Appropriate FRAX® Intervention Threshold for Pharmacological Treatment of Osteoporosis in Thailand
Keywords:FRAX® intervention threshold, Osteoporosis, Thailand, Major osteoporotic fracture, hip fracture
Purpose: The Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX®) has been recommended and incorporated into osteoporotic guidelines worldwide to assess fracture risk and promptly diagnose osteoporosis when bone mineral density is unavailable. However, a country-specific intervention threshold for Thai patients remains unknown. Therefore, we aimed to identify an appropriate cut-off point for the 10-year probability of hip fracture (HF), specifically in the Thai population.
Methods: This retrospective cohort study included members of the Thai population aged 50-90 years, enrolled from January 2018 to January 2020. Analysis of data collected from online FRAX® tool questionnaires was conducted and the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to determine a new appropriate cut-off value as the intervention threshold.
Results: A total of 1,311 (HF: 422 [32.2%], non-HF: 889 [67.8%]) participants were included. The FRAX® 10-year probability of fracture in patients with HF was significantly higher than in non-HF (5.8% ± 4% vs. 4.7% ± 4.5%, respectively; P < 0.01), whereas the probability of major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) was similar (11.0 ± 5.8% vs. 10.6 ± 6.2%, P = 0.27). The ROC curve revealed a new intervention threshold for the FRAX®-based 10-year risk for HF of 4.3% with a maximum area under the curve (AUC) (95% confidence interval: 0.632 (range: 0.602-0.663; P < 0.001), with sensitivity and specificity of 62.9% and 60.7%, respectively.
Conclusions: The intervention threshold cut-off value for osteoporosis treatment among the Thai population was 4.3%, which is higher than the cut-off point recommended in the Thai national guidelines.
Johnell O, Kanis JA. An estimate of the worldwide prevalence and disability associated with osteoporotic fractures. Osteoporos Int 2006;17:1726-33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-006-0172-4
Mithal A, Bansal B, Kyer CS, et al. The Asia-Pacific Regional Audit-Epidemiology, Costs, and Burden of Osteoporosis in India 2013: A report of International Osteoporosis Foundation. Indian J Endocrinol Metab 2014;18: 449-54. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/2230-8210.137485
Chotiyarnwong P, Harvey NC, Johansson H, et al. Temporal changes in access to FRAX® in Thailand between 2010 and 2018. Arch Osteoporos 2019;14:66. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11657-019-0613-2
Kanis JA, Cooper C, Rizzoli R, et al. European guidance for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women. Osteoporos Int 2019;30:3-44. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-018-4704-5
Kanis JA, Harvey NC, Cooper C, et al. 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 2016;11:25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11657-016-0278-z
Chao AS, Chen FP, Lin YC, et al. Application of the World Health Organization Fracture Risk Assessment Tool to predict need for dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry scanning in postmenopausal women. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol 2015;54:722-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tjog.2015.10.005
Gadam RK, Schlauch K, Izuora KE. Frax prediction without BMD for assessment of osteoporotic fracture risk. Endocr Pract 2013;19: 780-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4158/EP12416.OR
Pongchaiyakul C, Leerapun T, Wongsiri S, et al. Value and validation of RCOST and TOPF clinical practice guideline for osteoporosis treatment. J Med Assoc Thai 2012;95:1528-35.
Kallner A. Formulas. In: Kallner A, editor. Laboratory Statistics (Second Edition): Elsevier; 2018. p. 1-140. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-814348-3.00001-0
Camacho PM, Petak SM, Binkley N, et al. American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists/American College of Endocrinology Clinical Practice Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis-2020 update. Endocr Pract 2020; 26(Suppl 1):1-46.
Pouresmaeili F, Kamalidehghan B, Kamarehei M, et al. A comprehensive overview on osteoporosis and its risk factors. Ther Clin Risk Manag 2018;14:2029-49. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/TCRM.S138000
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;26:2091-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-015-3176-0
Sribenjalak D, Charoensri S, Pongchaiyakul C. An optimal intervention threshold of FRAX in postmenopausal Thai women. Arch Osteoporos 2022;17:21 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11657-022-01058-0
Cheung E, Cheung C-L, C Kung AW, et al. Possible FRAX-based intervention thresholds for a cohort of Chinese postmenopausal women. Osteoporos Int 2014;25:1017-23. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-013-2553-9
Fujiwara S, Nakamura T, Orimo H, et al. Development and application of a Japanese model of the WHO fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX). Osteoporos Int 2008;19:429-35. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-007-0544-4
Lekamwasam S. Sri Lankan FRAX model and country-specific intervention thresholds. Arch Osteoporos 2013;8:148. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11657-013-0148-x
Hwang J-S, Chan D-C, Chen J-F, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis in Taiwan: summary. J Bone Miner Metab 2014;32:10-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00774-013-0495-0
Liu S-Y, Huang M, Chen R, et al. Comparison of strategies for setting intervention thresholds for Chinese postmenopausal women using the FRAX model. Endocrine 2019;65:200-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12020-019-01951-8
Yeap SS, Hew FL, Lee JK, et al. The Malaysian Clinical Guidance on the management of postmenopausal osteoporosis, 2012: a summary. Int J Rheum Dis 2013;16:30-40. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1756-185x.12037
How to Cite
Copyright (c) 2022 The Royal College of Orthopaedic Surgeons of Thailand
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.