Didier Hans1, Emőke Šteňová2, Olivier Lamy3,4. 1. Centre of Bone diseases, Bone and Joint Department, Lausanne University Hospital, Avenue Pierre-Decker, 4, CH-1011, Lausanne, Switzerland. didier.hans@chuv.ch. 2. 1st Department of Internal Medicine, Comenius University, Faculty of Medicine in Bratislava, University Hospital, Bratislava, Staré Mesto, Bratislava, Slovakia. 3. Centre of Bone diseases, Bone and Joint Department, Lausanne University Hospital, Avenue Pierre-Decker, 4, CH-1011, Lausanne, Switzerland. 4. Internal Medicine Unit, Internal Medicine Department, Lausanne University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW: There is an increasing body of evidence that the trabecular bone score (TBS), a surrogate of bone microarchitecture extracted from spine DXA, could play an important role in the management of patients with osteoporosis or at risk of fracture. The current paper reviews this published body of scientific literature on TBS and answers the most relevant clinical questions. RECENT FINDINGS: TBS has repeatedly been proven to be predictive of fragility fractures, current and future, and this is largely independent of BMD, CRF, and the FRAX, and when used in conjunction with any one of these measures, it consistently enhances their accuracy. There also is a growing body of evidence indicating that the TBS has particular advantages over BMD for specific causes of increased fracture risk, like chronic corticosteroid excess, type-2 diabetes, and chronic kidney disease, and patients being treated with anti-aromatase and primary hyperparathyroidism, conditions wherein BMD readings are often misleading. TBS enhances performance of the FRAX tool, where its greatest utility appears to lie in its ability to accurately classify those patients whose BMD level lies close to the intervention threshold, aiding in decisions on whether treatment is warranted or not. Furthermore, TBS has also particular advantages over BMD in secondary osteoporosis. While the role of TBS with monitoring could be important as the different molecules impact logically TBS to various degrees, large clinical trials are still needed.
PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW: There is an increasing body of evidence that the trabecular bone score (TBS), a surrogate of bone microarchitecture extracted from spine DXA, could play an important role in the management of patients with osteoporosis or at risk of fracture. The current paper reviews this published body of scientific literature on TBS and answers the most relevant clinical questions. RECENT FINDINGS:TBS has repeatedly been proven to be predictive of fragility fractures, current and future, and this is largely independent of BMD, CRF, and the FRAX, and when used in conjunction with any one of these measures, it consistently enhances their accuracy. There also is a growing body of evidence indicating that the TBS has particular advantages over BMD for specific causes of increased fracture risk, like chronic corticosteroid excess, type-2 diabetes, and chronic kidney disease, and patients being treated with anti-aromatase and primary hyperparathyroidism, conditions wherein BMD readings are often misleading. TBS enhances performance of the FRAX tool, where its greatest utility appears to lie in its ability to accurately classify those patients whose BMD level lies close to the intervention threshold, aiding in decisions on whether treatment is warranted or not. Furthermore, TBS has also particular advantages over BMD in secondary osteoporosis. While the role of TBS with monitoring could be important as the different molecules impact logically TBS to various degrees, large clinical trials are still needed.
Entities:
Keywords:
Bone mineral density; Clinical risk factors; FRAX; Fracture risk; Osteoporosis; Review; Trabecular bone score
Authors: T Neumann; S Lodes; B Kästner; T Lehmann; D Hans; O Lamy; U A Müller; G Wolf; A Sämann Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2015-07-18 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Barbara Campolina Silva; Stephanie Boutroy; Chiyuan Zhang; Donald Jay McMahon; Bin Zhou; Ji Wang; Julia Udesky; Serge Cremers; Marta Sarquis; Xiang-Dong Edward Guo; Didier Hans; John Paul Bilezikian Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2013-03-22 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Ludmila Brunerová; Petra Ronová; Jana Verešová; Petra Beranová; Jana Potoèková; Petr Kasalický; Ivan Rychlík Journal: Kidney Blood Press Res Date: 2016-06-23 Impact factor: 2.687
Authors: N C Harvey; C C Glüer; N Binkley; E V McCloskey; M-L Brandi; C Cooper; D Kendler; O Lamy; A Laslop; B M Camargos; J-Y Reginster; R Rizzoli; J A Kanis Journal: Bone Date: 2015-05-16 Impact factor: 4.398
Authors: Arianna M Kahler-Quesada; Kathleen A Grant; Nicole A R Walter; Natali Newman; Matthew R Allen; David B Burr; Adam J Branscum; Gianni F Maddalozzo; Russell T Turner; Urszula T Iwaniec Journal: Alcohol Clin Exp Res Date: 2019-10-17 Impact factor: 3.455
Authors: Viral N Shah; R Dana Carpenter; Virginia L Ferguson; Ann V Schwartz Journal: Curr Opin Endocrinol Diabetes Obes Date: 2018-08 Impact factor: 3.243
Authors: Isuzu Meyer; Sarah L Morgan; Alayne D Markland; Jeff M Szychowski; Holly E Richter Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2020-02-29 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: N Tahani; L Nieddu; G Prossomariti; M Spaziani; S Granato; F Carlomagno; A Anzuini; A Lenzi; A F Radicioni; E Romagnoli Journal: Endocrine Date: 2018-04-25 Impact factor: 3.633