CC BY
29
Орипнальш дослiдження / Original Researches
БШЬ.
СуГЛОБИ. JOINTS. I ХРЕБЕТ SPINE I
УДК616.71-007.234(477) DOI: 10.22141/2224-1507.9.4.2019.191921
V. Povoroznyuk1 , N. Grygorieva1 <E, J.A. Kanis2, H. Johansson3, E.V. McCloskey2
'State Institution, D.F. Chebotarev Institute of Gerontology NAMS, Ukraine, Ukrainian Scientific Medical Center of Osteoporosis,
Kyiv, Ukraine
2University of Sheffield Medical School, Beech Hill Road, Sheffield S10 2RX, UK
Ukrainian FRAX: criteria for diagnostics and treatment of osteoporosis
For citation: Bol', sustavy, pozvonocnik. 2019;9(4):212-221. doi: 10.22141/2224-1507.9.4.2019.191921_
Abstract. Background. Nowadays, FRAX® algorithm is an informative method for evaluation of the risk of osteoporotic fractures, implemented in European and American guidelines for osteoporosis management. However, there are differences in "intervention thresholds" for antiosteoporotic treatment, which depend on the country, the model of health care system and the reimbursement for treatment. Ukrainian version of FRAX appeared in Ukraine in 2016, but the thresholds for intervention have not yet been developed. The purpose of the study was to determine the "thresholds" for the pharmacological treatment of osteoporosis and for additional diagnostic examination of Ukrainian population using national FRAX model. Materials and methods. 3790 outpatients aged 40-90 years (mean age 61.9 ± 10.0 years) were examined. The development of the "thresholds" for intervention and additional assessment of the bone using dual-energy X-ray densitometry (DXA) based on the methodology adopted by the National Osteoporosis Guideline Group in UK, which is further used in European guidelines. Results. There was an increase of the "threshold" for pharmacological intervention ("upper threshold") with age from 6.6 % at the age of 40 to 13 % at the age of 75-85 years. The "lower threshold" (threshold for additional examination) increased significantly from 2.4 % at the age of 40 to 6.9 % in women aged 85 years. The evaluation strategy begins with an analysis of the history of low-traumatic fracture. In its presence, a decision to start antiosteoporotic treatment without DXA should be made. In patients without history of fracture, calculation of fracture risk according to FRAX is required. When the risk exceeds the limit of the "upper threshold" antiosteoporotic treatment without DXA is recommended, when its values below the limit of "lower threshold" — additional examination or treatment is not required. In case of intermediate risk of fracture a DXA should be conducted with a reassessment of fracture risk and management tactics. Conclusions. The effectiveness of FRAX principles which uses in European guideline, but with particularities of the epidemiology of osteoporotic fractures in Ukraine, has been proved. Although this approach is cost-effective in other countries, its use in Ukraine may differ and may need to be further explored with an economic assessment of costs and benefits.
Keywords: FRAX®; osteoporosis; borderline intervention; treatment; diagnosis; risk of osteoporotic fractures
Introduction
As of today, the timely diagnostics of osteoporosis and its complications is extremely important. In the recent years, FRAX® (Fracture Risk Assessment Tool) algorithm is an essential osteoporotic fracture risk measurement tool, ever-increasingly implemented into the clinical practice as an evaluation method of a 10-year probability (risk) of major osteoporotic fractures (hip and humerus, forearm and clinically important vertebral fractures) and, separately, of hip fractures for people aged 40 years and older [1].
At the present moment, it is established that the bone mineral density (BMD) parameter, measured by the dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA, previously DEXA), is a significant, though not unique, criterion of osteoporotic fracture risk assay. Furthermore, if during the 1990s its reduction (T<-2.5 SD) was considered one of the key factors in favor of antiosteoporotic treatment's initiation, now it is confirmed that fractures may occur under 'osteopenia' or normal BMD values. In this regard, other factors gain more prominence at the moment; those referred to as 'osteoporosis and osteoporotic fracture risk factors' and contributing to the risk calculation. The studies of vari-
© 2019. The Authors. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, CC BY, which allows others to freely distribute the published article, with the obligatory reference to the authors of original works and original publication in this journal.
Для кореспонденци: Григор'ева Натал1я В|ктор1вна, доктор медичних наук, професор, провщний науковий сшвроб1тник вщдшу шшчно!' ф1зюлош та патологи опорно-рухового апарату, ДУ «1нститут геронтологи 1меш Д.Ф. Чеботарьова НАМН Украни», вул. Вишгородська, 67, м. Ки'в, 04114, Украша; e-mail: [email protected]; контактний тел.: +38 (067) 445-76-08. For correspondence: Nataliia Grygorieva, MD, PhD, Professor, Leading Research Fellow at the Department of clinical physiology and pathology of locomotor apparatus, State Institution "D.F. Chebotarev Institute of Gerontology of the NAMS of Ukraine', Vyshgorodska st., 67, Kyiv, 04114, Ukraine; e-mail: [email protected]; phone: +38 (067) 445-76-08. Full list of author information is available at the end of the article.
ous osteoporosis risk factors and their roles provided a rich evidence base and helped establish their input into the fracture occurrence [2], laying ground for the FRAX algorithm. This algorithm enables the calculation of a 10-year probability of major osteoporotic and hip fractures, considering age, body mass index (BMI) and various clinical fracture risk factors, with/without femoral neck BMD.
The FRAX questionnaire development and validation is extensively described by the national and international authors [1, 3, 4, 5]. As of today, the calculation of a 10-year probability of osteoporotic fractures according to the FRAX is an important criterion of determining the treatment initiation and urgency of additional instrumental examination for the patients, described in the European and American guidelines [6, 7].
