P Martineau1, W D Leslie2, H Johansson3, N C Harvey4, E V McCloskey5, D Hans6, J A Kanis3. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada. 2. Department of Internal Medicine, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada. Electronic address: bleslie@sbgh.mb.ca. 3. Center for Metabolic Bone Diseases and Academic Unit of Bone Metabolism, Department of Oncology & Metabolism, University of Sheffield Medical School, Sheffield, UK; Institute for Health and Aging, Catholic University of Australia, Melbourne, Australia. 4. MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK; NIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, University of Southampton and University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Tremona Road, Southampton, UK. 5. Center for Metabolic Bone Diseases and Academic Unit of Bone Metabolism, Department of Oncology & Metabolism, University of Sheffield Medical School, Sheffield, UK. 6. Bone and Joint Department, Lausanne University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lumbar spine TBS, a texture index derived from lumbar spine dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) images, enhances fracture prediction. No studies to date have studied a broad range of clinical variables to determine which patients might experience the greatest benefit from the use of TBS. METHODS: Using the Manitoba BMD Registry, we identified 37,176 subjects with baseline DXA, FRAX®-based fracture probability, lumbar spine TBS, and minimum 5 years of observation. Subgroups considered were based on sex, age, body mass index (BMI), prior fracture, chronic obstructive lung disease (COPD), high alcohol use, rheumatoid arthritis (RA), high glucocorticoid use, osteoporotic femoral neck T-score, number of comorbidities, diabetes, secondary osteoporosis, and prior osteoporosis treatment. Non-traumatic major osteoporotic fractures (MOF, n = 3741) and hip fractures (HF, n = 1008) were identified using population-based health services data. We analyzed baseline TBS using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). FRAX-adjusted hazard ratios (HR) per SD reduction in TBS were estimated and tested for interactions. Categorical net reclassification improvement (NRI) was estimated using fixed FRAX-based intervention cut-offs. RESULTS: Adjusted baseline TBS was significantly lower (p ≤ 0.001) for women (-4.2%), osteoporotic hip T-score (-4.0%), COPD (-2.8%), diabetes (-2.6%), high alcohol use (-2.3%), prior fracture (-2.2%), glucocorticoid use (-1.5%), RA (-0.9%) and secondary osteoporosis (-0.8%), whereas recent osteoporosis therapy was associated with greater TBS (+1.5%). HRs per SD reduction in TBS for fracture prediction were larger for age < 65 vs 65+ (MOF p-interaction = 0.004, HF p-interaction < 0.001), without vs with prior fracture (MOF p-interaction = 0.003, HF p-interaction = 0.048), without vs with glucocorticoid use (HF p-interaction = 0.029), lower vs higher comorbidity score (HF p-interaction < 0.001), and without vs with osteoporosis treatment (MOF p-interaction = 0.005). NRI for using the TBS adjustment to FRAX in all subjects was 1.2% for MOF (p = 0.002) and 1.7% for HF (p = 0.016). NRI was greater in subjects age < 65 y (MOF:1.7%, HF:5.6%), no prior fracture (HF: 2.4%), non-osteoporotic T-score (HF: 3.0%), and high glucocorticoid use (MOF: 3.9%). CONCLUSION: TBS is sensitive to the effects of multiple risk factors for fracture. TBS-adjusted fracture risk assessment resulted in significant improvements for multiple subgroups.
