An evaluation of osteoporosis screening tools for the osteoporotic fractures in men (MrOS) study

Screening for Osteoporosis Risk Among Community-Dwelling Older Adults: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Due to potential health-related consequences of osteoporosis (OP), health care providers who do not order imaging, such as physical therapists, should be aware of OP screening tools that identify individuals who need medical and rehabilitation care. However, current knowledge and guidance on screening tools is limited. Therefore, we explored OP screening tools that are appropriate and feasible for physical therapy practice, and evaluated tools' effectiveness by examining their clinimetric properties.

METHODS

A systematic search of the following databases was performed: PubMed, PEDro, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Web of Science. Articles were included if the study population was 50 years and older, had a diagnosis of OP, if the screening tool was within the scope of physical therapy practice, and was compared to either a known diagnosis of OP or bone densitometry scan results. Included articles underwent multiple reviews for inclusion and exclusion, with each review round having a different randomly selected pair of reviewers. Data were extracted from included articles for participant demographics, outcome measures, cut-off values, and clinimetric properties. Results were categorized with positive and negative likelihood ratios (+LR/-LR) based on the magnitude of change in the probability of having or not having OP.

RESULTS

+LRs ranged from 0.15 to 20.21, with the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) and Study of Osteoporotic Fractures (SOF) having a large shift in posttest probability. -LRs ranged from 0.03 to 1.00, with the FRAX, Male Osteoporosis Risk Estimation Scores, Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool (OST), and Simple Calculated Osteoporosis Risk Estimation having a large shift in posttest probability.

CONCLUSION

Tools with moderate-large shift for both +LR and -LR recommended for use are: (1) OST; (2) FRAX; and (3) SOF. The variability in cut-off scores and clinimetric properties based on gender, age, and race/ethnicities made it impossible to provide one specific recommendation for an OP screening tool. Future research should focus on OP risk prediction among males and racial and ethnic groups.

Simple Self-Assessment Tool to Predict Osteoporosis in Taiwanese Men

Background: Although the self-assessment tools for predicting osteoporosis are convenient for clinicians, they are not commonly used among men. We developed the Male Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool for Taiwan (MOSTAi) to identify the patients at risk of osteoporosis. Methods: All the participants completed a questionnaire on the clinical risk factors for the fracture risk assessment tool. The risk index was calculated by the multivariate regression model through the item reduction method. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to analyze its sensitivity and specificity, and MOSTAi was developed and validated. Results: A total of 2,290 men participated in the bone mineral density (BMD) survey. We chose a model that considered two variables (age and weight). The area under the curve (AUC) of the model was 0.700. The formula for the MOSTAi index is as follows: 0.3 × (weight in kilograms) - 0.1 × (years). We chose 11 as the appropriate cut-off value for the MOSTAi index to identify the subjects at the risk of osteoporosis. Conclusions: The MOSTAi is a simple, intuitive, and country-specific tool that can predict the risk of osteoporosis in Taiwanese men. Due to different demographic characteristics, each region of the world can develop its own model to identify patients with osteoporosis more effectively.

Utility of Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool as a Screening Tool for Osteoporosis in Irish Men and Women: Results of the DXA-HIP Project

Many algorithms have been developed and publicised over the past 2 decades for identifying those most likely to have osteoporosis or low BMD, or at increased risk of fragility fracture. The Osteoporosis Self-assessment Tool index (OSTi) is one of the oldest, simplest, and widely used for identifying men and women with low BMD or osteoporosis. OSTi has been validated in many cohorts worldwide but large studies with robust analyses evaluating this or other algorithms in adult populations residing in the Republic of Ireland are lacking, where waiting times for public DXA facilities are long. In this study we evaluated the validity of OSTi in men and women drawn from a sampling frame of more than 36,000 patients scanned at one of 3 centres in the West of Ireland. 18,670 men and women aged 40 years and older had a baseline scan of the lumbar spine femoral neck and total hip available for analysis. 15,964 (86%) were female, 5,343 (29%) had no major clinical risk factors other than age, while 5,093 (27%) had a prior fracture. Approximately 2/3 had a T-score ≤-1.0 at one or more skeletal sites and 1/3 had a T-score ≤-1.0 at all 3 skeletal sites, while 1 in 5 had a DXA T-score ≤-2.5 at one or more skeletal sites and 5% had a T-score ≤-2.5 at all 3 sites. OSTi generally performed well in our population with area under the curve (AUC) values ranging from 0.581 to 0.881 in men and 0.701 to 0.911 in women. The performance of OSTi appeared robust across multiple sub-group analyses. AUC values were greater for women, proximal femur sites, those without prior fractures and those not taking osteoporosis medication. Optimal OSTi cut-points were '2' for men and '0' for women in our study population. OSTi is a simple and effective tool to aid identification of Irish men and women with low BMD or osteoporosis. Use of OSTi could improve the effectiveness of DXA screening programmes for older adults in Ireland.

