The G
arvan Fracture Risk Calculator predicts risk of osteoporotic fractures. We evaluated its predictive performance in 16,682 women and 2839 men from Manitoba, Canada, and found significant risk stratification, with a strong gradient across scores. The tool outperformed clinical risk factors and bone mineral density for fracture risk stratification.IntroductionThe optimal model for fracture risk estimation to guide treatment decision-making remains controversial. Our objective was to evaluate the predictive performance of the Garvan Fracture Risk Calculator (FRC) in a large clinical registry from Manitoba, Canada.MethodsUsing the population-based Manitoba Bone Mineral Density (BMD) registry, we identified women and men aged 50–95 years undergoing baseline BMD assessment from September 1, 2012, onwards. Five-year Garvan FRC predictions were generated from clinical risk factors (CRFs) with and without femoral neck BMD. We identified incident non-traumatic osteoporotic fractures (OFs) and hip fractures (HFs) from population-based healthcare data sources to March 31, 2018. Fracture risk was assessed from area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). Cox regression analysis and calibration ratios (5-year observed/predicted) were assessed for risk quintiles. All analyses were sex stratified.ResultsWe included 16,682 women (mean age 66.6 + / − SD 8.7 years) and 2839 men (mean age 68.7 + / − SD 10.2 years). During a mean observation time of 2.6 years, incident OFs were identified in 681 women and 140 men and HFs in 199 women and 22 men. AUROC showed significant fracture risk stratification with the Garvan FRC. Tool predictions without BMD were better than from age or decreasing weight, and the tool with BMD performed better than BMD alone. Garvan FRC with BMD performed better than without BMD, especially for HF prediction (AUROC 0.86 in women, 0.82 in men). There was a strong gradient of increasing risk across Garvan FRC quintiles (highest versus lowest, hazard ratios women 5.75 and men 3.43 for any OF; women 101.6 for HF). Calibration differences were noted, with both over- and underestimation in risk.
ConclusionsGarvan FRC outperformed CRFs and BMD alone for fracture risk stratification, particularly for HF, but may require recalibration for accurate predictions in this population.