Bone health status evaluation in men by means of REMS technology.
Bone fragility
Bone health status
Men
Osteoporosis
REMS
Radiofrequency Echographic Multi-Spectrometry
Journal
Aging clinical and experimental research
ISSN: 1720-8319
Titre abrégé: Aging Clin Exp Res
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101132995
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
18 Mar 2024
18 Mar 2024
Historique:
received:
27
09
2023
accepted:
21
02
2024
medline:
18
3
2024
pubmed:
18
3
2024
entrez:
18
3
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Osteoporosis in males is largely under-diagnosed and under-treated, with most of the diagnosis confirmed only after an osteoporotic fracture. Therefore, there is an urgent need for highly accurate and precise technologies capable of identifying osteoporosis earlier, thereby avoiding complications from fragility fractures. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy and precision of the non-ionizing technology Radiofrequency Echographic Multi Spectrometry (REMS) for the diagnosis of osteoporosis in a male population in comparison with conventional Dual-energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DXA). A cohort of 603 Caucasian males aged between 30 and 90 years were involved in the study. All the enrolled patients underwent lumbar and femoral scans with both DXA and REMS. The diagnostic agreement between REMS and DXA-measured BMD was expressed by Pearson correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman method. The accuracy of the diagnostic classification was evaluated by the assessment of sensitivity and specificity considering DXA as reference. A significant correlation between REMS- and DXA-measured T-score values (r = 0.91, p < 0.0001) for lumbar spine and for femoral neck (r = 0.90, p < 0.0001) documented the substantial equivalence of the two measurement techniques. Bland-Altman outcomes showed that the average difference in T-score measurement is very close to zero (-0.06 ± 0.60 g/cm REMS, is a reliable technology for the diagnosis of osteoporosis also in men. This evidence corroborates its high diagnostic performance already observed in previous studies involving female populations.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Osteoporosis in males is largely under-diagnosed and under-treated, with most of the diagnosis confirmed only after an osteoporotic fracture. Therefore, there is an urgent need for highly accurate and precise technologies capable of identifying osteoporosis earlier, thereby avoiding complications from fragility fractures.
AIMS
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy and precision of the non-ionizing technology Radiofrequency Echographic Multi Spectrometry (REMS) for the diagnosis of osteoporosis in a male population in comparison with conventional Dual-energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DXA).
METHODS
METHODS
A cohort of 603 Caucasian males aged between 30 and 90 years were involved in the study. All the enrolled patients underwent lumbar and femoral scans with both DXA and REMS. The diagnostic agreement between REMS and DXA-measured BMD was expressed by Pearson correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman method. The accuracy of the diagnostic classification was evaluated by the assessment of sensitivity and specificity considering DXA as reference.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A significant correlation between REMS- and DXA-measured T-score values (r = 0.91, p < 0.0001) for lumbar spine and for femoral neck (r = 0.90, p < 0.0001) documented the substantial equivalence of the two measurement techniques. Bland-Altman outcomes showed that the average difference in T-score measurement is very close to zero (-0.06 ± 0.60 g/cm
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
REMS, is a reliable technology for the diagnosis of osteoporosis also in men. This evidence corroborates its high diagnostic performance already observed in previous studies involving female populations.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38494464
doi: 10.1007/s40520-024-02728-4
pii: 10.1007/s40520-024-02728-4
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
74Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Consensus development conference:Diagnosis, Prophylaxis, and Treatment of Osteoporosis, Am. J. Med., vol. 94, no. 6, pp. 646–50 (1993) https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9343(93)90218-e
Porcelli T, Maffezzoni F, Pezzaioli LC, Delbarba A, Cappelli C (2020) Male osteoporosis: diagnosis and management - should the treatment and the target be the same as for female osteoporosis ? Eur J Endocrinol, vol. 183, no. 3, p. r-75–93, https://doi.org/10.1530/EJE-20-0034
