应用FRAX联合腰椎或股骨颈骨密度评估中老年女性骨折风险的临床研究

目的探讨应用FRAX联合腰椎或股骨颈骨密度评估中老年女性骨折风险。方法选取2017年3月至2018年6月在连云港市第一人民医院行骨密度检查的女性337例,收集其个人基本信息、FRAX风险评估值及腰椎和股骨颈骨密度,按照骨密度及年龄分组,根据上述资料计算10年内主要部位骨质疏松性骨折概率和10年内髋部骨折概率,比较FRAX联合腰椎或股骨颈骨密度评估骨折风险的差异。结果无论代入股骨颈骨密度还是腰椎骨密度计算骨折风险,骨质疏松组的骨折风险均高于骨量减少组(P0.05);②无论是在骨质疏松组还是在骨量减少组,采用股骨颈骨密度计算的骨折风险均高于采用腰椎骨密度计算的值(P0.05)。③进一步分析显示,不同年龄组采用股骨颈骨密度计算出的骨折风险均高于采用腰椎骨密度计算的值(P0.05)。结论对于不同年龄组的骨量异常女性,FRAX联合股骨颈骨密度预测的骨折风险高于联合腰椎骨密度预测的骨折风险。     

骨折风险评估工具(FRAX)对40岁以上2型糖尿病患者的骨折风险预测价值分析

目的 研究探讨骨折风险评估工具（fracture risk assessment tool,FRAX）对40岁以上2型糖尿病患者的骨折风险预测价值。方法 选择2016年1月至2017年12月就诊于我院的300例40岁以上2型糖尿病患者为研究对象,调查了解研究对象的基本信息,再对患者进行骨密度检查。将研究数据录入至FRAX问卷中,分别计算未录入股骨颈骨密度数据的髋部骨折风险系数（FRAX）和录入股骨颈骨密度数据后的髋部骨折风险系数（FRAX-BMD）,比较患者的FRAX与FRAX-BMD。将髋部骨折风险系数≥3%作为治疗切点,统计其治疗建议,以FRAX-BMD为参照,计算FRAX对髋部骨折治疗建议的灵敏度、特异度、准确率,分析其一致性,再将2型糖尿病患者分为治疗建议相同组、治疗建议不同组,比较治疗建议相同组与治疗建议不同组的临床资料。结果 2型糖尿病患者的FRAX与FRAX-BMD比较,差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。以FRAX-BMD为参照,FRAX对2型糖尿病患者髋部骨折治疗建议的灵敏度、特异度、准确率分别为96.76%、96.23%、96.67%,而经一致性分析,FRAX与FRAX-BMD对2型糖尿病患者髋部骨折治疗建议的一致性良好（Kappa=0.835）。治疗建议相同组的年龄小于治疗建议不同组（P＜0.05）,其股骨颈骨密度高于治疗建议不同组（P＜0.05）,其男性患者多于治疗建议不同组（P＜0.05）。结论 在40岁以上2型糖尿病患者中,采用骨折风险评估工具对患者髋部骨折风险的预测准确性较高,尤其是年龄较小、骨密度值较大、男性等患者。     

中老年骨量异常人群血清骨代谢生化指标与FRAX骨折风险相关性分析

目的研究中老年骨量减少或骨质疏松人群的血清骨代谢生化指标,探讨血清骨代谢生化标志物对受试者骨折风险的影响。方法研究84例中老年骨量减少或骨质疏松受试者资料,记录相关人口统计学数据,检测受试者骨密度和血清骨代谢生化指标,使用骨折风险评估工具(FRAX)计算个体10年骨折发生的概率。根据FRAX计算结果,将受试者分为骨质疏松骨折高风险组和低风险组,t检验比较二组年龄、性别、体质量指数、骨质疏松比例、股骨颈、髋部和腰椎的骨密度以及血清骨代谢生化指标的差异; Pearson或Spearman相关分析了解各临床指标与FRAX骨折概率的相关性; Logistic回归分析影响FRAX骨折风险的因素。结果骨折高风险组的年龄、骨质疏松患者比例明显高于低风险组,股骨颈和髋部骨密度以及血清25-羟基维生素D_3[25-Hydroxyvitamin D_3,25(OH) D_3]水平明显低于低风险组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05),其中高风险组和低风险组25(OH) D_3水平的中位数和(最小值～最大值)分别为20.61(12.19～43.24)和29.97 (11.91～72.70);年龄与两个骨折概率均呈正相关(P0.05),股骨颈和髋部骨密度以及血清25(OH) D_3水平与两个骨折概率均呈负相关(P0.05),其中25(OH) D_3水平与两个骨折概率的相关系数r值均为-0.51; Logistic回归分析显示,股骨颈骨密度和血清25(OH) D_3是FRAX骨折风险的重要相关因素。结论血清25(OH) D_3可能是预测中老年骨量减少或骨质疏松人群脆性骨折风险较敏感的骨代谢标志物。     

