Susan J Diem1,2, Katherine W Peters3, Margaret L Gourlay4, John T Schousboe5,6, Brent C Taylor7,8,9, Eric S Orwoll10, Jane A Cauley11, Lisa Langsetmo8, Carolyn J Crandall12, Kristine E Ensrud7,8,9. 1. Department of Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA. sdiem@umn.edu. 2. Division of Epidemiology & Community Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA. sdiem@umn.edu. 3. California Pacific Medical Center Research Institute, San Francisco, CA, USA. 4. Department of Family Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 5. Park Nicollet Clinic & HealthPartners Institute, Minneapolis, MN, USA. 6. Division of Health Policy & Management, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA. 7. Department of Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA. 8. Division of Epidemiology & Community Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA. 9. Center for Chronic Disease Outcomes Research, VA Health Care System, Minneapolis, MN, USA. 10. Bone and Mineral Unit, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA. 11. Department of Epidemiology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 12. Department of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The optimal approach for selecting men for bone mineral density (BMD) testing to screen for osteoporosis is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To compare strategies for selecting older men for screening BMD testing. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 4043 community-dwelling men aged ≥70 years at four US sites. MAIN MEASURES: BMD at the total hip, femoral neck, and lumbar spine using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA). Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) of the Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool (OST) and Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) without BMD to discriminate between those with and without osteoporosis as defined by World Health Organization (WHO) diagnostic criteria, and between those recommended and not recommended for pharmacologic therapy based on the National Osteoporosis Foundation (NOF) guidelines. KEY RESULTS: Among the cohort, 216 (5.3%) had a BMD T-score ≤ -2.5 at the femoral neck, total hip, or lumbar spine, and 1184 (29.2%) met criteria for consideration of pharmacologic therapy according to NOF guidelines. The OST had better discrimination (AUC 0.68) than the FRAX (AUC 0.62; p = 0.004) for identifying T-score-defined osteoporosis. Use of an OST threshold of <2 resulted in sensitivity of 0.83 and specificity of 0.36 for the identification of osteoporosis, compared to sensitivity of 0.59 and specificity of 0.59 for the use of FRAX with a cutoff of 9.3% 10-year risk of major osteoporotic fracture. CONCLUSIONS: The OST performs modestly better than the more complex FRAX in selecting older men for BMD testing to screen for osteoporosis; the use of either tool substantially reduces the proportion of men referred for BMD testing compared to universal screening. Of 1000 men aged 70 and older in this community-based cohort, the use of an OST cutoff of <2 to select men for BMD testing would result in 654 men referred for BMD testing, of whom 44 would be identified as having osteoporosis, and nine with osteoporosis would be missed.
BACKGROUND: The optimal approach for selecting men for bone mineral density (BMD) testing to screen for osteoporosis is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To compare strategies for selecting older men for screening BMD testing. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 4043 community-dwelling men aged ≥70 years at four US sites. MAIN MEASURES: BMD at the total hip, femoral neck, and lumbar spine using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA). Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) of the Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool (OST) and Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) without BMD to discriminate between those with and without osteoporosis as defined by World Health Organization (WHO) diagnostic criteria, and between those recommended and not recommended for pharmacologic therapy based on the National Osteoporosis Foundation (NOF) guidelines. KEY RESULTS: Among the cohort, 216 (5.3%) had a BMD T-score ≤ -2.5 at the femoral neck, total hip, or lumbar spine, and 1184 (29.2%) met criteria for consideration of pharmacologic therapy according to NOF guidelines. The OST had better discrimination (AUC 0.68) than the FRAX (AUC 0.62; p = 0.004) for identifying T-score-defined osteoporosis. Use of an OST threshold of <2 resulted in sensitivity of 0.83 and specificity of 0.36 for the identification of osteoporosis, compared to sensitivity of 0.59 and specificity of 0.59 for the use of FRAX with a cutoff of 9.3% 10-year risk of major osteoporotic fracture. CONCLUSIONS: The OST performs modestly better than the more complex FRAX in selecting older men for BMD testing to screen for osteoporosis; the use of either tool substantially reduces the proportion of men referred for BMD testing compared to universal screening. Of 1000 men aged 70 and older in this community-based cohort, the use of an OST cutoff of <2 to select men for BMD testing would result in 654 men referred for BMD testing, of whom 44 would be identified as having osteoporosis, and nine with osteoporosis would be missed.
Authors: Alexandra Papaioannou; Suzanne Morin; Angela M Cheung; Stephanie Atkinson; Jacques P Brown; Sidney Feldman; David A Hanley; Anthony Hodsman; Sophie A Jamal; Stephanie M Kaiser; Brent Kvern; Kerry Siminoski; William D Leslie Journal: CMAJ Date: 2010-10-12 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Eric Orwoll; Janet Babich Blank; Elizabeth Barrett-Connor; Jane Cauley; Steven Cummings; Kristine Ensrud; Cora Lewis; Peggy M Cawthon; Robert Marcus; Lynn M Marshall; Joan McGowan; Kathy Phipps; Sherry Sherman; Marcia L Stefanick; Katie Stone Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Russel Burge; Bess Dawson-Hughes; Daniel H Solomon; John B Wong; Alison King; Anna Tosteson Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: J Steuart Richards; Justin Peng; Richard L Amdur; Ted R Mikuls; Roderick S Hooker; Kaleb Michaud; Andreas M Reimold; Grant W Cannon; Liron Caplan; Dannette Johnson; Anne E Hines; Gail S Kerr Journal: J Clin Densitom Date: 2009-09-23 Impact factor: 2.617
Authors: H S Lynn; J Woo; P C Leung; E L Barrett-Connor; M C Nevitt; J A Cauley; R A Adler; E S Orwoll Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2008-02-01 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Alissa Guebeli; Elizabeth A Platz; Channing J Paller; Katherine A McGlynn; Sabine Rohrmann Journal: Bone Joint Res Date: 2020-05-16 Impact factor: 5.853
Authors: Fabio Vescini; Iacopo Chiodini; Alberto Falchetti; Andrea Palermo; Antonio Stefano Salcuni; Stefania Bonadonna; Vincenzo De Geronimo; Roberto Cesareo; Luca Giovanelli; Martina Brigo; Francesco Bertoldo; Alfredo Scillitani; Luigi Gennari Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2021-12-20 Impact factor: 5.923