Salari N, Ghasemi H, Mohammadi L, Behzadi M, Rabieenia E (2021) The global prevalence of osteoporosis in the world: a comprehensive systematic review and meta – analysis. J Orthop Surg Res 16:609. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-021-02772-0
doi: 10.1186/s13018-021-02772-0
pubmed: 34657598
pmcid: 8522202
Willers C et al (2022) Osteoporosis in Europe: a compendium of country-specific reports. Arch Osteoporos 17(1):23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11657-021-00969-8
doi: 10.1007/s11657-021-00969-8
pubmed: 35079919
pmcid: 8789736
Kanis JA et al (2021) SCOPE., : a new scorecard for osteoporosis in Europe, Arch. Osteoporos, vol. 16, no. 1, p. 82, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11657-020-00871-9
Wright NC et al (2014) The recent prevalence of osteoporosis and low bone mass in the United States based on bone mineral density at the femoral neck or lumbar spine. J Bone Min Res 29(11):2520–2526. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.2269
doi: 10.1002/jbmr.2269
Sarafrazi N, Wambogo EA, Shepherd JA (2021) Osteoporosis or Low Bone Mass in older adults: United States, 2017–2018. NCHS Data Brief no. 405:1–8
Chandran M et al (2023) Prevalence of osteoporosis and incidence of related fractures in developed economies in the Asia Pacific region: a systematic review. Osteoporos Int 34(6):1037–1053. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-022-06657-8
doi: 10.1007/s00198-022-06657-8
pubmed: 36735053
pmcid: 10202996
Johnell O, Kanis JA (2006) An estimate of the worldwide prevalence and disability associated with osteoporotic fractures. Osteoporos Int 17:1726–1733. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-006-0172-4
doi: 10.1007/s00198-006-0172-4
pubmed: 16983459
Vescini F et al (2021) Management of osteoporosis in men: a narrative review. Int J Mol Sci 22:13640. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms222413640
doi: 10.3390/ijms222413640
pubmed: 34948434
pmcid: 8705761
Haentjens P et al (2010) Meta-analysis: excess mortality after hip fracture among older women and men. Ann Intern Med 152(6):380–390. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-152-6-201003160-00008
doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-152-6-201003160-00008
pubmed: 20231569
pmcid: 3010729
Adler RA (2018) Update on osteoporosis in men. Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab 32(5):759–772. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beem.2018.05.007
doi: 10.1016/j.beem.2018.05.007
pubmed: 30449553
Shuhart CR et al (2019) Executive Summary of the 2019 ISCD Position Development Conference on Monitoring Treatment, DXA Cross-calibration and Least Significant Change, Spinal Cord Injury, Peri-prosthetic and Orthopedic Bone Health, Transgender Medicine, and Pediatrics, J. Clin. Densitom, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 453–471, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocd.2019.07.001
Camacho PM, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGISTS/AMERICAN COLLEGE OF ENDOCRINOLOGY CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINES FOR THE DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT OF POSTMENOPAUSAL OSTEOPOROSIS-2020 UPDATE et al (May 2020) Endocr Pract 26:1–46. https://doi.org/10.4158/GL-2020-0524SUPPL
Messina C et al (May 2015) Prevalence and type of errors in dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. Eur Radiol 25(5):1504–1511. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3509-y
Tomai Pitinca MD, Fortini P, Gonnelli S, Caffarelli C (2021) Could Radiofrequency Echographic Multi-spectrometry (REMS) overcome the limitations of BMD by DXA related to Artifacts? A series of 3 cases. J Ultrasound Med 40(12):2773–2777. https://doi.org/10.1002/jum.15665
doi: 10.1002/jum.15665
pubmed: 33615539
International Society for Clinical Densitometry (2019) ISCD Adult Official Positions
Agency IAE (2011) International Atomic Energy Agency. Dual Energy X Ray Absorptiometry for Bone Mineral Density and Body Composition Assessment. Hum Heal Ser IAEA Vienna, 15
Albano D et al (2021) Sep., Operator-Related Errors and Pitfalls in Dual Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry: How to Recognize and Avoid Them, Academic Radiology, vol. 28, no. 9. Elsevier Inc., pp. 1272–1286, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2020.07.028
Paola MD et al (2018) Radiofrequency echographic multispectrometry compared with dual X-ray absorptiometry for osteoporosis diagnosis on lumbar spine and femoral neck. Osteoporos Int 30(2):391–402. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-018-4686-3
doi: 10.1007/s00198-018-4686-3
pubmed: 30178159
Borsoi L, Armeni P, Brandi ML (2023) Cost-minimization analysis to support the HTA of Radiofrequency Echographic Multi Spectrometry (REMS) in the diagnosis of osteoporosis. Glob Reg Heal Technol Assess 10(1):1–11. https://doi.org/10.33393/grhta.2023.2492
