Derivation and validation of the CFracture competing risk fracture prediction tool compared with QFracture in older people and people with comorbidity: a population cohort study

Shona J. Livingstone, Bruce Guthrie, Megan McMinn, Chima Eke, Peter T. Donnan, Daniel R. Morales (Lead / Corresponding author)

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

4 Citations (Scopus)
92 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Background: UK guidelines recommend the QFracture tool to predict the risk of major osteoporotic fracture and hip fracture, but QFracture calibration is poor, partly because it does not account for competing mortality risk. The aim of this study was to derive and validate a competing risk model to predict major osteoporotic fracture and hip fracture (CFracture) and compare its performance with that of QFracture in UK primary care.

Methods: We used UK linked primary care data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD database to identify people aged 30–99 years, split into derivation and validation cohorts. In the derivation cohort, we derived models (CFracture) using the same covariates as QFracture with Fine-Gray competing risk modelling, and included the Charlson Comorbidity Index score as an additional predictor of non-fracture death. In a separate validation cohort, we examined discrimination (using Harrell's C-statistic) and calibration of CFracture compared with QFracture. Reclassification analysis examined differences in the characteristics of patients reclassified as higher risk by CFracture but not by QFracture.

Findings: The derivation cohort included 1 831 606 women and 1 789 820 men, and the validation cohort included 915 803 women and 894 910 men. Overall discrimination of CFracture was excellent (C-statistic=0·813 [95% CI 0·810–0·816] for major osteoporotic fracture and 0·914 [0·908–0·919] for hip fracture in women; 0·734 [0·729–0·740] for major osteoporotic fracture and 0·886 [0·877–0·895] for hip fracture in men) and was similar to QFracture. CFracture calibration overall and in people younger than 75 years was generally excellent. CFracture overpredicted major osteoporotic fracture and hip fracture in older people and people with comorbidity, but was better calibrated than QFracture. Patients classified as high-risk by CFracture but not by QFracture had a higher prevalence of current smoking and previous fracture, but lower prevalence of dementia, cancer, cardiovascular disease, renal disease, and diabetes.

Interpretation: CFracture has similar discrimination to QFracture but is better calibrated overall and in younger people. Both models performed poorly in adults aged 85 years and older. Competing risk models should be recommended for fracture risk prediction to guide treatment recommendations.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)e43-e53
Number of pages11
JournalThe Lancet Healthy Longevity
Volume4
Issue number1
Early online date4 Jan 2023
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jan 2023

Keywords

  • Male
  • Humans
  • Female
  • Aged
  • Osteoporotic Fractures/epidemiology
  • Cohort Studies
  • Risk Factors
  • Risk Assessment
  • Comorbidity
  • Hip Fractures/epidemiology

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Health(social science)
  • Geriatrics and Gerontology
  • Psychiatry and Mental health
  • Family Practice

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Derivation and validation of the CFracture competing risk fracture prediction tool compared with QFracture in older people and people with comorbidity: a population cohort study'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this