Performance of four clinical screening tools to select peri- and early postmenopausal women for dual X-ray absorptiometry

Screening for Osteoporosis to Prevent Fractures: A Systematic Evidence Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force

Importance

Fragility fractures result in significant morbidity.

Objective

To review evidence on osteoporosis screening to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Data Sources

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and trial registries through January 9, 2024; references, experts, and literature surveillance through July 31, 2024.

Study Selection

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews of screening; pharmacotherapy studies for primary osteoporosis; predictive and diagnostic accuracy studies.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Two reviewers assessed titles/abstracts, full-text articles, study quality, and extracted data; when at least 2 similar studies were available, meta-analyses were conducted.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Hip, clinical vertebral, major osteoporotic, and total fractures; mortality; harms; accuracy.

Results

Three RCTs and 3 systematic reviews reported benefits of screening in older, higher-risk women. Two RCTs used 2-stage screening: Fracture Risk Assessment Tool estimate with bone mineral density (BMD) testing if risk threshold exceeded. One RCT used BMD plus additional tests. Screening was associated with reduced hip (pooled relative risk [RR], 0.83 [95% CI, 0.73-0.93]; 3 RCTs; 42 009 participants) and major osteoporotic fracture (pooled RR, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.88-0.99]; 3 RCTs; 42 009 participants) compared with usual care. Corresponding absolute risk differences were 5 to 6 fewer fractures per 1000 participants screened. The discriminative accuracy of risk assessment instruments to predict fracture or identify osteoporosis varied by instrument and fracture type; most had an area under the curve between 0.60 and 0.80 to predict major osteoporotic fracture, hip fracture, or both. Calibration outcomes were limited. Compared with placebo, bisphosphonates (pooled RR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.45-1.00]; 6 RCTs; 12 055 participants) and denosumab (RR, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.37-0.97] from the largest RCT [7808 participants]) were associated with reduced hip fractures. Compared with placebo, no statistically significant associations were observed for adverse events.

Conclusions and Relevance

Screening in higher-risk women 65 years or older was associated with a small absolute risk reduction in hip and major fractures compared with usual care. No evidence evaluated screening with BMD alone or screening in men or younger women. Risk assessment instruments, BMD alone, or both have poor to modest discrimination for predicting fracture. Osteoporosis treatment with bisphosphonates or denosumab over several years was associated with fracture reductions and no meaningful increase in adverse events.

Screening to Prevent Osteoporotic Fractures: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force

IMPORTANCE

Osteoporotic fractures cause significant morbidity and mortality.

OBJECTIVE

To update the evidence on screening and treatment to prevent osteoporotic fractures for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and trial registries (November 1, 2009, through October 1, 2016) and surveillance of the literature (through March 23, 2018); bibliographies from articles.

STUDY SELECTION

Adults 40 years and older; screening cohorts without prevalent low-trauma fractures or treatment cohorts with increased fracture risk; studies assessing screening, bone measurement tests or clinical risk assessments, pharmacologic treatment.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Dual, independent review of titles/abstracts and full-text articles; study quality rating; random-effects meta-analysis.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Incident fractures and related morbidity and mortality, diagnostic and predictive accuracy, harms of screening or treatment.

RESULTS

One hundred sixty-eight fair- or good-quality articles were included. One randomized clinical trial (RCT) (n = 12 483) comparing screening with no screening reported fewer hip fractures (2.6% vs 3.5%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.72 [95% CI, 0.59-0.89]) but no other statistically significant benefits or harms. The accuracy of bone measurement tests to identify osteoporosis varied (area under the curve [AUC], 0.32-0.89). The pooled accuracy of clinical risk assessments for identifying osteoporosis ranged from AUC of 0.65 to 0.76 in women and from 0.76 to 0.80 in men; the accuracy for predicting fractures was similar. For women, bisphosphonates, parathyroid hormone, raloxifene, and denosumab were associated with a lower risk of vertebral fractures (9 trials [n = 23 690]; relative risks [RRs] from 0.32-0.64). Bisphosphonates (8 RCTs [n = 16 438]; pooled RR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.76-0.92]) and denosumab (1 RCT [n = 7868]; RR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.67-0.95]) were associated with a lower risk of nonvertebral fractures. Denosumab reduced the risk of hip fracture (1 RCT [n = 7868]; RR, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.37-0.97]), but bisphosphonates did not have a statistically significant association (3 RCTs [n = 8988]; pooled RR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.44-1.11]). Evidence was limited for men: zoledronic acid reduced the risk of radiographic vertebral fractures (1 RCT [n = 1199]; RR, 0.33 [95% CI, 0.16-0.70]); no studies demonstrated reductions in clinical or hip fractures. Bisphosphonates were not consistently associated with reported harms other than deep vein thrombosis (raloxifene vs placebo; 3 RCTs [n = 5839]; RR, 2.14 [95% CI, 0.99-4.66]).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In women, screening to prevent osteoporotic fractures may reduce hip fractures, and treatment reduced the risk of vertebral and nonvertebral fractures; there was not consistent evidence of treatment harms. The accuracy of bone measurement tests or clinical risk assessments for identifying osteoporosis or predicting fractures varied from very poor to good.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the performance of clinical risk assessment instruments for screening for osteoporosis or low bone density

