Abstract

While many clinical guidelines recommend screening for osteoporosis for early detection and treatment, there is great diversity in the case-finding strategies globally. We sought to compare case-finding strategies, focusing on the approaches used in European and Asian countries. This article provides an overview of the current case-finding strategies in the UK, Germany (including Austria and German-speaking regions of Switzerland), China, Japan, and Korea. We conducted a review of current treatment guidelines in each country and included expert opinions from key opinion leaders. Most countries define osteoporosis among patients with a radiographically identified fracture of the hip or the vertebrae. However, for other types of fractures, or in the absence of a fracture, varying combinations of risk-factor assessment and areal bone mineral density (aBMD) assessed by dual X-ray absorptiometry are used to define osteoporosis cases. A T-score ≤ − 2.5 is accepted to identify osteoporosis in the absence of a fracture; however, not all countries accept DXA alone as the sole criteria. Additionally, the critera for requiring clinical risk factors in addition to aBMD differ across countries. In most Asian countries, aBMD scanning is only provided beyond a particular age threshold. However, all guidelines recommend fracture risk assessment in younger ages if risk factors are present. Our review identified that strategies for case-finding differ regionally, particularly among patients without a fracture. More homogenized ways of identifying osteoporosis cases are needed, in both the Eastern and the Western countries, to improve osteoporosis case-finding before a fracture occurs.

Case-finding in osteoporosis is essential to initiate treatment and minimize fracture risk. We identified differences in case-finding strategies between Eastern and Western countries. In the absence of a diagnosed fracture, varying combinations of risk factors and bone density measurements are used. Standardized case-finding strategies may help improve treatment rates.

Details

Title
Osteoporosis case ascertainment strategies in European and Asian countries: a comparative review
Author
Burden, A M 1   VIAFID ORCID Logo  ; Tanaka, Y 2   VIAFID ORCID Logo  ; Xu L 3 ; Y-C, Ha 4   VIAFID ORCID Logo  ; McCloskey, E 5   VIAFID ORCID Logo  ; Cummings SR 6   VIAFID ORCID Logo  ; Glüer, C C 7   VIAFID ORCID Logo 

 ETH Zurich, Department of Chemistry and Applied Biosciences, Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Zurich, Switzerland (GRID:grid.5801.c) (ISNI:0000 0001 2156 2780) 
 University of Occupational and Environmental Health, Japan, Kitakyushu, Japan (GRID:grid.271052.3) (ISNI:0000 0004 0374 5913) 
 Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Beijing, People’s Republic of China (GRID:grid.413106.1) (ISNI:0000 0000 9889 6335) 
 Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Seoul, South Korea (GRID:grid.254224.7) (ISNI:0000 0001 0789 9563) 
 Sorby Wing, Northern General Hospital, Metabolic Bone Centre, United Kingdom, Sheffield, UK (GRID:grid.412937.a) (ISNI:0000 0004 0641 5987) 
 University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco Coordinating Center, Sutter Health and the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, San Francisco, USA (GRID:grid.266102.1) (ISNI:0000 0001 2297 6811) 
 Christian-Albrechts-University, Section Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology and Neuroradiology, Kiel, Germany (GRID:grid.9764.c) (ISNI:0000 0001 2153 9986) 
Pages
817-829
Publication year
2021
Publication date
May 2021
Publisher
Springer Nature B.V.
ISSN
0937941X
e-ISSN
1433-2965
Source type
Scholarly Journal
Language of publication
English
ProQuest document ID
2512157189
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2020. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.