BACKGROUND: Lumbar spine TBS, a texture index derived from lumbar spine dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) images, enhances fracture prediction. No studies to date have studied a broad range of clinical variables to determine which patients might experience the greatest benefit from the use of TBS. METHODS: Using the Manitoba BMD Registry, we identified 37,176 subjects with baseline DXA, FRAX®-based fracture probability, lumbar spine TBS, and minimum 5 years of observation. Subgroups considered were based on sex, age, body mass index (BMI), prior fracture, chronic obstructive lung disease (COPD), high alcohol use, rheumatoid arthritis (RA), high glucocorticoid use, osteoporotic femoral neck T-score, number of comorbidities, diabetes, secondary osteoporosis, and prior osteoporosis treatment. Non-traumatic major osteoporotic fractures (MOF, n = 3741) and hip fractures (HF, n = 1008) were identified using population-based health services data. We analyzed baseline TBS using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). FRAX-adjusted hazard ratios (HR) per SD reduction in TBS were estimated and tested for interactions. Categorical net reclassification improvement (NRI) was estimated using fixed FRAX-based intervention cut-offs. RESULTS: Adjusted baseline TBS was significantly lower (p ≤ 0.001) for women (-4.2%), osteoporotic hip T-score (-4.0%), COPD (-2.8%), diabetes (-2.6%), high alcohol use (-2.3%), prior fracture (-2.2%), glucocorticoid use (-1.5%), RA (-0.9%) and secondary osteoporosis (-0.8%), whereas recent osteoporosis therapy was associated with greater TBS (+1.5%). HRs per SD reduction in TBS for fracture prediction were larger for age < 65 vs 65+ (MOF p-interaction = 0.004, HF p-interaction < 0.001), without vs with prior fracture (MOF p-interaction = 0.003, HF p-interaction = 0.048), without vs with glucocorticoid use (HF p-interaction = 0.029), lower vs higher comorbidity score (HF p-interaction < 0.001), and without vs with osteoporosis treatment (MOF p-interaction = 0.005). NRI for using the TBS adjustment to FRAX in all subjects was 1.2% for MOF (p = 0.002) and 1.7% for HF (p = 0.016). NRI was greater in subjects age < 65 y (MOF:1.7%, HF:5.6%), no prior fracture (HF: 2.4%), non-osteoporotic T-score (HF: 3.0%), and high glucocorticoid use (MOF: 3.9%). CONCLUSION:TBS is sensitive to the effects of multiple risk factors for fracture. TBS-adjusted fracture risk assessment resulted in significant improvements for multiple subgroups.
Authors: Maarten J G Leening; Moniek M Vedder; Jacqueline C M Witteman; Michael J Pencina; Ewout W Steyerberg Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2014-01-21 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: V V Zhukouskaya; C Eller-Vainicher; C Ellen-Vainicher; A Gaudio; F Privitera; E Cairoli; F M Ulivieri; S Palmieri; V Morelli; V Grancini; E Orsi; B Masserini; A M Spada; C E Fiore; I Chiodini Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2015-07-03 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: L-A Fraser; L Langsetmo; C Berger; G Ioannidis; D Goltzman; J D Adachi; A Papaioannou; R Josse; C S Kovacs; W P Olszynski; T Towheed; D A Hanley; S M Kaiser; J Prior; S Jamal; N Kreiger; J P Brown; H Johansson; A Oden; E McCloskey; J A Kanis; W D Leslie Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2010-12-16 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: Eugene V McCloskey; Anders Odén; Nicholas C Harvey; William D Leslie; Didier Hans; Helena Johansson; John A Kanis Journal: Calcif Tissue Int Date: 2015-03-22 Impact factor: 4.333
Authors: Sérgio Luchini Batista; Iana Mizumukai de Araújo; Adriana Lelis Carvalho; Maria Augusta V S D Alencar; Andressa K Nahas; Jorge Elias; Marcello H Nogueira-Barbosa; Carlos E G Salmon; Paula C L Elias; Ayrton C Moreira; Margaret Castro; Francisco J A de Paula Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-10-15 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Carolyn J Crandall; Joseph Larson; Jane A Cauley; John T Schousboe; Andrea Z LaCroix; John A Robbins; Nelson B Watts; Kristine E Ensrud Journal: JBMR Plus Date: 2019-11-30
Authors: Fjorda Koromani; Samuel Ghatan; Mandy van Hoek; M Carola Zillikens; Edwin H G Oei; Fernando Rivadeneira; Ling Oei Journal: Curr Osteoporos Rep Date: 2021-01-12 Impact factor: 5.096
Authors: Linsey U Gani; Kundan R Saripalli; Karen Fernandes; Suet F Leong; Koh T Tsai; Pei T Tan; Le R Chong; Thomas F J King Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-11-19 Impact factor: 3.240