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the performance of clinical risk assessment instruments for screening for DXA-determined osteoporosis or low bone density. Commonly evaluated risk instruments showed high sensitivity approaching or exceeding 90% at particular thresholds within various populations but low specificity at thresholds required for high sensitivity. Simpler instruments, such as OST, generally performed as well as or better than more complex instruments.

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of the study is to systematically review the performance of clinical risk assessment instruments for screening for dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA)-determined osteoporosis or low bone density.

METHODS

Systematic review and meta-analysis were performed. Multiple literature sources were searched, and data extracted and analyzed from included references.

RESULTS

One hundred eight references met inclusion criteria. Studies assessed many instruments in 34 countries, most commonly the Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool (OST), the Simple Calculated Osteoporosis Risk Estimation (SCORE) instrument, the Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool for Asians (OSTA), the Osteoporosis Risk Assessment Instrument (ORAI), and body weight criteria. Meta-analyses of studies evaluating OST using a cutoff threshold of <1 to identify US postmenopausal women with osteoporosis at the femoral neck provided summary sensitivity and specificity estimates of 89% (95%CI 82-96%) and 41% (95%CI 23-59%), respectively. Meta-analyses of studies evaluating OST using a cutoff threshold of 3 to identify US men with osteoporosis at the femoral neck, total hip, or lumbar spine provided summary sensitivity and specificity estimates of 88% (95%CI 79-97%) and 55% (95%CI 42-68%), respectively. Frequently evaluated instruments each had thresholds and populations for which sensitivity for osteoporosis or low bone mass detection approached or exceeded 90% but always with a trade-off of relatively low specificity.

CONCLUSIONS

Commonly evaluated clinical risk assessment instruments each showed high sensitivity approaching or exceeding 90% for identifying individuals with DXA-determined osteoporosis or low BMD at certain thresholds in different populations but low specificity at thresholds required for high sensitivity. Simpler instruments, such as OST, generally performed as well as or better than more complex instruments.

Discriminatory Performance of the Calcaneal Quantitative Ultrasound and Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool to Select Older Women for Dual-Energy X-ray Absorptiometry

The objective of this cross-sectional study was to evaluate the accuracy of the calcaneal quantitative ultrasound (QUS) and the Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool (OST) in identifying older women with osteoporosis as defined by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), and to establish optimal cutoffs to determine risk. We assessed bone mineral density of the femoral neck and lumbar spine using DXA and subsequent calcaneal QUS and OST measurements in 174 women aged 50-80 years. Pearson product correlation coefficients between QUS, OST, and DXA parameters were calculated. Receiver operating characteristic curves were constructed and areas under the curves (AUCs) and optimal thresholds for QUS and OST were defined based on sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratio analysis. The ability of calcaneal QUS to identify women with a T-score ≤-2.5 at the femoral neck (AUC = 0.892) consistently outperformed a T-score ≤-2.5 at the lumbar spine (AUC = 0.696) and OST at both the femoral neck and lumbar spine (AUC = 0.706-0.807). Stiffness index cutoff values that fall between 65 and 78 were found to warrant DXA screening, with a cutoff <65 indicating high likelihood of osteoporosis. Further prospective research is needed to examine the gender-related differences of QUS and OST diagnostic performance and their usefulness in clinical practice.

Development and validation of osteoporosis prescreening model for Iranian postmenopausal women

Background

Studies have indicated that the commonly used osteoporosis prescreening tools are not appropriate for use in every nation. This study was designed to develop and validate a prescreening model for bone mineral densitometry among Iranian postmenopausal women.

Methods

From 13613 individuals who were referred for bone mineral densitometry in Shariati hospital in Tehran, 8644 postmenopausal women were considered for the study after excluding men and premenopausal women. Questionnaires regarding the risk factors for osteoporosis were filled for each individual. Bone mineral density at the lumbar vertebrae (L2-L4), femoral neck and total femur was measured by dual X-ray absorptiometry. Using holdout validation, the study sample was divided into two parts; training set (5705) and test set (2939). Logistic regression analysis was performed on the training set. A scoring model was developed and tested in the test set.

