976 resultados para ISCD OFFICIAL POSITIONS
Resumo:
Peripheral assessment of bone density using photon absorptiometry techniques has been available for over 40 yr. The initial use of radio-isotopes as the photon source has been replaced by the use of X-ray technology. A wide variety of models of single- or dual-energy X-ray measurement tools have been made available for purchase, although not all are still commercially available. The Official Positions of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry (ISCD) have been developed following a systematic review of the literature by an ISCD task force and a subsequent Position Development Conference. These cover the technological diversity among peripheral dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (pDXA) devices; define whether pDXA can be used for fracture risk assessment and/or to diagnose osteoporosis; examine whether pDXA can be used to initiate treatment and/or monitor treatment; provide recommendations for pDXA reporting; and review quality assurance and quality control necessary for effective use of pDXA.
Resumo:
Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is commonly used in the care of patients for diagnostic classification of osteoporosis, low bone mass (osteopenia), or normal bone density; assessment of fracture risk; and monitoring changes in bone density over time. The development of other technologies for the evaluation of skeletal health has been associated with uncertainties regarding their applications in clinical practice. Quantitative ultrasound (QUS), a technology for measuring properties of bone at peripheral skeletal sites, is more portable and less expensive than DXA, without the use of ionizing radiation. The proliferation of QUS devices that are technologically diverse, measuring and reporting variable bone parameters in different ways, examining different skeletal sites, and having differing levels of validating data for association with DXA-measured bone density and fracture risk, has created many challenges in applying QUS for use in clinical practice. The International Society for Clinical Densitometry (ISCD) 2007 Position Development Conference (PDC) addressed clinical applications of QUS for fracture risk assessment, diagnosis of osteoporosis, treatment initiation, monitoring of treatment, and quality assurance/quality control. The ISCD Official Positions on QUS resulting from this PDC, the rationale for their establishment, and recommendations for further study are presented here.
Resumo:
The International Society for Clinical Densitometry (ISCD) has developed new official positions for the clinical use of quantitative computed tomography (QCT)-based finite element analysis of the spine and hip. The ISCD task force for QCT reviewed the evidence for clinical applications and presented a report with recommendations at the 2015 ISCD Position Development Conference. Here we discuss the agreed upon ISCD official positions with supporting medical evidence, rationale, controversy, and suggestions for further study. Parts I and III address the clinical use of QCT of the hip, and the clinical feasibility of existing techniques for opportunistic screening of osteoporosis using CT scans obtained for other diagnosis such as colonography was addressed.
Resumo:
The International Society for Clinical Densitometry (ISCD) has developed new official positions for the clinical use of computed tomography (CT) scans acquired without a calibration phantom, for example, CT scans obtained for other diagnosis such as colonography. This also addresses techniques suggested for opportunistic screening of osteoporosis. The ISCD task force for quantitative CT reviewed the evidence for clinical applications of these new techniques and presented a report with recommendations at the 2015 ISCD Position Development Conference. Here we discuss the agreed upon ISCD official positions with supporting medical evidence, rationale, controversy, and suggestions for further study. Advanced techniques summarized as statistical parameter mapping methods were also reviewed. Their future use is promising but the clinical application is premature. The clinical use of QCT of the hip is addressed in part I and of finite element analysis of the hip and spine in part II.
Resumo:
The International Society for Clinical Densitometry (ISCD) has developed new official positions for the clinical use of quantitative computed tomography of the hip. The ISCD task force for quantitative computed tomography reviewed the evidence for clinical applications and presented a report with recommendations at the 2015 ISCD Position Development Conference. Here, we discuss the agreed on ISCD official positions with supporting medical evidence, rationale, controversy, and suggestions for further study. Parts II and III address the advanced techniques of finite element analysis applied to computed tomography scans and the clinical feasibility of existing techniques for opportunistic screening of osteoporosis using computed tomography scans obtained for other diagnosis such as colonography was addressed.
Resumo:
Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is the most widely used technical instrument for evaluating bone mineral content (BMC) and density (BMD) in patients of all ages. However, its use in pediatric patients, during growth and development, poses a much more complex problem in terms of both the technical aspects and the interpretation of the results. For the adults population, there is a well-defined term of reference: the peak value of BMD attained by young healthy subjects at the end of skeletal growth. During childhood and adolescence, the comparison can be made only with healthy subjects of the same age, sex and ethnicity, but the situation is compounded by the wide individual variation in the process of skeletal growth (pubertal development, hormone action, body size and bone size). The International Society for Clinical Densitometry (ISCD) organized a Pediatric Position Development Conference to discuss the specific problems of bone densitometry in growing subjects (9-19 years of age) and to provide essential recommendations for its clinical use.
