Gloria Bonaccorsi1, Enrica Fila1, Carmelo Messina2, Elisa Maietti3, Fabio Massimo Ulivieri4, Renata Caudarella5, Pantaleo Greco6, Giuseppe Guglielmi7,8. 1. Department of Morphology, Surgery and Experimental Medicine, Menopause and Osteoporosis Centre, University of Ferrara, Via Boschetto 29, Ferrara, Italy. 2. Graduate School in Diagnostic Radiology, University of Milan, Via Festa del Perdono 7, Milan, Italy. 3. Clinical Epidemiology Research Center, Medical School, University of Ferrara, Arcispedale S. Anna, Via Aldo Moro 8, Ferrara, Italy. 4. Bone Metabolic Unit, Division of Nuclear Medicine, Fondazione Irccs Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy. 5. Maria Cecilia Hospital GVM Care and Research, Cotignola, RA, Italy. 6. Department of Morphology, Surgery and Experimental Medicine, Section of Obstetric and Gynaecology, University of Ferrara, Via Aldo Moro 8, 44124, Cona, Ferrara, Italy. 7. Department of Radiology, University of Foggia, Viale Luigi Pinto 1, 71121, Foggia, Italy. giuseppe.guglielmi@unifg.it. 8. Department of Radiology, I.R.C.C.S. Casa Sollievo della Sofferenza, Viale Cappuccini 1, 71013, San Giovanni Rotondo, Italy. giuseppe.guglielmi@unifg.it.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate (a) the performance in predicting the presence of bone fractures of trabecular bone score (TBS) and hip structural analysis (HSA) in type 2 diabetic postmenopausal women compared to a control group and (b) the fracture prediction ability of TBS versus Fracture Risk Calculator (FRAX®) as well as whether TBS can improve the fracture prediction ability of FRAX® in diabetic women. METHODS: Eighty diabetic postmenopausal women were matched with 88 controls without major diseases for age and body mass index. The individual 10-year fracture risk was assessed by FRAX® tool for Europe-Italy; bone mineral density (BMD) at lumbar spine, femoral neck and total hip was evaluated through dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry; TBS measurements were taken using the same region of interest as the BMD measurements; HSA was performed at proximal femur with the HSA software. RESULTS: Regarding variables of interest, the only significant difference between diabetic and control groups was observed for the value of TBS (median value: 1.215; IQR 1.138-1.285 in controls vs. 1.173; IQR 1.082-1.217 in diabetic; p = 0.002). The prevalence of fractures in diabetic women was almost tripled than in controls (13.8 vs. 3.4 %; p = 0.02). The receiver operator characteristic curve analysis showed that TBS alone (AUC = 0.71) had no significantly lower discriminative power for fracture prediction in diabetic women than FRAX major adjusted for TBS (AUC = 0.74; p = 0.65). CONCLUSION: In diabetic postmenopausal women TBS is an excellent tool in identifying fragility fractures.
PURPOSE: To evaluate (a) the performance in predicting the presence of bone fractures of trabecular bone score (TBS) and hip structural analysis (HSA) in type 2 diabetic postmenopausal women compared to a control group and (b) the fracture prediction ability of TBS versus Fracture Risk Calculator (FRAX®) as well as whether TBS can improve the fracture prediction ability of FRAX® in diabeticwomen. METHODS: Eighty diabetic postmenopausal women were matched with 88 controls without major diseases for age and body mass index. The individual 10-year fracture risk was assessed by FRAX® tool for Europe-Italy; bone mineral density (BMD) at lumbar spine, femoral neck and total hip was evaluated through dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry; TBS measurements were taken using the same region of interest as the BMD measurements; HSA was performed at proximal femur with the HSA software. RESULTS: Regarding variables of interest, the only significant difference between diabetic and control groups was observed for the value of TBS (median value: 1.215; IQR 1.138-1.285 in controls vs. 1.173; IQR 1.082-1.217 in diabetic; p = 0.002). The prevalence of fractures in diabeticwomen was almost tripled than in controls (13.8 vs. 3.4 %; p = 0.02). The receiver operator characteristic curve analysis showed that TBS alone (AUC = 0.71) had no significantly lower discriminative power for fracture prediction in diabeticwomen than FRAX major adjusted for TBS (AUC = 0.74; p = 0.65). CONCLUSION: In diabetic postmenopausal womenTBS is an excellent tool in identifying fragility fractures.
Entities:
Keywords:
FRAX; Fracture risk; HSA; Menopause; Osteoporosis; Trabecular bone score; Type 2 diabetes
Authors: Fabio M Ulivieri; Luca P Piodi; Enzo Grossi; Luca Rinaudo; Carmelo Messina; Anna P Tassi; Marcello Filopanti; Anna Tirelli; Francesco Sardanelli Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-01-05 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Chen Wang; Jun Liu; Li Xiao; Dan Liu; Wenjing Yan; Ting Hu; Kunhong Li; Xiaociao Hua; Xianshang Zeng Journal: J Int Med Res Date: 2019-10-16 Impact factor: 1.671