Results

Based on the training set, a seven-variable model named OPMIP (Osteoporosis Prescreening Model for Iranian Postmenopausal women) was developed with C statistics (area under curve) of 0.72. Using a cut-off of -2.5 for the model, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value were 72%, 59.5%, 64% and 69% respectively. The model performance was tested in the test set. OPMIP correctly classified 67.10% of cases with a sensitivity and specificity of 73.2% and 61%.

Conclusions

In order to appropriately refer patients for a bone mineral densitometry, OPMIP can be used as a prescreening tool in Iranian Postmenopausal women.

Performance of Osteoporosis Self-assessment Tool for Asian (OSTA) for Primary Osteoporosis in Post-menopausal Malay Women

ABSTRACT

The Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool for Asians (OSTA) score has been developed to identify women at risk of osteoporosis. It can be used as a screening tool for patients at risk who would benefit from bone mineral density measurement and treatment. It was developed based on data from eight countries including Malaysia. However, most subjects were of Chinese (59%). This study evaluated the performance of OSTA among 152 post-menopausal Malay women. OSTA score calculation and DEXA scan were performed. Our results showed that the OSTA score is a good predictor of patients at risk of osteoporosis based on BMD measurements at the proximal femur. Instrument sensitivity was 87.5%, specificity was 95.8%, positive predictive value (PPV) was 0.538, negative predictive value (NPV) was 0.993, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) was 0.895. We conclude that use of the OSTA score in postmenopausal Malay women is effective and has adequate sensitivity and specificity.

KEY WORDS

Osteoporosis; post menopause; Malay; screening; OSTA.

Selection of women aged 50-64 yr for bone density measurement

The fracture risk assessment tool from the World Health Organization (FRAX(®)) estimates 10-yr major osteoporotic and hip fracture probabilities from multiple clinical risk factors and optionally femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD). FRAX without BMD has been proposed as a method to select postmenopausal women younger than 65yr for BMD measurement, but the efficiency of this strategy and its concordance with National Osteoporosis Foundation (NOF) treatment guidelines is unknown. The osteoporosis self-assessment test (OST) is another simple screening tool based on age and weight alone. A historical cohort of 18,315 women aged 50-64yr, drawn from the Manitoba Bone Density Program database, which contains clinical BMD results for the Province of Manitoba, Canada, was used to determine the performance of these screening tools in selecting postmenopausal women younger than 65yr for BMD testing. FRAX was closely aligned with indicators of high fracture risk (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUROC]: 0.89), whereas OST was better for detecting women with osteoporotic BMD (AUROC: 0.72). The combination of major fracture probability 10% or higher from FRAX without BMD or OST less than 1 identified 42% of women for BMD testing, capturing 72% of women meeting any NOF treatment criteria (90% of women with NOF criteria for high risk from FRAX or prior fracture). The negative predictive value to exclude qualification for treatment under the NOF criteria was 90%. These data may help to inform an evidence-based approach for targeting BMD testing in postmenopausal women younger than 65yr under the NOF treatment guidelines.

Comparison of different screening tools (FRAX®, OST, ORAI, OSIRIS, SCORE and age alone) to identify women with increased risk of fracture. A population-based prospective study

PURPOSE

To compare the power of FRAX® without bone mineral density (BMD) and simpler screening tools (OST, ORAI, OSIRIS, SCORE and age alone) in predicting fractures.

METHODS

This study was a prospective, population-based study performed in Denmark comprising 3614 women aged 40-90 years, who returned a questionnaire concerning items on risk factors for osteoporosis. Fracture risk was calculated using the different screening tools (FRAX®, OST, ORAI, OSIRIS and SCORE) for each woman. The women were followed using the Danish National Register registering new major osteoporotic fractures during 3 years, counting only the first fracture per person. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) and statistics and Harrell's index were calculated. Agreement between the tools was calculated by kappa statistics.

RESULTS

A total of 4% of the women experienced a new major osteoporotic fracture during the follow-up period. There were no differences in the area under the curve (AUC) values between FRAX® and the simpler tools; AUC values between 0.703 and 0.722 (p = 0.86). Also, Harrell's C values were very similar between the tools. Agreement between the tools was modest.

CONCLUSION

During 3 years follow-up FRAX® did not perform better in the fracture risk prediction compared with simpler tools such as OST, ORAI, OSIRIS, SCORE or age alone in a screening scenario where BMD was not measured. These findings suggest that simpler models based on fewer risk factors, which would be easier to use in clinical practice by the GP or the patient herself, could just as well as FRAX® be used to identify women with increased risk of fracture.