应用FRAX评估中老年男性人群骨折风险的多中心研究

目的探讨分别按照不同地区及人群、不同骨密度测量方法计算骨折风险评估工具(FRAX~)的多中心研究在评价男性中老年人骨折风险的预测价值。方法分别搜集中国医科大学航空总医院(本文简称HK)、北京密云区中医医院(本文简称MY)、山东省医学科学院颈肩腰腿痛医院(本文简称SD)行双能X线骨密度检查的中老年人男性病例共7095例,输入相关资料,应用FRAX~中国模式计算各研究对象10年内主要部位骨质疏松性骨折及髋部骨折的概率,应用统计学对比分析根据上述研究资料得到的FRAX值。结果三个中心研究对象10年内主要部位骨质疏松性骨折概率及髋部骨折概率分别行两两Mann-Whitney U检验,P0.05,差异均有统计学意义,分别对三个中心男性人群进行年龄分组,并进行两两对比,其中MY-SD对比组中50～59岁组及80～89组,P0.05,差异无统计学意义,其余MY-HK,HK-SD对比组P0.05,差异具有统计学意义。结论前臂骨密度及髋部骨密度代入FRAX后均能较好的预测未来10年男性人群骨折的风险概率;即使是不同地区人群及应用不同检测设备得到的前臂骨密度值代入FRAX后仍能较好的预测未来10年男性人群的骨折风险概率,且差异在某些年龄组无显著性,FRAX~工具对男性中老年人骨折风险预测极具价值。     

呼和浩特地区中老年人腰椎和髋部骨密度测量值差异的比较

目的探讨呼和浩特地区中老年男性和女性依据腰椎和髋部骨密度值诊断骨质疏松的差异。方法 :选择50～85岁中老年人1000例作为研究对象,其中男性500例,女性500例,经双能X线骨密度仪(DEXA)测定腰椎(L2-L4)前后位和左髋部骨密度(若左髋部发生骨折或有明显病变改测右髋部),根据不同部位的T值得出相应的骨质疏松检出率,比较分析各部位检出率的差异。结果中老年女性各年龄组腰椎骨密度T值评分比髋部低(P0.05),中老年男性除50～59岁腰椎和髋部骨密度无显著差异性外,其余各年龄组髋部骨密度T值评分低于腰椎骨密度T值评分(P0.05)。结论 选取多部位最低的T值作为骨密度的测定值,能够更好地提高中老年人骨质疏松的检出率,减少漏诊率。     

中老年女性腰椎、髋部、前臂骨密度和骨质疏松检出率的对比分析

目的 探讨中老年女性在应用双能X线骨密度仪检测不同部位骨密度时应关注检测的部位。 方法 选取2012年9月至2014年4月在我院行双能骨密度检测的中老年女性，比较腰椎、髋部、前臂桡骨下1/3的骨密度（BMD）和T值。结果 中老年女性腰椎、髋部、前臂桡骨下1/3 3个部位的BMD和T评分比较，P<0.001有显著差异。随着年龄逐渐增大，腰椎、髋部和前臂BMD逐渐降低，但70岁以后腰椎BMD趋于平稳。腰椎T评分在40岁和50岁年龄段下降幅度较快，60岁以后下降有所减缓，70岁以后趋于平稳。髋部T评分在各年龄段呈匀速下降。前臂T评分随着年龄的增大下降幅度明显大于腰椎和髋部。骨质疏松检出率也随年增加而增加，重度骨质疏松检出率也以前臂为最高。结论 应用双能X线骨密度仪检测腰椎、髋部、前臂3个部位，经比较发现老年女性前臂骨密度和T评分明显低于腰椎和髋部，提示对老年女性骨质疏松诊断应同时检测前臂骨密度，以免出现骨质疏松的漏诊。     

应用FRAX工具评价莆田地区中老年骨质疏松骨折风险的临床研究

目的通过应用骨折风险评估工具(FRAX)及检测股骨颈骨密度(BMD)方法对本院3881例中老年人进行研究,探讨FRAX工具与由检测股骨颈骨密度分析其未来10年内发生主要骨折风险概率(PMOF)及10年内髋骨骨折概率(PHF)的关系。方法选取2017年1月至12月在莆田市第一医院门诊、病房以及体检的人员进行回顾性分析,均接受双能X线骨密度仪(美国Hologic,Discover A)检测股骨颈BMD的3881例检查人员作为研究对象,其中男性1218例,女性2663例,平均年龄(61. 5±12. 6)岁,按每十岁为一个年龄段,分别为40～49岁、50～59岁、60～69岁、70～79岁和≥80岁5个组,采用"中国"模式FRAX软件分析,系统自动生成PMOF及PHF,BMD用T值表示,T-1. 0为BMD异常(骨量低下和骨质疏松),T≥-1为BMD正常组。应用SPSS 25. 0软件进行数据分析,P0. 05为差异有统计学意义。结果 3881例参与者中BMD异常组1954例(51%),BMD正常组1927例(49%)。BMD异常组与正常组比较,年龄较高、体重较轻、身高变矮较多及体质量指数(BMI)较低(P0. 001),应用FRAX工具在有或无录入骨密度值的情况下,BMD异常组PMOF及PHF(%)均显著高于正常组(P0. 001); FRAX与骨密度测定值的相关分析得出FRAX预测的PMOF与股骨颈骨密度T值之间呈显著负相关,不同年龄段中,40～49、50～59、60～69、70～79岁组及≥80岁的BMD异常发生率分别为28. 9%,40. 1%,53. 9%,68. 2%,76. 2%,平均为50. 3%。随着年龄的增大,PMOF显著升高,组间差异具有统计学意义(P0. 001)。有或无录入BMD值的情况下,骨密度异常组在不同年龄段PMOF及PHF(%)也均显著高于正常组(P0. 001)。结论在有或无录入股骨颈骨密度值情况下应用FRAX评估工具得出,所有参与者的未来10年内发生主要骨折风险的概率均随年龄增大而增高,因此建议把FRAX作为一项骨质疏松基本的筛查工具在我国缺乏骨密度测定仪时推广应用,但骨质疏松骨折的发生概率较国外低,有待进一步研究。     

FRAX 骨折风险预测工具在新疆地区人群的临床研究

目的评估FRAX骨折风险预测工具在新疆地区人群的适用性研究,并且探讨有、无股骨颈骨密度(BMD)及不同民族对FRAX预测结果的影响。方法选取2012年7月-2013年6月期间在我院就诊的骨质疏松性骨折患者103例(汉族63例,维吾尔族40例)进行回顾性分析。收集所有入选患者FRAX预测工具中所包含的各危险因素资料,将包括股骨颈BMD等数值输入FRAX工具,计算10年内主要部位(包括髋部、脊柱、肱骨及腕部)及髋部骨折的概率进行分析,并且对不同民族及有、无股骨颈BMD情况下FRAX预测值进行比较。结果 103例骨质疏松性骨折患者,未使用BMD未来10年主要部位骨折概率0.9%~14%,髋部骨折概率0%~5.2%;使用BMD未来10年主要部位骨折概率1.2%~26%,髋部骨折概率0%~17%,使用BMD计算的骨折概率与未使用BMD计算的骨折概率之间无统计学意义(P0.05)。不同民族,汉族未来10年主要骨折部位概率1%~26%,髋部骨折概率0%~17%;维吾尔族未来10年主要骨折部位概率0.9%~7%,髋部骨折概率0%~3.4%,汉族与维吾尔族主要部位骨折及髋部骨折概率之间比较有明显差异(P0.01)。结论 FRAX可用于新疆地区人群的骨折风险预测,无BMD情况下的FRAX预测结果同样可靠,维吾尔族人群使用FRAX骨折风险预测的精确性可能低于汉族人群。     

骨密度在髋部骨质疏松性骨折风险评估中的价值

目的评估骨密度在髋部脆性骨折风险预测中的临床价值。方法回顾性研究2014年6月至2019年6月在我院创伤骨科住院的老年髋部骨折患者72例,作为病例组,其中股骨转子间骨折31例,股骨颈骨折41例;对照组选择同期我院骨外科门诊老年体检者63例。使用DXA方法测量患者腰椎和健侧髋部(全髋部、转子间、股骨颈、Ward’s区)的骨密度;对照组测量腰椎和左侧髋部骨密度,统计分析测量结果。结果①骨折组腰椎、髋部骨密度均显著低于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P0.01);②转子间骨折组和股骨颈骨折组在腰椎和髋部区域骨密度比较差异均无统计学意义(P 0.05);③骨折组与对照组在转子间区的T值降低比例最大为122.1%,腰椎降低幅度最小为31.3%,余髋部的T值均有不同程度降低;④骨折后髋部和腰椎T值比存在倒置现象;⑤对照组和骨折组髋部骨质疏松程度比较,差异有统计学意义(P0.01);两组患者腰椎骨质疏松程度比较,差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论①髋部骨折患者骨密度均显著低于体检者,提示骨密度与髋部骨折具有一定相关性,但与髋部骨折类型无关;②在髋部骨折风险评估中,髋部骨密度相比腰椎更有价值;③当髋部与腰椎T值比出现倒置时,将不可避免发生髋部骨折;④骨量正常的部分患者发生了脆性骨折,而骨质疏松的部分患者却未发生骨折,表明影响骨折发生的因素除了骨密度外,可能和骨骼的微结构有关。     

应用FRAX工具评估类风湿关节炎患者骨折风险及其风险因素的相关性研究

目的探讨骨折风险评估工具(FRAX)预测类风湿关节炎(RA)患者骨质疏松性骨折的临床应用价值并对其骨折风险因素进行相关性分析。方法回顾性分析2015年1月至2016年2月期间经确诊的74例类风湿关节炎患者以及正常对照组76例的相关临床指标以及骨密度值;评估FRAX对类风湿关节炎患者的骨折风险预测值以及FRAX与类风湿临床风险因素之间的关系。结果类风湿组股骨颈、腰椎的骨密度值均低于对照组,而类风湿组中10年主要骨质疏松性骨折发生概率和10年髋部骨折发生概率均高于对照组。多重线性回归分析提示FRAX评分与易激动、口味偏淡、体重指数、S-CTX具有一定的相关性。结论 FRAX工具对临床评估RA患者骨质疏松性骨折风险、预后评价等方面具有良好的应用价值。     

FRAX工具预测桂西地区2型糖尿病患者骨折风险的相关性分析

目的应用FRAX工具预测桂西地区2型糖尿病患者骨质疏松性骨折风险,评估FRAX工具针对该地区的应用价值及人群适用性。方法选取2015年1月至2015年4月来右江民族医学院附属医院就诊并住院治疗的部分桂西地区2型糖尿病(T2DM)患者198例,后根据纳入标准筛选出67例,并收集骨折风险要素的有关临床资料及骨密度测量T值。依据超声骨密度T值将被选者分为3组,T≥-1为正常组:37例;-2.5相似文献   

Spine-Hip T-Score Difference Predicts Major Osteoporotic Fracture Risk Independent of FRAX: A Population-Based Report From CAMOS

