BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Osteoporosis is common in Saudi Arabia and the burden of management in an aging population will increase in coming decades. There is still no national policy nor consensus on screening for this silent disease. The objective of this analysis was to determine from the published data the prevalence of osteopenia and osteoporosis in Saudi Arabians, the prevalence of secondary osteoporosis, and the prevalence of osteoporosis-related fractures (ORF). We also sought to determine the best age to begin and best modality for screening.

METHODS

Data Sources were MEDLINE (1966 to May 2011), EMBASE (1991 to May 2011), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (1952 to May 2011), and the Science Citation Index (1966 to May 2011), published data from the Saudi Medical Journal (1985-2011) and Annals of Saudi Medicine (1985-2011). We selected English-language articles with at least 100 Saudi individuals. Two authors independently reviewed articles and abstracted data.

RESULTS

The authors identified 36 potentially relevant articles, of which 24 met the inclusion criteria. Of 5160 healthy women 50 to 79 years of age (mean, SD: 56.8 [2.7]), 36.6% (6.6%) were osteopenic and 34.0% (8.5%) were osteoporotic. In three studies on males (n=822), the prevalence of osteopenia was 46.3% and osteoporosis 30.7%. Males had a significantly higher frequency of osteopenia in comparison to females (P= < .001 95% CI < -0.0333), The mean age of the patients with secondary osteoporosis was 37.4 (13.5, 18-57) years, with the osteoporosis in 46.4% and osteopenia in 34.1%. In 5 studies of ORF, the incidence of vertebral fractures was between 20%-24%.

CONCLUSION

The currently available literature on Saudi Arabian population suggests that the ideal age for screening for low bone mass among the Saudi population should be earlier (55 years) than the >=65 years in Western countries. Both quatitative ultrasound and dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry could be used for screening. The relatively small number of studies on Saudi Arabians and the different machines used for diagnosis limited the authors ability make conclusions with surety.