Which is the preferred site for bone mineral density monitoring as an indicator of treatment-related anti-fracture effect in routine clinical practice? A registry-based cohort study.
Absorptiometry, Photon
/ methods
Adult
Aged
Bone Density
/ drug effects
Bone Density Conservation Agents
/ therapeutic use
Cohort Studies
Drug Monitoring
/ methods
Female
Femur Neck
/ drug effects
Hip Fractures
/ epidemiology
Hip Joint
/ drug effects
Humans
Incidence
Lumbar Vertebrae
/ drug effects
Manitoba
/ epidemiology
Middle Aged
Osteoporosis, Postmenopausal
/ diagnostic imaging
Osteoporotic Fractures
/ epidemiology
Registries
Risk Assessment
/ methods
Spinal Fractures
/ epidemiology
Anti-fracture effect
Bone mineral density
Dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry
Osteoporosis
Journal
Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA
ISSN: 1433-2965
Titre abrégé: Osteoporos Int
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9100105
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jul 2019
Jul 2019
Historique:
received:
19
02
2019
accepted:
14
04
2019
pubmed:
25
4
2019
medline:
14
1
2020
entrez:
25
4
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Change in total hip bone mineral density (BMD) provides a robust indication of anti-fracture effect during treatment monitoring in routine clinical practice, whereas spine BMD change is not independently associated with fracture risk. The role of monitoring bone mineral density (BMD) as an indicator of an anti-fracture effect is controversial. Discordance between the spine and hip BMD is common and creates uncertainty in clinical practice. Using a population-based BMD Registry for the Province of Manitoba, Canada, we compared change in the spine and hip BMD as an indicator of treatment-related fracture risk reduction. The study cohort included 6093 women age > 40 years initiating osteoporosis treatment with two consecutive dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans (mean interval 4.7 years). We computed change in the spine, total hip, and femur neck BMD between the first and second DXA scans as categorical (categorized as stable, detectable decrease, or detectable increase) and continuous measures. We modeled time to first incident fracture, ascertained from health services data, using Cox regression adjusted for baseline fracture probability. During a mean follow-up of 12.1 years, 995 women developed incident major osteoporotic fractures (MOF) including 246 with hip fractures and 301 with clinical vertebral fractures. Women with a detectable decrease in total hip BMD compared with stable BMD experienced an increase in MOF (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.46, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.25-1.70) while those with a detectable increase in total hip BMD experienced a decrease in MOF (aHR 0.71, 95% CI 0.61-0.83), and these results were not attenuated when adjusted for change in spine BMD. Similar results were seen for hip and clinical vertebral fracture outcomes, when BMD change was assessed as a continuous measure, and when femur neck BMD monitoring was used instead of total hip BMD monitoring. Treatment-related increases in total hip BMD are associated with lower MOF, hip, and clinical vertebral fracture risk compared with stable BMD, while BMD decreases are associated with higher fracture risk. In contrast, spine BMD change is not independently associated with fracture risk.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31016351
doi: 10.1007/s00198-019-04975-y
pii: 10.1007/s00198-019-04975-y
doi:
Substances chimiques
Bone Density Conservation Agents
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1445-1453Références
Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2009 Dec;23(6):781-8
pubmed: 19945689
Ann Pharmacother. 1998 Nov;32(11):1152-7
pubmed: 9825079
BMC Public Health. 2012 May 18;12:301
pubmed: 22537071
Ann Intern Med. 2011 Mar 1;154(5):356-64
pubmed: 21242341
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2000 Jan;85(1):231-6
pubmed: 10634392
CMAJ. 2010 Nov 23;182(17):1864-73
pubmed: 20940232
Osteoporos Int. 2011 Mar;22(3):817-27
pubmed: 21161509
Osteoporos Int. 1995;5(4):262-70
pubmed: 7492865
J Bone Miner Res. 2008 Feb;23(2):199-204
pubmed: 17937536
J Clin Densitom. 2005 Spring;8(1):25-30
pubmed: 15722584
Osteoporos Int. 2014 Oct;25(10):2359-81
pubmed: 25182228
J Clin Densitom. 2006 Jan-Mar;9(1):31-6
pubmed: 16731429
Ann Intern Med. 2008 Feb 5;148(3):197-213
pubmed: 18087050
Calcif Tissue Int. 2014 Nov;95(5):428-35
pubmed: 25187239
J Clin Densitom. 2003 Fall;6(3):275-82
pubmed: 14514998
Osteoporos Int. 2017 Dec;28(12):3289-3300
pubmed: 28770272
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2012 Jun;97(6):1871-80
pubmed: 22466336
Ann Intern Med. 2016 Oct 4;165(7):465-472
pubmed: 27428723
Osteoporos Int. 2011 Mar;22(3):829-37
pubmed: 21161508
Arch Osteoporos. 2017 Dec;12(1):43
pubmed: 28425085
Bone. 2009 May;44(5):734-43
pubmed: 19195497
J Bone Miner Res. 1999 Nov;14(11):1952-62
pubmed: 10571696
Osteoporos Int. 2011 Mar;22(3):839-47
pubmed: 20959961
N Engl J Med. 2012 Jan 19;366(3):225-33
pubmed: 22256806
J Bone Miner Res. 2007 Jun;22(6):789-98
pubmed: 17371161
BMJ. 2009 Jun 23;338:b2266
pubmed: 19549996
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2002 Apr;87(4):1586-92
pubmed: 11932287
Lancet. 2019 Jan 26;393(10169):364-376
pubmed: 30696576
J Bone Miner Res. 2019 Jun;34(6):1095-1100
pubmed: 30690793
J Bone Miner Res. 2010 Nov;25(11):2350-8
pubmed: 20499367
J Bone Miner Res. 2019 Apr;34(4):632-642
pubmed: 30674078
JAMA. 2002 Oct 16;288(15):1889-97
pubmed: 12377088
J Bone Miner Res. 2001 Jul;16(7):1212-9
pubmed: 11450696
J Rheumatol. 1995 May;22(5):932-6
pubmed: 8587085
Osteoporos Int. 1998;8(5):468-89
pubmed: 9850356
Arch Osteoporos. 2016 Dec;11(1):25
pubmed: 27465509
Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2014 Dec;28(6):835-41
pubmed: 25432355