The healthcare providers started using the FRAX as tool of major osteoporotic fracture risk evaluation back in 2008, though its development was ongoing since the early 2000s [3]. At the Ukrainian Scientific Medical Center of Osteoporosis, the FRAX algorithm has been actively applied to evaluate the major osteoporotic fracture risk since 2010 [4]. Our studies based on the application of FRAX models, developed for other countries, to the Ukrainian men and women showed that in order to evaluate the fracture risk any models are applicable; however, it is the country-specific threshold values for treatment initiation or additional examination that are relevant [8, 9]. Furthermore, our findings reveal that the criteria used in the US (and some other) guidelines for the treatment initiation (20 or more for all osteoporotic fractures, and 3 or more for the hip fractures) may not be applied to assay the fracture risk of the Ukrainian population, because when the neighboring countries' models were applied (at that time, Ukraine had no model of its own), the received values were much higher [10]. In order to avoid this, we've developed and suggested our own intervention criteria, based on the Austrian FRAX model [8, 11], and those were successfully applied up to the original Ukrainian FRAX model's creation.
In the summer of 2016, the scientists of State Institution "D. F. Chebotarev Institute of Gerontology NAMS", Ukraine, and Ukrainian Scientific Medical Center of Osteoporosis adapted the questionnaire, originally drafted in English, to be used in Ukrainian. In the fall of the same year, thanks to the authors of the present paper, the newly-created Ukrainian model was posted on the official FRAX webpage (https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/FRAX). It was based on numerous epidemiological studies held during 1997-2002 and 2011-2012 by the members of the Ukrainian Association of Osteoporosis, with assistance of the Ukrainian Association of Orthopedists and Trauma-tologists. The national FRAX model was the first and only model able to forecast a 10-year risk of major osteoporotic fractures in the Ukrainian population. Its development was based on certain risk factor coefficients suggested by the original FRAX model, as well as age and sex-bound osteoporosis prevalence (including proximal hip fracture prevalence) values received during the epidemiological studies. While developing the model, the authors consid-
ered P-coefficient values to be similar to the ones earlier presented in the metaanalyses [3, 8].
At present, the FRAX algorithm is presented in the open online access (http://www.shef.ac.uk/FRAX), in 35 languages for 65 countries, with 71 models. It is a 12-item questionnaire, where the ultimate (and optional) item concerns the femoral BMD (Fig.1). As of now, over 25 thousand fracture risk calculations according to the Ukrainian FRAX model are made at the respective webpage.
As it was earlier mentioned, the key practical value of the FRAX for the clinical endeavors=lies in its major osteoporotic fracture prognostication capacity. However, considering the regional varieties, different approaches to the patient management, at present there are various criteria to the antiosteoporotic treatment initiation (intervention threshold) and the BMD values' evaluation (additional examination threshold). A recent systemic analysis published by a team of FRAX developers [5] presents the intervention thresholds of various populations, and the differences observed in countries with different models of healthcare provision and treatment cost rebates are rather significant. It is only recently the Ukrainian FRAX model obtained its own intervention thresholds, calculated according to the epidemiological context of major osteoporotic fractures. This is the subject of the present paper.
The aim of the present study is to establish the pharmacological treatment and additional diagnostic examination thresholds for osteoporosis based on the Ukrainian FRAX model.
Materials and methods
In order to assess the pharmacological treatment and additional diagnostic examination thresholds for the osteoporotic fracture risk in the Ukrainian women, the scientists of State Institution «D. F. Chebotarev Institute of Gerontology NAMS of Ukraine», and Ukrainian Scientific Medical Center of Osteoporosis examined 3790 female outpatients, aged 40-90 years (mean age (M ± SD) — 61.9 ± 10.0 years). Of all the examined, 71 persons presented dubious data on the secondary osteoporosis underlying causes and thus were excluded from the study.
The study was approved by the Institute's Ethical Committee (17.05.2017, Protocol №5) and held from 05.2017 to 05.2019. All the examined signed a voluntary informed consent form to participate, being the subjects to the respective diagnostic examination procedures.
Of the examined women, 3209 (84.7 %) persons were postmenopausal (the mean age of menopause — 48.4 ± 5.2 years, menopause duration — 15.3 ± 8.9). The key anthro-pometrical parameters (height, weight) were measured by the routine tools, and the BMI index calculated according to a universal formula (the parameters were, respectively: height - 162.1 ± 6.5 cm, weight - 73.1 ± 14.5 kg, BMI -27.8 ± 5.3 kg/m2).
A 10-year probability of major osteoporotic fractures (MOF) and of hip fractures (HF) was calculated according to the Ukrainian FRAX version, presented at the
official FRAX webpage (https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/ FRAX), with and without BMD measurement.
The DXA was used to measure the femoral neck BMD; the T- and Z-scores were calculated at the two machines (PRODIGY, GEHC Lunar, Madison, WI, USA and DISCOVERY Wi, Hologic, Inc., USA).
Our approach to the establishment of intervention and the DXA-enabled additional bone diagnostic examination thresholds took inspiration from the FRAX-based methodology, approved by the National Osteoporosis Guideline Group (NOGG) in the UK [12, 13], and later recommended by the European guidelines [6].
The criterion determining the recommended pharmacological intervention (intervention threshold) in women was a history of a fragility fracture, as numerous recent guidelines on the osteoporotic patient management consider it a key risk factor for the postmenopausal women and older men. According to the WHO, a fragility fracture is a fracture occurring due to a fall from one's own height or lower [14]. Among its risk factors, there is height, sex, a low BMD, a family history of osteoporosis, a history of fractures etc. Most often, fragility fractures damage vertebrae, proximal hip and distal forearm (radius), as well as humerus, pelvis, ribs etc.
