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

被引:29
作者
Diem, Susan J. [1 ,2 ]
Peters, Katherine W. [3 ]
Gourlay, Margaret L. [4 ]
Schousboe, John T. [5 ,6 ,7 ]
Taylor, Brent C. [1 ,2 ,8 ]
Orwoll, Eric S. [9 ]
Cauley, Jane A. [10 ]
Langsetmo, Lisa [2 ]
Crandall, Carolyn J. [11 ]
Ensrud, Kristine E. [1 ,2 ,8 ]
机构
[1] Univ Minnesota, Dept Med, Box 736 UMHC, Minneapolis, MN 55455 USA
[2] Univ Minnesota, Div Epidemiol & Community Hlth, Minneapolis, MN 55454 USA
[3] Calif Pacific Med Ctr, Res Inst, San Francisco, CA USA
[4] Univ N Carolina, Dept Family Med, Chapel Hill, NC USA
[5] Pk Nicollet Clin, Minneapolis, MN USA
[6] HealthPartners Inst, Minneapolis, MN USA
[7] Univ Minnesota, Div Hlth Policy & Management, Minneapolis, MN USA
[8] VA Hlth Care Syst, Ctr Chron Dis Outcomes Res, Minneapolis, MN USA
[9] Oregon Hlth & Sci Univ, Bone & Mineral Unit, Portland, OR 97201 USA
[10] Univ Pittsburgh, Dept Epidemiol, Pittsburgh, PA 15261 USA
[11] Univ Calif Los Angeles, Dept Med, Los Angeles, CA 90024 USA
基金
美国国家卫生研究院;
关键词
CHARACTERISTIC ROC CURVE; BONE-MINERAL DENSITY; SELF-ASSESSMENT TOOL; COST-EFFECTIVENESS; UNITED-STATES; AMERICAN MEN; TASK-FORCE; DENSITOMETRY; FRACTURES; MROS;
D O I
10.1007/s11606-017-4153-4
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
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.
引用
收藏
页码:1235 / 1241
页数:7
相关论文
共 37 条
  • [1] Performance of the osteoporosis self-assessment screening tool for osteoporosis in American men
    Adler, RA
    Tran, MT
    Petkov, VI
    [J]. MAYO CLINIC PROCEEDINGS, 2003, 78 (06) : 723 - 727
  • [2] [Anonymous], 1994, Assessment of fracture risk and its application to screening for postmenopausal osteoporosis: report of a WHO study group
  • [3] [Anonymous], 2004, WHO SCI GROUP ASS OS
  • [4] [Anonymous], 1998, Antropometric standardization reference manual
  • [5] Overview of recruitment for the osteoporotic fractures in men study (MrOS)
    Blank, JB
    Cawthon, PM
    Carrion-Petersen, ML
    Harper, L
    Johnson, JP
    Mitson, E
    Delay, RR
    [J]. CONTEMPORARY CLINICAL TRIALS, 2005, 26 (05) : 557 - 568
  • [6] Incidence and economic burden of osteoporosis-related fractures in the United States, 2005-2025
    Burge, Russel
    Dawson-Hughes, Bess
    Solomon, Daniel H.
    Wong, John B.
    King, Alison
    Tosteson, Anna
    [J]. JOURNAL OF BONE AND MINERAL RESEARCH, 2007, 22 (03) : 465 - 475
  • [7] Screening for Osteoporosis: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement
    Calonge, Ned
    Bibbins-Domingo, Kirsten
    Cantu, Adelita Gonzales
    Curry, Susan
    Dietrich, Allen J.
    Flores, Glenn
    Grossman, David
    Isham, George
    LeFevre, Michael L.
    Leipzig, Rosanne M.
    Melnikow, Joy
    Melnyk, Bernadette
    Nicholson, Wanda
    Reyes, Carolina
    Schwartz, J. Sanford
    Wilt, Timothy
    [J]. ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2011, 154 (05) : 356 - +
  • [8] Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, FRAX WHO FRACT RISK
  • [9] Clinician's Guide to Prevention and Treatment of Osteoporosis
    Cosman, F.
    de Beur, S. J.
    LeBoff, M. S.
    Lewiecki, E. M.
    Tanner, B.
    Randall, S.
    Lindsay, R.
    [J]. OSTEOPOROSIS INTERNATIONAL, 2014, 25 (10) : 2359 - 2381
  • [10] Ebelin P, OSTEOPOROSIS MEN WHY