Journal of Clinical Densitometry最新文献

After 15 months of preparation by task force chairs and teams, ISCD's 9th Position Development Conference (PDC) convened in Northbrook, IL, USA on March 28th and 29th, 2023 to approve new ISCD Official Positions in the topic areas of DXA Reporting, Follow-up BMD Testing and TBS Application and Reporting. Three teams of participants work to bring the PDC to fruition: the Steering Committee, Task Forces and Chairs, and the Expert Panel. To reach agreement on draft Official Positions, the PDC follows a scripted process with the UCLA/RAND Appropriateness Method (UCLA/RAM) as its foundation. Multiple rounds of data review, public debate and voting resulted in 32 new or modified Official Positions. Six companion position papers are also published along with this Executive Summary, serving as the detailed substantiation for the Official Positions. This Executive Summary reviews the personnel groups, activities and products of the 2023 PDC, with the entirety of the updated 2023 Official Positions presented in Appendix A. New Official Positions are highlighted in bold.

Introduction: This position development conference (PDC) Task Force examined the use and reporting of bilateral hip bone mineral density (BMD) measurements. This was deemed appropriate as increased availability of Dual-energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DXA) technology offering bilateral hip measurement resulted in more routine clinical use. The International Society for Clinical Densitometry Official Positions accept bilateral hip BMD measurement for clinical use but currently do not include recommendations for reporting those studies. Methods: Four key questions regarding bilateral hip reporting were proposed by the PDC Steering Committee. Relevant literature was identified using PubMed. Questions included whether bilateral hip measurements are appropriate for diagnostic classification or monitoring, as well as which bilateral hip regions of interest should be reported for diagnosis and monitoring. Additionally, the appropriate nomenclature for bilateral hip acquisition was defined. Results: The literature review demonstrated that bilateral hip measurement is appropriate and diagnostic classification should be based on the lowest T-score at the right or left side femoral neck or total hip; the mean T-score should not be used for diagnostic purposes. Mean bilateral total hip is preferred for BMD monitoring. The terms hip, or total hip were deemed appropriate nomenclature instead of femur or total proximal femur. Conclusion: Bilateral hip acquisition is clinically appropriate and reporting and nomenclature standards are offered herein when a bilateral hip study is acquired. In terms of future research, the impact of discordant hips on diagnosis and monitoring was identified as a significant knowledge gap.

Background: Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) measures are affected by the noise produced by external factors such as textile compression found in loose clothing. The study aimed to determine the effect of a compression bandage (CB) on body composition (BC) assessed by DXA.

Methods: Sixty volunteers (age=21.4±4.7yr.) underwent full-body DXA scans on a control (CTRL) condition and after wearing a 30-mmHg CB on the trunk, legs, and arms. ANOVA (2 genders by 2 experimental conditions) determined mean interactions in BC variables tissue body fat% (BF%), region body fat% (RBF%), body tissue (BT), fat mass (FM), lean mass (LM), bone mineral content (BMC), and total mass (TM). Absolute reliability in BC scores was studied by the typical error of the measurement (TEM), the coefficient of variability (CV), and Bland-Altman plots.

Results: ANOVA interactions were found on tissue total BF% (p=0.049), RBF% (p=0.048), android lean mass (p=0.004), and android total mass (p=0.019). The CV was small for tissue BF% (2.61±0.93%, CI95%=0.79, 4.43%), RBF% (2.66±1.78%, CI95%=-0.83, 6.15%), BT (4.82±2.19%, CI95%=0.54, 9.10kg), FM (4.17±2.25%, CI95%=-0.24, 8.58kg), LM (3.25±2.44%, CI95%=-1.53, 8.04kg), BMC (4.81±2.96%, CI95%=-0.99, 10.62kg), and TM (2.84±2.80%, CI95%=-2.65, 8.33kg). Bland-Altman plots showed random error for BF%, LM, and BMC. A bias of 0.5% was observed on BF% in males.

Conclusion: A CB worn during a full-body DXA scan elicited similar BC scores than not wearing it. The variation in scores was <10% for most BC variables, and a trivial bias of 0.5% in BF% was detected in male scores.

Introduction: High resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography (HR-pQCT) imaging protocol requires defining where to position the ∼1 cm thick scan along the bone length. Discrepancies between the use of two positioning methods, the relative and fixed offset, may be problematic in the comparison between studies and participants. This study investigated how bone landmarks scale linearly with length and how this scaling affects both positioning methods aimed at providing a consistent anatomical location for scan acquisition.

Methods: Using CT images of the radius (N = 25) and tibia (N = 42), 10 anatomical landmarks were selected along the bone length. The location of these landmarks was converted to a percent length along the bone, and the variation in their location was evaluated across the dataset. The absolute location of the HR-pQCT scan position using both offset methods was identified for all bones and converted to a percent length position relative to the HR-pQCT reference line for comparison. A secondary analysis of the location of the scan region specifically within the metaphysis was explored at the tibia.

