Osteoporotic Fracture Risk in Elderly Women: Estimation with Quantitative Heel US and Clinical Risk Factors

Published Online:Jul 1 2008https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2481070986

Abstract

Purpose: To derive a prediction rule by using prospectively obtained clinical and bone ultrasonographic (US) data to identify elderly women at risk for osteoporotic fractures.

Materials and Methods: The study was approved by the Swiss Ethics Committee. A prediction rule was computed by using data from a 3-year prospective multicenter study to assess the predictive value of heel-bone quantitative US in 6174 Swiss women aged 70–85 years. A quantitative US device to calculate the stiffness index at the heel was used. Baseline characteristics, known risk factors for osteoporosis and fall, and the quantitative US stiffness index were used to elaborate a predictive rule for osteoporotic fracture. Predictive values were determined by using a univariate Cox model and were adjusted with multivariate analysis.

Results: There were five risk factors for the incidence of osteoporotic fracture: older age (>75 years) (P < .001), low heel quantitative US stiffness index (<78%) (P < .001), history of fracture (P = .001), recent fall (P = .001), and a failed chair test (P = .029). The score points assigned to these risk factors were as follows: age, 2 (3 if age > 80 years); low quantitative US stiffness index, 5 (7.5 if stiffness index < 60%); history of fracture, 1; recent fall, 1.5; and failed chair test, 1. The cutoff value to obtain a high sensitivity (90%) was 4.5. With this cutoff, 1464 women were at lower risk (score, <4.5) and 4710 were at higher risk (score, ≥4.5) for fracture. Among the higher-risk women, 6.1% had an osteoporotic fracture, versus 1.8% of women at lower risk. Among the women who had a hip fracture, 90% were in the higher-risk group.

Conclusion: A prediction rule obtained by using quantitative US stiffness index and four clinical risk factors helped discriminate, with high sensitivity, women at higher versus those at lower risk for osteoporotic fracture.