The WHO fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX^®) estimates an individual’s 10-yr major osteoporotic and hip fracture probabilities. When bone mineral density (BMD) is included in the FRAX calculation, only the femoral neck measurement can be used. Recently, a procedure was reported for adjusting major osteoporotic fracture probability from FRAX with femoral neck BMD based on the difference (offset) between the lumbar spine and the femoral neck T-score values. The objective of the current analysis was to independently evaluate this algorithm in a population-based cohort of 4575 women and 1813 men aged 50 yr and older from the Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study. For women and men combined, there was a 15% (95% confidence interval 7–24%) increase in major osteoporotic fracture risk for each offset T-score after adjusting for FRAX probability calculated with femoral neck BMD. The effect was stronger in women than men, but a significant sex interaction was not detected. Among the full cohort, 5.5% had their risk category reclassified after using the offset adjustment. Sex- and age-dependent offsets (equivalent to an offset based on Z-scores) showed improved risk classification among individuals designated to be at moderate risk with the conventional FRAX probability measurement. In summary, the T-score difference between the lumbar spine and femoral neck is an independent risk factor for major osteoporotic fractures that is independent of the FRAX probability calculated with femoral neck BMD.     

Utility of Spine Bone Mineral Density in Fracture Prediction Within FRAX

Predicting individuals at risk for fracturing and modifying that risk are important in preventative health. Our aim was to quantify the impact of spine bone mineral density (BMD) on fracture risk prediction and determine the positive predictive value of fracture prediction using the lowest BMD value at the femoral neck, total hip, or lumbar spine. A retrospective cross-sectional analysis of 15,033 women was performed, assessing the contribution of age, body mass index, number of clinical risk factors, T-score, and osteoporosis category to the presence of fracture. In patients whose lumbar spine T-scores are 1 or 2 osteoporosis categories lower than femoral neck, there is an approximately 30% increased risk of fracture compared with the femoral neck alone. For patients younger than 60 yr, the odds ratio of having a fracture based on the presence of lumbar spine osteoporosis was greater than that based on femoral neck osteoporosis. Osteoporosis at the total hip correlated best with the presence of fracture. When using FRAX, we recommend that the 10-yr fracture prediction be adjusted when lumbar spine T-score is 1–2 osteoporosis categories lower than the femoral neck T-score or when lumbar spine T-score is ≥1 standard deviation less than femoral neck T-score.     

High fracture probability with FRAX® usually indicates densitometric osteoporosis: implications for clinical practice

Summary

Most patients designated as high risk of fracture using fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX^®) with femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD) (i.e., 10-year major osteoporotic fracture probability exceeding 20% or hip fracture exceeding 3%) have one or more T-scores in the osteoporotic range; conversely, almost no high risk patients have normal T-scores at all bone mineral density measurement sites.

Introduction

We determined the agreement between a FRAX^® designation of high risk of fracture [defined as 10-year major osteoporotic fracture probability (≥20%) or hip fracture probability (≥3%)] and the WHO categorizations of bone mineral density according to T-score.

Methods

Ten-year FRAX^® probabilities calculated with femoral neck BMD were derived using both Canadian and US white tools for a large clinical cohort of 36,730 women and 2,873 men age 50 years and older from Manitoba, Canada. Individuals were classified according to FRAX fracture probability and BMD T-scores alone.

Results

Most individuals designated by FRAX as high risk of major osteoporotic fracture had a T-score in the osteoporotic range at one or more BMD measurement sites (85% with Canadian tool and 83% with US white tool). The majority of individuals deemed at high risk of hip fracture had one or more T-scores in the osteoporotic range (66% with Canadian tool and 64% with US white tool). Conversely, there were extremely few individuals (<1%) who were at high risk of major osteoporotic or hip fracture with normal T-scores at all BMD measurement sites.

Conclusions

A FRAX designation of high risk of fracture is usually associated with a densitometric diagnosis of osteoporosis.     

Digital X-ray radiogrammetry in the study of osteoporotic fractures: Comparison to dual energy X-ray absorptiometry and FRAX