Results: The location of landmarks deviated from a linear relationship across the dataset, with a range of 3.6 % at the radius sites, and 4.5 % at the tibia sites. The consequent variation of the position of the scan at the radius was 0.6 % and 0.3 %, and at the tibia 2.4 % and 0.5 %, for the fixed and relative offset, respectively. The position of the metaphyseal junction with the epiphysis relative to the scan position was poorly correlated to bone length, with R² = 0.06 and 0.37, for the fixed and relative offset respectively.

Conclusion: The variation of the scan position by either method is negated by the intrinsic variation of the bone anatomy with respect both to total bone length as well as the metaphyseal region. Therefore, there is no clear benefit of either offset method. However, the lack of difference due to the inherent variation in the underlying anatomy implies that it is reasonable to compare studies even if they are using different positioning methods.

Background: Aging of the HIV-infected population and prolonged use of ARTs, produced metabolic alterations, including increased fracture risk. FRAX is a validated, computer-based clinical fracture risk calculator which estimates 10-year risk of major fracture, and hip fracture. However may underestimate risk in HIV-infected individuals. Several experts recommend considering HIV a cause of secondary osteoporosis.

Methodology: Were included 52 men living with HIV, classified as high, moderate and low risk using ABRASSO graphic tool.

Results: High risk prevalence found for major fracture and hip fracture were both 2 (4.2 %) using FRAX; while 10 (20.8 %) and 14 (29.2 %) using modified FRAX, respectively. Considering bone densitometry, 5 (12.8 %) were high risk for hip fracture and was noticed an increase in high risk major fracture from 4.2 % with FRAX to 5.1 % with FRAX considering bone densitometry. As for the low risk, 19 (39.6 %) for major fracture and 23 (47.9 %) for hip fracture with FRAX. While low risk modified FRAX were 0 (0 %) for major fracture and 8 (16.7 %) for hip fracture. It was also evidenced an association of high risk for major fracture and hip fracture with modified FRAX using Fisher's exact test [p=0.0273 (bilateral)].

Conclusion: It was concluded is recommended using modified FRAX for people living with HIV for better control and therapeutic decision-making about osteometabolic alterations provocated for the virus and ARTs.

Background: The FRAX® algorithm is a tool used to calculate the 10-year probability of fracture in patients with osteoporosis and is based the assessment of several risk factors. We assessed the performance and accuracy of the completion of the FRAX® anamnestic questionnaire by the radiographer without impact on the clinical workflow.

Methodology: We evaluated the accuracy of fracture risk calculation by the radiographer using the FRAX® algorithm before and after specific training. A total of 100 women were enrolled in the study. The radiographer preliminarily administered the FRAX® questionnaire to all subjects before the execution of the DXA examination. After the end of the examination, a radiologist administered the questionnaire to the patient. Women were divided into two groups: group A (pre-training) and group B (post-training). The radiographer in group A completed the FRAX® questionnaire for the patients before training. For group B, the same radiographer completed the FRAX® questionnaire after training. The results of the FRAX® questionnaire completed by radiographer were compared with that completed by the referring physician.

Results: Before training, radiographer's accuracy ranged from 92% (question 7, alcohol consumption) to 36% (question 6, secondary osteoporosis). After training, accuracy values improved substantially, ranging from 100% to 92%. Analysis of the absolute values of FRAX® showed that in the pre-training group data tended to be overestimated by the radiographer, with both major and fractures probabilities being significantly higher when assessed by the radiographer (12% and 5.8%, respectively). After the training, there was a marked decrease in the variation between the FRAX® data calculated by the radiographer and the radiologist.

Conclusions: The accuracy of fracture risk calculation by the radiographer using the FRAX® algorithm is significantly improved after a specific training period. This study demonstrates the importance of dedicated training radiographers on the FRAX® algorithm.

Background: To assess the current state of bone mineral density evaluation services via dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) provided to Veterans with fracture risk through the development and administration of a nationwide survey of facilities in the Veterans Health Administration.

Methodology: The Bone Densitometry Survey was developed by convening a Work Group of individuals with expertise in bone densitometry and engaging the Work Group in an iterative drafting and revision process. Once completed, the survey was beta tested, administered through REDCap, and sent via e-mail to points of contact at 178 VHA facilities.

Results: Facility response rate was 31 % (56/178). Most DXA centers reported positively to markers of readiness for their bone densitometers: less than 10 years old (n=35; 63 %); in “excellent” or “good” condition (n=44; 78 %, 32 % and 46 %, respectively); and perform phantom calibration (n=43; 77 %). Forty-one DXA centers (73 %) use intake processes that have been shown to reduce errors. Thirty-seven DXA centers (66 %) reported their technologists receive specialized training in DXA, while 14 (25 %) indicated they receive accredited training. Seventeen DXA centers (30 %) reported performing routine precision assessment.

