Chung-Yuan Hsu1, Chih-Hsing Wu2, Shan-Fu Yu1, Yu-Jih Su1, Wen-Chan Chiu1, Ying-Chou Chen1, Han-Ming Lai1, Jia-Feng Chen1, Chi-Hua Ko1, Jung-Fu Chen3, Tien-Tsai Cheng4. 1. Division of Rheumatology, Allergy and Immunology, Department of Internal Medicine, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chang Gung University College of Medicine, No. 123, Ta-Pei Road, Kaohsiung, 833, Taiwan. 2. Department of Family Medicine, National Cheng Kung University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan. 3. Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Department of Internal Medicine, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Kaohsiung, Taiwan. 4. Division of Rheumatology, Allergy and Immunology, Department of Internal Medicine, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chang Gung University College of Medicine, No. 123, Ta-Pei Road, Kaohsiung, 833, Taiwan. tiantsai0919@gmail.com.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to develop an algorithm to identify high-risk populations of fragility fractures in Taiwan. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 16,539 postmenopausal women and men (age ≥ 50 years) were identified from the Taiwan Osteoporosis Survey database. Using the Taiwan FRAX® tool, the 10-year probability of major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) and hip fracture (HF) and the individual intervention threshold (IIT) of each participant were calculated. Subjects with either a probability above the IIT or those with MOF ≥ 20% or HF ≥ 9% were included as group A. Subjects with a bone mineral density (BMD) T-score at femoral neck based on healthy subjects of ≤ - 2.5 were included in group B. We tested several cutoff points for MOF and HF so that the number of patients in group A and group B were similar. A novel country-specific hybrid intervention threshold along with an algorithm was generated to identify high fracture risk individuals. RESULTS: 3173 (19.2%) and 3129 (18.9%) participants were categorized to groups A and B, respectively. Participants in group B had a significantly lower BMD (p < 0.001), but clinical characteristics, especially the 10-year probability of MOF (p < 0.001) or HF (p < 0.001), were significantly worse in group A. We found the algorithm generated from the hybrid intervention threshold is practical. CONCLUSION: The strategy of generating an algorithm for fracture prevention by novel hybrid intervention threshold is more efficient as it identifies patients with a higher risk of fragility fracture and could be a template for other country-specific policies.
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to develop an algorithm to identify high-risk populations of fragility fractures in Taiwan. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 16,539 postmenopausal women and men (age ≥ 50 years) were identified from the Taiwan Osteoporosis Survey database. Using the Taiwan FRAX® tool, the 10-year probability of major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) and hip fracture (HF) and the individual intervention threshold (IIT) of each participant were calculated. Subjects with either a probability above the IIT or those with MOF ≥ 20% or HF ≥ 9% were included as group A. Subjects with a bone mineral density (BMD) T-score at femoral neck based on healthy subjects of ≤ - 2.5 were included in group B. We tested several cutoff points for MOF and HF so that the number of patients in group A and group B were similar. A novel country-specific hybrid intervention threshold along with an algorithm was generated to identify high fracture risk individuals. RESULTS: 3173 (19.2%) and 3129 (18.9%) participants were categorized to groups A and B, respectively. Participants in group B had a significantly lower BMD (p < 0.001), but clinical characteristics, especially the 10-year probability of MOF (p < 0.001) or HF (p < 0.001), were significantly worse in group A. We found the algorithm generated from the hybrid intervention threshold is practical. CONCLUSION: The strategy of generating an algorithm for fracture prevention by novel hybrid intervention threshold is more efficient as it identifies patients with a higher risk of fragility fracture and could be a template for other country-specific policies.
Authors: Alexandra Papaioannou; Suzanne Morin; Angela M Cheung; Stephanie Atkinson; Jacques P Brown; Sidney Feldman; David A Hanley; Anthony Hodsman; Sophie A Jamal; Stephanie M Kaiser; Brent Kvern; Kerry Siminoski; William D Leslie Journal: CMAJ Date: 2010-10-12 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: John A Kanis; Frederik Borgstrom; Niklas Zethraeus; Olof Johnell; Anders Oden; Bengt Jönsson Journal: Bone Date: 2004-12-15 Impact factor: 4.398
Authors: Meghan G Donaldson; Peggy M Cawthon; Li-Yung Lui; John T Schousboe; Kristine E Ensrud; Brent C Taylor; Jane A Cauley; Teresa A Hillier; Dennis M Black; Doug C Bauer; Steven R Cummings Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: John A Kanis; Eugene V McCloskey; Helena Johansson; Anders Oden; L Joseph Melton; Nikolai Khaltaev Journal: Bone Date: 2007-11-17 Impact factor: 4.398
Authors: John A Kanis; Eugene V McCloskey; Nicholas C Harvey; Helena Johansson; William D Leslie Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: E McCloskey; J A Kanis; H Johansson; N Harvey; A Odén; A Cooper; C Cooper; R M Francis; D M Reid; D Marsh; P Selby; F Thompson; S Hewitt; J Compston Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2015-06-16 Impact factor: 4.507