Repeat bone mineral density screening and prediction of hip and major osteoporotic fracture

Changes in bone mineral density may predict the risk of fracture differently in older adults according to fall history

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether the association between change in bone mass density (BMD) over 4 years and risk of hip and nonvertebral fracture differs according to an individual's history of falls.

DESIGN

Population-based cohort study.

SETTING

Framingham, Massachusetts.

PARTICIPANTS

Individuals with two measures of BMD at the femoral neck (mean age 78.8; 310 male, 492 female).

MEASUREMENTS

Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for the association between percentage change in BMD (per sex-specific standard deviation) and risk of incident hip and nonvertebral fracture. Models were stratified based on history of falls (≥1 falls in the past year) and recurrent falls (≥2 falls) ascertained at the time of the second BMD test. Interactions were tested by including the term "fall history * change in BMD" in the models.

RESULTS

Mean change in BMD was -0.6%/year; 27.8% of participants reported falls, and 10.8% reported recurrent falls. Seventy-six incident hip and 175 incident nonvertebral fractures occurred over a median follow-up of 9.0 years. There was no difference in the association between change in BMD and hip fracture according to history of falls (P for interaction = .57). The HR associated with change in BMD and nonvertebral fracture was 1.31 (95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.10-1.56) in participants without a history of falls and 0.95 (95% CI 0.70-1.28) in those with a fall (interaction P = .07). Results for recurrent fallers were similar.

CONCLUSION

The effect of BMD loss on risk of nonvertebral fracture may be greater in persons without a history of falls. It is possible that change in BMD contributes less to fracture risk when a strong risk factor for fracture, such as falls, is present.

Subclinical hypothyroidism in addition to common risk scores for prediction of cardiovascular disease: a 10-year community-based cohort study

OBJECTIVE

This study was carried out to determine whether serum TSH levels improve the prediction of cardiovascular risk in addition to common clinical risk scores, given the association between subclinical hypothyroidism (SCH) and cardiovascular disease (CVD).

DESIGN

We carried out an observational study in a prospective cohort.

METHODS

The study included a total of 344 SCH and 2624 euthyroid participants aged over 40 years and who were without previously recorded CVDs were included in this study analysis. We measured thyroid function and traditional risk factors at baseline and estimated the 10-year cumulative incidence of CVD in a gender-stratified analysis.

RESULTS

During 10 years of follow-up, 251 incident cardiovascular events were recorded. The elevation of serum TSH levels significantly increased the CV risk independent of conventional risk factors in men. In the atherosclerotic CVD (ASCVD) risk score or the Reynolds risk score (RRS) model, the addition of serum TSH levels had no effect on model discrimination as measured by the area under the curve in either women or men. Adding serum TSH did not improve the net reclassification improvement in either women (3.48% (P=0.29) in the ASCVD, -0.89% (P=0.75) in the RRS, respectively) or men (-1.12% (P=0.69), 3.45% (P=0.20), respectively) and only mildly affected the integrated discrimination Improvement in the ASCVD-adjusted model (0.30% in women and 0.42% in men, both P=0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

In the context of common risk scoring models, the additional assessment of serum TSH levels provided little incremental benefit for the prediction of CV risk.

Overuse of short-interval bone densitometry: assessing rates of low-value care

We evaluated the prevalence and geographic variation of short-interval (repeated in under 2 years) dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry tests (DXAs) among Medicare beneficiaries. Short-interval DXA use varied across regions (coefficient of variation = 0.64), and unlike other DXAs, rates decreased with payment cuts.

INTRODUCTION

The American College of Rheumatology, through the Choosing Wisely initiative, identified measuring bone density more often than every 2 years as care "physicians and patients should question." We measured the prevalence and described the geographic variation of short-interval (repeated in under 2 years) DXAs among Medicare beneficiaries and estimated the cost of this testing and its responsiveness to payment change.

METHODS

Using 100 % Medicare claims data, 2006-2011, we identified DXAs and short-interval DXAs for female Medicare beneficiaries over age 66. We determined the population rate of DXAs and short-interval DXAs, as well as Medicare spending on short-interval DXAs, nationally and by hospital referral region (HRR).

RESULTS

DXA use was stable 2008-2011 (12.4 to 11.5 DXAs per 100 women). DXA use varied across HRRs: in 2011, overall DXA use ranged from 6.3 to 23.0 per 100 women (coefficient of variation = 0.18), and short-interval DXAs ranged from 0.3 to 8.0 per 100 women (coefficient of variation = 0.64). Short-interval DXA use fluctuated substantially with payment changes; other DXAs did not. Short-interval DXAs, which represented 10.1 % of all DXAs, cost Medicare approximately US$16 million in 2011.

CONCLUSIONS

One out of ten DXAs was administered in a time frame shorter than recommended and at a substantial cost to Medicare. DXA use varied across regions. Short-interval DXA use was responsive to reimbursement changes, suggesting carefully designed policy and payment reform may reduce this care identified by rheumatologists as low value.

Associations between the 2007 Medicare reimbursement reduction for bone mineral density testing and osteoporosis drug therapy patterns of female Medicare beneficiaries

OBJECTIVE

To examine how drug therapy patterns for osteoporosis have changed after the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (MPFS) reimbursement reduction in 2007, in relation to follow-up bone mineral density (BMD) testing status.

METHODS

We used a retrospective temporal shift design to examine changes in drug therapy patterns before (Phase 1: January 1, 2005-December 31, 2006) and after (Phase 2: July 1, 2007-June 30, 2009) the MPFS reimbursement reduction in 2007, Cleveland, OH, USA. Participants were osteoporotic older women in Phase 1 (n=1,340) and Phase 2 (n=1,437). The main outcomes were a) adherence, b) adjustment, c) occurrence of an extended gap, and d) restarting drug therapy after an extended gap. Follow-up BMD testing status by study phase and location were also analyzed.

RESULTS

BMD testing rates at physicians' offices decreased from 64.5% in Phase 1 to 58.4% in Phase 2 (P=0.02); however, testing rates in hospital outpatient settings increased (from 20.8% to 24.5%). There were also decreases in drug therapy adjustment from 15.9% in Phase 1 to 11.6% in Phase 2 (odds ratio [OR]: 0.73; P<0.01) and in restarting drug therapy after an extended gap (55.4% in Phase 1 and 43.6% in Phase 2; OR: 0.76; P<0.01).

CONCLUSION

There were no changes in the overall rate of follow-up BMD testing. The rates of drug adjustments and restarting drug therapy after an extended gap did decrease. These decreases were more evident when follow-up BMD testing was not performed.

Bone density testing: science, the media, and patient care

Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is an inexpensive, noninvasive, widely available method for diagnosing osteoporosis, assessing fracture risk, and monitoring the effects of therapy. By diagnosing high-risk patients before a fracture occurs, clinicians can intervene early to reduce fracture risk. Appropriate use of DXA results in money saving for healthcare systems that might otherwise be spent for fracture-related care. Recent reports of studies evaluating DXA screening criteria and intervals for retesting have received considerable media coverage, sometimes suggesting that DXA is expensive, over-utilized, and unnecessary. This may lead to more patients who might benefit from early detection of osteoporosis remaining undiagnosed. We advocate for the use of current clinical practice guidelines with individualization of patient care factors to determine the optimal intervals for DXA testing.