Using a simple preliminary screening tool to explore related factors of osteoporosis in the elderly of southern Taiwan

The aims of this study were to use a simple screening tool to explore related factors with osteoporosis in the elderly in the community of southern Taiwan.This was an observational cross-sectional study using Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool for Asia (OSTA), Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool for Taiwanese (OSTAi), and the basic demographic information to identify osteoporosis in the participants. This study collected data from 200 participants aged 65 and above and living in southern Taiwan.The prevalence of osteoporosis among elders in the community was 30.5% (OSTA) and 58.0% (OSTAi), respectively. The prevalence of osteoporosis determined by OSTA and OSTAi in female (33.1% and 63.1%, respectively.) was higher than in male (25.7% and 48.6%, respectively.). Risk factors such as gender, age, and body mass index (BMI) were significantly associated with osteoporosis (P < .001). Using OSTA and OSTAi to assess the risk for osteoporosis, for every 1 year of age increase, the odds ratio (OR) value of osteoporosis increased by 1.84 and 1.50 times, respectively (P < .001); for every 1 kg/m2 increase in BMI, the OR of osteoporosis decreases by 0.36 and 0.44 times, respectively. The results of this study can be used a simple tool of OSTA and OSTAi self-examination to screen potential high-risk groups for osteoporosis in the community.OSTA and OSTAi can screen for possible high-risk groups early and without invasive examinations and self-examination tools in a hospital. Low BMI poses higher risks of osteoporosis for the elderly, so increasing functional ability, improving muscle strength, maintaining exercise habits and keeping proper weight could prevent osteoporosis in the seniors.

Performance of Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool (OST) in Predicting Osteoporosis-A Review

Bone health screening plays a vital role in the early diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis to prevent fragility fractures among the elderly and high-risk individuals. Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), which detects bone mineral density, is the gold standard in diagnosing osteoporosis but is not suitable for screening. Therefore, many screening tools have been developed to identify individuals at risk for osteoporosis and prioritize them for DXA scanning. The Osteoporosis Self-assessment Tool (OST) is among the first tools established to predict osteoporosis in postmenopausal women. It can identify the population at risk for osteoporosis, but its performance varies according to ethnicity, gender, and age. Thus, these factors should be considered to ensure the optimal use of OST worldwide. Overall, OST is a simple and economical screening tool to predict osteoporosis and it can help to optimize the use of DXA.

Screening for Osteoporosis in Older Men: Operating Characteristics of Proposed Strategies for Selecting Men for BMD Testing

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.

Effectiveness of Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool for Asians in Screening for Osteoporosis in Healthy Males Over 40 Years Old in China

In this study, we evaluated the effectiveness of the Osteoporosis Self-assessment Tool for Asians (OSTA) in screening for osteoporosis in the elderly male population in the Chengdu area, China. The Lunar Prodigy Advance bone densitometer was used to measure the bone mineral density of 11,039 healthy males over the age of 40 years. Men with OSTA scores of >-1, -4 < OSTA ≤ -1, or ≤-4 were assigned to the low-risk, moderate-risk, or high-risk group, respectively. The T-scores measured with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry at the different sites were compared across the groups. The bone mineral density of the lumbar spines L1-L4, the left femur, and other sites decreased gradually with age. With increasing age, the screening sensitivity of OSTA for osteoporosis in the lumbar spine and femur gradually increased, whereas its specificity decreased. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves for the OSTA index in different age groups and at different sites were 0.644-0.831. Therefore, the OSTA index demonstrated some value in screening for osteoporosis in men over the age of 50 years. Significant differences in its effectiveness were observed among different age groups.