Considering the fact that a history of fragility fracture was accepted to be a risk adequate for the treatment initiation, an intervention threshold for women without a history of fractures was established with an age-related 10-year
major osteoporotic fracture risk parameter, equivalent to that of women with a history of a fragility fracture, according to the Ukrainian FRAX model. The measurements considered the BMI of 25 kg/m2.
In order to develop the BMD testing thresholds, we took into account two approaches, earlier used for adaptation of other FRAX models [12, 13]:
1) a threshold probability, under which no treatment or additional DXA examination is to be considered (a 'lower evaluation threshold');
2) a threshold probability, over which the treatment is recommended irrespective of the BMD values (a 'upper evaluation threshold').
A 'lower evaluation threshold' was established to rule out the DXA examination, intended to measure the BMD, in women with no clinical risk factors, as recommended by the numerous European guidelines [6], whereas a 'upper evaluation threshold' is necessary for minimizing the probability of a high-risk patient's being re-classified and relegated to a low-risk group, based on the risk factors only. In this case, additional information on BMD is not required [15].
A 'upper evaluation threshold' was taken to be 1.2 times over the 'intervention threshold'. A similar approach is used in the UK [16]. A 'lower evaluation threshold' was established according to the age-related 10-year osteo-porotic fracture risk probability, equivalent to the one of persons with no clinical risk factors.
Figure 1. The FRAX algorithm webpage
While elaborating the evaluation strategy, intended for the women with a history of a fragility fracture, those women were considered candidates for treatment, even without an additional DXA BMD measurement. The women who had no history of a fragility fracture received the recommendations, similar to a 10-year major osteoporotic fracture risk probability of the previous age group in this age sub-group.
When their probability was lower than a 'lower evaluation threshold', women were not treated. When a 10-year major osteoporotic fracture risk probability exceeded a 'upper evaluation threshold', persons were considered subjects to treatment. When a 10-year major osteoporotic fracture risk probability was between a 'lower' and 'upper' evaluation thresholds, women were referred for the additional BMD measurements, after which the fracture risk got reassessed. At the follow-up evaluation of major osteoporotic fracture risk which included the femoral neck BMD values, the women were considered subjects to treatment if their 10-year fracture probability was higher than the 'intervention threshold', even with normal BMD or osteopenia according to DXA.
Results
Analysis of 10-year major osteoporotic fracture risk probability values, according to the FRAX, showed their significant increase with age, except for the 10-year major osteoporotic fracture risk probability values of women aged 80-89 years, considering the BMD measurements. Furthermore, a 10-year fracture probability with the BMD measurements included was higher than the corresponding one without BMD for all age groups, except for the age group of 80-89 years.
Our findings prove that the pharmacological intervention threshold ('upper evaluation threshold') grows with age: from 6.6 % at the age of 40 years to 13 % at the age of 75 years. Further on (up to 85 years), this threshold did not increase in a certifiable manner, while the women of 90 years had it somewhat reduced (to 12 %). Despite the
above-mentioned fact, the lower evaluation threshold was growing significantly: from 2.4 % at the age of 40 years to 6.9 % in the women of 85 years. It was only in the group of 90-year-olds that it diminished (Table 1, Fig. 2). The mean FRAX value for the major osteoporotic fractures, unless the BMD was left unmeasured, was 8.7 % in our model, while the 'upper' and 'lower' intervention thresholds amounted to 4.6 and 10.5 %, respectively.
Our analysis of the examined cohort confirms that 51.3 % of women had a fragility fracture and thus required an antiosteoporotic treatment without BMD measurements. On further study, it was established that 1.5 % (0.7 % of total examined population) of women had a risk over the 'upper evaluation threshold' and also required treatment, while 61 % (29.7 % of total examined population) had it under the 'lower evaluation threshold' and did not require treatment. Women with an intermediate risk made 37.6 % (18.3 % of total examined population) and required a further BMD measurement in order to decide upon the tactics of management. Out of those, 12.9 % had a low risk, while 5.4 % had a high one.
Risk characterization and requirement of the BMD measurement relied on the age. With advancing age, the number of women with a history of fragility fractures grew (from 34.3 % in the age of 40-49 years to 66.3 % in the age of 70-79 years, mean value — 52.4 %), as well as the requirement of osteoporotic treatment (44.1 % in the age of 40-49 years to 66.8 % in the age of 80-89 years, mean value — 58.2 %). Despite this, the number of women with a moderate fracture risk, requiring BMD measurements, diminished with age (from 34.8 % in the age of 40-49 years to 8.4 % in the age of 70-79 years, mean value - 18.6 %).
The strategy of managing women, taking into account osteoporotic fracture risk, starts with analyzing a history of fragility fractures. If there is one, antiosteoporotic treatment may be started without any BMD measurements. Woman who had no history of fragility fractures require an evaluation of major osteoporotic fracture risk, accord-
Table 1. A 10-year probability of major osteoporotic fractures in women, depending on their age, and intervention thresholds
in the Ukrainian FRAX model, %
Age (years) 'Lower evaluation threshold' (%) 'Intervention threshold' (%) 'Upper evaluation threshold'(%)
40 2.4 5.5 6.6
45 2.7 6.1 7.3
50 3.1 6.7 8.1
55 3.5 7.5 9.1
60 4.0 8.3 10
65 4.4 8.8 11
70 5.0 9.6 12
75 6.0 11 13
80 6.7 11 13
85 6.9 11 13
90 6.0 10 12
ing to the FRAX and their age, sex and clinical factor risk parameters. If their risk exceeds the 'upper evaluation threshold', antiosteoporotic treatment is recommended without DXA (however, DXA may be performed to monitor a further treatment progress). If their risk does not reach the 'lower evaluation threshold'; the woman needs no additional examination or treatment. If the subject has an intermediate risk, she needs DXA examination with a follow-up reassessment of fracture risks and management tactics (Figure 3).
