685
Views & Citations10
Likes & Shares
INTRODUCTION
Osteoporosis is a globally prevalent disorder
that results from deterioration of bone mineral density (BMD) and
microarchitecture leading to diminished bone strength and increased risk of
fracture due to skeletal fragility. Osteoporosis can be defined by either a low
BMD (T-score <2.5) or evidence of a fragility fracture, particularly of the
hip and spine [1]. Estimates predict that prevalence and costs related to
osteoporosis may increase by 50% within the next few years due to the aging
population. Currently, more than 10 million Americans are affected by
osteoporosis, more than 40 million have low BMD, and more than 1.5 million
osteoporosis-related fractures occur annually. Women have a lifetime risk for
any osteoporosis-related fracture of approximately 50%. Osteoporosis and
related morbidities are responsible for as many as 2.5 million office visits,
over 400,000 hospital admissions, and greater than $15 billion annually in
direct costs [2]. The effects of osteoporosis-related fractures on quality of life
include impairment of activities of daily life (ADL), chronic pain, increased
risk of death, loss of enjoyment of activities, depression, and dependence
often requiring assistance such as in a nursing home. The effect on quality of
life is so severe that 80% of women older than 75 years stated they would
prefer death over placement in a nursing home following hip fracture [3].
Therefore, the actual cost of osteoporosis is grossly underestimated when
considering indirect financial costs and impact on quality of life, including
physical, mental and financial well-being.
Current screening recommendations for
osteoporosis from the United States Preventive Task Force (USPTF) Services
state that post-menopausal women older than 65 years and younger than 65 years
with higher risk should be screened with BMD scans every 2 years to prevent
osteoporotic fractures (grade B recommendation) [4]. However, successful
screening rates for osteoporosis remain concerningly low. After Medicare
instituted reimbursement for osteoporosis screening in the early 2000’s, one
study reported that less than 21% of female’s ages 65-89 year completed the
screening. A follow up national study of Medicare recipients aged 65 year+
reported less than 10% women completed screening from 2002-2009. Gillespie and
Morin reported that screening rates from 2008-2014 show little to no
improvement, with 26% completion in ages 65-79 year, but only 12% completion
for 80+ years [5]. Poor screening has contributed to under diagnosing and
undertreating osteoporosis, often leading to the development of subsequent
fragility fractures. Barton et al. found that 94% of patients presenting for a
vertebral compression fracture had not received a bone scan in the previous 2
years, only 7% initiated an anti-resorptive medication after the fracture and
38% developed an additional fragility fracture within 2 years [6]. There is
also inadequate treatment of osteoporosis globally. Data from 6 European
countries indicate that 60-85% of women did not receive appropriate treatment
following a fracture. The estimated economic and social cost of
osteoporosis-related fractures in these countries shows comparable trends to
those in the United States [7].
Dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is
considered the reference standard for evaluation of BMD and diagnosis of
osteoporosis given its relatively low cost and radiation exposure. In light of
the severe underutilization of screening, recent studies have evaluated whether
computed tomography (CT) should be used as an opportunistic screening tool in
patients who have already undergone a CT for another indication. With more than
80 million CT scans performed
Pickhardt
et al. [8] compared CT-attenuation values of trabecular bone (between the T12
and L5 vertebral levels) with DXA derived BMD in 1867 adults undergoing CT and DXA
within a 6 month period over 10 years. CT-attenuation threshold of 160
Hounsfield Units (HU) was found to be 90% sensitive in detecting osteoporosis
BMD and a threshold of 110 HU was 91% specific. It’s important to note that DXA
scan demonstrated non-osteoporotic T-scores in 52.1% of patients with at least
1 moderate to severe vertebral fracture. However, almost all of the patients
with vertebral fracture (97%) had CT-attenuation of 145 HU or less suggesting
that CT-derived BMD assessment may be a better measure of bone quality. Similar
findings were reported by Alacreu et al. [9] with greater than 90% sensitivity
for detecting osteoporosis BMD at 160 HU, but greater than 90% specificity was
achieved at a threshold of 73 HU. More than half of the patients with vertebral
compression fracture had DXA scan T-scores in osteopenic or normal range.