Utility of Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool as a Screening Tool for Predicting Osteoporosis in Indian Men

The osteoporosis self-assessment tool (OSTA) predicts the risk of osteoporosis in an individual. It is a simple calculation-based tool [wt (kg) - age (yr)/5] and can be used for measuring bone mineral density (BMD). However, OSTA is influenced by ethnicity. We studied the performance of OSTA index as a screening tool for osteoporosis in 257 community-dwelling North Indian men above 50 yr age. Each subject underwent a detailed clinical, dietary, anthropometric, and biochemical assessment and bone density measurement using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. As per World Health Organization criteria, osteoporosis, osteopenia, and normal BMD were observed in 17.9%, 58.8%, and 23.3%, respectively. OSTA index ranged between -6.4 and 8.8. OST index ≤2 predicted osteoporosis with a sensitivity of 95.7% and a specificity of 33.6% and an area under the curve for a receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.702. The OSTA index is an effective screening tool for measuring BMD in elderly Indian men and can be used by primary care physicians.

Evaluation of the Predictive Index for Osteoporosis as a Clinical Tool to Identify the Risk of Osteoporosis in Korean Men by Using the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey Data

BACKGROUND

We previously proposed the Predictive Index for Osteoporosis as a new index to identify men who require bone mineral density measurement. However, the previous study had limitations such as a single-center design and small sample size. Here, we evaluated the usefulness of the Predictive Index for Osteoporosis using the nationally representative data of the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.

METHODS

Participants underwent bone mineral density measurements via dual energy X-ray absorptiometry, and the Predictive Index for Osteoporosis and Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool for Asians were assessed. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was used to obtain optimal cut-off points for the Predictive Index for Osteoporosis and Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool for Asians, and the predictability of osteoporosis for the 2 indices was compared.

RESULTS

Both indices were useful clinical tools for identifying osteoporosis risk in Korean men. The optimal cut-off value for the Predictive Index for Osteoporosis was 1.07 (sensitivity, 67.6%; specificity, 72.7%; area under the curve, 0.743). When using a cut-off point of 0.5 for the Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool for Asians, the sensitivity and specificity were 71.9% and 64.0%, respectively, and the area under the curve was 0.737.

CONCLUSION

The Predictive Index for Osteoporosis was as useful as the Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool for Asians as a screening index to identify candidates for dual energy X-ray absorptiometry among men aged 50-69 years.

Optimal Analysis to Discriminate Males’ Osteoporosis With Simple Physiological Indicators

Males account for one third of global hip fracture patients, and their hip fracture-related mortality rate is higher than that of females. Scholars have primarily investigated self-evaluation indicators for elderly Caucasians and other ethnicities, and have rarely conducted large-scale cutoff point studies on Asian males. In this study, a large-scale database on bone mineral density (BMD) examinations was used to conduct a cutoff point study on males with osteoporosis. This study involved a retrospective research design. Males who accepted BMD examinations from 2009 to 2012 at a large teaching hospital in Taiwan were sampled in this study. This study used the database for analyzing effects with using osteoporosis self-assessment indicator, age, body weight, and body mass index (BMI) to discriminate osteoporosis in males, specifically focusing on accuracy, cutoff point, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values. Overall, receiver operating characteristic curve for the samples reached 70%. These cutoff points included: a body weight is less than 58.8 kg, BMI is 23 kg/m2, and the osteoporosis self-assessment score is −1.86, to identify osteoporosis. Involving body weight and BMI as optimal assessing indicators for assessing osteoporosis among males younger than 65 years, and the osteoporosis self-assessment tool was ideal for measuring males older than 65 years. Professional health staff should apply convenient, low-cost, and accurate evaluation tools that can assist Asian males in planning preventive osteoporosis strategies to avoid osteoporotic fractures and death.

Development and Validation of Osteoporosis Risk-Assessment Model for Korean Men

PURPOSE

The aim of the present study was to develop an osteoporosis risk-assessment model to identify high-risk individuals among Korean men.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study used data from 1340 and 1110 men ≥50 years who participated in the 2009 and 2010 Korean National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, respectively, for development and validation of an osteoporosis risk-assessment model. Osteoporosis was defined as T score ≤-2.5 at either the femoral neck or lumbar spine. Performance of the candidate models and the Osteoporosis Self-assessment Tool for Asian (OSTA) was compared with sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC). A net reclassification improvement was further calculated to compare the developed Korean Osteoporosis Risk-Assessment Model for Men (KORAM-M) with OSTA.