SUMMARY

Comparison of FRAX® and simpler screening tools (OST, ORAI, OSIRIS, SCORE) in predicting fractures indicate that FRAX® did not perform better in fracture risk prediction compared with the simpler tools or even age alone in a screening scenario without bone mineral density assessment.

Risk assessment tools to identify women with increased risk of osteoporotic fracture: complexity or simplicity? A systematic review

A huge number of risk assessment tools have been developed. Far from all have been validated in external studies, more of them have absence of methodological and transparent evidence, and few are integrated in national guidelines. Therefore, we performed a systematic review to provide an overview of existing valid and reliable risk assessment tools for prediction of osteoporotic fractures. Additionally, we aimed to determine if the performance of each tool was sufficient for practical use, and last, to examine whether the complexity of the tools influenced their discriminative power. We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases for papers and evaluated these with respect to methodological quality using the Quality Assessment Tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) checklist. A total of 48 tools were identified; 20 had been externally validated, however, only six tools had been tested more than once in a population-based setting with acceptable methodological quality. None of the tools performed consistently better than the others and simple tools (i.e., the Osteoporosis Self-assessment Tool [OST], Osteoporosis Risk Assessment Instrument [ORAI], and Garvan Fracture Risk Calculator [Garvan]) often did as well or better than more complex tools (i.e., Simple Calculated Risk Estimation Score [SCORE], WHO Fracture Risk Assessment Tool [FRAX], and Qfracture). No studies determined the effectiveness of tools in selecting patients for therapy and thus improving fracture outcomes. High-quality studies in randomized design with population-based cohorts with different case mixes are needed.

Evaluation of Clinical Decision Rules for Bone Mineral Density Testing among White Women

Background. Osteoporosis is a devastating, insidious disease that causes skeletal fragility. Half of women will suffer osteoporotic fractures during their lifetimes. Many fractures occur needlessly, because of inattentiveness to assessment, diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of osteoporosis. Study Purpose. Study Purpose. To evaluate the discriminatory performance of clinical decision rules to determine the need to undergo bone mineral density testing. Methods. A nationally representative sample from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey consisted of 14,060 subjects who completed surveys, physical examinations, laboratory tests, and bone mineral density exams. Multivariable linear regression tested the correlation of covariates that composed the clinical decision rules with bone mineral density. Results. Increased age and decreased weight were variables in the final regression models for each gender and race/ethnicity. Among the indices, the Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool, which is composed of age and weight, performed best for White women. Study Implications. These results have implications for the prevention, assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of osteoporosis. The Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool performed best and is inexpensive and the least time consuming to implement.

Development and validation of a tool for identifying women with low bone mineral density and low-impact fractures: the São Paulo Osteoporosis Risk Index (SAPORI)

The performance of the São Paulo Osteoporosis Risk Index (SAPORI) was tested in 1,915 women from the original cohort, São Paulo Osteoporosis Study (SAPOS) (N = 4332). This new tool was able to identify women with low bone density (spine and hip) and low-impact fracture, with an area under the receiving operator curve (ROC) of 0.831, 0.724, and 0.689, respectively.

INTRODUCTION

A number of studies have demonstrated the clinical relevance of risk factors for identifying individuals at risk of fracture (Fx) and osteoporosis (OP). The SAPOS is an epidemiological study for the assessment of risk factors for Fx and low bone density in women from the community of the metropolitan area of São Paulo, Brazil. The aim of the present study was to develop and validate a tool for identifying women at higher risk for OP and low-impact Fx.

METHODS

A total of 4,332 pre-, peri-, and postmenopausal women were analyzed through a questionnaire addressing risk factors for OP and Fx. All of them performed bone densitometry at the lumbar spine and proximal femur (DPX NT, GE-Lunar). Following the identification of the main risk factors for OP and Fx through multivariate and logistic regression, respectively, the SAPORI was designed and subsequently validated on a second cohort of 1,915 women from the metropolitan community of São Paulo. The performance of this tool was assessed through ROC analysis.

RESULTS

The main and significant risk factors associated with low bone density and low-impact Fx were low body weight, advanced age, Caucasian ethnicity, family history of hip Fx, current smoking, and chronic use of glucocorticosteroids. Hormonal replacement therapy and regular physical activity in the previous year played a protective role (p < 0.05). After the statistical adjustments, the SAPORI was able to identify women with low bone density (T-score ≤ -2 standard deviations) in the femur, with 91.4% sensitivity, 52% specificity, and an area under the ROC of 0.831 (p < 0.001). At the lumbar spine, the performance was similar (81.5% sensitivity, 50% specificity, and area under ROC of 0.724; p < 0.001). Regarding the identification of low-impact Fx, the sensitivity was 71%, the specificity was 52%, and the area under the ROC was 0.689 (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The SAPORI is a simple, useful, fast, practice, and valid tool for identifying women at higher risk for low bone density and osteoporotic fractures.