Resumo:
Osteoporosis is a serious worldwide epidemic. Increased risk of fractures is the hallmark of the disease and is associated with increased morbidity, mortality and economic burden. FRAX® is a web-based tool developed by the Sheffield WHO Collaborating Center team, that integrates clinical risk factors, femoral neck BMD, country specific mortality and fracture data and calculates the 10 year fracture probability in order to help health care professionals identify patients who need treatment. However, only 31 countries have a FRAX® calculator at the time paper was accepted for publication. In the absence of a FRAX® model for a particular country, it has been suggested to use a surrogate country for which the epidemiology of osteoporosis most closely approximates the index country. More specific recommendations for clinicians in these countries are not available. In North America, concerns have also been raised regarding the assumptions used to construct the US ethnic specific FRAX® calculators with respect to the correction factors applied to derive fracture probabilities in Blacks, Asians and Hispanics in comparison to Whites. In addition, questions were raised about calculating fracture risk in other ethnic groups e.g., Native Americans and First Canadians. In order to provide additional guidance to clinicians, a FRAX® International Task Force was formed to address specific questions raised by physicians in countries without FRAX® calculators and seeking to integrate FRAX® into their clinical practice. The main questions that the task force tried to answer were the following: The Task Force members conducted appropriate literature reviews and developed preliminary statements that were discussed and graded by a panel of experts at the ISCD-IOF joint conference. The statements approved by the panel of experts are discussed in the current paper.
Resumo:
The International Society for Clinical Densitometry (ISCD) and the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) convened the FRAX(®) Position Development Conference (PDC) in Bucharest, Romania, on November 14, 2010, following a two-day joint meeting of the ISCD and IOF on the "Interpretation and Use of FRAX(®) in Clinical Practice." These three days of critical discussion and debate, led by a panel of international experts from the ISCD, IOF and dedicated task forces, have clarified a number of important issues pertaining to the interpretation and implementation of FRAX(®) in clinical practice. The Official Positions resulting from the PDC are intended to enhance the quality and clinical utility of fracture risk assessment worldwide. Since the field of skeletal assessment is still evolving rapidly, some clinically important issues addressed at the PDCs are not associated with robust medical evidence. Accordingly, some Official Positions are based largely on expert opinion. Despite limitations inherent in such a process, the ISCD and IOF believe it is important to provide clinicians and technologists with the best distillation of current knowledge in the discipline of bone densitometry and provide an important focus for the scientific community to consider. This report describes the methodology and results of the ISCD-IOF PDC dedicated to FRAX(®).
Resumo:
Tools to predict fracture risk are useful for selecting patients for pharmacological therapy in order to reduce fracture risk and redirect limited healthcare resources to those who are most likely to benefit. FRAX® is a World Health Organization fracture risk assessment algorithm for estimating the 10-year probability of hip fracture and major osteoporotic fracture. Effective application of FRAX® in clinical practice requires a thorough understanding of its limitations as well as its utility. For some patients, FRAX® may underestimate or overestimate fracture risk. In order to address some of the common issues encountered with the use of FRAX® for individual patients, the International Society for Clinical Densitometry (ISCD) and International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) assigned task forces to review the medical evidence and make recommendations for optimal use of FRAX® in clinical practice. Among the issues addressed were the use of bone mineral density (BMD) measurements at skeletal sites other than the femoral neck, the use of technologies other than dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, the use of FRAX® without BMD input, the use of FRAX® to monitor treatment, and the addition of the rate of bone loss as a clinical risk factor for FRAX®. The evidence and recommendations were presented to a panel of experts at the Joint ISCD-IOF FRAX® Position Development Conference, resulting in the development of Joint ISCD-IOF Official Positions addressing FRAX®-related issues.
Resumo:
Given the significant impact the use of glucocorticoids can have on fracture risk independent of bone density, their use has been incorporated as one of the clinical risk factors for calculating the 10-year fracture risk in the World Health Organization's Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX(®)). Like the other clinical risk factors, the use of glucocorticoids is included as a dichotomous variable with use of steroids defined as past or present exposure of 3 months or more of use of a daily dose of 5 mg or more of prednisolone or equivalent. The purpose of this report is to give clinicians guidance on adjustments which should be made to the 10-year risk based on the dose, duration of use and mode of delivery of glucocorticoids preparations. A subcommittee of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry and International Osteoporosis Foundation joint Position Development Conference presented its findings to an expert panel and the following recommendations were selected. 1) There is a dose relationship between glucocorticoid use of greater than 3 months and fracture risk. The average dose exposure captured within FRAX(®) is likely to be a prednisone dose of 2.5-7.5 mg/day or its equivalent. Fracture probability is under-estimated when prednisone dose is greater than 7.5 mg/day and is over-estimated when the prednisone dose is less than 2.5 mg/day. 2) Frequent intermittent use of higher doses of glucocorticoids increases fracture risk. Because of the variability in dose and dosing schedule, quantification of this risk is not possible. 3) High dose inhaled glucocorticoids may be a risk factor for fracture. FRAX(®) may underestimate fracture probability in users of high dose inhaled glucocorticoids. 4) Appropriate glucocorticoid replacement in individuals with adrenal insufficiency has not been found to increase fracture risk. In such patients, use of glucocorticoids should not be included in FRAX(®) calculations.