Thus, the Ukrainian woman of postmenopausal age (60 years) does not require DXA examination and BMD measurement if her 10-year major osteoporotic fracture probability is lower than 4 %. The treatment should be recommended (with no BMD measurement to evaluate the fracture risk) if her 10-year major osteoporotic fracture probability is higher than 10 %. However, DXA may be advised to monitor the effectiveness of antiosteoporotic treatment. Moreover, if this risk is from 4 to 10 %, additional BMD evaluation and fracture risk reassessment is required. If the DXA results reveal osteoporosis, treatment is required. If, on the other hand, osteopenia or normal BMD is revealed, major osteoporotic fracture risk should be reassessed according to the age-related 'intervention threshold'. Subjects of 60 years who have undergone DXA examination require treatment if their 10-year major osteoporotic fracture probability is 8.3 % or over, irrespective of osteopenia or normal BMD values.
If the fracture risk is made only of clinical risk factor calculation (age, sex etc.), and does not include BMD measurements, the mentioned thresholds concern only the treatment or additional DXA examination recommendations.
It should also be emphasized that evaluation thresholds that include the additional examination (age-related interval between the upper and lower thresholds) may be used only if the femoral neck BMD measurements are available, any other region (lumbar spine or forearm BMD) or other diagnostic tool findings (ultrasound den-sitometry or computer tomography) should not be used.
Discussion
At present, there are three strategies of choosing the initiation point of osteoporotic treatment that are accepted by most (though not all) European and US guidelines.
1. Low T-score (<-2.5 SD, defined as 'osteoporosis' by the WHO criteria) of lumbar spine, hip or femoral neck. It is measured by DXA and referred to as universal instrumental criterion for the postmenopausal women and men aged 50 years and over. The risk evaluation among the younger women of reproductive age and men (under 50) is performed according to Z-score. Its falling behind <-2.0 SD is described as 'under the scale anticipated for the present age', which is not a diagnosis. As such, it requires a further examination to determine the causes of BMD reduction.
2. A history of fragility fracture for men and women of a postmenopausal age [5, 6, 13] is an indication for the pharmacological intervention without taking BMD measurements in many guidelines. However, some countries (Canada, USA, Japan and Scotland) recommend the initiation of treatment only in case of vertebral and hip fractures [5].
3. High risk of osteoporotic fractures, calculated by the FRAX, for patients with a low BMD (T-score from >-2.5 to <-1.0 SD) [5, 7]. The decision on antiosteoporotic treatment initiation is to be made, according to most recent guidelines; various managing strategies may be opted for.
Nowadays, when developing intervention thresholds according to the FRAX, three approaches were applied: a) using fixed values; b) age-related approach, c) hybrid models (various successions of two previous approaches) (Figure 4).
The fixed thresholds were determined by the discriminating tests on the epidemiology of fractures (Hong Kong), medico-economical evaluations (USA, Switzerland), osteoporosis frequency (China) and analysis of treatment cost recovery (Japan, Poland) [5]. The age-related intervention thresholds were first developed by
High
Treat
CRFs
Fracture probability
Intermediate
BMD
Reassess probability
High
Low
Treat
Low
Figure 3. Strategy of managing women depending on the major osteoporotic fracture risk
Figure 2. The additional examination or antiosteoporotic treatment thresholds in women depending on their age, according to the Ukrainian FRAX
NOGG in the UK, to be later introduced by other European countries and implemented within the acting European guidelines on postmenopausal osteoporosis management [6].
Among the countries with fixed values, the intervention threshold in lowest in China (4 % for major osteoporotic fractures, 1.3 % for hip fractures).
Numerous guidelines by various US societies (National Osteoporosis Foundation [7], Endocrine Society [17], American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists [18], North American Menopause Society [19], Family practice [20], National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) [21], Institute for Clinical Systems Improvement [22]) and Canadian societies (Osteoporosis Canada [23], Ministry of Health, British Columbia [24], Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada [25]) set threshold at 20 %. At the same time, another US societies (US Preventive Services Task Force [26], Michigan Quality Improvement Consortiu [27], American Academy of Family Physicians [28], Institute for Clinical Systems Improvement [29]) recommend a much lower additional BMD examination threshold (9.3 %).
The guidelines by the National Osteoporosis Foundation (NOF, 2014) [7] suggest the following criteria for antiosteoporotic treatment initiation in postmenopausal women and men of 50 years and over:
1. Hip or vertebral fracture (clinical or asymptomatic);
2. T-score of the hip, femoral neck or lumbar spine of <-2.5 SD (by DXA examination);
3. Low BMD (T-score the hip, femoral neck or lumbar spine between -1.0 and -2.5 SD) by DXA, a 10-year probability of hip fractures of > 3 and of major osteoporotic fractures of > 20 by the FRAX.
Similar criteria are recommended by the Endocrine Society for men (2012) [17].
The above-mentioned criteria were somewhat elaborated by the US National Bone Health Alliance® (NBHA), with 45 member societies, representing Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), National Institutes of Health (NIH) and US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) [30].
Those guidelines included the following diagnostic benchmarks for postmenopausal women and men of 50 years and older, suffering from osteoporosis:
1. Hip fracture (irrespective of BMD measurements);
2. T-score of lumbar spine or hip - <-2.5 SD;
3. Osteopenia (T-score from >-2.5 to <-1.0 SD) and a previous clinical or morphometrically confirmed vertebral fracture, proximal humerus, pelvis or, in some cases, distal forearm fracture;
4. 10-year probability of hip fracture by the FRAX is > 3 % and 10-year probability of major osteoporotic fractures is >20 %, subjects have osteopenia (T-score from >-2.5 to <-1.0 SD) [30].