Mikkeli Osteoporosis Index Identifies Fracture Risk Factors and Osteoporosis and Intervention Thresholds Parallel with FRAX

Osteoporosis Index (MOI) was developed from Fracture Index (FI), a validated fracture risk score, to identify also osteoporosis. MOI risk factors are age, weight, previous fracture, family history of hip fracture or spinal osteoporosis, smoking, shortening of the stature, and use of arms to rise from a chair. The association of these risk factors with BMD was examined in development cohorts of 300 Finnish postmenopausal women with a fracture and in a population control of 434 women aged 65-72. Validation cohorts included 200 fracture patients and a population control of 943 women aged 58-69. MOI identified femoral neck osteoporosis in these cohorts as well as the Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool (OST). In the pooled fracture cohort, the association of BMI-based FRAX fracture risk with MOI was good. After BMD measurement, MOI identified well FRAX hip fracture risk-based Intervention Thresholds (ITs) (AUC 0.74-0.90).

Association between circulating osteoprogenitor cell numbers and bone mineral density in postmenopausal osteoporosis

The role of circulating osteoprogenitor cells in postmenopausal osteoporosis is unknown. We found that alkaline-phosphatase-positive (AP+) cells are the lacking cells in osteoporosis, whose reduction is related to bone loss. Conversely, the increased number of alkaline phosphatase/CD34-positive cells may reflect the reactive bone marrow contribution to bone formation.

INTRODUCTION

Circulating osteoprogenitor cells mineralize in vitro and in vivo. Loss of osteogenic cells may account for bone loss in osteoporosis. We studied whether there is an association between the number of circulating osteoprogenitor cells and bone mineral density (BMD) in postmenopausal women with and without osteoporosis.

METHODS

The number of circulating AP+, osteocalcin-positive (OCN+), AP+/CD34+, and OCN+/CD34+ cells was quantified in 54 postmenopausal osteoporotic women and 36 age-matched nonosteoporotic controls.

RESULTS

The number of AP+ cells was lower in osteoporotic women than in controls (127 +/- 16 vs 234 +/- 23 per microliter; p < 0.001); higher levels of AP+/CD34+, OCN+, and OCN+/CD34+ cells were found in osteoporotic than controls (p < 0.01 for all). The number of AP+ cells was correlated with lumbar BMD (rho = 0.29; p = 0.008) and proximal femur BMD (rho = 0.31; p = 0.005) whereas inverse correlations were found between AP+/CD34+ cells, OCN+, OCN+/CD34+, and BMD. Reduced AP+ cells and increased AP+/CD34 +, OCN+, and OCN+/CD34+ cells were predictors of low BMD, independent of traditional risk factors for osteoporosis.

CONCLUSION

In postmenopausal osteoporotic women, a reduced number of circulating AP+ cells and increased levels of AP+/CD34+, OCN+, and OCN+/CD34+ cells are associated with reduced bone mineral density, the interpretation of such a cellular imbalance needing exploration.

The Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool versus alternative tests for selecting postmenopausal women for bone mineral density assessment: a comparative systematic review of accuracy

SUMMARY

We performed a systematic review of studies comparing the Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool (OST) and other tests used to select women for bone mineral density (BMD) assessment. In comparative meta-analyses, we found that the accuracy of OST was similar to other tests that are based on information from the medical history. By contrast, assessment by quantitative ultrasonography at the heel was more accurate than OST in discriminating between women with high and low BMD. The methodological quality of the included studies was generally low.

INTRODUCTION

Numerous tests are suggested for triaging postmenopausal women for bone mineral density (BMD) assessment by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Previous studies suggest that OST, based on age and weight only, may be as accurate as more complex triage tests. We systematically compare the accuracy of OST and alternative triage tests in postmenopausal women.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, citation lists, and conference proceedings. Our main measure of accuracy was the diagnostic odds ratio (DOR). We compared summary estimates of DOR (sDOR) for OST and alternative tests in pairwise meta-analyses by using the Moses-Littenberg approach.

RESULTS

Summary estimates of DOR for OST and the clinical decision rules Simple Calculated Osteoporosis Risk Estimation (SCORE) and Osteoporosis Risk Assessment Instrument (ORAI) did not differ significantly in white women (relative sDOR: 0.57-1.17, all p >or= 0.11). By contrast, sDOR was higher for Stiffness Index assessed by calcaneal quantitative ultrasonography than for OST (relative sDOR: 1.9, p = 0.005). Studies were few in Asian and black women. Methodological quality, assessed with the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) checklist, was generally low.

CONCLUSIONS

In white women, the accuracy of OST and alternative clinical decision rules was similar, whereas Stiffness Index was more accurate than OST. Low study quality renders transferability to clinical settings uncertain.

Using risk factors and quantitative ultrasound to identify postmenopausal caucasian women at risk of osteoporosis

There is a need to prescreen large numbers of individuals for osteoporosis due to current demands on clinical resources. Some previous attempts to predict individuals at risk have used simple indices based on patient information, or Quantitative Ultrasound (QUS) and have shown good sensitivity but also demonstrated low specificity, which means that many individuals with good bone mineral density were also selected. The aim of this study was to determine if a tool based on a combination of risk factors and QUS measurements could also be made to provide improved specificity. A risk factors measurement questionnaire was created and completed for a sample of Caucasian postmenopausal women (n=235) who had undergone Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry scanning. QUS measurements were also taken at various skeletal sites. Assessment tools were generated using stepwise regression to predict osteoporosis, evaluated by receiver operating characteristic curves, and assessed using area under the curve values. Specificity values were determined at a sensitivity of 0.90 to establish the comparative utility of each assessment tool. Using only a risk factors model the specificities were 0.28 at the lumbar spine, 0.45 for the femoral neck and 0.68 for the total hip. In a risk factors+QUS data model the specificities measured were 0.44 for the lumbar spine, 0.78 for the femoral neck, and 0.84 for the total hip. These novel assessment tools can identify those with low bone mineral density at a number of skeletal sites and help towards avoiding many unnecessary investigations in the future.

Clinical performance of osteoporosis risk assessment tools in women aged 67 years and older

Clinical performance of osteoporosis risk assessment tools was studied in women aged 67 years and older. Weight was as accurate as two of the tools to detect low bone density. Discriminatory ability was slightly better for the OST risk tool, which is based only on age and weight.

INTRODUCTION

Screening performance of osteoporosis risk assessment tools has not been tested in a large, population-based US cohort.

METHODS

We conducted a diagnostic accuracy analysis of the Osteoporosis Self-assessment Tool (OST), Osteoporosis Risk Assessment Instrument (ORAI), Simple Calculated Osteoporosis Risk Estimation (SCORE), and individual risk factors (age, weight or prior fracture) to identify low central (hip and lumbar spine) bone mineral density (BMD) in 7779 US women aged 67 years and older participating in the Study of Osteoporotic Fractures.

RESULTS

The OST had the greatest area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC 0.76, 95% CI 0.74, 0.77). Weight had an AUC of 0.73 (95% CI 0.72, 0.75), which was >or=AUC values for the ORAI, SCORE, age or prior fracture. Using cut points from the development papers, the risk tools had sensitivities >or=85% and specificities

CONCLUSIONS

Weight identified low central BMD as accurately as the ORAI and SCORE. The risk tools would be unlikely to show an advantage over simple weight cut points in an osteoporosis screening protocol for elderly women.

Collapse

Key Words

• bone density
• female
• mass screening
• osteoporosis
• postmenopause
• risk assessment

Collapse

MESH Headings

• Age Factors
• Aged
• Aged, 80 and over
• Algorithms
• Body Weight
• Bone Density
• Decision Support Techniques
• Epidemiologic Methods
• Estrogen Replacement Therapy
• Female
• Fractures, Bone/etiology
• Fractures, Bone/physiopathology
• Humans
• Osteoporosis, Postmenopausal/complications
• Osteoporosis, Postmenopausal/diagnosis
• Osteoporosis, Postmenopausal/physiopathology

Collapse

Grants

• R01 AR035583 NIAMS NIH HHS
• AR35582 NIAMS NIH HHS
• R01 AR035584 NIAMS NIH HHS
• AG05394 NIA NIH HHS
• R01 AG027576 NIA NIH HHS
• 2 R01 AG027574-22A1 NIA NIH HHS
• R01 AG005407 NIA NIH HHS
• K23 RR024685 NCRR NIH HHS
• R01 AR035582 NIAMS NIH HHS
• AR35584 NIAMS NIH HHS
• R01 AG027574 NIA NIH HHS
• 2 R01 AG005394-22A1 NIA NIH HHS
• AG05407 NIA NIH HHS
• R01 AG027576-22 NIA NIH HHS
• AR35583 NIAMS NIH HHS
• K23RR024685 NCRR NIH HHS
• R01 AG005394 NIA NIH HHS

Collapse

Affiliation(s)

M L Gourlay Department of Family Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7595, USA.
J M Powers
L-Y Lui
K E Ensrud
Study of Osteoporotic Fractures Research Group

Collapse

Collaborators Collapse

Impact of systematic implementation of a clinical case finding strategy on diagnosis and therapy of postmenopausal osteoporosis

