Literature DB >> 11450696

Discordance between changes in bone mineral density measured at different skeletal sites in perimenopausal women--implications for assessment of bone loss and response to therapy: The Danish Osteoporosis Prevention Study.

B Abrahamsen1, L S Stilgren, A P Hermann, C L Tofteng, O Bärenholdt, P Vestergaard, C Brot, S P Nielsen.   

Abstract

Assessing bone loss and gain is important in clinical decision-making, both in evaluating treatment and in following untreated patients. The aim of this study was to correlate changes in bone mineral density (BMD) at different skeletal sites during the first 5 years after menopause and determine if forearm measurements can substitute for dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) of the spine and hip. BMD was measured at 0, 1, 2, 3, and 5 years using Hologic 1000/W and 2000 densitometers in 2,016 perimenopausal women participating in a national cohort study. This analysis comprises 1,422 women remaining in the study after 5 years without changes to their initial treatment (hormone-replacement therapy [HRT], n = 497, or none, n = 925). Despite correlated rates of change between forearm and spine (r2 = 0.11; p < 0.01), one-half of those who experienced a significant decrease in spine BMD at 5 years showed no significant fall in forearm BMD (sensitivity, 50%; specificity, 85%; kappa = 0.25). The total hip had significant better agreement with spine (sensitivity, 63%; specificity, 85%; kappa = 0.37; p < 0.01). Analysis of quartiles of change also showed significant better agreement with spine and whole body for the total hip than for the femoral neck or ultradistal (UD) forearm. In a logistic regression analysis for identification of group (HRT or control), the prediction was best for whole body (82.6%) and spine (80.9%), followed by total hip (78.5%) and forearm (74.7%). In conclusion, changes at the commonly measured sites are discordant, and DXA of the forearm is less useful than DXA of the hip or spine in determining the overall skeletal response to therapy or assessing bone loss in untreated women.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11450696     DOI: 10.1359/jbmr.2001.16.7.1212

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Bone Miner Res        ISSN: 0884-0431            Impact factor:   6.741


  18 in total

1.  Screening: FRAX in clinical practice.

Authors:  Bo Abrahamsen
Journal:  Nat Rev Rheumatol       Date:  2011-10-04       Impact factor: 20.543

2.  Ten-year prediction of osteoporosis from baseline bone mineral density: development of prognostic thresholds in healthy postmenopausal women. The Danish Osteoporosis Prevention Study.

Authors:  Bo Abrahamsen; Lars Rejnmark; Stig Pors Nielsen; Bo Rud; Nis Nissen; Leif Mosekilde; Olaf Bärenholdt; Jens-Erik Beck Jensen
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2005-09-10       Impact factor: 4.507

3.  Correlation of transmenopausal bone mass in healthy white women: a long-term longitudinal study.

Authors:  L-J Zhao; P-Y Liu; R Recker; H-W Deng
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2006-07-29       Impact factor: 4.507

4.  Prevalence and risk factors of discordance in diagnosis of osteoporosis using spine and hip bone densitometry.

Authors:  Abdellah El Maghraoui; Davy A Mouinga Abayi; Imad Ghozlani; Aziza Mounach; Abderrazak Nouijai; Mirieme Ghazi; Lahsen Achemlal; Ahmed Bezza
Journal:  Ann Rheum Dis       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 19.103

5.  Positive association between serum uric acid and bone mineral density in Chinese type 2 diabetes mellitus stratified by gender and BMI.

Authors:  Mingxin Xu; Junlei Su; Jie Hao; Ni Zhong; Zhiyin Zhang; Ran Cui; Feng Li; Chunjun Sheng; Ge Zhang; Hui Sheng; Shen Qu
Journal:  J Bone Miner Metab       Date:  2017-11-09       Impact factor: 2.626

6.  Thiazide diuretic usage and risk of fracture: a meta-analysis of cohort studies.

Authors:  X Xiao; Y Xu; Q Wu
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2018-03-25       Impact factor: 4.507

7.  Which screening strategy using BMD measurements would be most cost effective for hip fracture prevention in elderly women? A decision analysis based on a Markov model.

Authors:  A M Schott; C Ganne; D Hans; G Monnier; R Gauchoux; M A Krieg; P D Delmas; P J Meunier; C Colin
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2006-10-13       Impact factor: 4.507

8.  High prevalence of low bone density in young Iranian healthy individuals.

Authors:  Iraj Salehi; Shabnam Khazaeli; Seyed Reza Najafizadeh; Haleh Ashraf; Mahdi Malekpour
Journal:  Clin Rheumatol       Date:  2008-09-23       Impact factor: 2.980

9.  Bone mineral density changes during the menopause transition in a multiethnic cohort of women.

Authors:  Joel S Finkelstein; Sarah E Brockwell; Vinay Mehta; Gail A Greendale; MaryFran R Sowers; Bruce Ettinger; Joan C Lo; Janet M Johnston; Jane A Cauley; Michelle E Danielson; Robert M Neer
Journal:  J Clin Endocrinol Metab       Date:  2007-12-26       Impact factor: 5.958

10.  Z-score discordance and contributing factors in healthy premenopausal women with low bone mineral density: the Korean National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2008-9.

Authors:  Kyeong Hye Park; Jung Soo Lim; Kyoung Min Kim; Yumie Rhee; Sung-Kil Lim
Journal:  J Bone Miner Metab       Date:  2015-10-07       Impact factor: 2.626

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.