Nonetheless, some high-risk individuals in this group will undoubtedly fall below the threshold as a result of this change. Second, the majority of elderly men and women will be eligible for treatment based on other criteria (e.g., hip or vertebral fracture or T-score at or below −2.5) . Finally, if proposed AZD1152 cell line changes lower the 10-year likelihood of a major osteoporotic fracture in all age groups and move significant numbers of people below the NOF 20% threshold, the impact on overall osteoporosis treatment eligibility is expected to be modest because
an important driver of treatment eligibility by US-FRAX is the 10-year hip fracture probability . In summary, we do not expect upcoming changes in US-FRAX to dramatically affect the number of individuals who are eligible for treatment. Nonetheless, it will be important to check details examine the issue in a
more quantitative way. After the proposed changes are incorporated into US-FRAX, this will be done in the form of an updated cost-effectiveness analysis and a re-assessment of the proportions of the population who would be eligible for treatment. FRAX® is a dynamic tool and one that can be expected to undergo further updates and modifications in the future. Although this may cause discontinuity in the management of some individual patients, periodic revision will be necessary in order to predict future risk accurately in the context of expected ongoing changes in the US fracture incidence and mortality rates. Acknowledgement The next authors would like to thank Lisa Palermo and Lily Lui for statistical and analytic effort, Meghan ASK inhibitor Donaldson and Thuy Le for providing SOF fracture analyses, William Leslie, John Kanis and Eugene McCloskey for helpful advice, and Mary Roberts for help in preparing the manuscript. Dr. Black’s work on this project was supported by a grant from the Marcled Foundation, San Francisco. This work was supported by Kaiser Permanente Medical Care Program,
Oakland, CA, as well as research grant AG04875 from the National Institutes of Health, US Public Health Service. Conflicts of interest None. Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited. References 1. USDHHS (2004) Bone health and osteoporosis: a report of the surgeon general. US Department of Health and Human Services, Rockville 2. Kanis JA, Melton LJ III, Christiansen C et al (1994) The diagnosis of osteoporosis. J Bone Miner Res 9:1137–1141PubMedCrossRef 3. NOF (2002) America’s bone health: the state of osteoporosis and low bone mass in our nation. National Osteoporosis Foundation, Washington 4. Burge R, Dawson-Hughes B, Solomon DH et al (2007) Incidence and economic burden of osteoporosis-related fractures in the United States, 2005–2025. J Bone Miner Res 22:465–475CrossRefPubMed 5.