Agreement between the Turkey Guidelines and the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool®-based Intervention Threshold
1
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate the agreement between the fracture-risk assessment tool (FRAX®)-based intervention strategy in Turkey and the recommendations published in the Healthcare Practices Statement (HPS). Methods: This descriptive cross-sectional study included individuals aged 40 to 90 years who were previously diagnosed as having osteoporosis but had not received any treatment. The intervention thresholds recommended by the National Osteoporosis Foundation for treatment were used. The criteria necessary for the start of administration of pharmacological agents in osteoporosis treatment were evaluated on the basis of the HPS guidelines. Results: Of the 1,255 patients evaluated, 161 (12.8%) were male and 1,094 (87.2%) were female. In the evaluation, according to HPS, treatment was recommended for 783 patients (62.4%; HPS+) and not recommended for 472 (37.6%; HPS-). Of the 783 HPS+ patients, 391 (49.9%) were FRAX+, and of the 472 HPS- patients, 449 (95.1%) were FRAX−. A statistically significant difference was observed between the treatment recommendations of HPS and FRAX® (P<0.001). In the age group of 75 to 90 years, excellent agreement was found between the two strategies (Gwet’s agreement coefficient 1=0.94). As age increased, the agreement between the two treatment strategies also increased. Conclusions: The FRAX® model has different treatment recommendation rates from the HPS. The agreement between the two is at a minimal level. However, as age increased, so did the agreement between the FRAX® and the HPS treatment recommendations. In the recommendation to start pharmacological treatment primarily based on age, non-medical interventions that preserve bone density should be evaluated.
Abstract
Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate the agreement between the fracture-risk assessment tool (FRAX®)-based intervention strategy in Turkey and the recommendations published in the Healthcare Practices Statement (HPS). Methods: This descriptive cross-sectional study included individuals aged 40 to 90 years who were previously diagnosed as having osteoporosis but had not received any treatment. The intervention thresholds recommended by the National Osteoporosis Foundation for treatment were used. The criteria necessary for the start of administration of pharmacological agents in osteoporosis treatment were evaluated on the basis of the HPS guidelines. Results: Of the 1,255 patients evaluated, 161 (12.8%) were male and 1,094 (87.2%) were female. In the evaluation, according to HPS, treatment was recommended for 783 patients (62.4%; HPS+) and not recommended for 472 (37.6%; HPS-). Of the 783 HPS+ patients, 391 (49.9%) were FRAX+, and of the 472 HPS- patients, 449 (95.1%) were FRAX−. A statistically significant difference was observed between the treatment recommendations of HPS and FRAX® (P<0.001). In the age group of 75 to 90 years, excellent agreement was found between the two strategies (Gwet’s agreement coefficient 1=0.94). As age increased, the agreement between the two treatment strategies also increased. Conclusions: The FRAX® model has different treatment recommendation rates from the HPS. The agreement between the two is at a minimal level. However, as age increased, so did the agreement between the FRAX® and the HPS treatment recommendations. In the recommendation to start pharmacological treatment primarily based on age, non-medical interventions that preserve bone density should be evaluated.
