Emily C White VanGompel1,2,3, Peter Franks4,5, John A Robbins4,6, Joshua J Fenton4,5. 1. Department of Family Medicine and Obstetrics & Gynecology, Pritzker School of Medicine, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA. emily.whitevg@gmail.com. 2. Center for Healthcare Policy and Research, University of California Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento, CA, USA. emily.whitevg@gmail.com. 3. NorthShore University HealthSystem Research Institute, 1001 University Place, Evanston, IL, 60201, USA. emily.whitevg@gmail.com. 4. Center for Healthcare Policy and Research, University of California Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento, CA, USA. 5. Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of California Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento, CA, USA. 6. Division of General Internal Medicine, University of California Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento, CA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Existing guidelines for repeat screening and treatment monitoring intervals regarding the use of dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans are conflicting or lacking. The Choosing Wisely campaign recommends against repeating DXA scans within 2 years of initial screening. It is unclear how frequently physicians order repeat scans and what clinical factors contribute to their use. OBJECTIVE: To estimate cumulative incidence and predictors of repeat DXA for screening or treatment monitoring in a regional health system. DESIGN: Retrospective longitudinal cohort study PARTICIPANTS: A total of 5992 women aged 40-84 years who received initial DXA screening from 2006 to 2011 within a regional health system in Sacramento, CA. MAIN MEASURES: Two- and five-year cumulative incidence and hazard rations (HR) of repeat DXA by initial screening result (classified into three groups: low or high risk of progression to osteoporosis, or osteoporosis) and whether women were prescribed osteoporosis drugs after initial DXA. KEY RESULTS: Among women not treated after initial DXA, 2-year cumulative incidence for low-risk, high-risk, and osteoporotic women was 8.0%, 13.8%, and 19.6%, respectively, increasing to 42.9%, 60.4%, and 57.4% by 5 years after initial screening. For treated women, median time to repeat DXA was over 3 years for all groups. Relative to women with low-risk initial DXA, high-risk initial DXA significantly predicted repeat screening for untreated women [adjusted HR 1.67 (95% CI 1.40-2.00)] but not within the treated group [HR 1.09 (95% CI 0.91-1.30)]. CONCLUSIONS: Repeat DXA screening was common in women both at low and high risk of progression to osteoporosis, with a substantial proportion of women receiving repeat scans within 2 years of initial screening. Conversely, only 60% of those at high-risk of progression to osteoporosis were re-screened within 5 years. Interventions are needed to help clinicians make higher-value decisions regarding repeat use of DXA scans.
BACKGROUND: Existing guidelines for repeat screening and treatment monitoring intervals regarding the use of dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans are conflicting or lacking. The Choosing Wisely campaign recommends against repeating DXA scans within 2 years of initial screening. It is unclear how frequently physicians order repeat scans and what clinical factors contribute to their use. OBJECTIVE: To estimate cumulative incidence and predictors of repeat DXA for screening or treatment monitoring in a regional health system. DESIGN: Retrospective longitudinal cohort study PARTICIPANTS: A total of 5992 women aged 40-84 years who received initial DXA screening from 2006 to 2011 within a regional health system in Sacramento, CA. MAIN MEASURES: Two- and five-year cumulative incidence and hazard rations (HR) of repeat DXA by initial screening result (classified into three groups: low or high risk of progression to osteoporosis, or osteoporosis) and whether women were prescribed osteoporosis drugs after initial DXA. KEY RESULTS: Among women not treated after initial DXA, 2-year cumulative incidence for low-risk, high-risk, and osteoporoticwomen was 8.0%, 13.8%, and 19.6%, respectively, increasing to 42.9%, 60.4%, and 57.4% by 5 years after initial screening. For treated women, median time to repeat DXA was over 3 years for all groups. Relative to women with low-risk initial DXA, high-risk initial DXA significantly predicted repeat screening for untreated women [adjusted HR 1.67 (95% CI 1.40-2.00)] but not within the treated group [HR 1.09 (95% CI 0.91-1.30)]. CONCLUSIONS: Repeat DXA screening was common in women both at low and high risk of progression to osteoporosis, with a substantial proportion of women receiving repeat scans within 2 years of initial screening. Conversely, only 60% of those at high-risk of progression to osteoporosis were re-screened within 5 years. Interventions are needed to help clinicians make higher-value decisions regarding repeat use of DXA scans.
Entities:
Keywords:
medical decision-making; osteoporosis; practice variation; screening
Authors: Nelson B Watts; E Michael Lewiecki; Sydney L Bonnick; Andrew J Laster; Neil Binkley; Robert D Blank; Piet P Geusens; Paul D Miller; Steven M Petak; Robert R Recker; Kenneth G Saag; John Schousboe; Ethel S Siris; John P Bilezikian Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: Nelson B Watts; John P Bilezikian; Pauline M Camacho; Susan L Greenspan; Steven T Harris; Stephen F Hodgson; Michael Kleerekoper; Marjorie M Luckey; Michael R McClung; Rachel Pessah Pollack; Steven M Petak Journal: Endocr Pract Date: 2010 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 3.443
Authors: Jinoos Yazdany; Gabriela Schmajuk; Mark Robbins; David Daikh; Ashley Beall; Edward Yelin; Jennifer Barton; Adam Carlson; Mary Margaretten; Joann Zell; Lianne S Gensler; Victoria Kelly; Kenneth Saag; Charles King Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2013-03 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: Teresa A Hillier; Katie L Stone; Doug C Bauer; Joanne H Rizzo; Kathryn L Pedula; Jane A Cauley; Kristine E Ensrud; Marc C Hochberg; Steve R Cummings Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2007-01-22
Authors: Anna Lee D Amarnath; Peter Franks; John A Robbins; Guibo Xing; Joshua J Fenton Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2015-05-19 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Sarah D Berry; Elizabeth J Samelson; Michael J Pencina; Robert R McLean; L Adrienne Cupples; Kerry E Broe; Douglas P Kiel Journal: JAMA Date: 2013-09-25 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Nelson B Watts; Cyrus Cooper; Robert Lindsay; Richard Eastell; Michael D Manhart; Ian P Barton; Tjeerd-Pieter van Staa; Jonathan D Adachi Journal: J Clin Densitom Date: 2004 Impact factor: 2.963
Authors: H Lyu; K Yoshida; S K Tedeschi; S Zhao; C Xu; S U Nigwekar; B Z Leder; D H Solomon Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2019-01-24 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: William D Leslie; Suzanne N Morin; Lisa M Lix; Patrick Martineau; Mark Bryanton; Eugene V McCloskey; Helena Johansson; Nicholas C Harvey; John A Kanis Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2020-01-03