Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of General Internal Medicine 11/2017

01-11-2017 | Original Research

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

Authors: Susan J. Diem, MD, MPH, Katherine W. Peters, MS, Margaret L. Gourlay, MD, MPH, John T. Schousboe, MD, PhD, Brent C. Taylor, PhD, Eric S. Orwoll, MD, Jane A. Cauley, DrPH, Lisa Langsetmo, PhD, Carolyn J. Crandall, MD, MS, Kristine E. Ensrud, MD, MPH, the Osteoporotic Fractures in Men Research Group

Published in: Journal of General Internal Medicine | Issue 11/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

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.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Ebelin P. Osteoporosis in men: why change needs to happen. Mitchell P, editor. www.iofbonehealth.org . Updated 2014. International Osteoporosis Foundation. Accessed June 9, 2017. Ebelin P. Osteoporosis in men: why change needs to happen. Mitchell P, editor. www.​iofbonehealth.​org . Updated 2014. International Osteoporosis Foundation. Accessed June 9, 2017.
2.
go back to reference Burge R, Dawson-Hughes B, Solomon DH, Wong JB, King A, Tosteson A. Incidence and economic burden of osteoporosis-related fractures in the United States, 2005–2025. J Bone Miner Res. 2007;22:465-75. Burge R, Dawson-Hughes B, Solomon DH, Wong JB, King A, Tosteson A. Incidence and economic burden of osteoporosis-related fractures in the United States, 2005–2025. J Bone Miner Res. 2007;22:465-75.
4.
go back to reference Screening for osteoporosis: U.S. Preventive services task force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2011;154:356-64.CrossRef Screening for osteoporosis: U.S. Preventive services task force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2011;154:356-64.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Lim LS, Hoeksema LJ, Sherin K. Screening for osteoporosis in the adult U.S. population: ACPM position statement on preventive practice. Am J Prev Med. 2009;36:366-75.CrossRefPubMed Lim LS, Hoeksema LJ, Sherin K. Screening for osteoporosis in the adult U.S. population: ACPM position statement on preventive practice. Am J Prev Med. 2009;36:366-75.CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Watts NB, Adler RA, Bilezikian JP et al. Osteoporosis in men: an Endocrine Society clinical practice guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2012;97:1802-22.CrossRefPubMed Watts NB, Adler RA, Bilezikian JP et al. Osteoporosis in men: an Endocrine Society clinical practice guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2012;97:1802-22.CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Assessment of fracture risk and its application to screening for postmenopausal osteoporosis. Report of a WHO Study Group. No. 843. 1994. Geneva, World Health Organization. WHO Technical Report Series. Assessment of fracture risk and its application to screening for postmenopausal osteoporosis. Report of a WHO Study Group. No. 843. 1994. Geneva, World Health Organization. WHO Technical Report Series.
10.
go back to reference Ensrud KE, Taylor BC, Peters KW et al. Implications of expanding indications for drug treatment to prevent fracture in older men in United States: cross sectional and longitudinal analysis of prospective cohort study. BMJ. 2014;349:g4120.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Ensrud KE, Taylor BC, Peters KW et al. Implications of expanding indications for drug treatment to prevent fracture in older men in United States: cross sectional and longitudinal analysis of prospective cohort study. BMJ. 2014;349:g4120.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
11.
go back to reference Schousboe JT, Ensrud KE. Diagnostic criteria for osteoporosis should not be expanded. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2015;3:236-8.CrossRefPubMed Schousboe JT, Ensrud KE. Diagnostic criteria for osteoporosis should not be expanded. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2015;3:236-8.CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Nayak S, Edwards DL, Saleh AA, Greenspan SL. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the performance of clinical risk assessment instruments for screening for osteoporosis or low bone density. Osteoporos Int. 2015;26:1543-54.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Nayak S, Edwards DL, Saleh AA, Greenspan SL. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the performance of clinical risk assessment instruments for screening for osteoporosis or low bone density. Osteoporos Int. 2015;26:1543-54.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
14.
go back to reference Adler RA, Tran MT, Petkov VI. Performance of the Osteoporosis Self-assessment Screening Tool for osteoporosis in American men. Mayo Clin Proc. 2003;78:723-7.CrossRefPubMed Adler RA, Tran MT, Petkov VI. Performance of the Osteoporosis Self-assessment Screening Tool for osteoporosis in American men. Mayo Clin Proc. 2003;78:723-7.CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Lynn HS, Woo J, Leung PC et al. An evaluation of osteoporosis screening tools for the osteoporotic fractures in men (MrOS) study. Osteoporos Int. 2008;19:1087-92.CrossRefPubMed Lynn HS, Woo J, Leung PC et al. An evaluation of osteoporosis screening tools for the osteoporotic fractures in men (MrOS) study. Osteoporos Int. 2008;19:1087-92.CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Richards JS, Peng J, Amdur RL et al. Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry and evaluation of the osteoporosis self-assessment tool in men with rheumatoid arthritis. J Clin Densitom. 2009;12:434-40.CrossRefPubMed Richards JS, Peng J, Amdur RL et al. Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry and evaluation of the osteoporosis self-assessment tool in men with rheumatoid arthritis. J Clin Densitom. 2009;12:434-40.CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Skedros JG, Sybrowsky CL, Stoddard GJ. The osteoporosis self-assessment screening tool: a useful tool for the orthopaedic surgeon. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89:765-72.PubMed Skedros JG, Sybrowsky CL, Stoddard GJ. The osteoporosis self-assessment screening tool: a useful tool for the orthopaedic surgeon. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89:765-72.PubMed
18.
go back to reference Steuart Richards J, Lazzari AA, Teves Qualler DA, Desale S, Howard R, Kerr GS. Validation of the osteoporosis self-assessment tool in US male veterans. J Clin Densitom. 2014;17:32-7.CrossRefPubMed Steuart Richards J, Lazzari AA, Teves Qualler DA, Desale S, Howard R, Kerr GS. Validation of the osteoporosis self-assessment tool in US male veterans. J Clin Densitom. 2014;17:32-7.CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Papaioannou A, Morin S, Cheung AM et al. 2010 clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in Canada: summary. CMAJ. 2010;182:1864-73.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Papaioannou A, Morin S, Cheung AM et al. 2010 clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in Canada: summary. CMAJ. 2010;182:1864-73.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
20.
go back to reference Blank JB, Cawthon PM, Carrion-Petersen ML et al. Overview of recruitment for the osteoporotic fractures in men study (MrOS). Contemp Clin Trials. 2005;26:557-68.CrossRefPubMed Blank JB, Cawthon PM, Carrion-Petersen ML et al. Overview of recruitment for the osteoporotic fractures in men study (MrOS). Contemp Clin Trials. 2005;26:557-68.CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Orwoll E, Blank JB, Barrett-Connor E et al. Design and baseline characteristics of the osteoporotic fractures in men (MrOS) study--a large observational study of the determinants of fracture in older men. Contemp Clin Trials. 2005;26:569-85.CrossRefPubMed Orwoll E, Blank JB, Barrett-Connor E et al. Design and baseline characteristics of the osteoporotic fractures in men (MrOS) study--a large observational study of the determinants of fracture in older men. Contemp Clin Trials. 2005;26:569-85.CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference WHO Scientific Group on the assessment of osteoporosis at primary health care level. Summary meeting report, Brussels, Belgium, 5–7 May 2004. www.who.int . Updated 2007. Geneva, World Health Organization. Accessed June 9, 2017. WHO Scientific Group on the assessment of osteoporosis at primary health care level. Summary meeting report, Brussels, Belgium, 5–7 May 2004. www.​who.​int . Updated 2007. Geneva, World Health Organization. Accessed June 9, 2017.
23.
go back to reference Looker AC, Melton LJ, III, Borrud LG, Shepherd JA. Lumbar spine bone mineral density in US adults: demographic patterns and relationship with femur neck skeletal status. Osteoporos Int. 2012;23:1351-60.CrossRefPubMed Looker AC, Melton LJ, III, Borrud LG, Shepherd JA. Lumbar spine bone mineral density in US adults: demographic patterns and relationship with femur neck skeletal status. Osteoporos Int. 2012;23:1351-60.CrossRefPubMed
24.
go back to reference Lohman TG, Roche AF, Martorell R. Anthropometric standardization reference manual. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Books, 1988. Lohman TG, Roche AF, Martorell R. Anthropometric standardization reference manual. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Books, 1988.
25.
go back to reference Pahor M, Chrischilles EA, Guralnik JM, Brown SL, Wallace RB, Carbonin P. Drug data coding and analysis in epidemiologic studies. Eur J Epidemiol. 1994;10:405-11.CrossRefPubMed Pahor M, Chrischilles EA, Guralnik JM, Brown SL, Wallace RB, Carbonin P. Drug data coding and analysis in epidemiologic studies. Eur J Epidemiol. 1994;10:405-11.CrossRefPubMed
26.
go back to reference Hajian-Tilaki K. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) Curve Analysis for Medical Diagnostic Test Evaluation. Caspian J Intern Med. 2013;4:627-35.PubMedPubMedCentral Hajian-Tilaki K. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) Curve Analysis for Medical Diagnostic Test Evaluation. Caspian J Intern Med. 2013;4:627-35.PubMedPubMedCentral
27.
go back to reference Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology. 1982;143:29-36.CrossRefPubMed Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology. 1982;143:29-36.CrossRefPubMed
28.
go back to reference Wright NC, Looker AC, Saag KG et al. 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 Miner Res. 2014;29:2520-6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Wright NC, Looker AC, Saag KG et al. 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 Miner Res. 2014;29:2520-6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
29.
go back to reference Watts NB, Leslie WD, Foldes AJ, Miller PD. 2013 International Society for Clinical Densitometry Position Development Conference: Task Force on Normative Databases. J Clin Densitom. 2013;16:472-81.CrossRefPubMed Watts NB, Leslie WD, Foldes AJ, Miller PD. 2013 International Society for Clinical Densitometry Position Development Conference: Task Force on Normative Databases. J Clin Densitom. 2013;16:472-81.CrossRefPubMed
