Email this article The role of the primary care physician in identifying patients at high risk of fractures in real clinical practice
- Authors: Gladkova E.N.1,2, Seregina M.S.1, Soboleva A.A.1
-
Affiliations:
- North-Western State Medical University named after I.I. Mechnikov
- Clinical Rheumatology Hospital No. 25
- Issue: Vol 28, No 1 (2024)
- Pages: 43-51
- Section: Original study article
- URL: https://ogarev-online.ru/RFD/article/view/254444
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.17816/RFD626717
- ID: 254444
Cite item
Open Access
Access granted
Subscription Access
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The FRAX calculator is an accessible method for identifying patients at high risk of fracture. However, data on its practical use in primary health care settings are limited.
AIM: To evaluate the correctness of calculating the 10-year fracture probability according to FRAX by primary care physicians and then analyze the impact of the results on patient routing.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The base of the study was the city polyclinic No. 25 of the Nevsky district of Saint Petersburg. The study included men and women aged 40 years and older.
During 2017–2020, polyclinic doctors assessed the risk of fracture using the FRAX calculator for 11,013 people. A group of patients with significant differences (30% or more) in the obtained value of the risk of major osteoporotic fractures from the average was identified. A 10-year probability of fractures was recalculated for these patients.
RESULTS: Major osteoporotic fracture risk scores were compared before and after recalculation. In most cases of patients (83%), the risk category did not change after recalculation. In 15% of patients changed to a higher risk. In the total group (11,013 people), errors in FRAX calculation led to an underestimation of high fracture risk in 41 patients (0.4%).
CONCLUSIONS: The study showed that primary care physicians use the FRAX calculator correctly. The proportion of incorrect fracture risk calculations was low. Nevertheless, training of primary care physicians in the calculation and interpretation of the FRAX score is essential.
Keywords
Full Text
##article.viewOnOriginalSite##About the authors
Elena N. Gladkova
North-Western State Medical University named after I.I. Mechnikov; Clinical Rheumatology Hospital No. 25
Author for correspondence.
Email: gen4605@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-6689-6941
SPIN-code: 6535-4153
MD, Cand. Sci. (Med.)
Russian Federation, Saint Petersburg; Saint PetersburgMaria S. Seregina
North-Western State Medical University named after I.I. Mechnikov
Email: sereginamasha7@yandex.ru
ORCID iD: 0009-0005-3825-1635
Russian Federation, Saint Petersburg
Anna A. Soboleva
North-Western State Medical University named after I.I. Mechnikov
Email: sobolevanura@yandex.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-8134-7206
Russian Federation, Saint Petersburg
References
- Curtis EM, Harvey NC, Cooper C. The burden of osteoporosis. In: Osteoporosis: a lifecourse epidemiology approach to skeletal health. Boca Raton; CRC Press; 2018. P. 1–20. doi: 10.1201/9781351234627
- Lesnyak O, Bilezikian JP, Zakroyeva A, et al. Report on the audit on burden of osteoporosis in eight countries of the Eurasian region: Armenia, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, the Russian Federation, and Uzbekistan. Arch Osteoporos. 2020;15(1):175. doi: 10.1007/s11657-020-00836-y
- Tkacheva ON, Kotovskaya YuV, Rozanov AV, et al. Methodological recommendations. A set of measures aimed at preventing falls and fractures in elderly and senile people. Мoscow; 2021. 48 p. [Internet]. Available from: https://static0.minzdrav.gov.ru/system/attachments/attaches/000/059/115/original/8.Комплекс_мер_падения_2021.pdf?1641888378. Accessed: 05 Feb 2024. (In Russ.)
- Wang QY, Ding N, Dong YH, et al. Pharmacological treatment of osteoporosis in elderly people: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gerontology. 2021;67(6):639–649. doi: 10.1159/000514449
- Hoff M, Skurtveit S, Meyer HE, et al. Anti-osteoporosis drug use: too little, too much, or just right? The HUNT study, Norway. Osteoporos Int. 2018;29(8):1875–1885. doi: 10.1007/s00198-018-4560-3
- Yang X, Sajjan S, Modi A. High rate of non-treatment among osteoporotic women enrolled in a US Medicare plan. Curr Med Res Opin. 2016;32(11):1849–1856. doi: 10.1080/03007995.2016.1211997
- Barton DW, Behrend CJ, Carmouche JJ. Rates of osteoporosis screening and treatment following vertebral fracture. Spine J. 2019;19(3):411–417. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2018.08.004
- Belaya ZhE, Belova KYu, Biryukova EV, et al. Federal clinical guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and prevention of osteoporosis. Osteoporosis and Bone Diseases. 2021;24(2):4–47. EDN: TUONYE doi: 10.14341/osteo12930
- Gladkova EN, Tanaev VG, Lesnyak OM, et al. The effectiveness of screening to identify patients with osteoporosis/high risk of fractures in primary health care. Osteoporosis and Bone Diseases. 2022;25(1):14–22. EDN: MODYDH doi: 10.14341/osteo12946
- Kanis JA, Harvey NC, Johansson H, et al. FRAX Update. J Clin Densitom. 2017;20(3):360–367. doi: 10.1016/j.jocd.2017.06.022
- Salminen H, Piispanen P, Toth-Pal E. Primary care physicians’ views on osteoporosis management: a qualitative study. Arch Osteoporos. 2019;14(1):48. doi: 10.1007/s11657-019-0599-9
- Bruyere O, Nicolet D, Compere S, et al. Perception, knowledge, and use by general practitioners of Belgium of a new WHO tool (FRAX) to assess the 10-year probability of fracture. Rheumatol Int. 2013;33(4):979–983. doi: 10.1007/s00296-012-2461-x
- Ha YC, Lee YK, Lim YT, et al. Physicians’ attitudes to contemporary issues on osteoporosis management in Korea. J Bone Metab. 2014;21(2):143–149. doi: 10.11005/jbm.2014.21.2.143
- Alahmadi RA, Aljabri HM, Alharbi NM, et al. Osteoporosis as perceived by Saudi physicians: a cross-sectional study of quality of practice and current barriers in management. Cureus. 2023;15(11):e49578. doi: 10.7759/cureus.49578
Supplementary files