RESULTS

In the development dataset, the prevalence of osteoporosis was 8.1%. KORAM-M, consisting of age and body weight, had a sensitivity of 90.8%, a specificity of 42.4%, and an AUC of 0.666 with a cut-off score of -9. In the validation dataset, similar results were shown: sensitivity 87.9%, specificity 39.7%, and AUC 0.638. Additionally, risk categorization with KORAM-M showed improved reclassification over that of OSTA up to 22.8%.

CONCLUSION

KORAM-M can be simply used as a pre-screening tool to identify candidates for dual energy X-ray absorptiometry tests.

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.

Sensitivity of osteoporosis screening guidelines for eventual hip fracture in older male veterans

This study sought to determine whether guideline-recommended clinical criteria to select men for osteoporosis screening provide significantly better sensitivity than the osteoporotic screening tool (OST) among men who later went on to have a hip fracture, and whether the sensitivity differs by race. This retrospective observational study uses data from the Department of Veterans Affairs Austin Automation Center. We identified 825 male veterans with hip fractures from 2007 to 2009. Clinical risk factors used as screening selection criteria were abstracted from five accepted guidelines. Outpatient encounters were examined for each subject to determine whether they would have met screening selection criteria for each guideline in the 5 years before their hip fracture event. Sensitivities for each guideline were compared with the OST, using McNemar's exact test. Sensitivities of Veterans Affairs Health Service Research and Development Services (VA HSR&D) and National Osteoporosis Foundation (NOF) guidelines were 77% and 82%, respectively, and were significantly better than the OST sensitivity of 72% (P<0.05). Sensitivities of American College of Physicians (ACP; 68%), VA Secretary's Letters (45%) and Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (13%) were significantly worse than the OST sensitivity (P<0.001). The sensitivities of the VA HSR&D, ACP and NOF were significantly higher in Whites compared with non-Whites (76% vs 65%, P<0.01; 70% vs 58%, P<0.01; and 84% vs 70%, P<0.001, respectively). Only VA HSR&D and NOF clinical screening criteria are more sensitive than OST in identifying veterans who subsequently experience hip fractures, and these sensitivities vary by race.

FRAX without bone mineral density versus osteoporosis self-assessment screening tool as predictors of osteoporosis in primary screening of individuals aged 70 and older

OBJECTIVES

To compare two well-validated tools--the FRAX without bone mineral density (BMD) and the Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Screening Tool (OST)--in predicting osteoporosis and to define thresholds above and below which it would be reasonable to recommend omitting BMD testing.

DESIGN

Retrospective review.

SETTING

General practices in Western Australia.

PARTICIPANTS

Individuals aged 70 and older responding to a prospective audit of osteoporosis investigation and management for whom dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry scan results and clinical risk factor data were available (N = 626).

MEASUREMENTS

Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were compared, upper and lower thresholds for omission of screening BMD were proposed, and the statistical performance measures for the tests are reported.

RESULTS

The areas under the ROC curves for the OST (0.76-0.82) were slightly better than for FRAX without BMD 10-year major osteoporotic fracture risk (0.64-0.76) in predicting osteoporosis at the defined sites. At defined lower thresholds, the tests were comparable in identifying a group with low osteoporosis risk (sensitivity 89.6-92.2%, specificity 35.0-39.9%), translating into 33.5% to 36.1% of tests saved at a cost of missing 7.8% to 10.4% of individuals with osteoporosis on BMD criteria. It was not possible to identify a useful upper threshold.

CONCLUSION

At the defined thresholds, the OST is as good as FRAX without BMD in identifying a low-risk population subgroup for whom screening BMD can reasonably be omitted. This could reduce costs and improve access to treatment.

Validation of the osteoporosis self-assessment tool in US male veterans

The osteoporosis self-assessment tool (OST) is a screening instrument that uses age and weight as parameters to predict the risk of osteoporosis. This study was designed to evaluate OST in predicting osteoporosis in males. Male veterans aged 50yr and older with no prior diagnosis of osteoporosis and no prior bone densitometry (dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry [DXA]) testing were eligible for the study. Sociodemographic information, medical history, and risk factors for osteoporosis were recorded. Anthropometric measurements were taken and DXA testing performed. The OST index for each subject was calculated and predictive values and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were evaluated for OST and osteoporosis. Five hundred eighteen subjects underwent DXA, 92 (17.8%) had osteoporosis, 281 (54.2%) had low bone mass, and 145 (28.0%) had normal bone mineral density. The OST index ranged from -8 to 23 with a mean of 4 (standard deviation ± 4.3). An OST index of 6 or lower predicted osteoporosis with a sensitivity of 82.6%, specificity of 33.6%, and an area under the curve for the ROC curve of 0.67. OST index performed better in non-Hispanic whites and males >65 yr. OST predicts osteoporosis with moderate sensitivity and poor specificity in men.