Resumo:
The worldwide prevalence of smoking has been estimated at about 50% in men, and 10% in women, with larger variations among different populations studied. Smoking has been shown to affect many organ systems resulting in severe morbidity and increased mortality. In addition, smoking has been identified as a predictor of ten-year fracture risk in men and women, largely independent of an individual's bone mineral density. This finding has eventually lead to incorporation of this risk factor into FRAX®, an algorithm that has been developed to calculate an individual's ten-year fracture risk. However, only little, or conflicting data is available on a possible association between smoking dose, duration, length of time after cessation, type of tobacco and fracture risk, limiting this risk factor's applicability in the context of FRAX®.
Resumo:
Rheumatoid arthritis is the only secondary cause of osteoporosis that is considered independent of bone density in the FRAX(®) algorithm. Although input for rheumatoid arthritis in FRAX(®) is a dichotomous variable, intuitively, one would expect that more severe or active disease would be associated with a greater risk for fracture. We reviewed the literature to determine if specific disease parameters or medication use could be used to better characterize fracture risk in individuals with rheumatoid arthritis. Although many studies document a correlation between various parameters of disease activity or severity and decreased bone density, fewer have associated these variables with fracture risk. We reviewed these studies in detail and concluded that disability measures such as HAQ (Health Assessment Questionnaire) and functional class do correlate with clinical fractures but not morphometric vertebral fractures. One large study found a strong correlation with duration of disease and fracture risk but additional studies are needed to confirm this. There was little evidence to correlate other measures of disease such as DAS (disease activity score), VAS (visual analogue scale), acute phase reactants, use of non-glucocorticoid medications and increased fracture risk. We concluded that FRAX(®) calculations may underestimate fracture probability in patients with impaired functional status from rheumatoid arthritis but that this could not be quantified at this time. At this time, other disease measures cannot be used for fracture prediction. However only a few, mostly small studies addressed other disease parameters and further research is needed. Additional questions for future research are suggested.
Resumo:
The best indirect evidence that increased bone turnover contributes to fracture risk is the fact that most of the proven therapies for osteoporosis are inhibitors of bone turnover. The evidence base that we can use biochemical markers of bone turnover in the assessment of fracture risk is somewhat less convincing. This relates to natural variability in the markers, problems with the assays, disparity in the statistical analyses of relevant studies and the independence of their contribution to fracture risk. More research is clearly required to address these deficiencies before biochemical markers might contribute a useful independent risk factor for inclusion in FRAX(®).
Resumo:
Risk factors for fracture can be purely skeletal, e.g., bone mass, microarchitecture or geometry, or a combination of bone and falls risk related factors such as age and functional status. The remit of this Task Force was to review the evidence and consider if falls should be incorporated into the FRAX® model or, alternatively, to provide guidance to assist clinicians in clinical decision-making for patients with a falls history. It is clear that falls are a risk factor for fracture. Fracture probability may be underestimated by FRAX® in individuals with a history of frequent falls. The substantial evidence that various interventions are effective in reducing falls risk was reviewed. Targeting falls risk reduction strategies towards frail older people at high risk for indoor falls is appropriate. This Task Force believes that further fracture reduction requires measures to reduce falls risk in addition to bone directed therapy. Clinicians should recognize that patients with frequent falls are at higher fracture risk than currently estimated by FRAX® and include this in decision-making. However, quantitative adjustment of the FRAX® estimated risk based on falls history is not currently possible. In the long term, incorporation of falls as a risk factor in the FRAX® model would be ideal.
Resumo:
The 2010 Position Development Conference addressed four questions related to the impact of previous fractures on 10-year fracture risk as calculated by FRAX(®). To address these questions, PubMed was searched on the keywords "fracture, epidemiology, osteoporosis." Titles of retrieved articles were reviewed for an indication that risk for future fracture was discussed. Abstracts of these articles were reviewed for an indication that one or more of the questions listed above was discussed. For those that did, the articles were reviewed in greater detail to extract the findings and to find additional past work and citing works that also bore on the questions. The official positions and the supporting literature review are presented here. FRAX(®) underestimates fracture probability in persons with a history of multiple fractures (good, A, W). FRAX(®) may underestimate fracture probability in individuals with prevalent severe vertebral fractures (good, A, W). While there is evidence that hip, vertebral, and humeral fractures appear to confer greater risk of subsequent fracture than fractures at other sites, quantification of this incremental risk in FRAX(®) is not possible (fair, B, W). FRAX(®) may underestimate fracture probability in individuals with a parental history of non-hip fragility fracture (fair, B, W). Limitations of the methodology include performance by a single reviewer, preliminary review of the literature being confined to titles, and secondary review being limited to abstracts. Limitations of the evidence base include publication bias, overrepresentation of persons of European descent in the published studies, and technical differences in the methods used to identify prevalent and incident fractures. Emerging topics for future research include fracture epidemiology in non-European populations and men, the impact of fractures in family members other than parents, and the genetic contribution to fracture risk.