참고문헌 (30)
- El-Hajj Fuleihan G, "Worldwide fracture prediction", J Clin Densitom, 20, pp.397~424 (2017)[DOI]
- Cosman F, "Clinician’s guide to prevention and treatment of osteoporosis", Osteoporos Int, 25, pp.2359~2381 (2014)[DOI]
- Compston J, "UK clinical guideline for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis", Arch Osteoporos, 12, pp.43~ (2017)[DOI]
- Kanis JA, "European guidance for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women", Osteoporos Int, 24, pp.23~57 (2013)[DOI]
- Lekamwasam S, "Sri Lankan FRAX model and country-specific intervention thresholds", Arch Osteoporos, 8, pp.148~ (2013)[DOI]
- Papaioannou A, "2010 clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in Canada: summary", CMAJ, 182, pp.1864~1873 (2010)[DOI]
- Orimo H, "Japanese 2011 guidelines for prevention and treatment of osteoporosis-executive summary", Arch Osteoporos, 7, pp.3~20 (2012)[DOI]
- Body JJ, "Evidence-based guidelines for the pharmacological treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis: a consensus document by the Belgian Bone Club", Osteoporos Int, 21, pp.1657~1680 (2010)[DOI]
- Goldshtein I, "Impact of FRAX-based osteoporosis intervention using real world data", Bone, 103, pp.318~324 (2017)[DOI]
- Bolland MJ, "Disparate outcomes from applying U.K. and U.S. osteoporosis treatment guidelines", J Clin Endocrinol Metab, 95, pp.1856~1860 (2010)[DOI]
- Assessment of osteoporosis at the primary health-care level. Technical report, "WHO Scientific Group", WHO Collaborating Centre, University of Sheffield, ~ (2008)
- Kanis JA, "FRAX update", J Clin Densitom, 20, pp.360~367 (2017)[DOI]
- "Turkey Guidelines for Osteoporosis Treatment"[URL]
- Jain RK, "Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry", J Clin Densitom, 20, pp.291~303 (2017)[DOI]
- Gwet KL, "Computing inter-rater reliability and its variance in the presence of high agreement", Br J Math Stat Psychol, 61, pp.29~48 (2008)[DOI]
- Cheung E, "Outcomes of applying the NOF, NOGG and Taiwanese guidelines to a cohort of Chinese early postmenopausal women", Clin Endocrinol (Oxf), 80, pp.200~207 (2014)[DOI]
- Leslie WD, "Fracture risk assessment without bone density measurement in routine clinical practice", Osteoporos Int, 23, pp.75~85 (2012)[DOI]
- Jarvinen TL, "Conflicts at the heart of the FRAX tool", CMAJ, 186, pp.165~167 (2014)[DOI]
- Makras P, "Cost-effective osteoporosis treatment thresholds in Greece", Osteoporos Int, 26, pp.1949~1957 (2015)[DOI]
- Lippuner K, "Cost-effective intervention thresholds against osteoporotic fractures based on FRAX(R) in Switzerland", Osteoporos Int, 23, pp.2579~2589 (2012)[DOI]
- Fujiwara S, "Development and application of a Japanese model of the WHO fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX)", Osteoporos Int, 19, pp.429~435 (2008)[DOI]
- 민용기, "A FRAX Experience in Korea: Fracture Risk Probabilities with a Country-specific Versus a Surrogate Model", 대한골대사학회지, 22(3), pp.113~118 (2015), 대한골대사학회[DOI]
- Tuzun S, "The impact of a FRAX-based intervention threshold in Turkey: the FRAX-TURK study", Arch Osteoporos, 7, pp.229~235 (2012)[DOI]
- Elaine Y.N. Cheung, "Osteoporosis in East Asia: Current issues in assessment and management", Osteoporosis and Sarcopenia, 2(3), pp.118~133 (2016), 대한골다공증학회[DOI]
- "General guideline of pharmacologic intervention for osteoporosis"[URL]
- Demir A, "Assessment of 10-year major osteoporotic and femur fracture risk of postmenopausal women using <TEX>$FRAX^{(R)}$<", TEX>, 2014, pp.60, S11~S18
- Pinar G, "Osteoporosis risk factors in the women over 45-years old", Dicle Med J, 36, pp.258~266 (2009)
- Kutlu R, "Frequency of osteoporosis and calculation of 10-years fracture probability by using FRAXTM tool in postmenopausal women", Turk J Phys Med Rehabil, 58, pp.126~135 (2012)[DOI]
- Robitaille J, "Prevalence, family history, and prevention of reported osteoporosis in U.S. women", Am J Prev Med, 35, pp.47~54 (2008)[DOI]
- Burger H, "Risk factors for increased bone loss in an elderly population: the Rotterdam Study", Am J Epidemiol, 147, pp.871~879 (1998)[DOI]