References

1 Consensus development conference: diagnosis, prophylaxis, and treatment of osteoporosis. Am J Med 1993; 94: 646–650. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
2 Kanis JA, Melton LJ, Christiansen C, Johnston CC, Khaltaev N. The diagnosis of osteoporosis. J Bone Miner Res 1994;9:1114–1137. Google Scholar
3 Cauley JA, Thompson DE, Ensrud KC, Scott JC, Black D. Risk of mortality following clinical fractures. Osteoporos Int 2000;11:556–561. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
4 Norris RJ. Medical costs of osteoporosis. Bone 1992;13(suppl 2):S11–S16. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
5 Johnell O. The socioeconomic burden of fractures: today and in the 21st century. Am J Med 1997;103:20S–25S. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
6 Hans D, Dargent-Molina P, Schott AM, et al. Ultrasonographic heel measurements to predict hip fracture in elderly women: the EPIDOS prospective study. Lancet 1996;348:511–514. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
7 Bauer DC, Gluer CC, Cauley JA, et al. Broadband ultrasound attenuation predicts fractures strongly and independently of densitometry in older women: a prospective study—study of Osteoporotic Fractures Research Group. Arch Intern Med 1997;157:629–634. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
8 Krieg MA, Cornuz J, Ruffieux C, et al. Prediction of hip fracture risk by quantitative ultrasound in more than 7000 Swiss women > or =70 years of age: comparison of three technologically different bone ultrasound devices in the SEMOF study. J Bone Miner Res 2006;21:1457–1463. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
9 Schott AM, Hans D, Duboeuf F, et al. Quantitative ultrasound parameters as well as bone mineral density are better predictors of trochanteric than cervical hip fractures in elderly women: results from the EPIDOS study. Bone 2005;37:858–863. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
10 Kanis JA, Johnell O, De Laet C, Jonsson B, Oden A, Ogelsby AK. International variations in hip fracture probabilities: implications for risk assessment. J Bone Miner Res 2002;17:1237–1244. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
11 Taylor BC, Schreiner PJ, Stone KL, et al. Long-term prediction of incident hip fracture risk in elderly white women: study of osteoporotic fractures. J Am Geriatr Soc 2004;52:1479–1486. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
12 Klotzbuecher CM, Ross PD, Landsman PB, Abbott TA 3rd, Berger M. Patients with prior fractures have an increased risk of future fractures: a summary of the literature and statistical synthesis. J Bone Miner Res 2000;15:721–739. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
13 Kanis JA, Johnell O, De Laet C, et al. A meta-analysis of previous fracture and subsequent fracture risk. Bone 2004;35:375–382. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
14 Kanis JA, Johansson H, Oden A, et al. A family history of fracture and fracture risk: a meta-analysis. Bone 2004;35:1029–1037. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
15 Dargent-Molina P, Douchin MN, Cormier C, Meunier PJ, Bréart G; EPIDOS Study Group. Use of clinical risk factors in elderly women with low bone mineral density to identify women at higher risk of hip fracture: the EPIDOS prospective study. Osteoporos Int 2002;13:593–599. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
16 Cummings SR, Nevitt MC, Browner WS, et al. Risk factors for hip fracture in white women: study of Osteoporotic Fractures Research Group. N Engl J Med 1995;332:767–773. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
17 Kanis JA, Johnell O, Oden A, et al. Smoking and fracture risk: a meta-analysis. Osteoporos Int 2005;16:155–162. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
18 Espallargues M, Sampietro-Colom L, Estrada MD, et al. Identifying bone-mass-related risk factors for fracture to guide bone densitometry measurements: a systematic review of the literature. Osteoporos Int 2001;12:811–822. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
19 Bootstrap. Stanford University Department of Statistics Web site. http://www-stat.stanford.edu/software/bootstrap/. Accessed May 21, 2007. Google Scholar
20 Hans D, Hartl F, Krieg MA. Device-specific weighted T-score for two quantitative ultrasounds: operational propositions for the management of osteoporosis for 65 years and older women in Switzerland. Osteoporos Int 2003;14:251–258. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
21 NIH Consensus Development Panel on Osteoporosis Prevention, Diagnosis, and Therapy. Osteoporosis prevention, diagnosis, and therapy. JAMA 2001;285:785–795. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
22 Kanis JA, Glüer CC. An update on the diagnosis and assessment of osteoporosis with densitometry. Committee of Scientific Advisors, International Osteoporosis Foundation. Osteoporos Int 2000;11:192–202. Google Scholar
23 National Osteoporosis Foundation Web site. http://www.nof.org/. Accessed May 21, 2007. Google Scholar
24 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Web site. Screening for Osteoporosis. http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/uspstf/uspsoste.htm. Accessed May 21, 2007. Google Scholar
25 Yang NP, Jen I, Chuang SY, Chen SH, Chou PC. Screening for low bone mass with quantitative ultrasonography in a community without dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry: population-based survey. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2006;9:7:24. Google Scholar
26 Kanis JA, Johnell O. Requirements for DXA for the management of osteoporosis in Europe. Osteoporos Int 2005;16:229–238. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
27 Cummings SR, Black DM, Nevitt MC, et al. Bone density at various sites for prediction of hip fractures: the study of Osteoporotic Fractures Research Group. Lancet 1993;341:72–75. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
28 Burger H, de Laet CE, Weel AE, Hofman A, Pols HA. Added value of bone mineral density in hip fracture risk scores. Bone 1999;25:369–374. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
29 Lydick E, Cook K, Turpin J, Melton M, Stine R, Byrnes C. Development and validation of a simple questionnaire to facilitate identification of women likely to have low bone density. Am J Manag Care 1998;4:37–48. Medline, Google Scholar
30 Salaffi F, Silveri F, Stancati A, Grassi W. Development and validation of the osteoporosis prescreening risk assessment (OPERA) tool to facilitate identification of women likely to have low bone density. Clin Rheumatol 2005;24:203–211. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
31 Cadarette SM, Jaglal SB, Kreiger N, McIsaac WJ, Darlington GA, Tu JV. Development and validation of the Osteoporosis Risk Assessment Instrument to facilitate selection of women for bone densitometry. CMAJ 2000;162:1289–1294. Medline, Google Scholar
32 Black DM, Steinbuch M, Palermo L, et al. An assessment tool for predicting fracture risk in postmenopausal women. Osteoporos Int 2001;12:519–528. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
33 Sakata S, Barkmann R, Lochmuller EM, Heller M, Gluer CC. Assessing bone status beyond BMD: evaluation of bone geometry and porosity by quantitative ultrasound of human finger phalanges. J Bone Miner Res 2004;19:924–930. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
34 Briot K, Roux C. What is the role of DXA, QUS and bone markers in fracture prediction, treatment allocation and monitoring? Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 2005;19:951–964. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
35 Johansson H, Oden A, Johnell O, et al. 2004 optimization of BMD measurements to identify high risk groups for treatment: a test analysis. J Bone Miner Res 2004;19:906–913. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
36 Langton CM, Ballard PA, Langton DK, Purdie DW. Maximising the cost effectiveness of BMD referral for DXA using ultrasound as a selective population pre-screen. Technol Health Care 1997;5:235–241. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
37 Lippuner K, Fuchs G, Ruetsche AG, Perrelet R, Casez JP, Neto I. How well do radiographic absorptiometry and quantitative ultrasound predict osteoporosis at spine or hip? a cost-effectiveness analysis. J Clin Densitom 2000;3:241–249. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
38 Sim MF, Stone MD, Phillips CJ, et al. Cost effectiveness analysis of using quantitative ultrasound as a selective pre-screen for bone densitometry. Technol Health Care 2005;13:75–85. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
39 Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, Sickles EA, Ernster V. Effect of age, breast density, and family history on the sensitivity of first screening mammography. JAMA 1996;276:33–38. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
40 Gillespie LD, Gillespie WJ, Robertson MC, Lamb SE, Cumming RG, Rowe BH. Interventions for preventing falls in elderly people. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2001;3:CD000340. Google Scholar

Article History

Published in print: 2008

Vol. 248, No. 1

Metrics

Altmetric Score

PDF download