A similar 10-year major osteoporotic fracture risk threshold of 20 % is recommended by some national societies in Slovakia [31], Slovenia [32], Hungary [33], Portugal [34], Spain [35, 36], Greece [37], Austria [38] and Belgium [39].
A somewhat lower intervention threshold (15 %) is recommended in Japan (Japan Osteoporosis Society; Japanese Society for Bone and Mineral Research; Japan Osteoporosis Foundation) [40] and Switzerland [41]. Some countries (Finland [42], North Korea [43]) and the US (American College of Rheumatology (ACR) [44]) use two criteria — most commonly 10 and 20 % [5].
As it was already mentioned, at the present moment the recent European guidelines [6] on postmenopausal osteoporosis management rely upon an age-related approach to major osteoporotic fracture risk evaluation. A similar approach was used while developing antiosteopo-rotic treatment thresholds for the Ukrainian population. If most European guidelines consider the osteoporotic risk factor evaluation to be valid with a restricted use of DXA examination and antiosteoporotic treatment may be prescribed without the latter, the US guidelines stand by the BMD measurements [7]. Along with the European countries [6], we suggest DXA examination for those patients who have a moderate or high fracture risks according to the FRAX. This approach is considered valid only on condition of optimized X-ray densitometry use.
Reassessment of osteoporotic fracture risk after the BMD measurements (from moderate to high or low) is more common in cases when this risk evaluated without
Figure 4. FRAX models with various approaches to intervention threshold setting. Notes: A - using fixed values, B - age-related model, C- hybrid model.
DXA examination is moderate. However, the validity of reassessment drops with probability getting further away from the intervention thresholds [15]. This approach was tested and confirmed in the UK and Canada [15, 45, 46].
The above-mentioned approach suggests that high-risk patients whose BMD was not measured will provide a better response to pharmacological intervention, and it was confirmed by the earlier studies [47-49], thereby making this approach financially viable [50].
Our study has several limitations: despite the size of its cohort (3790 examined female outpatients), the study was performed at one center (Ukrainian Scientific Medical Center of Osteoporosis) which is a specialized healthcare provider intended for the osteoporotic patients. Thus, this sample may not be considered fully representative of Ukraine as a whole. Furthermore, a large number of previous fractures and low BMD also reflected on the findings.
It is worth mentioning that some significant osteoporosis risk factors (height loss, chest kyphosis, low Calcium and Vitamin D concentrations in the daily diet, high risk of falls, glucocorticoid treatment and their doses) are not included into the FRAX algorithm, although they affect the rates of bone loss and osteoporosis risk. Their additional analysis along with a 10-year probability of osteo-porotic fractures may raise the information value of this instrument and should be recommended in the clinical practice.
Conclusions
Our study confirmed the effectiveness of the FRAX evaluation principles, used by the European societies in their guidelines, though adapted considering the epide-miological situation in Ukraine. It is evident that by extending the indications for osteoporosis treatment (not only relying in T-score of -2,5 SD by DXA) and including the results of osteoporosis risk evaluation we increase the number of patients requiring the treatment and face economic repercussions. Despite its economic effectiveness demonstrated in other countries, Ukraine may embrace this approach somewhat differently, and thus it requires a further study with evaluation of economic costs and benefits.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful for the collaboration of the scientists of the Ukrainian Medical & Scientific Centre of Osteoporosis who helped to gather this information and performed DXA measurement.
Conflicts of interests. Authors declare the absence of any conflicts of interests and their own financial interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript.
Data availability. All data used to support the results of this study are stored at and available from the corresponding author upon request.
References
1. Kanis JA. Assessment of osteoporosis at the primary health care level. Technical Report. World Health Organization Collaborating Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield Medical School. 2007. Available from: https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/FRAX/pdfs/WHO_ Technical_Report.pdf.
2. Povoroznyuk VV, Grygorieva NV, Orlik O, Nish-kumay I, Dzerovich NI, Balatska NI. Osteoporosis in the practice of an internist. Kyiv; 2014. 198 p. (in Ukrainian).
3. Kanis JA, Johansson H, Harvey NC, McCloskey EV. A brief history of FRAX. Arch Osteoporos. 2018 Oct 31;13(1):118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11657-018-0510-0.
4. Povoroznyuk VV, Grygorieva NV. The role of FRAX in predicting fracture risk. Bol', sustavy, pozvonocnik. 2011;(2):19-28. (in Russian).
5. Kanis JA, Harvey NC, Cooper C, Johansson H, Odén A, McCloskey EV; Advisory Board of the National Osteoporosis Guideline Group. A systematic review of intervention thresholds based on FRAX : A report prepared for the National Osteoporosis Guideline Group and the International Osteoporosis Foundation. Arch Osteoporos. 2016 Dec;11(1):25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11657-016-0278-z.
6. Kanis JA, Cooper C, Rizzoli R, Reginster JY; Scientific Advisory Board of the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis (ESCEO) and the Committees of Scientific Advisors and National Societies of the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF). European guidance for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women. Osteoporos Int. 2019 Jan;30(1):3-44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-018-4704-5.
7. Cosman F, de Beur SJ, LeBoff MS, et al. Clinician's guide to prevention and treatment of osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int. 2014 Oct;25(10):2359-81. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s00198-014-2794-2.
