The clinical role of quantitative ultrasound in assessing fracture risk and bone status

Comparison between the gold standard DXA with calcaneal quantitative ultrasound based-strategy (QUS) to detect osteoporosis in an HIV infected cohort

INTRODUCTION

Osteoporosis represents one of the most frequent comorbidity among HIV patients. The current standard method for osteoporosis diagnosis is dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Calcaneal quantitative ultrasound can provide information about bone quality. The aims of this study are to compare these two methods and to evaluate their ability to screen for vertebral fracture.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study was conducted in HIV patients attending the Clinic of Infectious and Tropical Diseases of Brescia during 2014 and who underwent lumbar/femoral dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, vertebral fracture assessment and calcaneal quantitative ultrasound. The assessment of osteoporosis diagnostic accuracy was performed for calcaneal quantitative ultrasound and for vertebral fracture comparing them with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry.

RESULTS

We enrolled 73 patients and almost 48% of them had osteoporosis with at least one of the method used. Vertebral fracture were present in 27.4%. Among patients with normal bone measurements, we found vertebral fracture in proportion between 10% and 30%. If we used calcaneal quantitative ultrasound method and/or X-ray as screening, the percentages of possible savable dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry ranged from 12% to 89% and misclassification rates ranged from 0 to 24.6%. A combined strategy, calcaneal quantitative ultrasound and X-Ray, identified 67% of patients with low risk of osteoporosis, but 16.4% of patients were misclassified.

CONCLUSIONS

We observed that patients with osteoporosis determined by calcaneal quantitative ultrasound and/or dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry have higher probability to undergo vertebral fracture, but neither of them can be used for predicting vertebral fracture. Use of calcaneal quantitative ultrasound for screening is a reasonable alternative of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry since our study confirm that none strategy is clearly superior, but both screen tools must be always completed with X-ray.

Role of DEXA and ultrasonometry in the evaluation of osteoporotic risk in postmenopausal women

BACKGROUND/AIM

The aim of this study was to compare the role of quantitative ultrasonography (QUS) and dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) in the assessment of osteoporosis.

METHODS

From June 1999 to November 2001, 596 women who have not been diagnosed osteoporosis and without previous history of pathologic fractures were enrolled in this study. They had a mean age of 58.7+/-8.5 years, a mean height of 166+/-3.5 cm and a mean weight of 66+/-4.1 kg. According to the age, women were divided into three groups: group A included women between 45 and 55 years; group B women between 56 and 66 years and group C women between 67 and 77 years. Each patient underwent to both methods to determine the presence of osteoporosis.

RESULTS

QUS resulted in a greater number of women of group A at risk of osteoporosis, whereas DEXA indicated that more women of group C were at increased osteoporotic risk. QUS and DEXA gave concordant results only in women of group B.

CONCLUSION

These results suggested that QUS screening for osteoporosis may be more suitable for 'younger' postmenopausal women.