ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Fracture absolute risk assessment (FARA) is recommended for guiding osteoporosis treatment decisions in males. The best strategy for applying FARA in the clinic setting is not known. OBJECTIVES: We compared 2 FARA tools for use with electronic health records (EHRs) to determine which would more accurately identify patients known to be high risk for fracture. Tools evaluated were an adaptation of the World Health Organization's Fracture Risk Assessment Tool used with electronic data (eFRAX) and the Veterans Affairs (VA)-based tool, VA-FARA. METHODS: We compared accuracies of VA-FARA and eFRAX for correctly classifying male veterans who fractured and who were seen in the VA's Sierra Pacific Network in 2002-2013. We then matched those cases to nonfracture controls to compare odds of fracture in patients classified as high risk by either tool. RESULTS: Among 8740 patients, the mean (SD) age was 67.0 (11.1) years. Based on risk factors present in the EHR, VA-FARA correctly classified 40.1% of fracture patients as high risk (33.0% and 34.6% for hip and any major fracture, respectively); eFRAX classified 17.4% correctly (17.4% for hip and 0.2% for any major fracture). Compared with non-high-risk patients, those classified as high risk by VA-FARA were 35% more likely to fracture (95% CI = 23%-47%; P < 0.01) compared with 17% for eFRAX (95% CI = 5%-32%; P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: VA-FARA is more predictive of first fracture than eFRAX using EHR data. Decision support tools based on VA-FARA may improve early identification and care of men at risk.