INTRODUCTION

Case finding for osteoporosis in postmenopausal women is advocated in guidelines of osteoporosis, but implementation is unsatisfactory. We studied, in daily practice, the impact of systematic implementation of a previously validated clinical decision rule and fracture history on referral for bone densitometry (DXA) and drug prescription for osteoporosis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Before-after impact analysis in 41,478 consecutive consulting postmenopausal women, included by 1080 general practitioners (GPs) during 2 mo, using the osteoporosis self-assessment (OST) index (based on age and weight, indicating women at low [LR], moderate [MR], and high risk [HR] for having osteoporosis [T-score < -2.5 in spine and/or hip]) and fracture history. Relative risks (RRs) and 95% CIs were calculated between referrals before (n = 6580) and after intervention (n = 10,379) and between risk subgroups.

RESULTS

Post-intervention RR for referral for DXA was 1.9 (95% CI, 1.8-2.0). Compared with LR women with prior DXA, the RR was 6.3 (95% CI, 6.0-6.6) in MR and 10.7 (95% CI, 10.0-11.4) in HR women without fracture, but similar in MR and HR women with fracture (11.4 and 11.6, respectively). New cases of osteoporosis were diagnosed in 3811 women, 96% of whom were prescribed drug treatment. Of HR women, 79% were referred for DXA. The sensitivity of a low OST index to predict osteoporosis was 92% and specificity was 16%.

CONCLUSIONS

The impact of temporary systematic implementation of this case finding strategy on GP practice was high: it nearly tripled referrals for DXA, and 96% of patients found to have osteoporosis had treatment. The impact depended on OST index and fracture history. Only 79% of HR women were referred for DXA. Specificity of a low OST index to predict osteoporosis was low. This indicates the need in the GP population for case finding strategies with fewer barriers for referral for DXA and with higher accuracy for predicting osteoporosis.

Assessing population risk for postmenopausal osteoporosis: a new strategy using data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS)

Osteoporosis public health measures are hindered by the inability to easily identify subclinical disease. We have now estimated state-specific osteoporosis prevalences using a simple formula (OST Index) to analyze age and weight of 62,882 older women; the prevalences determined are similar to those based on BMD. This new method has potential use for guiding implementation of osteoporosis prevention/treatment programs.

INTRODUCTION

Although osteoporosis-related fractures are a major U.S. public health issue, population-based prevention programs have not yet been developed. One contributing factor has been lack of a suitable screening test to detect asymptomatic high-risk individuals.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We estimated state-specific prevalences of postmenopausal osteoporosis using the Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool Index (OST Index; [self-reported weight in kg - age] x 0.2) to analyze data from 62,882 women >or=50 yr of age who participated in the 2002 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS). The OST Index, designed to assess an individual's risk of disease, has previously been shown to have modest positive and high negative predictive value for osteoporosis defined by BMD criteria. Based on this index, women from each state were distributed among high-, moderate-, and low-risk OST categories. Calculated percentages for each category were weighted to U.S. Census Bureau population projections for 2002. By adjusting results to reflect previously validated percentages of women with osteoporosis in each risk category, we estimated the prevalence of postmenopausal osteoporosis in each state.

RESULTS

Our calculated weighted prevalence estimates agreed closely with those of the National Osteoporosis Foundation derived from actual femoral neck BMD measurements obtained in the third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (1988-1994) and projected to U.S. census state population predictions for 2002. Comparison of unweighted BRFSS-OST results and NHANES BMD data revealed similar percentages of osteoporosis among all women >or=50 yr of age (BRFSS, 18.5%; NHANES, 18.0%; p = 0.47) and also among white women (BRFSS, 19.0%; NHANES, 20.0%; p = 0.28). However, the percentages of osteoporosis among blacks and Hispanics did not correspond, at least partly because of the lack of race-specific reference standards for BMD measurements and OST index ranges.

CONCLUSIONS

Analysis of readily available BRFSS data with the OST index formula is a simple, no-cost technique that provides state prevalence estimates of postmenopausal osteoporosis that could be used to guide allocation of resources to statewide osteoporosis prevention programs.

Performance of the Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool in ruling out low bone mineral density in postmenopausal women: a systematic review

The Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool (OST) is a simple test that may be of clinical value to rule-out low bone mineral density. We performed a systematic review to assess its performance in postmenopausal women. We included 36 studies. OST performed moderately in ruling-out femoral neck T-score <or= -2.5, but poorly in ruling-out lumbar spine T-score <or= -2.5. Methodological study quality was generally low.