8. Povoroznyuk VV, Grygorieva NV, Kanis JA, McCloskey EV, Johansson H. Ukrainian Version of FRAX: from Creation to Validation. Bol', sustavy, pozvonocnik. 2016;(3):5-14. https://doi.org/10.22141/2224-1507.3.23.2016.85000. (in Ukrainian).
9. Povoroznyuk VV, Grigoryeva NV. Information value of different models of FRAX in assessing the risk of osteoporotic fractures in women of Ukraine. Bol', sustavy, pozvonocnik. 2013;(2):32-41. https://doi. org/10.22141/2224-1507.2.10.2013.82080. (in Russian).
10. Povoroznyuk VV, Grigoryeva NV. Evaluation the Potential of the Austrian FRAX Model Use in Predicting the Risk for Osteoporotic Fractures in Ukrainian Women. Bol', sustavy, pozvonocnik. 2013;(3):13-20. https://doi. org/10.22141/2224-1507.3.11.2013.82322. (in Russian).
11. Povoroznyuk VV, Grygorieva NV, Kanis JA, et al. Epidemiology of hip fracture and the development of
FRAX in Ukraine. Arch Osteoporos. 2017 Dec;12(1):53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11657-017-0343-2.
12. Kanis JA, Johnell O, Oden A, Johansson H, McClo-skey E. FRAX and the assessment of fracture probability in men and women from the UK. Osteoporos Int. 2008 Apr;19(4):385-97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-007-0543-5.
13. Compston J, Cooper A, Cooper C, et al; National Osteoporosis Guideline Group (NOGG). UK clinical guideline for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis. Arch Osteoporos. 2017 Dec;12(1):43. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11657-017-0324-5.
14. National Clinical Guideline Centre (UK). Osteoporosis: Fragility Fracture Risk: Osteoporosis: Assessing the Risk of Fragility Fracture. London: Royal College of Physicians (UK); 2012 Aug.
15. Johansson H, Oden A, Johnell O, et al. Optimisation of BMD measurements to identify high risk groups for treatment - a test analysis. J Bone Miner Res. 2004 Jun;19(6):906-13. https://doi.org/10.1359/ jbmr.2004.19.6.906.
16. Kanis JA, McCloskey EV, Johansson H, Strom O, Borgstrom F, Oden A; National Osteoporosis Guideline Group. Case finding for the management of osteoporosis with FRAX--assessment and intervention thresholds for the UK. Osteoporos Int. 2008 Oct;19(10):1395-408. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s00198-008-0712-1.
17. Watts NB, Adler RA, Bilezikian JP, et al; Endocrine Society. Osteoporosis in men: an Endocrine Society clinical practice guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2012 Jun;97(6):1802-22. https://doi.org/10.1210/jc.2011-3045.
18. Committee on Practice Bulletins-Gynecology, The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG Practice Bulletin N. 129. Osteoporosis. Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Sep;120(3):718-34. https://doi.org/10.1097/ AOG.0b013e31826dc446.
19. North American Menopause Society (NAMS). Management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women position statement of The North American Menopause Society. Menopause. 2002 Mar-Apr;9(2):84-101.
20. Sweet MG, Sweet JM, Jeremiah MP, Galazka SS. Diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis. Am Fam Physician. 2009 Feb 1;79(3):193-200.
21. Gralow JR, Biermann JS, Farooki A, et al. NCCN Task Force Report: Bone Health in Cancer Care. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2013 Aug;11 Suppl 3:S1-50; quiz S51. https://doi.org/10.6004/jnccn.2013.0215.
22. Florence R, Allen S, Benedict L, et al. Diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis. Bloomington (MN): Institute for Clinical Systems Improvement (ICSI); 2013.
23. Papaioannou A, Morin S, Cheung AM, et al. 2010 clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in Canada: summary CMAJ. 2010 Nov 23;182(17):1864-73. https://doi.org/10.1503/ cmaj.100771.
24. British Columbia Medical Association. BCGuide-lines: Osteoporosis: Diagnosis, Treatment and Fracture Prevention. British Columbia Ministry of health; 2012.
25. Khan A, Fortier M; MENOPAUSE AND OSTEOPOROSIS WORKING GROUP. Osteoporosis in menopause. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2014 Sep;36(9):839-840. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1701-2163(15)30489-8.
26. Nelson HD, Haney EM, Chou R, Dana T, Fu R, Bougatsos C. Screening for Osteoporosis: Systematic Review to Update the 2002 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2010 Jul. Report No.: 10-05145-EF-1.
27. Michigan Quality Improvement Consortium. Guideline Management and Prevention of Osteoporosis. Michigan Quality Improvement Consortium; 2014.
28. Jeremiah MP, Unwin BK, Greenawald MH, Casiano VE. Diagnosis and management of osteoporosis. Am Fam Physician. 2015 Aug 15;92(4):261-8.
29. Institute for Clinical Systems Improvement. Diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis. 2013.
30. Siris ES, Adler R, Bilezikian J, et al. The clinical diagnosis of osteoporosis: a position statement from the National Bone Health Alliance Working Group. Osteoporos Int. 2014 May;25(5):1439-43. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s00198-014-2655-z.
31. Niemethova E, Killinger Z, Payer J. Fracture risk prediction with FRAX in Slovak postmenopausal women. Cent Eur J Med. 2013;8(5):571-86. https://doi.org/10.2478/ s11536-013-0205-2.
32. Kocjan T, Prezelj J, Pfeifer M, Sever MJ, Cokolic M, Zavratnik A. Guidelines for the detection and treatment of osteoporosis. Zdravniski Vestnik-Slovenian Medical Journal. 2013;82(4):207-17.
