A C Looker1, L J Melton, L G Borrud, J A Shepherd. 1. National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Room 4310, 3311 Toledo Road, Hyattsville, MD 20782, USA. Alooker@cdc.gov
Abstract
UNLABELLED: This analysis examines lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD) of US adults from NHANES 2005-2008 by age, sex, and race/ethnicity. Prevalence of low spine BMD and agreement between the prevalence of low BMD at the spine and femur neck in older adults are also assessed. INTRODUCTION: Lumbar spine BMD data from a representative sample of the US population have not been previously available. METHODS: We used data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2005-2008 to examine demographic patterns in lumbar spine BMD among US adults age ≥20 years and the prevalence of low lumbar spine BMD in adults age ≥50 years. Agreement between the prevalence of low BMD at the femur neck and spine in older adults was also assessed. Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry was used to measure lumbar spine and femur neck BMD. World Health Organization definitions were used to categorize skeletal status as normal, osteopenia, or osteoporosis. RESULTS: Compared to non-Hispanic whites, non-Hispanic blacks had higher and Mexican Americans had lower lumbar spine BMD. Lumbar spine BMD declined with age in women, but not in men. Approximately 4.7 million (10%) older US women and 1 million (3%) older men had lumbar spine osteoporosis in 2005-2008. Roughly one third of them differed in skeletal status at the spine and hip but most were normal at one site and osteopenic at the other. Only 3-10%, depending on sex, had osteoporosis at one skeletal site but not at the other skeletal site. Between 76% and 87% with discordant skeletal status had lumbar spine T-scores within 1 unit of the category threshold. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that measuring either the femur neck or the lumbar spine will correctly classify the majority of individuals who present for care as osteoporotic or not.
UNLABELLED: This analysis examines lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD) of US adults from NHANES 2005-2008 by age, sex, and race/ethnicity. Prevalence of low spine BMD and agreement between the prevalence of low BMD at the spine and femur neck in older adults are also assessed. INTRODUCTION: Lumbar spine BMD data from a representative sample of the US population have not been previously available. METHODS: We used data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2005-2008 to examine demographic patterns in lumbar spine BMD among US adults age ≥20 years and the prevalence of low lumbar spine BMD in adults age ≥50 years. Agreement between the prevalence of low BMD at the femur neck and spine in older adults was also assessed. Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry was used to measure lumbar spine and femur neck BMD. World Health Organization definitions were used to categorize skeletal status as normal, osteopenia, or osteoporosis. RESULTS: Compared to non-Hispanic whites, non-Hispanic blacks had higher and Mexican Americans had lower lumbar spine BMD. Lumbar spine BMD declined with age in women, but not in men. Approximately 4.7 million (10%) older US women and 1 million (3%) older men had lumbar spine osteoporosis in 2005-2008. Roughly one third of them differed in skeletal status at the spine and hip but most were normal at one site and osteopenic at the other. Only 3-10%, depending on sex, had osteoporosis at one skeletal site but not at the other skeletal site. Between 76% and 87% with discordant skeletal status had lumbar spine T-scores within 1 unit of the category threshold. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that measuring either the femur neck or the lumbar spine will correctly classify the majority of individuals who present for care as osteoporotic or not.
Authors: S I Zimmerman; C J Girman; V C Buie; J Chandler; W Hawkes; A Martin; L Holder; J R Hebel; P D Sloane; J Magaziner Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 1999 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: J A Kanis; O Johnell; A Oden; H Johansson; J A Eisman; S Fujiwara; H Kroger; R Honkanen; L J Melton; T O'Neill; J Reeve; A Silman; A Tenenhouse Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2006-01-10 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Howard A Fink; Stephanie L Harrison; Brent C Taylor; Steven R Cummings; John T Schousboe; Michael A Kuskowski; Katie L Stone; Kristine E Ensrud Journal: J Clin Densitom Date: 2008-02-25 Impact factor: 2.617
Authors: B Lawrence Riggs; L Joseph Melton; Richard A Robb; Jon J Camp; Elizabeth J Atkinson; Lisa McDaniel; Shreyasee Amin; Peggy A Rouleau; Sundeep Khosla Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: A Carfì; R Liperoti; D Fusco; S Giovannini; V Brandi; D L Vetrano; E Meloni; D Mascia; E R Villani; E Manes Gravina; R Bernabei; G Onder Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2017-07-06 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Margaret Lee Gourlay; Robert A Overman; Jason P Fine; Kristine E Ensrud; Carolyn J Crandall; Margery L Gass; John Robbins; Karen C Johnson; Erin S LeBlanc; Catherine R Womack; John T Schousboe; Andrea Z LaCroix Journal: Menopause Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: Margaret L Gourlay; Robert A Overman; Jason P Fine; Carolyn J Crandall; John Robbins; John T Schousboe; Kristine E Ensrud; Erin S LeBlanc; Margery L Gass; Karen C Johnson; Catherine R Womack; Andrea Z LaCroix Journal: Am J Med Date: 2017-03-09 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: H Johansson; J A Kanis; A Odén; W D Leslie; S Fujiwara; C C Glüer; H Kroger; A Z LaCroix; E Lau; L J Melton; J A Eisman; T W O'Neill; D Goltzman; D M Reid; E McCloskey Journal: Calcif Tissue Int Date: 2014-09-04 Impact factor: 4.333