A summary of the Russian clinical guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis.

Key statements of the Russian clinical guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis are summarized. They were developed by a task force representing the key Russian professional associations involved in the management of osteoporosis and approved by the Russian Ministry of Health. PURPOSE: To summarize key statements of the Russian clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis. METHODS: The Russian clinical guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis were developed by a task force representing the key Russian professional associations involved in the management of osteoporosis: These comprised the Russian Association of Endocrinologists, the Russian Association for Osteoporosis, the Association of Rheumatologists of Russia, the Association of Orthopedic surgeons and Traumatologists of Russia, the Russian Association of Gynecologists-Endocrinologists, and the Russian Association of Gerontologists and Geriatrics. The guidelines are based on a systematic literature review and principles of evidence-based medicine and were compiled in accordance with the requirements for clinical recommendations developed by the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation. RESULTS: Key statements included in the Russian guidelines of osteoporosis approved by the Russian Ministry of Health in 2021 are summarized. The statements are graded based on levels of evidence and supported by short comments. The guidelines are focused on the current approach to screening, diagnosis, differential diagnosis, and treatment of osteoporosis. CONCLUSION: These guidelines are a practical tool for general practitioners, as well as medical specialists, primarily endocrinologists, rheumatologists, orthopedic surgeons, and other physicians who are involved in the management of patients with osteoporosis.

Epidemiology of risk factors and estimating 10-year probability of osteoporotic fractures in the Russian Federation.

In assessing the risk of fractures, an important role is played by risk factors (RFs), the prevalence of which must be known among residents with different types of settlement in order to plan preventive measures in risk groups for fractures. Prevalence RFs varied depending on constituent entities and the settlement type. PURPOSE: To investigate the prevalence of osteoporotic fractures (OPF) RFs and estimate absolute risk (AR) of OPF among urban vs rural residents of the Russian Federation. METHODS: In total, 13,391 Russian women and men 40-69 years old from 12 regions participated in the study. Groups of urban (n = 12,237) and rural (n = 1154) subjects were comparable in terms of their age. Participants were interviewed using a standard modular questionnaire. AR of OPF was calculated using the Russian FRAX model. Age-dependent diagnostic and therapeutic intervention thresholds (DIT, TIT) were employed to stratify AR of OPF. RESULTS: Among the OPF RFs, the most common were as follows: previous OPF (16.3%), causes of secondary osteoporosis (20.8%), and current smoking (17.9%). The frequencies of previous OPF and alcohol abuse in rural men were higher than in urban male residents. Urban women, compared with rural females, were characterized by such more frequent RFs as smoking and glucocorticoids' intake. AR increased with age and prevailed in women, compared with men, regardless of their age, region of residence, and settlement type. According to TIT, the frequency of high AR of major OPF in the sample was 7.0%. According to DIT, high, medium, and low AR of major OPF was detected in 3.1%, 42.2%, and 54.7% of participants, respectively. Among urban women compared with rural females, high AR of major OPF was more often detected (p < 0.05), using TIT, whereas there was no such pattern for men. We discovered the territorial variability of RFs and OPF AR. CONCLUSION: Prevalence of OPF RFs varied in Russia depending on age, gender, constituent entities, and the settlement type. Our data have demonstrated the typical age-gender causation pattern of OPF AR. Over 40% of participants required densitometry and fracture risk reclassification.