Cargando…

Use of Bone Turnover Markers in Clinical Practice for the Management of Osteoporosis in Korea: From the Survey on the Prescription Pattern of Bone Turnover Markers

BACKGROUND: There has been interest in the clinical potential of bone turnover markers (BTMs) as tools both for assessing fracture risk and for monitoring treatment. However, the practical use of BTMs has been limited by their biological variability and difficulties in the interpretation of results....

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ahn, Seong Hee, Park, So Young, Yoo, Jun-Il, Chung, Youn-Jee, Jeon, Yun Kyung, Yoon, Byung-Ho, Kim, Ha Young, Lee, Seung Hun, Lee, Jehoon, Hong, Seongbin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: The Korean Society for Bone and Mineral Research 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6901689/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31832393
http://dx.doi.org/10.11005/jbm.2019.26.4.271
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: There has been interest in the clinical potential of bone turnover markers (BTMs) as tools both for assessing fracture risk and for monitoring treatment. However, the practical use of BTMs has been limited by their biological variability and difficulties in the interpretation of results. We investigated the current situation of application of BTMs by clinicians in Korea for the management of osteoporosis through a survey asking the patterns of BTMs prescription in clinical practice. METHODS: The survey was conducted online using the “google survey” by the BTM committee authorized by the Korean Society for Bone and Mineral Research. RESULTS: Total 108 clinicians responded the survey. Most of the respondents prescribed BTMs (80.6%) when they prescribed anti-osteoporotic medications (AOMs). The most frequently prescribed bone resorption and formation markers were serum C-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen (90.7%) and osteocalcin (65.1%), respectively. BTMs were mostly prescribed before starting AOMs (90.8%) and used for the purpose of evaluating treatment response (74.4%). Treatment response and compliance to AOMs were evaluated according to the change of absolute value of BTMs (55.1%). The respondents complained difficulties in the interpretation of BTMs (33.3%), the choice of proper BTMs (17.2%), and the proper sample preparation and handling (13.8%). CONCLUSIONS: In Korea, most of clinicians recognized the benefit of BTMs in the management of osteoporosis. However, there are limitations in the broad use of these markers in clinical practice. Therefore, a clear recommendation for BTM in Korea enhances their use in clinical practice.