Changes to osteoporosis prevalence according to method of risk assessment

Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research, 22(2), 228-234

DOI 10.1359/jbmr.061109 PMID 17129177 Source

Abstract

UNLABELLED: The impact of clinical risk factor-based absolute risk methods on the prevalence of high risk for osteoporotic fracture is unknown. We applied absolute risk methods to 6646 subjects and found that the prevalence of elderly women deemed to be at high risk increased substantially, whereas the overall prevalence was highly dependent on the threshold used to designate high risk.

Introduction

Many groups have advocated using absolute risk methods that incorporate clinical risk factors to target patients for osteoporosis therapy. We examined how the application of such absolute risk classification systems influences the prevalence of those considered to be at high risk for osteoporotic fracture and compared these systems to one based solely on BMD.

Materials and methods

Using 6646 subjects from the Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study (CaMos), a prospective, randomly selected, population-based cohort, we assessed three different systems for determining prevalence of high risk for osteoporotic fracture: a BMD-based system; a simplified risk factor system incorporating age, sex, BMD, and two clinical risk factors; and a comprehensive system, incorporating age, sex, BMD, and seven clinical risk factors. The 10-year absolute risks of incident fragility fracture were compared across systems using three different high-risk thresholds.

Results

The prevalence of a T score < or = -2.5 was 18.8% (95% CI: 17.7-19.9%) in women and 3.9% (95% CI: 3.0-4.7%) in men. Using a 15% 10-year risk of fracture threshold, the prevalence of women at high risk increased to 46.9% (95% CI: 45.4-48.4) and 42.5% (95% CI: 41.1-43.9) when the comprehensive and simplified risk factor classification systems were used, respectively. Using a 25% 10-year absolute risk threshold, the prevalence of high risk was similar to that of the BMD-based system, whereas the 20% threshold gave intermediate rates. All thresholds analyzed resulted in an increased prevalence of older women at high risk for fracture, whereas only the 15% 10-year risk of fracture threshold resulted in an increase in the prevalence of men at high risk.

Conclusions

The application of risk factor-based systems results in an increased prevalence of older women at high risk. The prevalence of individuals at high risk may increase with changes to the methods used to determine those who are eligible for therapy. These data have important implications for the pattern of care and costs of treating osteoporotic fractures.

Topics

osteoporosis risk assessment methods comparison, bmd versus clinical risk factors fracture prediction, absolute fracture risk calculation systems, bone density screening prevalence, osteoporosis diagnosis criteria comparison, fracture risk assessment tool validation, t-score versus absolute risk osteoporosis, clinical risk factors bone health assessment, canadian osteoporosis study prevalence, bone mineral density risk stratification

Cite this article

J Brent Richards, William D Leslie, Lawrence Joseph, Kerry Siminoski, David A Hanley, Jonathan D Adachi, Jacques P Brown, Suzanne Morin, Alexandra Papaioannou, Robert G Josse, Jerilynn C Prior, K Shawn Davison, Alan Tenenhouse, & David Goltzman (1900). Changes to osteoporosis prevalence according to method of risk assessment. *Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research*, *22*(2), 228-234. https://doi.org/10.1359/jbmr.061109

Related articles