Conclusions: Many DXA centers reported using practices that meet minimal standards for DXA reporting and preparation; however, the lack of standardization, even within an integrated healthcare system, indicates an opportunity for quality improvement to ensure consistent high quality bone mineral density evaluation of Veterans.

Introduction: Bone density measured using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) volume, performance site and interpreters have changed in the US since 2005. The purpose of this report is to provide updated trends in DXA counts, rates, place of service and interpreter specialty for the Medicare fee-for-service population.

Methods: The 100 % Medicare Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary Limited Data Set between 2005–2019 was used. DXA counts and annual rates per 10,000 Medicare beneficiaries were calculated. Annual distributions of scan performance location, provider type and interpreter specialty were described. Place of service trends (significance assigned at p < 0.05) of the mean annual share of DXA utilization were identified using linear regression.

Results: Annual DXA use per 10,000 beneficiaries peaked in 2008 at 832, declined to 656 in 2015 then increased (p < 0.001) by 38 per year to 807 in 2019. From 2005 to 2019 DXA performance in office settings declined from 70.7 % to 47.2 %. Concurrently, outpatient hospital (OH) DXA increased from 28.6 % to 51.7 %. In 2005, 43.5 % of DXAs were interpreted by radiologists. This increased (p < 0.001) in the office and OH, averaging 0.3 and 2.0 percentage points per year respectively, reaching 73.5 % in 2019. Interpretation by most non-radiologist specialties declined (p < 0.001).

Conclusions: From 2005–2019, total DXA use among Medicare beneficiaries declined reaching a nadir in 2015 then returned to 2005 levels by 2019. Office DXA declined since 2005 with 51.7 % of all scans now occurring in an OH setting. The proportion of DXAs interpreted by radiologists increased over time, reaching 73.5 % in 2019.

Background Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) frequently coexists with osteoporosis and reduced bone mineral density (BMD). Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i), a class of antihyperglycemic agents, are commonly employed in T2DM treatment. However, the influence of DPP-4i on bone health remains unclear and debated. This meta-analysis is conducted to explore the relationship between the use of DPP-4i and changes in BMD, as well as the prevalence of osteoporosis among T2DM patients.

Methods We conducted a comprehensive search in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library and Web of Science databases for relevant studies published up until June 2023. Studies included in the meta-analysis were those investigating T2DM patients under DPP-4i treatment, and examining the effects on BMD and osteoporosis. Random-effects models and fixed-effect models were utilized to compute the pooled effects. Heterogeneity among the included studies was evaluated using I² statistics.

Results This meta-analysis incorporated a total of 10 studies, encompassing a combined population of 214,541 individuals. The results from this meta-analysis indicated an increase in BMD following DPP-4i usage (SMD 0.15, 95 % confidence interval 0.03-0.26). Additionally, the risk of osteoporosis was significantly reduced (OR 0.90, 95 % confidence interval 0.86-0.94) with very low heterogeneity, recorded at 0 % and 53.0 % respectively. No publication bias was detected in the funnel plot, and sensitivity analyses affirmed the stability of the study's conclusions.

Conclusion Our results offer valuable insights into the positive impact of DPP-4i on bone health in T2DM patients, contributing to informed clinical decision-making. These findings may inform the development of more comprehensive T2DM management strategies that account for bone health.

Background: No meta-analysis has holistically analysed and summarized the effect of prolactin excess due to prolactinomas on bone mineral metabolism. We undertook this meta-analysis to address this knowledge-gap. Methods: Electronic databases were searched for studies having patients with hyperprolactinemia due to prolactinoma and the other being a matched control group. The primary outcome was to evaluate the differences in BMD Z-scores at different sites. The secondary outcomes of this study were to evaluate the alterations in bone mineral density, bone mineral content and the occurrence of fragility fractures. Results: Data from 4 studies involving 437 individuals was analysed to find out the impact of prolactinoma on bone mineral metabolism. Individuals with prolactinoma had significantly lower Z scores at the lumbar spine [MD -1.08 (95 % CI: -1.57 – -0.59); P < 0.0001; I² = 54 % (moderate heterogeneity)] but not at the femur neck [MD -1.31 (95 % CI: -3.07 – 0.45); P = 0.15; I² = 98 % (high heterogeneity)] as compared to controls. Trabecular thickness of the radius [MD -0.01 (95 % CI: -0.02 – -0.00); P = 0.0006], tibia [MD -0.01 (95 % CI: -0.02 – -0.00); P=0.03] and cortical thickness of the radius [MD -0.01 (95 % CI: -0.19 – -0.00); P = 0.04] was significantly lower in patients with prolactinoma as compared to controls. The occurrence of fractures was significantly higher in patients with prolactinoma as compared to controls [OR 3.21 (95 % CI: 1.64 – 6.26); P = 0.0006] Conclusion: Bone mass is adversely affected in patients with hyperprolactinemia due to prolactinoma with predominant effects on the trabecular bone.