Gausden et
al. [10] systemically reviewed 10 studies analyzing correlation between DXA and
CT-derived BMD measures. Only 5 of these studies reported threshold HU to diagnose
osteoporosis, which varied widely among studies. The mean HU value ranged 54.7
to 130 in lumbar spine that were osteoporotic based on DXA scan. Differences in
these results could be partly explained by CT scanner-to-scanner variability in
measuring HU. Furthermore, there are concerns over the quality, institutional
variability, and dependability of DXA scans along with their ability to
accurately detect osteoporosis BMD [11]. Several studies have reported that
patients with known vertebral compression fractures had received osteopenic and
even normal DXA T-scores, yet CT imaging was capable of diagnosing the
osteoporotic BMD independent of the DXA T-score [8,9].
Osteoporosis
is an insidious chronic disease with significant global impact that needs
higher quantity as well as quality screening opportunities to promote beginning
appropriate therapy for adequate primary and secondary prevention. Initiating
treatment before a primary fragility fracture occurs can reduce the risk of
incidental fracture by 75% and subsequently reduces the 5 year fracture
incidence risk from 34% to 10% [12]. Opportunistic screening with CT analysis
could provide an additional barrier in the development of osteoporosis and
fragility fractures, allowing for greater opportunities in diagnosis and
treatment which will reduce long-term risks of fracture-related morbidity and
mortality. Even though the data on opportunistic use of CT-attenuated HU values
to diagnose osteoporosis is very exciting, further research is needed before it
can be clinically implemented. The lack of exchangeability among CT machines
poses a limitation to its wide-spread applicability. Future direction for
research should be to establish recognized HU thresholds for anatomic sites for
valid CT diagnosis of osteoporosis [10].
1.
Black DM, Rosen CJ (2016) Post-menopausal
osteoporosis. N Engl J Med 374: 254-262.
2.
Kling JM, Clarke BL, Sandhu NP (2014) Osteoporosis
prevention, screening and treatment: A review. J Womens Health 23: 563-572.
3.
NIH Consensus Development Panel on Osteoporosis
Prevention, Diagnosis and Therapy (2001) Osteoporosis prevention, diagnosis and
therapy. JAMA 285: 785-795.
4.
USPSTF A and B Recommendations (2019) U.S. Preventive
Services Task Force.
5.
Gillespie CW, Morin PE (2017) Trends and disparities
in osteoporosis screening among women in the United States, 2008-2014. Am J Med
130: 306-316.
6.
Barton DW, Behrend CJ, Carmouche JJ (2019) Rates of
osteoporosis screening and treatment following vertebral fracture. Spine J 19:
411-417.
7.
International Osteoporosis Foundation (2019) Broken
bones, broken lives: A roadmap to solve the fragility fracture crisis in
Europe.
8.
Pickhardt PJ, Pooler BD, Lauder T, del Rio AM, Bruce
RJ, et al. (2013) Opportunistic screening for osteoporosis using abdominal
computed tomography scans obtained for other indications. Ann Intern Med 158:
588-595.
9.
Alacreu E, Moratal D, Arana E (2017) Opportunistic
screening for osteoporosis by routine CT in Southern Europe. Osteoporos Int 28:
983-990.
10.
Gausden EB, Nwachukwu BU, Schreiber JJ, Lorich DG,
Lane JM (2017) Opportunistic use of CT imaging for osteoporosis screening and
bone density assessment: A qualitative systematic review. J Bone Joint Surg 99:
1580-1590.
11.
Kim TY, Schafer AL (2016) Variability in DXA reporting
and other challenges in osteoporosis evaluation. JAMA Intern Med 176: 393-395.
12.
Lindsay R, Pack S, Li Z (2005) Longitudinal
progression of fracture prevalence through a population of post-menopausal
women with osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int 16: 306-312.
QUICK LINKS
- SUBMIT MANUSCRIPT
- RECOMMEND THE JOURNAL
-
SUBSCRIBE FOR ALERTS
RELATED JOURNALS
- Journal of Pathology and Toxicology Research
- Journal of Rheumatology Research (ISSN:2641-6999)
- Journal of Ageing and Restorative Medicine (ISSN:2637-7403)
- Journal of Nursing and Occupational Health (ISSN: 2640-0845)
- Advance Research on Alzheimers and Parkinsons Disease
- Journal of Carcinogenesis and Mutagenesis Research (ISSN: 2643-0541)
- Archive of Obstetrics Gynecology and Reproductive Medicine (ISSN:2640-2297)