies C, Francis R, Kanis JA, Marsh D, McCloskey EV, Reid DM, Selby P, National Osteoporosis Guideline Group (2013) Diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women and older men in the UK: National Osteoporosis Guideline Group (NOGG) update 2013. Maturitas 75:392–396

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Chen JS, Simpson JM, Blyth FM, March LM (2014) Managing osteoporosis with FRAX(R) in Australia: proposed new treatment thresholds from the 45&Up Study cohort. Bone 69:148–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Tuzun S, Eskiyurt N, Akarirmak U, Saridogan M, Johansson H, McCloskey E, Kanis JA (2012) The impact of a FRAX-based intervention threshold in Turkey: the FRAX-TURK study. Arch Osteoporos 7:229–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. McCloskey E, Kanis JA, Johansson H, Harvey N, Oden A, Cooper A, Cooper C, Francis RM, Reid DM, Marsh D et al (2015) FRAX-based assessment and intervention thresholds--an exploration of thresholds in women aged 50 years and older in the UK. Osteoporos Int 26:2091–2099

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Fujiwara S, Nakamura T, Orimo H, Hosoi T, Gorai I, Oden A, Johansson H, Kanis JA (2008) Development and application of a Japanese model of the WHO fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX). Osteoporos Int 19:429–435

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Compston J, Cooper C, Jiang X, Gruner M, Tremollieres F, Pluskiewicz W, Sornay-Rendu E, Adamczyk P, Schnatz PF (2017) Diagnostic accuracy of FRAX in predicting the 10-year risk of osteoporotic fractures using the USA treatment thresholds: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Osteoporos Int 99:20–25

    Google Scholar 

  24. Kyriakos G, Vidal-Casariego A, Fernandez-Martinez MN, Blanco-Suarez MD, Ballesteros-Pomar MD, Cano-Rodriguez I (2015) Impact of the NOGG and NOF guidelines on the indication of bone mineral density in routine clinical practice. J Clin Densitom 18:533–538

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Population Health Research Center, Galle, Sri Lanka

    Sarath Lekamwasam

  2. Department of Endocrinology, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore

    Manju Chandran

  3. Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Allied Health Sciences, Galle, Sri Lanka

    Sewwandi Subasinghe

Authors
  1. Sarath Lekamwasam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Manju Chandran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sewwandi Subasinghe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sarath Lekamwasam.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

None.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lekamwasam, S., Chandran, M. & Subasinghe, S. Revised FRAX®-based intervention thresholds for the management of osteoporosis among postmenopausal women in Sri Lanka. Arch Osteoporos 14, 33 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11657-019-0585-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11657-019-0585-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation