My SciELO
Services on Demand
Journal
Article
Indicators
Cited by SciELO
Access statistics
Related links
Cited by Google
Similars in SciELO
Similars in Google
Share
Revista Clínica de Medicina de Familia
On-line version ISSN 2386-8201Print version ISSN 1699-695X
Abstract
ESTEBANEZ SECO, Santiago et al. Applicability of FRAX® tool in osteoporotic patients. Rev Clin Med Fam [online]. 2010, vol.3, n.2, pp.83-87. ISSN 2386-8201.
Aim. To describe the characteristics of the patients treated for osteoporosis that could not been treated according to FRAX® scores. Design. Observational, descriptive, cross-sectional study. Setting. Primary Care - Toledo Speciality Centre. Participants. Outpatients with osteoporosis diagnosis treated with antirresortive, osteogenic or mixed drugs and visited in Rheumatology Service (Bone Metabolism) in april-may 2009. Intervention. Clinical charts review extracting the data from the antiosteoporotic treatment starting date, and applying the FRAX® risk index with and without bone densitometry (in that patients with it). Measurements and results. 99 patients (88.9% women), medium age (± standard deviation) 62.3 ± 9.33 years old. 62.6% had a FRAX® index <20%/3%; these patients were younger (58.95 vs. 67.92 years old) than those with a FRAX® ≥20%/3%, with neither gender nor BMI differences. "FRAX® (-)" patients had less previous fractures (33.9% vs. 83.8%; p<0.001), specially from spine and humerus; these patients also had a smaller fracture number (0.55 vs. 1.75; p<0.001), and their fractures were produced at a younger age (54.88 vs. 63% years old; p=0.02). Also, their T-score of hip was bigger (-1.87 vs. -2.50; p<0.001). The 10-year probability of fracture was smaller in the "FRAX® (-)" patients without densitometry (4.18% vs. 12.72% in major osteoporotic fracture; p<0.001; 0.91% vs. 5.43% in hip fracture; p<0.001) and with it (4.70% vs. 14.30% in major osteoporotic fracture; p<0.001; 1.14% vs. 6.62% in hip fracture; p<0.01). Bone densitometry does not significantly affect the percentage of patients that surpass the 20%/3% limit. Conclusions. The FRAX® tool can be relatively useful in Primary Care, specially in those patients without densitometry or established osteoporosis. However, the NOF cost-effectivity criteria can not be adopted directly in our environment.
Keywords : Primary Health Care; Osteoporosis; Efficiency.