Main Article Content
Background. At present, FRAX is a well-known and widely-used risk assessment tool for major osteoporotic fractures. The Ukrainian version of the FRAX algorithm was presented in 2016; with the “intervention threshold” for additional DXA examination and antiosteoporotic treatment of the Ukrainian women published in 2019. However, the data on its possible uses in men are limited. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the possibilities of using the previously developed criteria of the Ukrainian FRAX algorithm in Ukrainian men. Materials and methods. We examined 653 outpatients aged 40–88 years (mean age (M ± SD) — 60.5 ± 11.8 years). We analyzed the results both in the general group and in the age subgroups; in particular, with an account of low-trauma fractures, included in the FRAX calculation, and compared them with the corresponding indices of the Ukrainian women. Results. The most frequent (26.6 %) risk factor for osteoporotic fractures in the group of Ukrainian men was a history of low-trauma fracture (the corresponding index in women was 51.3 %), its presence being the reason for antiosteoporotic treatment initiating. Following upon the risk of major osteoporotic fractures calculated by FRAX, only 6.7 % of men without previous fractures were found to require additional DXA examination in order to re-evaluate the osteoporotic fracture risk, and none had a high fracture risk. 73 % of men without fractures did not have any risk factor included in the FRAX algorithm. Conclusions. This study showed a greater need for both antiosteoporotic treatment without DXA assessment and additional densitometric examination for the osteoporotic fracture risk assessment for the Ukrainian women rather than men, along with a special attention to the presence of previous fractures in men, and consideration of other risk factors for osteoporosis, even those not included in this FRAX algorithm.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Our edition uses the copyright terms of Creative Commons for open access journals.
Authors, who are published in this journal, agree with the following terms:
- The authors retain rights for authorship of their article and grant to the edition the right of first publication of the article on a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, 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.
- Directing the article for the publication to the editorial board (publisher), the author agrees with transmitting of rights for the protection and using the article, including parts of the article, which are protected by the copyrights, such as the author’s photo, pictures, charts, tables, etc., including the reproduction in the media and the Internet; for distributing; for the translation of the manuscript in all languages; for export and import of the publications copies of the writers’ article to spread, bringing to the general information.
- The rights mentioned above authors transfer to the edition (publisher) for the unlimited period of validity and on the territory of all countries of the world.
- The authors guarantee that they have exclusive rights for using of the article, which they have sent to the edition (publisher). The edition (the publisher) is not responsible for the violation of given guarantees by the authors to the third parties.
- The authors have the right to conclude separate supplement agreements that relate to non-exclusive distribution of their article in the form in which it had been published in the journal (for example, to upload the work to the online storage of the journal or publish it as part of a monograph), provided that the reference to the first publication of the work in this journal is included.
- The policy of the journal permits and encourages the publication of the article in the Internet (in institutional repository or on a personal website) by the authors, because it contributes to productive scientific discussion and a positive effect on efficiency and dynamics of the citation of the article.
Johnell O, Kanis JA. An estimate of the worldwide prevalence and disability associated with osteoporotic fractures. Osteoporos Int. 2006 Dec;17(12):1726-33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-006-0172-4 .
Bentler SE, Liu L, Obrizan M, et al. The aftermath of hip fracture: discharge placement, functional status change, and mortality. Am J Epidemiol. 2009 Nov 15;170(10):1290-9. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwp266 .
Borgström F, Karlsson L, Ortsäter G, et al; International Osteoporosis Foundation. Fragility fractures in Europe: burden, management and opportunities. Arch Osteoporos. 2020 Apr 19;15(1):59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11657-020-0706-y .
State Statistics Service of Ukraine. Distribution of the permanent population by sex, separate age groups and type of locality. Available from: http://database.ukrcensus.gov.ua/MULT/Dialog/statfile_c.asp .
Kanis JA, Bianchi G, Bilezikian JP, Kaufman JM, Khosla S, Orwoll E, Seeman E. Towards a diagnostic and therapeutic consensus in male osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int. 2011 Nov;22(11):2789-98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-011-1632-z .
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 .
Cosman F, de Beur SJ, LeBoff MS, et al; National Osteoporosis Foundation. 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 .
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 .
Povoroznyuk V, Grygorieva N, Johansson H, et al. FRAX-Based Intervention Thresholds for Osteoporosis Treatment in Ukraine. Journal of Osteoporosis. 2021;2021:ID 2043479. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/2043479 .
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 .
Harvey NC, McCloskey E, Kanis JA. Use of FRAX(®) in men. Joint Bone Spine. 2016 Oct;83(5):477-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbspin.2016.03.007 .
Adler RA, Hastings FW, Petkov VI. Treatment thresholds for osteoporosis in men on androgen deprivation therapy: T-score versus FRAX. Osteoporos Int. 2010 Apr;21(4):647-53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-009-0984-0 .
Marques A, Lucas R, Simões E, Verstappen SMM, Jacobs JWG, da Silva JAP. Do we need bone mineral density to estimate osteoporotic fracture risk? A 10-year prospective multicentre validation study. RMD Open. 2017 Sep 26;3(2):e000509. https://doi.org/10.1136/rmdopen-2017-000509 .
Diem SJ, Peters KW, Gourlay ML, et al; Osteoporotic Fractures in Men Research Group. Screening for Osteoporosis in Older Men: Operating Characteristics of Proposed Strategies for Selecting Men for BMD Testing. J Gen Intern Med. 2017 Nov;32(11):1235-1241. doi: 10.1007/s11606-017-4153-4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-017-4153-4 .
Jain S, Bilori B, Gupta A, Spanos P, Singh M. Are Men at High Risk for Osteoporosis Underscreened? A Quality Improvement Project. Perm J. 2016 Winter;20(1):60-4. https://doi.org/10.7812/tpp/14-190 .
Tuzun S, Eskiyurt N, Akarirmak U, et al; Turkish Osteoporosis Society. The impact of a FRAX-based intervention threshold in Turkey: the FRAX-TURK study. Arch Osteoporos. 2012;7:229-35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11657-012-0101-4 .
Clark P, Denova-Gutiérrez E, Zerbini C, et al. FRAX-based intervention and assessment thresholds in seven Latin American countries. Osteoporos Int. 2018 Mar;29(3):707-715. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-017-4341-4.