33. Lakatos P, Szekeres L, Takács I, et al. Magyar Reu-matológia. Hungarian. 2011.
34. Gongalves MJ, Rodrigues AM, Canhäo H, Fonseca JE. Osteoporosis: From bone biology to individual treatment decision. Acta Med Port. 2013 Jul-Aug;26(4):445-55.
35. Pérez Edo L., Alonso Ruiz A., Roig Vilaseca D, et al. 2011 Up-date of the consensus statement of the Spanish Society of Rheumatology on osteoporosis. Reumatol Clin. 2011 Nov-Dec;7(6):357-79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. reuma.2011.05.013. (in Spanish).
36. Etxebarria-Foronda I, Caeiro-Rey JR, Larrainzar-Garijo R, et al. SECOT-GEIOS en osteoporosis y fractura por fragilidad. Actualización. Rev Esp Cir Ortop Trauma-tol. 2015 Nov-Dec;59(6):373-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. recot.2015.05.007.
37. Makras P, Vaiopoulos G, Lyritis GP; Greek National Medicine Agency. 2011 Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Osteoporosis in Greece. J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact. 2012 Mar;12(1):38-42.
38. Arznei, Vernunft. Osteoporose. KnochenbruchKrankheit. Pharmig, Verband der pharmazeutischen Industrie; Österreichs: 2010.
39. Body J-J. Aromatase inhibitors-induced bone loss in early breast cancer. BoneKEy reports. 2012. 1. 201. DOI: 10.1038/bonekey.2012.201.
40. Orimo H, Nakamura T, Hosoi T, et al. Japanese 2011 guidelines for prevention and treatment of osteopo-rosis--executive summary. Arch Osteoporos. 2012;7:3-20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11657-012-0109-9.
41. Lippuner K, Johansson H, Borgström F, Kanis JA, Rizzoli R. Cost-effective intervention thresholds against osteoporotic fractures based on FRAX® in Switzerland. Osteoporos Int. 2012 Nov;23(11):2579-89. https://doi. org/10.1007/s00198-011-1869-6.
42. Koski AM. Glukokortikoidin aiheuttaman osteopo-roosin hoitokaavio. 2013.
43. Kim JW, Jeon YJ, Baek DH, Kim TN, Chang JS. Percentage of the population at high risk of osteoporotic fracture in South Korea: analysis of the 2010 Fifth Korean National Health and Nutrition Examination survey data. Osteoporos Int. 2014 Apr;25(4):1313-9. https://doi. org/10.1007/s00198-013-2595-z.
44. Grossman JM, Gordon R, Ranganath VK, et al. American College of Rheumatology 2010 recommendations for the prevention and treatment of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2010 Nov;62(11):1515-26. https://doi.org/10.1002/acr.20295.
45. Johansson H, Kanis JA, Oden A, Johnell O, McCloskey E. BMD, clinical risk factors and their combination for hip fracture prevention. Osteoporos Int. 2009 Oct;20(10):1675-82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-009-0845-x.
46. Leslie WD, Majumdar SR, Lix LM, et al; Manitoba Bone Density Program. High fracture probability with FRAX® usually indicates densitometric osteoporosis: implications for clinical practice. Osteoporos Int. 2012 Jan;23(1):391-7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-011-1592-3.
47. Kanis JA, McCloskey E, Johansson H, Oden A, Leslie WD. FRAX® with and without BMD. Calcif Tissue Int. 2012 Jan;90(1):1-13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00223-011-9544-7.
48. Leslie WD, Morin S, Lix LM, et al. Fracture risk assessment without bone density measurement in routine clinical practice. Osteoporos Int. 2012 Jan;23(1):75-85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-011-1747-2.
49. Cauley JA, Robbins J, Chen Z, et al; Women's Health Initiative Investigators. Effects of estrogen plus progestin on risk of fracture and bone mineral density: the Women's Health Initiative randomized trial. JAMA. 2003 Oct 1;290(13):1729-38. https://doi.org/10.1001/ jama.290.13.1729.
50. McCloskey EV, Beneton M, Charlesworth D, et al. Clodronate reduces the incidence of fractures in community-dwelling elderly women unselected for osteoporosis: results of a double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized study. J Bone Miner Res. 2007 Jan;22(1):135-41. https:// doi.org/10.1359/jbmr.061008.