31.
go back to reference Pang WY, Inderjeeth CA. FRAX without bone mineral density versus osteoporosis self-assessment screening tool as predictors of osteoporosis in primary screening of individuals aged 70 and older. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2014;62:442-6.CrossRefPubMed Pang WY, Inderjeeth CA. FRAX without bone mineral density versus osteoporosis self-assessment screening tool as predictors of osteoporosis in primary screening of individuals aged 70 and older. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2014;62:442-6.CrossRefPubMed
32.
go back to reference Sinnott B, Kukreja S, Barengolts E. Utility of screening tools for the prediction of low bone mass in African American men. Osteoporos Int. 2006;17:684-92.CrossRefPubMed Sinnott B, Kukreja S, Barengolts E. Utility of screening tools for the prediction of low bone mass in African American men. Osteoporos Int. 2006;17:684-92.CrossRefPubMed
33.
go back to reference Schousboe JT, Taylor BC, Fink HA et al. Cost-effectiveness of bone densitometry followed by treatment of osteoporosis in older men. JAMA. 2007;298:629-37.CrossRefPubMed Schousboe JT, Taylor BC, Fink HA et al. Cost-effectiveness of bone densitometry followed by treatment of osteoporosis in older men. JAMA. 2007;298:629-37.CrossRefPubMed
34.
go back to reference Schousboe JT, Gourlay M, Fink HA et al. Cost-effectiveness of bone densitometry among Caucasian women and men without a prior fracture according to age and body weight. Osteoporos Int. 2013;24:163-77.CrossRefPubMed Schousboe JT, Gourlay M, Fink HA et al. Cost-effectiveness of bone densitometry among Caucasian women and men without a prior fracture according to age and body weight. Osteoporos Int. 2013;24:163-77.CrossRefPubMed
35.
go back to reference Ito K, Hollenberg JP, Charlson ME. Using the osteoporosis self-assessment tool for referring older men for bone densitometry: a decision analysis. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2009;57:218-24.CrossRefPubMed Ito K, Hollenberg JP, Charlson ME. Using the osteoporosis self-assessment tool for referring older men for bone densitometry: a decision analysis. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2009;57:218-24.CrossRefPubMed
36.
go back to reference Tosteson AN, Melton LJ, III, Dawson-Hughes B et al. Cost-effective osteoporosis treatment thresholds: the United States perspective. Osteoporos Int. 2008;19:437-47.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Tosteson AN, Melton LJ, III, Dawson-Hughes B et al. Cost-effective osteoporosis treatment thresholds: the United States perspective. Osteoporos Int. 2008;19:437-47.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
37.
go back to reference Ensrud KE, Blackwell TL, Cawthon PM et al. Degree of Trauma Differs for Major Osteoporotic Fracture Events in Older Men Versus Older Women. J Bone Miner Res. 2016;31:204-7.CrossRefPubMed Ensrud KE, Blackwell TL, Cawthon PM et al. Degree of Trauma Differs for Major Osteoporotic Fracture Events in Older Men Versus Older Women. J Bone Miner Res. 2016;31:204-7.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Screening for Osteoporosis in Older Men: Operating Characteristics of Proposed Strategies for Selecting Men for BMD Testing
Authors
Susan J. Diem, MD, MPH
Katherine W. Peters, MS
Margaret L. Gourlay, MD, MPH
John T. Schousboe, MD, PhD
Brent C. Taylor, PhD
Eric S. Orwoll, MD
Jane A. Cauley, DrPH
Lisa Langsetmo, PhD
Carolyn J. Crandall, MD, MS
Kristine E. Ensrud, MD, MPH
the Osteoporotic Fractures in Men Research Group
Publication date
01-11-2017
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine / Issue 11/2017
Print ISSN: 0884-8734
Electronic ISSN: 1525-1497
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-017-4153-4

Other articles of this Issue 11/2017

Journal of General Internal Medicine 11/2017 Go to the issue
Live Webinar | 27-06-2024 | 18:00 (CEST)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Live: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

WHO estimates that half of all patients worldwide are non-adherent to their prescribed medication. The consequences of poor adherence can be catastrophic, on both the individual and population level.

Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.

Prof. Kevin Dolgin
Prof. Florian Limbourg
Prof. Anoop Chauhan
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Obesity Clinical Trial Summary

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.

Developed by: Springer Medicine

Highlights from the ACC 2024 Congress

Year in Review: Pediatric cardiology

Watch Dr. Anne Marie Valente present the last year's highlights in pediatric and congenital heart disease in the official ACC.24 Year in Review session.

Year in Review: Pulmonary vascular disease

The last year's highlights in pulmonary vascular disease are presented by Dr. Jane Leopold in this official video from ACC.24.

Year in Review: Valvular heart disease

Watch Prof. William Zoghbi present the last year's highlights in valvular heart disease from the official ACC.24 Year in Review session.

Year in Review: Heart failure and cardiomyopathies

Watch this official video from ACC.24. Dr. Biykem Bozkurt discusses last year's major advances in heart failure and cardiomyopathies.