Major osteoporosis fracture prediction in type 2 diabetes: a derivation and comparison study
Summary The widely recommended fracture prediction tool FRAX was developed based on and for the general population. Although several adjusted FRAX methods were suggested for type 2 diabetes (T2DM), they still need to be evaluated in T2DM cohort. Introduction This study was undertaken to develop a prediction model for Chinese diabetes fracture risk (CDFR) and compare its performance with those of FRAX. Methods In this retrospective cohort study, 1730 patients with T2DM were enrolled from 2009.08 to 2013.07. Major osteoporotic fractures (MOFs) during follow-up were collected from Electronic Health Records (EHRs) and telephone interviews. Multivariate Cox regression with backward stepwise selection was used to fit the model. The performances of the CDFR model, FRAX, and adjusted FRAX were compared in the aspects of discrimination and calibration. Results 6.3% of participants experienced MOF during a median follow-up of 10 years. The final model (CDFR) included 8 predictors: age, gender, previous fracture, insulin use, diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN), total cholesterol, triglycerides, and apolipoprotein A. This model had a C statistic of 0.803 (95%CI 0.761–0.844) and calibration $ χ^{2} $ of 4.63 (p = 0.86). The unadjusted FRAX underestimated the MOF risk (calibration $ χ^{2} $ 134.5, p < 0.001; observed/predicted ratio 2.62, 95%CI 2.17–3.08), and there was still significant underestimation after diabetes adjustments. Comparing FRAX, the CDFR had a higher AUC, lower calibration $ χ^{2} $, and better reclassification of MOF. Conclusion The CDFR model has good performance in 10-year MOF risk prediction in T2DM, especially in patients with insulin use or DPN. Future work is needed to validate our model in external cohort(s)..
| Medienart: |
Artikel |
|---|
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2022 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2022 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:33 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
Osteoporosis international - 33(2022), 9 vom: 18. Mai, Seite 1957-1967 |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Kong, Xiao-ke [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
Volltext [lizenzpflichtig] |
|---|
| Themen: |
FRAX |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
© International Osteoporosis Foundation and National Osteoporosis Foundation 2022 |
|---|
| doi: |
10.1007/s00198-022-06425-8 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
OLC2079489151 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | OLC2079489151 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230511142242.0 | ||
| 007 | tu | ||
| 008 | 221220s2022 xx ||||| 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1007/s00198-022-06425-8 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)OLC2079489151 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-He213)s00198-022-06425-8-p | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 082 | 0 | 4 | |a 610 |q VZ |
| 100 | 1 | |a Kong, Xiao-ke |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Major osteoporosis fracture prediction in type 2 diabetes: a derivation and comparison study |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2022 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen |b n |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Band |b nc |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a © International Osteoporosis Foundation and National Osteoporosis Foundation 2022 | ||
| 520 | |a Summary The widely recommended fracture prediction tool FRAX was developed based on and for the general population. Although several adjusted FRAX methods were suggested for type 2 diabetes (T2DM), they still need to be evaluated in T2DM cohort. Introduction This study was undertaken to develop a prediction model for Chinese diabetes fracture risk (CDFR) and compare its performance with those of FRAX. Methods In this retrospective cohort study, 1730 patients with T2DM were enrolled from 2009.08 to 2013.07. Major osteoporotic fractures (MOFs) during follow-up were collected from Electronic Health Records (EHRs) and telephone interviews. Multivariate Cox regression with backward stepwise selection was used to fit the model. The performances of the CDFR model, FRAX, and adjusted FRAX were compared in the aspects of discrimination and calibration. Results 6.3% of participants experienced MOF during a median follow-up of 10 years. The final model (CDFR) included 8 predictors: age, gender, previous fracture, insulin use, diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN), total cholesterol, triglycerides, and apolipoprotein A. This model had a C statistic of 0.803 (95%CI 0.761–0.844) and calibration $ χ^{2} $ of 4.63 (p = 0.86). The unadjusted FRAX underestimated the MOF risk (calibration $ χ^{2} $ 134.5, p < 0.001; observed/predicted ratio 2.62, 95%CI 2.17–3.08), and there was still significant underestimation after diabetes adjustments. Comparing FRAX, the CDFR had a higher AUC, lower calibration $ χ^{2} $, and better reclassification of MOF. Conclusion The CDFR model has good performance in 10-year MOF risk prediction in T2DM, especially in patients with insulin use or DPN. Future work is needed to validate our model in external cohort(s). | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Type 2 diabetes | |
| 650 | 4 | |a FRAX | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Major osteoporosis fracture | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Prediction model | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Zhao, Zhi-yun |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Zhang, Deng |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Xie, Rui |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Sun, Li-hao |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Zhao, Hong-yan |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Ning, Guang |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Wang, Wei-qing |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Liu, Jian-min |0 (orcid)0000-0002-0179-1751 |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Tao, Bei |0 (orcid)0000-0002-5921-480X |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Osteoporosis international |d Springer London, 1990 |g 33(2022), 9 vom: 18. Mai, Seite 1957-1967 |w (DE-627)170488306 |w (DE-600)1064892-6 |w (DE-576)032851979 |x 0937-941X |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:33 |g year:2022 |g number:9 |g day:18 |g month:05 |g pages:1957-1967 |
| 856 | 4 | 1 | |u https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-022-06425-8 |z lizenzpflichtig |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_OLC | ||
| 912 | |a SSG-OLC-PHA | ||
| 912 | |a SSG-OLC-DE-84 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2018 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4277 | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 33 |j 2022 |e 9 |b 18 |c 05 |h 1957-1967 | ||