Advertisement

Osteoporosis International

, Volume 29, Issue 5, pp 1193–1199 | Cite as

Pulse-echo ultrasound method for detection of post-menopausal women with osteoporotic BMD

  • J. P. Karjalainen
  • O. Riekkinen
  • H. Kröger
Original Article

Abstract

Summary

We lack effective diagnostics of osteoporosis at the primary health care level. An ultrasound device was used to identify subjects in the osteoporotic range as defined by DXA. A case finding strategy combining ultrasound results with DXA measurements for patients with intermediate ultrasound results is presented.

Introduction

We lack effective screening and diagnostics of osteoporosis at primary health care. In this study, a pulse-echo ultrasound (US) method is investigated for osteoporosis screening.

Methods

A total of 1091 Caucasian women (aged 50–80 years) were recruited for the study and measured with US in the tibia and radius. This method measures cortical thickness and provides an estimate of bone mineral density (BMD) and density index (DI). BMD assessment of the hip was available for 988 women. A total of 888 women had one or more risk factors for osteoporosis (OP susp ), and 100 women were classified healthy. Previously determined thresholds for the DI were evaluated for assessment of efficacy of the technique to detect hip BMD at osteoporotic range (T-score at or below − 2.5).

Results

In the OP susp group, the application of thresholds for the DI showed that approximately 32% of the subjects would require an additional DXA measurement. The multi-site ultrasound (US) measurement-based DI showed 93.7% sensitivity and 81.6% specificity, whereas the corresponding values for single-site US measurement-based DI were 84.7 and 82.0%, respectively. The ultrasound measurements showed a high negative predictive value 97.7 to 99.2% in every age decade examined (ages 50–59, 60–69, 70–79 years).

Conclusions

The study data demonstrate that a strategy of combining ultrasound measurement with added DXA measurements in cases with intermediate ultrasound results (about 30%) can be useful for identifying subjects at risk for a low bone mineral density in the osteoporotic range.

Keywords

Bone DXA Osteoporosis Screening Ultrasound 

Notes

Funding

Supported in part by a research grant from the Investigator Initiated Studies Program of Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp/MSD. The opinions expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp/MSD. The study was funded in part by Bone Index Finland Ltd.

Compliance with ethical standards

The study was approved by the local ethical committee, and informed written consent was obtained from each subject (Kuopio University Hospital Ethical Committee, 75/2013).

Conflicts of interest

Janne P Karjalainen—Bone Index Finland Ltd., stock ownership. Ossi Riekkinen—Bone Index Finland Ltd., stock ownership. Heikki Kröger—Bone Index Finland Ltd., stock ownership.

References

  1. 1.
    Kanis JA (2002) Diagnosis of osteoporosis and assessment of fracture risk. Lancet 359(9321):1929–1936.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(02)08761-5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Center JR, Nguyen TV, Schneider D, Sambrook PN, Eisman JA (1999) Mortality after all major types of osteoporotic fracture in men and women: an observational study. Lancet 353(9156):878–882.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(98)09075-8 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Keene GS, Parker MJ, Pryor GA (1993) Mortality and morbidity after hip fractures. BMJ 307(6914):1248–1250.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.307.6914.1248 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    National Osteoporosis Foundation (2013) Clinician’s guide to prevention and treatment of osteoporosis. National Osteoporosis Foundation, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hans DB, Shepherd JA, Schwartz EN, Reid DM, Blake GM, Fordham JN, Fuerst T, Hadji P, Itabashi A, Krieg MA, Lewiecki EM (2008) Peripheral dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry in the management of osteoporosis: the 2007 ISCD Official Positions. J Clin Densitom 11(1):188–206.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocd.2007.12.012 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Krieg MA, Barkmann R, Gonnelli S, Stewart A, Bauer DC, Barquero L et al (2008) Quantitative ultrasound in the management of osteoporosis: the 2007 ISCD Official Positions. J Clin Densitom 11(1):163–187.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocd.2007.12.011 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Blake GM, Chinn DJ, Steel SA, Patel R, Panayiotou E, Thorpe J, Fordham JN, National Osteoporosis Society Bone Densitometry Forum (2005) A list of device-specific thresholds for the clinical interpretation of peripheral x-ray absorptiometry examinations. Osteoporos Int 16(12):2149–2156.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-005-2018-x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Karjalainen J, Riekkinen O, Töyräs J, Hakulinen M, Kröger H, Rikkonen T et al (2012) Multi-site bone ultrasound measurements in elderly women with and without previous hip fractures. Osteoporos Int 23(4):1287–1295.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-011-1682-2 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Karjalainen J, Riekkinen O, Töyräs J, Jurvelin JS, Kroger H (2016) New method for point-of-care osteoporosis screening and diagnostics. Osteoporos Int 27(3):971–977.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-015-3387-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gluer CC, Blake GM, Lu Y, Blunt A, Jergas M, Genant HK (1995) Accurate assessment of precision errors: how to measure the reproducibility of bone densitometry techniques. Osteoporos Int 5(4):262–270.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01774016 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shepherd JA, Lu Y, Wilson K, Fuerst T, Genant HK, Hangartner TN et al (2006) Cross-calibration and minimum precision standards for dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry: the 2005 ISCD Official Positions. J Clin Densitom 9(1):31–36.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocd.2006.05.005 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Patel R, Blake GM, Fordham JN, McCrea D, Ryan P (2011) Peripheral X-ray absorptiometry in the management of osteoporosis. National Osteoporosis Society - Practical Guides. https://nos.org.uk/media/2069/pdxa-in-the-management-of-osteoporosis.pdf. Accessed 1 July 2017
  13. 13.
    Schousboe JT, Riekkinen O, Karjalainen JP (2016) Prediction of hip osteoporosis by DXA using a novel pulse-echo ultrasound device. Osteoporos Int 28(1):85–93.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-016-3722-4
  14. 14.
    Shepherd JA, Fan B, Lu Y, Lewiecki EM, Miller P, Genant HK (2006) Comparison of BMD precision for Prodigy and Delphi spine and femur scans. Osteoporos Int 17(9):1303–1308.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-006-0127-9 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Henzell S, Dhaliwal S, Pontiflex R, Gill F, Price R, Retallack R et al (2000) Precision error of fan-beam dual X-ray absorptiometry scans at the spine, hip, and forearm. J Clin Densitom 3(4):359–364.  https://doi.org/10.1385/JCD:3:4:359 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kiebzak GM, Faulkner KG, Wacker W, Hamdy R, Seier E, Watts NB (2007) Effect of precision error on T-scores and the diagnostic classification of bone status. J Clin Densitom 10(3):239–243.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocd.2007.03.002 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Clowes J, Peel NFA, Eastell R (2006) Device-specific thresholds to diagnose osteoporosis at the proximal femur: an approach to interpreting peripheral bone measurements in clinical practice. Osteoporos Int 17(9):1293–1302.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-006-0122-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Osteoporosis Foundation and National Osteoporosis Foundation 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Bone Index Finland Ltd.KuopioFinland
  2. 2.Department of Orthopaedics, Traumatology and Hand SurgeryKuopio University HospitalKuopioFinland

Personalised recommendations