J Bone Metab.  2018 May;25(2):79-86. 10.11005/jbm.2018.25.2.79.

Agreement between the Turkey Guidelines and the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool®-based Intervention Threshold

• Imerci A
• Aydogan NH
• Tosun K

• KMID: 2413369
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.11005/jbm.2018.25.2.79

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.

Keyword

Bone density; Osteoporosis; Osteoporotic fractures; Risk assessment; Turkey

MeSH Terms

Bone Density
Cross-Sectional Studies
Delivery of Health Care
Female
Humans
Male
Osteoporosis
Osteoporotic Fractures
Risk Assessment*
Turkey*

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 Defining the need for initiation of treatment according to the Turkish Healthcare Practices Statement guidelines for osteoporosis. BMD, bone mineral density.

Reference

1. El-Hajj Fuleihan G, Chakhtoura M, Cauley JA, et al. Worldwide fracture prediction. J Clin Densitom. 2017; 20:397–424. PMID: 28734709.

2. Cosman F, de Beur SJ, LeBoff MS, et al. Clinician's guide to prevention and treatment of osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int. 2014; 25:2359–2381. PMID: 25182228.

3. Compston J, Cooper A, Cooper C, et al. UK clinical guideline for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis. Arch Osteoporos. 2017; 12:43. PMID: 28425085.

4. Kanis JA, McCloskey EV, Johansson H, et al. European guidance for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women. Osteoporos Int. 2013; 24:23–57. PMID: 23079689.

5. Lekamwasam S. Sri Lankan FRAX model and country-specific intervention thresholds. Arch Osteoporos. 2013; 8:148. PMID: 23975235.

6. Papaioannou A, Morin S, Cheung AM, et al. 2010 clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in Canada: summary. CMAJ. 2010; 182:1864–1873. PMID: 20940232.

7. Orimo H, Nakamura T, Hosoi T, et al. Japanese 2011 guidelines for prevention and treatment of osteoporosis-executive summary. Arch Osteoporos. 2012; 7:3–20. PMID: 23203733.

8. Body JJ, Bergmann P, Boonen S, et al. Evidence-based guidelines for the pharmacological treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis: a consensus document by the Belgian Bone Club. Osteoporos Int. 2010; 21:1657–1680. PMID: 20480148.

9. Goldshtein I, Ish-Shalom S, Leshno M. Impact of FRAX-based osteoporosis intervention using real world data. Bone. 2017; 103:318–324. PMID: 28778597.

10. Bolland MJ, Grey A. Disparate outcomes from applying U.K. and U.S. osteoporosis treatment guidelines. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2010; 95:1856–1860. PMID: 20147581.

11. WHO Scientific Group. Assessment of osteoporosis at the primary health-care level. Technical report. . Sheffield, UK: WHO Collaborating Centre, University of Sheffield;2008.

12. Kanis JA, Harvey NC, Johansson H, et al. FRAX update. J Clin Densitom. 2017; 20:360–367. PMID: 28732576.

13. Healthcare Practices Statement. Turkey Guidelines for Osteoporosis Treatment. 2013. cited by 2018 Jan 3. Available from: http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/default.aspx.

14. Jain RK, Vokes T. Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. J Clin Densitom. 2017; 20:291–303. PMID: 28716497.

15. Gwet KL. Computing inter-rater reliability and its variance in the presence of high agreement. Br J Math Stat Psychol. 2008; 61:29–48. PMID: 18482474.

16. Cheung E, Kung AW, Tan KC. Outcomes of applying the NOF, NOGG and Taiwanese guidelines to a cohort of Chinese early postmenopausal women. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf). 2014; 80:200–207. PMID: 24010883.

17. Leslie WD, Morin S, Lix LM, et al. Fracture risk assessment without bone density measurement in routine clinical practice. Osteoporos Int. 2012; 23:75–85. PMID: 21850546.

18. Järvinen TL, Jokihaara J, Guy P, et al. Conflicts at the heart of the FRAX tool. CMAJ. 2014; 186:165–167. PMID: 24366895.

19. Makras P, Athanasakis K, Boubouchairopoulou N, et al. Cost-effective osteoporosis treatment thresholds in Greece. Osteoporos Int. 2015; 26:1949–1957. PMID: 25740208.

20. Lippuner K, Johansson H, Borgström F, et al. Cost-effective intervention thresholds against osteoporotic fractures based on FRAX(R) in Switzerland. Osteoporos Int. 2012; 23:2579–2589. PMID: 22222755.

21. Fujiwara S, Nakamura T, Orimo H, et al. Development and application of a Japanese model of the WHO fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX). Osteoporos Int. 2008; 19:429–435. PMID: 18292977.

22. Min YK, Lee DY, Park YS, et al. A FRAX experience in Korea: fracture risk probabilities with a country-specific versus a surrogate model. J Bone Metab. 2015; 22:113–118. PMID: 26389086.

23. Tuzun S, Eskiyurt N, Akarirmak U, et al. The impact of a FRAX-based intervention threshold in Turkey: the FRAX-TURK study. Arch Osteoporos. 2012; 7:229–235. PMID: 23060308.

24. Cheung EY, Tan KC, Cheung CL, Kung AW. Osteoporosis in East Asia: Current issues in assessment and management. Osteoporos Sarcopenia. 2016; 2:118–133.

25. Korean Health Insurance Review Agency. General guideline of pharmacologic intervention for osteoporosis. 2010. cited by 2018 Feb 26. Available from: http://www.hira.or.kr/eng/index.html.

26. Demir A, Kutlu R, Çivi S. Assessment of 10-year major osteoporotic and femur fracture risk of postmenopausal women using FRAX®. Turk J Phys Med Rehabil. 2014; 60:S11–S18.

27. Pınar G, Pınar T, Doğan N, et al. Osteoporosis risk factors in the women over 45-years old. Dicle Med J. 2009; 36:258–266.

28. Kutlu R, Çivi S, Pamuk G. Frequency of osteoporosis and calculation of 10-years fracture probability by using FRAX™ tool in postmenopausal women. Turk J Phys Med Rehabil. 2012; 58:126–135.

29. Robitaille J, Yoon PW, Moore CA, et al. Prevalence, family history, and prevention of reported osteoporosis in U.S. women. Am J Prev Med. 2008; 35:47–54. PMID: 18541176.

30. Burger H, de Laet CE, van Daele PL, et al. Risk factors for increased bone loss in an elderly population: the Rotterdam Study. Am J Epidemiol. 1998; 147:871–879. PMID: 9583718.