Received 19.11.2019 Revised 03.12.2019 Accepted20.12.2019 ■
Information about author
V.V. Povoroznyuk, MD, PhD, Professor, Head of the Department of clinical physiology and pathology of locomotor apparatus, State Institution "D.F. Chebotarev Institute of Gerontology of the NAMS of Ukraine'; Kyiv, Ukraine, e-mail: [email protected], ORCID iD: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9770-4113
Nataliia Grygorieva, MD, PhD, Professor, Leading Research Fellow at the Department of clinical physiology and pathology of locomotor apparatus, State Institution "D.F. Chebotarev Institute of Gerontology of the NAMS of Ukraine", Vyshgorodska st., 67, Kyiv, 04114, Ukraine; e-mail: [email protected]; phone: +38 (067) 445 76 08. ORCID iD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4266-461X. J.A. Kanis, Professor Emeritus, University of Sheffield Medical School, Beech Hill Road, Sheffield S10 2RX, UK H. Johansson, University of Sheffield Medical School, Beech Hill Road, Sheffield S10 2RX, UK E.V. McCloskey, University of Sheffield Medical School, Beech Hill Road, Sheffield S10 2RX, UK
Поворознюк В.В.', Григор'ева Н.В.', Kanis J.A.2, Johansson H.2, McCloskey E.V.2
'УкраУнський науково-медичний центр проблем остеопорозу, ДУ «1нститут геронтологи теш Д.Ф. Чеботарьова НАМН УкраУни», м. КиУв, УкраУна
2University of Sheffield Medical School, Beech Hill Road, Sheffield S'0 2RX, UK
УкраТнська верая FRAX: Kp^epii дiагностики й лшування остеопорозу
Резюме. Актуальтсть. На сьогодш алгоритм FRAX® e ш-формативним методом оцшки ризику остеопоротичних пе-реломiв, iмплементованим в европейсью й американсью ре-комендаци щодо менеджменту остеопорозу. Проте юнують вщмшносп щодо меж втручання для антиостеопоротично-го лшування, що залежать вщ краши, моделi надання медич-но'1 допомоги та повернення кошйв за лшування. Власна модель FRAX з'явилась в Украш в 2016 рощ, проте межг втручання доа розроблеш не були. Мета до^дження: визначи-ти межi для фармаколопчного лшування остеопорозу та до-даткового обстеження населення Украши за допомогою на-цюнально'! моделi FRAX. Mamepirnu та методы. Обстежено 3790 амбулаторних жшок вшом 40—90 роив (середнш вгк —
61,9 ± 10,0 року). Розробка меж втручання та додатково! оцшки стану шстково! тканини з використанням двохенергетич-но! рентгешвсько! денситометрй (ДРА) передбачала застосу-вання методологи, прийнято! National Osteoporosis Guideline Group у Великш Британй, яка використана i в европейських рекомендац1ях. Результаты. Встановлено зростання з в!ком меж! для фармаколопчного втручання (верхня межа) з 6,6 % у 40 рокгв до 13 % у 75—85 роив. Нижня межа втручання (не-обхщшсть обстеження) в!ропдно збшьшувалась з 2,4 % у 40 роив до 6,9 % у жшок в!ком 85 роив. Стратепя оцшки почи-наеться з анал!зу в анамнез! низькотравматичного перелому. За його наявност! приймаеться ргшення про початок антио-стеопоротичного лшування без проведення ДРА. За вщсутно-
стi перелому в анамнезi необидна оцшка ризику переломiв за FRAX. При перевищенш верхньо! межi рекомендовано ан-тиостеопоротичне лiкування без проведення ДРА, при його значеннях менше за нижню межу — додаткове обстеження чи лiкуБання не потрiбнi. За умови наявностi пром1жних показ-ниюв ризику необхщне проведення ДРА з переощнкою ризику переломiв i тактики ведення. Висновки. Доведено ефектив-нiсть використання принцип1в оцiнки FRAX, що застосову-
ються в европейських рекомендацiях, але з урахуванням ет-демюлогй остеопоротичних пeрeломiв в Украш. Незважаю-чи на те, що даний пщхщ е eкономiчно ефективним в шших крашах, його застосування в Украiнi може вiIдрiзнятись i по-требуе подальшого вивчення з eкономiчною оцiнкою затрат i переваг.
слова: FRAX®; остеопороз; межа втручання; лшу-вання; дiагностика; ризик остеопоротичних пeрeломiв
Поворознюк В.В.1, Григорьева Н.В.1, Kanis J.A.2, Johansson H.2, McCloskey E.V.2
Украинский научно-медицинский центр проблем остеопороза, ГУ «Институт геронтологии имени Д.Ф. Чеботарева НАМН Украины », г. Киев, Украина
2University of Sheffield Medical School, Beech Hill Road, Sheffield S10 2RX, UK
Украинская версия FRAX: критерии диагностики и лечения остеопороза
Резюме. Актуальность. На сегодняшний день алгоритм FRAX® является информативным методом оценки риска остеопоротических переломов, реализованным в европейские и американские рекомендации по менеджменту остео-пороза. Однако существуют различия относительно границ вмешательства для антиостеопоротического лечения, зависящие от страны, модели оказания медицинской помощи и возвращения средств за лечение. Собственная модель FRAX появилась в Украине в 2016 году, однако границы вмешательства до сих пор разработаны не были. Цель исследования: определить границы для фармакологического лечения остеопороза и дополнительного обследования населения Украины с помощью национальной модели FRAX. Материалы и методы. Обследовано 3790 амбулаторных женщин в возрасте 40—90 лет (средний возраст — 61,9 ± 10,0 года). Разработка границ вмешательства и дополнительной оценки состояния костной ткани с использованием двухэнергетической рентгеновской денситометрии (ДРА) предусматривала применение методологии, принятой National Osteoporosis Guideline Group в Великобритании, которая использована и в европейских рекомендациях. Результаты. Установлено повышение с возрастом границы для фармакологического вмешательства (верхняя граница) с 6,6 % в 40 лет до 13 % в 75—85 лет. Нижняя гра-
ница вмешательства (необходимость обследования) достоверно увеличивалась с 2,4 % в 40 лет до 6,9 % у женщин в возрасте 85 лет. Стратегия оценки начинается с анализа в анамнезе низкотравматического перелома. При его наличии принимается решение о начале антиостеопоротического лечения без проведения ДРА. При отсутствии перелома в анамнезе необходима оценка риска переломов по FRAX. При превышении верхней границы рекомендуется антиостеопоротиче-ское лечение без проведения ДРА, при его значениях меньше нижней границы — дополнительное обследование или лечение не нужны. При наличии промежуточных показателей риска необходимо проведение ДРА с переоценкой риска переломов и тактики ведения. Выводы. Доказана эффективность использования принципов оценки FRAX, применяемых в европейских рекомендациях, но с учетом эпидемиологии осте-опоротических переломов в Украине. Несмотря на то, что данный подход является экономически эффективным в других странах, его применение в Украине может отличаться и требует дальнейшего изучения с экономической оценкой затрат и преимуществ.
Ключевые слова: FRAX®; остеопороз; граница вмешательства; лечение; диагностика; риск остеопоротических переломов
