Osteoporosis International

, Volume 14, Issue 4, pp 289–294 | Cite as

Differential effects of hormone replacement therapy on bone mineral density and axial transmission ultrasound measurements in cortical bone

  • K. M. Knapp
  • G. M. Blake
  • T. D. Spector
  • I. Fogelman
Original Article

Abstract

The menopause has a large effect on bone density, and hormone replacement therapy (HRT) has been shown to be an effective treatment for preventing postmenopausal bone loss. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of HRT use on speed of sound (SOS) measurements at the radius, tibia, phalanx, and metatarsal with bone mineral density (BMD) measurements of the lumbar spine and proximal femur. The study population consisted of 278 healthy premenopausal women, 194 healthy postmenopausal women, and 126 healthy postmenopausal women currently receiving HRT for one or more years. SOS measurements were taken at the radius, tibia, phalanx, and metatarsal using the Sunlight Omnisense, and BMD measurements at the lumbar spine and proximal femur using Hologic QDR-4500 densitometers. Z-scores were calculated using the postmenopausal control group. Z-score differences between the postmenopausal controls and HRT group, for the entire group and with the HRT group subdivided into three groups based on duration of HRT usage, were calculated. Significant postmenopausal bone loss was found for all SOS and BMD measurements. A positive effect of HRT usage was found for all SOS measurement sites and lumbar spine BMD, although only the radius and tibia SOS and lumbar spine BMD reached statistical significance. The Z-score differences between the two groups were 0.44, 0.37, 0.15, and 0.26 for the radius, tibia, phalanx, and metatarsal SOS respectively, and 0.28, 0.00, and −0.03 for the lumbar spine, femoral neck, and total hip BMD respectively. A clear effect of the duration of HRT use was seen for the radius measurements, the differences being less marked elsewhere. In conclusion, these results demonstrate a positive effect of HRT on SOS measurements at the radius and tibia and BMD measurements of the lumbar spine.

Keywords

Axial transmission ultrasound Hormone replacement therapy Postmenopausal age-related change Precision 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Lisa Carter (research nurse); Fiona Crane, Anita Jefferies, and Christine O'Gara (DXA radiographers); Ursula Perks, Edel Strong, Lucy Campbell, Naomi Welsh, Lucy Wormald, Jane Urwin, Jane Williams, Tracy Harris, and Janine Kelleher (Twin Research nurses); the volunteers, patients, and twins; and, finally, the National Osteoporosis Society, UK, for funding from a Research Fellowship.

References

  1. 1.
    WHO Study Group (1994) Assessment of fracture risk and its application to screening for postmenopausal osteoporosis. WHO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Porter RW, Miller CG, Grainger D et al (1990) Prediction of hip fracture in elderly women: a prospective study. Br Med J 301:638–641Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Duan Y, Tabensky A, DeLuca V et al (1997) The benefit of hormone replacement therapy on bone mass is greater at the vertebral body than posterior process or proximal femur. Bone 21(5):447–451Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Stevenson JC, Cust MP, Gangar KF et al (1990) Effects of transdermal versus oral hormone replacement therapy on bone density in spine and proximal femur in postmenopausal women. Lancet 336:265–69Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lufkin EG, Wahner HW, O'Fallon WM et al (1992) Treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis with transdermal estrogen. Ann Intern Med 117:1–9Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lindsay R (1980) Prevention of spinal osteoporosis in oophorectomised women. Lancet 1151–1153Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sahota O, San P, Cawte SA et al (2000) A comparison of the longitudinal changes in quantitative ultrasound with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry: the four-year effects of hormone replacement therapy. Osteoporosis Int 11:52–58Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ravaud P, Reny JL, Giraudeau B et al (1999) Individual smallest detectable difference in bone mineral density measurements. J Bone Miner Res 14(8):1449–1456Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Stewart A, Reid DM (2000) Precision of quantitative ultrasound: comparison of three commercial scanners. Bone 27(1):139–143Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Stegman MR, Heaney RP, Recker RR (1995) Comparison of speed of sound ultrasound with single photon absorptiometry for determining fracture odds ratios. J Bone Miner Res 10(3):346–352Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Balikian P, Burbank K, Houde, J et al (1998) Bone Mineral Density and Broadband Ultrasound Attenuation with Estrogen Treatment of Postmenopausal Women. J Clin Densitometry 1(1):19–26Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lehmann R, Wapniarz M, Kvasnicka HM et al (1993) Velocity of ultrasound at the patella: influence of age, menopuase and estrogen replacement therapy. Osteoporosis Int 3:308–313Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Knapp KM, Singal C, Blake GM et al (1999) Quantitative ultrasound measurements detect skeletal changes in cortical bone following HRT use. In: Program and Abstracts of the 11th International Workshop on Calcified Tissues, p 31Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Weiss M, Ben-Shlomo A, Hagag P et al (2000) Effect of estrogen replacement therapy on speed of sound at multiple skeletal sites. Maturitas 30;35(3):237–243Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Barkmann R, Kantorovich E, Singal C et al (2000) A new method for quantitative ultrasound measurements at multiple skeletal sites. J Clin Densitometry 3(1):1–7Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sunlight (1998) Sunlight Omnisense User Manual. Sunlight, Tel AvivGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Njeh CF, Hans D, Fuerst T et al (1999) Quantitative ultrasound assessment of osteoporosis and bone status. Martin Dunitz, London, pp 156–161Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ryan PJ, Blake GM, Fogelman I (1992) Postmenopausal screening for osteopenia. Br J Rheumatology 31:823–828Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    De Aloysio D, Rovati LC, Cadossi R et al (1997) Bone effects of transdermal hormone replacement therapy in postmenopausal women as evaluated by means of ultrasound: an open one-year prospective study. Maturitas 27:61–68Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bonnick SL, Lewis LA (2002) Bone densitometry for technologists. Humana Press, p 9Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Njeh CF, Hans D, Wu C, Kantorovich E, Sister M, Fuerst T, Genant HK (1999) An in vitro investigation of the dependence on sample thickness of the speed of sound along the specimen. Med Eng Phys 21:651–659Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gluer C-C, Blake GM, Lu Y et al (1995) Accurate assessment of precision errors: how to measure the reproducibility of bone densitometry techniques. Osteoporosis Int 5:262–270Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Blake GM, Wahner HW, Fogelman I (1999) The evaluation of osteoporosis: dual X-ray absorptiometry and ultrasound in clinical practice. Martin Dunitz, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Osteoporosis Foundation and National Osteoporosis Foundation 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. M. Knapp
    • 1
    • 3
  • G. M. Blake
    • 2
  • T. D. Spector
    • 3
  • I. Fogelman
    • 2
  1. 1.Osteoporosis Screening and Research Unit, 16th Floor, Guy's TowerGuy's HospitalLondonUK
  2. 2.Imaging SciencesGuy's Kings and St Thomas' School of MedicineLondonUK
  3. 3.The Twin Research and Genetic Epidemiology UnitSt Thomas' HospitalLondonUK

Personalised recommendations