Osteoporosis is often underdiagnosed and undertreated. Screening of post-menopausal women for clinical risk factors and/or low bone mineral density (BMD) has been proposed to overcome this. Digital X-ray radiogrammetry (DXR) estimates hand BMD from standard hand X-ray images and have shown to predict fractures and osteoporosis. Recently, digital radiology and the internet have opened up the possibility of conducting automated opportunistic screening with DXR in post-fracture care or in combination with mammography. This study compared the performance of DXR with FRAX® and DXA in discriminating major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) (hip, clinical spine, forearm or shoulder), hip fracture and femoral neck osteoporosis. This prospective cohort study was conducted on 5278 women 65 years and older in the Study of Osteoporotic Fractures (SOF) cohort. Baseline hand X-ray images were analyzed and fractures were ascertained during 10 years of follow up. Age-adjusted area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for MOF and hip fracture and for femoral neck osteoporosis (DXA FN BMD T-score ≤− 2.5) was used to compare the methods. Sensitivity to femoral neck osteoporosis at equal selection rates was tabulated for FRAX and DXR. DXR-BMD, FRAX (no BMD) and lumbar spine DXA BMD were all similar in fracture discriminative performance with an AUC around 0.65 for MOF and 0.70 for hip fractures for all three methods. As expected femoral neck DXA provided fracture discrimination superior both to other BMD measurements and to FRAX. AUC for selection of patients with femoral neck osteoporosis was higher with DXR-BMD, 0.76 (0.74–0.77), than with FRAX, 0.69 (0.67–0.71), (p < 0.0001). In conclusion, DXR-BMD discriminates incident fractures to a similar degree as FRAX and predicts femoral neck osteoporosis to a larger degree than FRAX. DXR shows promise as a method to automatically flag individuals who might benefit from an osteoporosis assessment.     

Variance in 10-Year Fracture Risk Calculated With and Without T-Scores in Select Subgroups of Normal and Osteoporotic Patients

The World Health Organization fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX) uses clinical risk factors to predict the patient's 10-yr probability of sustaining a hip or other major osteoporosis-related fracture. Inclusion of the femoral neck T-score is optional in the calculation. We evaluated the impact of including the T-score in the calculation of fracture risk and resultant treatment recommendation. We retrospectively reviewed charts of 180 white women scanned on a Hologic dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). FRAX scores were calculated with T-scores (FRAX+) and without T-scores (FRAX?). We compared the National Osteoporosis Foundation (NOF) treatment recommendations (≥20% risk of a major osteoporotic fracture or ≥3% risk of hip fracture for osteopenic patients) between FRAX+ and FRAX? scores. Agreement between FRAX+ and FRAX? was 89.4%. Disagreement occurred in 2 distinct subgroups of patients (10.6% of cases), that is, FRAX+ scores exceeded the NOF recommended treatment thresholds and FRAX? scores did not, or vice versa. One subgroup comprised older patients with normal T-scores for whom FRAX? scores exceeded the treatment threshold. The second subgroup comprised younger patients with high body mass index (BMI) and low T-scores for whom FRAX? scores did not exceed the treatment threshold. FRAX scores generated without T-scores may lead to treatment recommendations for patients who have normal bone mineral density and no treatment recommendations for patients who have osteoporosis. T-scores should be used for optimal application of FRAX.     

应用FRAX评价乳腺癌术后患者骨折风险的临床研究

目的应用骨折风险评估工具(fracture risk assessment tool,FRAX)评价乳腺癌术后患者骨折风险的临床研究。方法选取2017年3月至2019年8月在连云港市第一人民医院接受过手术治疗的Ⅰ期至Ⅲ期乳腺癌女性181例作为观察组,并选取181例年龄和身体质量指数匹配的非乳腺癌女性作为对照组,收集个人基本信息、骨折风险因素、股骨颈骨密度(bone mineral density,BMD)及治疗方式等资料,比较不同组间的骨折风险,并进行骨折风险与临床因素的回归分析。结果(1)乳腺癌术后患者10年内主要部位骨质疏松性骨折概率(probability of major osteoporotic fracture,PMOF)和10年内髋部骨折概率(probability of hip fracture,PHF)较对照组无显著增加(P=0.570、0.582);(2)PMOF在芳香化酶抑制剂组最高,他莫昔芬组最低(P<0.05)。芳香化酶抑制剂组的PHF显著高于单纯化疗组和他莫昔芬组(P<0.05);(3)回归分析显示,年龄、股骨颈BMD、骨折史、父母髋部骨折史和激素应用史对PMOF的影响具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。年龄、股骨颈BMD、骨折史对PHF的影响具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论应用FRAX工具评估乳腺癌术后患者的骨折风险尚需进一步研究。