INTRODUCTION

The Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool (OST) is a simple clinical decision rule based on age and weight that may be of clinical value to rule-out low bone mineral density (BMD). Our aim was to systematically assess the performance of OST in postmenopausal women.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, citation lists and conference proceedings for studies evaluating OST using dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) as reference test to measure BMD. We evaluated methodological quality using the QUADAS checklist. Our main outcome was the likelihood ratio of a negative OST result (LR-).

RESULTS

OST performed moderately in ruling-out femoral neck T-score <or= -2.5 in whites, summary LR- (sLR-) 0.19 (95% CI, 0.17-0.21) and between-study heterogeneity was low (I(2) = 7%). The corresponding performance in Asians was similar, sLR- 0.19 (0.14-0.28), but there was considerable heterogeneity (I(2) = 64%). OST performed poorly in ruling-out lumbar spine T-score <or= -2.5 in whites and Asians, sLR- 0.43 (0.31-0.59) and 0.32 (0.28-0.38), respectively. The performance in ruling-out T-score <or= -2.0 in whites was poor regardless of region (sLR- >or=0.28). Methodological study quality was generally low.

CONCLUSIONS

The clinical usefulness of OST is uncertain. OST could be useful for ruling-out femoral neck T-score <or= -2.5, but confirmatory high-quality studies are needed.

Validation of the Cummings’ risk score; how well does it identify women with high risk of hip fracture: The Tromsø Study

OBJECTIVE

We examined a two-step case-finding strategy where the Cummings' risk score (NEJM 1995) was applied in a population-based setting together with bone mineral density (BMD) measurements in order to validate its ability to identify women with high risk of hip fracture.

METHODS

All Tromsø women aged between 65 and 74 were invited to the Tromsø Osteoporosis Study (TROST) together with a 5% random sample of women aged 75-84 years (n = 1410). All had forearm BMD measurements in 1994/95 and were followed for 5 years with respect to first hip fracture. A risk score was constructed matching the Cummings score as closely as possible.

RESULTS

In all 759, 578 and 73 women had 0-2, 3-4 and 5+ risk factors, respectively. Women with 5+ risk factors had a 5-year hip fracture risk of 11% (95% confidence interval (CI) 3.7-18.2%). BMD screening applied to these women identified 74% of them as osteoporotic and 19% as osteopenic with, respectively, 5-year hip fracture risk of 13% and 7.1%.

CONCLUSION

In a population different from the one the score was generated in, this simple risk score identifies a group of women with high risk of hip fractures. With no additional BMD measurements, those high-risk women could benefit from early intervention measures.

Ten-year absolute risk of osteoporotic fractures according to BMD T score at menopause: the Danish Osteoporosis Prevention Study

In the non-HRT arms of the DOPS study, 10-year fracture risk was higher at each level of T score than predicted by the Kanis algorithm. Under-reporting of fractures in registers and inclusion of HRT users are probable explanations for inappropriately low fracture risk estimates for younger women.

INTRODUCTION

International recommendations highlight the importance of absolute fracture risk in establishing intervention thresholds. The available estimates of long-term risk have been derived by combining relative risks from meta-analyses with U.S. normative BMD data and Swedish fracture incidence records. We validated the 2001 Kanis risk algorithm using incident fractures observed in untreated women in the first 10 years of the Danish Osteoporosis Prevention Study (DOPS). Comparisons were also made with the relative risks derived from a recent meta-analysis of 12 cohort studies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We analyzed DXA of the spine and hip from 872 women who were enrolled in the non-hormone replacement therapy (HRT) arms of the study and had not received HRT, bisphosphonates, or raloxifene. We collected verified reports of fractures at each visit. We focused on fractures of the hip, spine, shoulder, and forearm to provide risks comparable with the Kanis algorithm. Accordingly, asymptomatic radiographic vertebral fractures were not included.

RESULTS

Seventy-eight women (9%) sustained relevant fractures. The risk of fracture increased by 1.32 (95% CI, 1.02; 1.70) for each unit decrease in femoral neck T score and by 1.30 (95% CI, 1.06; 1.58) for each unit decrease in lumbar spine T score at baseline. Absolute fracture risk was higher than expected from the Kanis algorithm at all T score levels. The difference was greatest for participants in the higher range of T scores. At T = -1, the observed risk was 10.9% as opposed to an expected risk of 5.7%. Relative risk gradients were similar to those of the recent meta-analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

In healthy women, examined in the first year or two after menopause, 10-year fracture risk was higher at each level of BMD T score than expected from the model by Kanis et al. Inclusion of HRT users in the cohorts used may have led to higher BMD values and lower absolute fracture risk in the Kanis model. These longitudinal data can be used directly in estimating absolute fracture risk in untreated north European women from BMD at menopause.