doi: 10.33393/grhta.2023.2492
Paola MD et al (Feb. 2019) Radiofrequency echographic multispectrometry compared with dual X-ray absorptiometry for osteoporosis diagnosis on lumbar spine and femoral neck. Osteoporos Int 30(2):391–402. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-018-4686-3
Cortet B et al (2021) Radiofrequency Echographic Multi Spectrometry (REMS) for the diagnosis of osteoporosis in a European multicenter clinical context. Bone 143:115786. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2020.115786
doi: 10.1016/j.bone.2020.115786
pubmed: 33278653
Adami G et al (2020) Radiofrequency echographic multi spectrometry for the prediction of incident fragility fractures: a 5-year follow-up study. Bone 134:115297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2020.115297
doi: 10.1016/j.bone.2020.115297
pubmed: 32092480
Diez-Perez A et al (2019) Oct., Radiofrequency echographic multi-spectrometry for the in-vivo assessment of bone strength: state of the art—outcomes of an expert consensus meeting organized by the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Mus, Aging Clin. Exp. Res, vol. 31, no. 10, pp. 1375–1389, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40520-019-01294-4
Engelke K, Glüer CC (2006) Quality and performance measures in bone densitometry: part 1: errors and diagnosis. Osteoporos Int 17(9):1283–1292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-005-0039-0
doi: 10.1007/s00198-005-0039-0
pubmed: 16821003
Altman DG, Bland JM (1983) Measurement in Medicine: the analysis of Method Comparison studies †. Stat 32:307–317
Conversano F et al (2015) A Novel Ultrasound Methodology for estimating spine Mineral Density. Ultrasound Med Biol 41(1):281–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2014.08.017
doi: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2014.08.017
pubmed: 25438845
Casciaro S et al (Jun. 2016) An Advanced quantitative echosound methodology for femoral Neck Densitometry. Ultrasound Med Biol 42(6):1337–1356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2016.01.024
Hui SL et al (1997) Universal standardization of bone density measurements: a method with optimal properties for calibration among several instruments. J Bone Min Res 12(9):1463–1470. https://doi.org/10.1359/jbmr.1997.12.9.1463
doi: 10.1359/jbmr.1997.12.9.1463
Lu Y, Fuerst T, Hui S, Genant HK (2001) Standardization of bone mineral density at femoral neck, trochanter and ward’s triangle. Osteoporos Int 12(6):438–444. https://doi.org/10.1007/s001980170087
doi: 10.1007/s001980170087
pubmed: 11446558
Pisani P et al (2023) Fragility score: a REMS–based indicator for the prediction of incident fragility fractures at 5 years. Aging Clin Exp Res 0123456789. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40520-023-02358-2
Hans DB et al (2008) Peripheral dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry in the management of osteoporosis: the 2007 ISCD Official positions. J Clin Densitom 11(1):188–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocd.2007.12.012
doi: 10.1016/j.jocd.2007.12.012
pubmed: 18442759
Blake GM et al (2005) A list of device-specific thresholds for the clinical interpretation of peripheral x-ray absorptiometry examinations. Osteoporos Int 16(12):2149–2156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-005-2018-x
doi: 10.1007/s00198-005-2018-x
pubmed: 16228104
Hopkins SJ, Welsman JR, Knapp KM (2014) Short-term Precision Error in Dual Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry, Bone Mineral density and trabecular bone score measurements; and effects of obesity on Precision Error. J Biomed Graph Comput 4(2):8–14. https://doi.org/10.5430/jbgc.v4n2p8
doi: 10.5430/jbgc.v4n2p8
Ravaud P, Reny JL, Giraudeau B, Porcher R, Dougados M, Roux C (1999) Individual smallest detectable difference in bone mineral density measurements. J Bone Min Res 14(8):1449–1456. https://doi.org/10.1359/jbmr.1999.14.8.1449
doi: 10.1359/jbmr.1999.14.8.1449
Leslie WD, Moayyeri A (2006) Minimum sample size requirements for bone density precision assessment produce inconsistency in clinical monitoring. Osteoporos Int 17(11):1673–1680. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-006-0170-6
doi: 10.1007/s00198-006-0170-6
pubmed: 16900302
Caffarelli C et al (2022) Could radiofrequency echographic multispectrometry (REMS) overcome the overestimation in BMD by dual – energy X – ray absorptiometry (DXA) at the lumbar spine ? BMC Musculoskelet Disord 23(1):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-022-05430-6
Fassio A et al (2023) Radiofrequency echographic multi–spectrometry and DXA for the evaluation of bone mineral density in a peritoneal dialysis setting. Aging Clin Exp Res 35(1):185–192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40520-022-02286-7
doi: 10.1007/s40520-022-02286-7
pubmed: 36329361