Indications of DXA in women younger than 65 yr and men younger than 70 yr: the 2013 Official Positions

Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is the method of choice to assess fracture risk for women 65 yr and older and men 70 yr and older. The 2007 International Society for Clinical Densitometry Official Positions had developed guidelines for assessing bone density in younger women during and after the menopausal transition and in men 50-69 yr and the 2008 National Osteoporosis Foundation (NOF) guidelines recommended testing in postmenopausal women younger than 65 yr and men 50-69 yr only in the presence of clinical risk factors. The purpose of the 2013 DXA Task Force was to reassess the NOF guidelines for ordering DXA in postmenopausal women younger than 65 yr and men 50-69 yr. The Task Force reviewed the literature published since the 2007 Position Development Conference and 2008 NOF, reviewing clinical decision rules such as the Osteoporosis Screening Tool and FRAX and sought to keep recommendations simple to remember and implement. Based on this assessment, the NOF guidelines were endorsed; DXA was recommended in those postmenopausal women younger than 65 yr and men 50-69 yr only in the presence of clinical risk factors for low bone mass, such as low body weight, prior fracture, high-risk medication use, or a disease or condition associated with bone loss.

Osteoporosis in older men: recent advances in pathophysiology and treatment

Osteoporosis remains underrecognized and undertreated but more so in men, adding considerably to fracture burden and costs. Fracture-related morbidity and mortality is higher in men, partly due to greater frailty. Improved peak bone mass, geometry and turn-over contribute to lower fracture incidence in men. Bioavailable androgens and oestrogens regulate these aspects of musculoskeletal sexual dimorphism, yet the direct cellular and molecular targets of sex steroids in bone remain incompletely understood. Screening with clinical risk factors and dual energy X-ray absorptiometry are advised in men from age 70 (or 50 with additional risk factors). We now have compelling evidence that osteoporosis drugs are equally effective in men and women, not only to increase bone density but also to prevent osteoporotic fractures. The use of testosterone or selective androgen receptor modulators for osteoporosis, sarcopenia, frailty and falls in men with late-onset hypogonadism requires further investigation.

Osteoporosis in men: an Endocrine Society clinical practice guideline

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to formulate practice guidelines for management of osteoporosis in men.

EVIDENCE

We used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system to describe the strength of recommendations and evidence quality.

CONSENSUS PROCESS

Consensus was guided by systematic evidence reviews, one in-person meeting, and multiple conference calls and e-mails. Task Force drafts were reviewed successively by The Endocrine Society's Clinical Guidelines Subcommittee and Clinical Affairs Core Committee; representatives of ASBMR, ECTS, ESE, ISCD; and members at large. At each stage, the Task Force received written comments and incorporated needed changes. The reviewed document was approved by The Endocrine Society Council before submission for peer review.

CONCLUSIONS

Osteoporosis in men causes significant morbidity and mortality. We recommend testing higher risk men [aged ≥70 and men aged 50-69 who have risk factors (e.g. low body weight, prior fracture as an adult, smoking, etc.)] using central dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. Laboratory testing should be done to detect contributing causes. Adequate calcium and vitamin D and weight-bearing exercise should be encouraged; smoking and excessive alcohol should be avoided. Pharmacological treatment is recommended for men aged 50 or older who have had spine or hip fractures, those with T-scores of -2.5 or below, and men at high risk of fracture based on low bone mineral density and/or clinical risk factors. Treatment should be monitored with serial dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry testing.

Selecting men for bone densitometry: performance of osteoporosis risk assessment tools in Portuguese men

SUMMARY

Clinicians need tools to identify patients most likely to benefit from bone mineral density (BMD) testing, for which cost-effectiveness does not allow generalized screening. This study supports the utility of osteoporosis risk assessment tools in selecting men for BMD testing. Different cutoff values may be appropriate for different countries and/or ethnic origins.

INTRODUCTION

Our aim was to evaluate the utility of three osteoporosis (OP) risk assessment tools in a large group of Portuguese men aged 50 or more and to determine the best cutoff value to be used for selecting men for bone densitometry.

METHODS

We assessed the performance of three simple tools in 202 randomly selected men: body weight criterion (BWC), osteoporosis self-assessment tool for Asians (OSTA), and a modified version of the OSTA equation (OST). Previously published cutoff values (validated in postmenopausal women) and three additional cutoff values were tested. Sensitivity (SE), specificity (SP), predictive values, and area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve for correctly selecting men with OP (defined by BMD testing) were determined.

RESULTS

Mean age of the cohort was 63.8 years. According to the World Health Organization diagnostic categories, 16.8% had osteoporosis. The best performing cutoffs for correctly selecting men with OP for BMD testing were OST < 3 (SE = 75.5%, SP = 50.0%, AUROC = 0.632), OSTA < 3 (SE = 73.5%, SP = 58.3%, AUROC = 0.659), and BWC < 75 kg (SE = 73.5%, SP = 61.3%, AUROC = 0.674).

CONCLUSIONS

OP risk assessment tools seem to be useful in men aged 50 or more. Best cutoff values are different from those recommended for postmenopausal women. Different cutoff values may be appropriate for different countries and/or ethnic origins.

Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry and evaluation of the osteoporosis self-assessment tool in men with rheumatoid arthritis

Males with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are at risk for osteoporosis but infrequently undergo dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). We examined the frequency of DXA in males enrolled in the Veterans Affairs Rheumatoid Arthritis Registry. The Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool (OST) index, a formula using age and weight, was calculated for all subjects. DXA was performed on 282 (35.5%) of the males who were younger (p < 0.01), had lower mean OST index score (p < 0.05), and were more likely to have been prescribed prednisone (p < 0.01) than subjects without DXA. Low bone mass (T-score < -1) was present in 73% of subjects with DXA; 37% of subjects with low-risk OST index scores had normal bone mineral density (BMD) compared with 5.6% of those with high-risk OST index scores (p < 0.01). There was a significant but modest correlation between BMD and the OST index (r = 0.17, p < 0.01). No OST score had a sensitivity and specificity of more than 80%. Association between OST index and BMD was strongest in non-Hispanic whites, subjects older than 60 yr, and smokers. DXA was underutilized in males with RA. The OST index correlated with low bone mass but could not reliably predict osteoporosis in this population.

Screening for osteoporosis in the adult U.S. population: ACPM position statement on preventive practice

CONTEXT

Osteoporosis is a common and costly disease that is associated with high morbidity and mortality. There is a lack of direct evidence supporting the benefits of bone mineral density (BMD) screening on osteoporosis outcomes. However, there is indirect evidence to support screening for osteoporosis given the availability of medications with good antifracture efficacy. This paper addresses the position of the American College of Preventive Medicine (ACPM) on osteoporosis screening.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

The medical literature was reviewed for studies examining the benefits and harms of osteoporosis screening. An overview is also provided of available modalities for osteoporosis screening, risk-assessment tools, cost effectiveness, benefits and harms of screening, rationale for the study, and recommendations from leading health organizations and ACPM. A review was done of English language articles published prior to September 2008 that were retrieved via search on PubMed, from references from pertinent review or landmark articles, and from websites of leading health organizations.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

There were no randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of osteoporosis screening on fracture outcomes. However, there was one observational study that demonstrated reduced fracture incidence among recipients of BMD testing. Dual energy x-ray absorptiometry is currently one of the most widely accepted and utilized methods for assessing BMD. Other potential tests for detecting osteoporosis include quantitative ultrasound, quantitative computer tomography, and biochemical markers of bone turnover. Testing via BMD is a cost-effective method for detecting osteoporosis in both men and women. Osteoporosis risk-assessment tools such as the WHO fracture-risk algorithm are useful supplements to BMD assessments as they provide estimates of absolute fracture risks. They can also be used with or without BMD testing to assist healthcare providers and patients in making decisions regarding osteoporosis treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

All adult patients aged >or=50 years should be evaluated for risk factors for osteoporosis. Screening with BMD testing for osteoporosis is recommended in women aged >or=65 years and in men aged >or=70 years. Younger postmenopausal women and men aged 50-69 years should undergo screening if they have at least one major or two minor risk factors for osteoporosis. It is also recommended that clinicians consider using an osteoporosis risk-assessment tool to evaluate absolute fracture risk to determine appropriate osteoporosis therapies.