Dargent-Molina P, Piault S, Bréart G
INSERM (Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale), Unité de recherche U149 (Recherches épidémiologiques en santé périnatale et santé des femmes), 94807 Villejuif Cedex, France.
Osteoporos Int. 2005 Aug;16(8):898-906. doi: 10.1007/s00198-004-1781-4. Epub 2004 Nov 27.
A triage strategy, based on a clinical hip fracture risk score, may be used to classify elderly women into three groups: one at high risk and requiring treatment, another needing further assessment by bone densitometry, and a third at low risk. We used prospective data from the EPIDOS study (7512 women older than 75 years and followed for an average of 3.9 years) to assess the potential value of such a strategy for identifying elderly women with a hip fracture risk twice the cohort average (i.e. > or =20 per 1000 woman-years). An individual fracture risk score was calculated with the final risk function (Cox model). To compare this strategy with systematic BMD measurement and with current European recommendations, we examined the number of high-risk women identified, their average risk levels, sensitivity for hip fracture, and the number of high-risk women who need to be treated to prevent one hip fracture (hypotheses: all identified women are treated; sensitivity is equal to the point estimate; treatment reduces fracture risk by 35%). A triage strategy based on age, fracture history since the age of 40 years, body mass index, number of instrumental activities of daily living for which assistance is needed, grip strength, and visual acuity can identify 20% of the cohort as at high risk, 75% of them from clinical factors only, and the rest after BMD measurements (threshold: -2.5 T-score). The triage strategy would be significantly more sensitive than systematic BMD screening (51 versus 35%) and would require many fewer BMD examinations (10%). Compared with current recommendations, triage would identify fewer women (20 versus 28%) but at a significantly higher average risk of hip fracture (30 versus 20 per 1000 woman-years). Fewer high-risk women would be treated to prevent one hip fracture (29 versus 41) and fewer bone densitometry tests would be needed (10% versus 54%). The proposed triage strategy may be a useful clinical tool for selecting elderly women for treatment or bone densitometry.
一种基于临床髋部骨折风险评分的分诊策略,可用于将老年女性分为三组:一组为高风险且需要治疗,另一组需要通过骨密度测定进行进一步评估,第三组为低风险。我们使用了EPIDOS研究的前瞻性数据(7512名75岁以上女性,平均随访3.9年)来评估这种策略对于识别髋部骨折风险是队列平均水平两倍(即每1000人年≥20例)的老年女性的潜在价值。使用最终风险函数(Cox模型)计算个体骨折风险评分。为了将这种策略与系统性骨密度测量以及当前欧洲的建议进行比较,我们检查了识别出的高风险女性数量、她们的平均风险水平、对髋部骨折的敏感性,以及为预防一例髋部骨折需要治疗的高风险女性数量(假设:所有识别出的女性都接受治疗;敏感性等于点估计值;治疗使骨折风险降低35%)。一种基于年龄、40岁以后的骨折病史、体重指数、需要协助的日常生活工具性活动数量、握力和视力的分诊策略,可将20%的队列识别为高风险,其中75%仅基于临床因素识别,其余在骨密度测量后识别(阈值:T值≤-2.5)。分诊策略的敏感性将显著高于系统性骨密度筛查(51%对35%),并且所需的骨密度检查要少得多(10%)。与当前建议相比,分诊识别出的女性较少(20%对28%),但髋部骨折的平均风险显著更高(每1000人年30例对20例)。为预防一例髋部骨折而接受治疗的高风险女性将更少(29例对41例),并且所需的骨密度检查也更少(10%对54%)。所提出的分诊策略可能是一种有用的临床工具,用于选择老年女性进行治疗或骨密度测定。