UNLABELLED: Quantitative ultrasound (QUS) is associated with fracture risk in women, but there are few data in men. We studied 5,607 older men and found that QUS predicts hip and any non-spine fracture risk nearly as well as BMD. Combined measurements of QUS and BMD are not superior to either measurement alone. INTRODUCTION: Quantitative ultrasound (QUS) predicts fracture risk among older women, but there are few prospective studies among older men. We studied the ability of QUS and BMD measurements to predict hip and other non-spine fractures in a population-based study of older men. METHODS: Calcaneal QUS and hip BMD were measured in 5,607 men aged > or =65 years recruited from six US centers. At baseline duplicate QUS measurements with repositioning were obtained, and subsequent hip and other non-spine fractures were documented by review of x-rays or x-ray reports. The relationships between QUS and fractures were examined with proportional hazard models adjusted for age and clinic. We used receiver operating characteristic curves and predicted fracture risk models to determine the utility of QUS alone, BMD alone or the combination of QUS+BMD. RESULTS: During a mean follow-up of 4.2 years with 99% complete follow-up, 239 men suffered a non-spine fracture, including 49 hip fractures. Each standard deviation reduction in broadband ultrasonic attenuation (BUA) was associated with an increased risk of hip (relative hazard=2.0, CI: 1.5, 2.8) and any non-spine fracture (relative hazard=1.6, CI: 1.4, 1.8). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve and the predicted probability of fracture were similar for BUA alone, BMD alone and the combination of BUA+BMD, indicating that once BUA or BMD is known, the other measurement does not add useful information. Other QUS parameters gave similar results. CONCLUSIONS: QUS measurements predict the risk of hip and any non-spine fracture in older men, and do so nearly as well as hip BMD measurements. Combined measurements of QUS and BMD are not superior to either measurement alone.
UNLABELLED: Quantitative ultrasound (QUS) is associated with fracture risk in women, but there are few data in men. We studied 5,607 older men and found that QUS predicts hip and any non-spine fracture risk nearly as well as BMD. Combined measurements of QUS and BMD are not superior to either measurement alone. INTRODUCTION: Quantitative ultrasound (QUS) predicts fracture risk among older women, but there are few prospective studies among older men. We studied the ability of QUS and BMD measurements to predict hip and other non-spine fractures in a population-based study of older men. METHODS: Calcaneal QUS and hip BMD were measured in 5,607 men aged > or =65 years recruited from six US centers. At baseline duplicate QUS measurements with repositioning were obtained, and subsequent hip and other non-spine fractures were documented by review of x-rays or x-ray reports. The relationships between QUS and fractures were examined with proportional hazard models adjusted for age and clinic. We used receiver operating characteristic curves and predicted fracture risk models to determine the utility of QUS alone, BMD alone or the combination of QUS+BMD. RESULTS: During a mean follow-up of 4.2 years with 99% complete follow-up, 239 men suffered a non-spine fracture, including 49 hip fractures. Each standard deviation reduction in broadband ultrasonic attenuation (BUA) was associated with an increased risk of hip (relative hazard=2.0, CI: 1.5, 2.8) and any non-spine fracture (relative hazard=1.6, CI: 1.4, 1.8). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve and the predicted probability of fracture were similar for BUA alone, BMD alone and the combination of BUA+BMD, indicating that once BUA or BMD is known, the other measurement does not add useful information. Other QUS parameters gave similar results. CONCLUSIONS: QUS measurements predict the risk of hip and any non-spine fracture in older men, and do so nearly as well as hip BMD measurements. Combined measurements of QUS and BMD are not superior to either measurement alone.
Authors: D Hans; P Dargent-Molina; A M Schott; J L Sebert; C Cormier; P O Kotzki; P D Delmas; J M Pouilles; G Breart; P J Meunier Journal: Lancet Date: 1996-08-24 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Kay-Tee Khaw; Jonathan Reeve; Robert Luben; Sheila Bingham; Ailsa Welch; Nicholas Wareham; Suzy Oakes; Nicholas Day Journal: Lancet Date: 2004-01-17 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: E S Orwoll; W H Scheele; S Paul; S Adami; U Syversen; A Diez-Perez; J M Kaufman; A D Clancy; G A Gaich Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: M Lee; R W Nahhas; A C Choh; E W Demerath; D L Duren; W C Chumlea; R J Sherwood; B Towne; R M Siervogel; S A Czerwinski Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2010-10-26 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: D Vanderschueren; S R Pye; K Venken; H Borghs; J Gaytant; I T Huhtaniemi; J E Adams; K A Ward; G Bartfai; F F Casanueva; J D Finn; G Forti; A Giwercman; T S Han; K Kula; F Labrie; M E J Lean; N Pendleton; M Punab; A J Silman; F C W Wu; T W O'Neill; S Boonen Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2009-12-15 Impact factor: 4.507