Socioeconomic status and risk of osteoporotic fractures and the use of DXA scans: data from the Danish population-based ROSE study

There is a need of studies exploring the link between socioeconomic status and DXA scans and osteoporotic fracture, which was the aim of the present study. No differences in socioeconomic status and risk of osteoporotic fractures were found. However, women with further/higher education and higher income are more often DXA-scanned.

INTRODUCTION

Lower socioeconomic status is known to be associated with a range of chronic conditions and with access to health care services. The link between socioeconomic status and the use of DXA scans and osteoporotic fracture, however, needs to be explored more closely. Therefore, the aim of this study was to examine the relationship between socioeconomic status and both DXA scan utilization and major osteoporotic fractures (MOF) using a population-based cohort of Danish women and national registers.

METHODS

The study included 17,155 women (65-81 years) sampled from the Risk-stratified Osteoporosis Strategy Evaluation study (ROSE). Information on socioeconomic background, DXA scans, and MOFs was retrieved from national registers. Competing-risk regression analyses were performed. Mean follow-up was 4.8 years.

RESULTS

A total of 4245 women had a DXA scan (24.7%) and 1719 (10.0%) had an incident MOF during follow-up. Analyses showed that women with basic education had a lower probability of undergoing DXA scans than women with further or higher education (greater than upper secondary education and vocational training education) (subhazard ratio (SHR) = 0.82; 95% CI 0.75-0.89, adjusted for age and comorbidity). Moreover, women with disposable income in the low and medium tertiles had a lower probability of undergoing DXA scans than women in the high-income tertile (SHR = 0.90; 95% CI 0.84-0.97 and SHR = 0.88, 95% CI 0.82-0.95, respectively, adjusted for age and comorbidity). No association between socioeconomic background and probability of DXA was found in adjusted analyses.

CONCLUSION

The study found no differences in risk of osteoporotic fractures depending on socioeconomic status. However, women with further or higher education as well as higher income are more often DXA-scanned.

Effectiveness of a two-step population-based osteoporosis screening program using FRAX: the randomized Risk-stratified Osteoporosis Strategy Evaluation (ROSE) study

The Risk-stratified Osteoporosis Strategy Evaluation (ROSE) study investigated the effectiveness of a two-step screening program for osteoporosis in women. We found no overall reduction in fractures from systematic screening compared to the current case-finding strategy. The group of moderate- to high-risk women, who accepted the invitation to DXA, seemed to benefit from the program.

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of the ROSE study was to investigate the effectiveness of a two-step population-based osteoporosis screening program using the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) derived from a self-administered questionnaire to select women for DXA scan. After the scanning, standard osteoporosis management according to Danish national guidelines was followed.

METHODS

Participants were randomized to either screening or control group, and randomization was stratified according to age and area of residence. Inclusion took place from February 2010 to November 2011. Participants received a self-administered questionnaire, and women in the screening group with a FRAX score ≥ 15% (major osteoporotic fractures) were invited to a DXA scan. Primary outcome was incident clinical fractures. Intention-to-treat analysis and two per-protocol analyses were performed.

RESULTS

A total of 3416 fractures were observed during a median follow-up of 5 years. No significant differences were found in the intention-to-treat analyses with 34,229 women included aged 65-80 years. The per-protocol analyses showed a risk reduction in the group that underwent DXA scanning compared to women in the control group with a FRAX ≥ 15%, in regard to major osteoporotic fractures, hip fractures, and all fractures. The risk reduction was most pronounced for hip fractures (adjusted SHR 0.741, p = 0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to an office-based case-finding strategy, the two-step systematic screening strategy had no overall effect on fracture incidence. The two-step strategy seemed, however, to be beneficial in the group of women who were identified by FRAX as moderate- or high-risk patients and complied with DXA.

Population-based reference values for bone mineral density in young men

Population-based reference values for peak bone mass density in Danish men. BMD of total hip (1.078 +/- 0,14 g/cm2) differed significantly from values from National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey III and of total lumbar spine ((1.073 +/- 0.125 g/cm2) differed significantly from Hologic values.

INTRODUCTION

Geographic, ethnic, and socio-economic factors are known to affect bone mineral density (BMD) and peak bone mass significantly. Reference values for male peak bone mass are scarce, and the diagnosis of male osteoporosis often relies on values provided by producers of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) equipment.

METHODS

The aim of the present study was 1) to establish population-based reference values for BMD in young men and 2) to study subgroups based on variables with suspected impact on bone metabolism. We included 783 young Caucasian men aged 20 to 30 years in the Odense Androgen Study (OAS).

RESULTS

Peak BMD was attained within the third decade. Obesity (BMI > 30 kg/m2) was associated with higher BMD. Abuse of anabolic steroids as well as chronic illness was associated with lower BMD. Our population-based reference values for BMD of the total hip (1.078 +/- 0.14 g/cm2) differed significantly from published values from National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey III for non-Hispanic white men, while BMD of total lumbar spine (1.073 +/- 0.125 g/cm2) differed significantly from Hologic reference values.

CONCLUSIONS

Locally derived reference values are important to avoid false positive or false negative findings during work-up in patients evaluated for osteoporosis.