Importance: Repeated bone mineral density (BMD) testing to screen for osteoporosis requires resources. For patient counseling and optimal resource use, it is important for clinicians to know whether repeated BMD measurement (compared with baseline BMD measurement alone) improves the ability to discriminate between postmenopausal women who will and will not experience a fracture. Objective: To assess whether a second BMD measurement approximately 3 years after the initial assessment is associated with improved ability to estimate fracture risk beyond the baseline BMD measurement alone. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Women's Health Initiative is a prospective observational study. Participants in the present cohort study included 7419 women with a mean (SD) follow-up of 12.1 (3.4) years between 1993 and 2010 at 3 US clinical centers. Data analysis was conducted between May 2019 and December 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: Incident major osteoporotic fracture (ie, hip, clinical spine, forearm, or shoulder fracture), hip fracture, baseline BMD, and absolute change in BMD were assessed. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AU-ROC) for baseline BMD, absolute change in BMD, and the combination of baseline BMD and change in BMD were calculated to assess incident fracture risk discrimination during follow-up. Results: Of 7419 participants, the mean (SD) age at baseline was 66.1 (7.2) years, the mean (SD) body mass index was 28.7 (6.0), and 1720 (23%) were nonwhite individuals. During the study follow-up (mean [SD] 9.0 [3.5] years after the second BMD measurement), 139 women (1.9%) experienced hip fractures, and 732 women (9.9%) experienced major osteoporotic fracture. In discriminating between women who experience hip fractures and those who do not, AU-ROC values were 0.71 (95% CI, 0.67-0.75) for baseline total hip BMD, 0.61 (95% CI, 0.56-0.65) for change in total hip BMD, and 0.73 (95% CI, 0.69-0.77) for the combination of baseline total hip BMD and change in total hip BMD. Femoral neck and lumbar spine BMD values had similar discrimination for hip fracture. For discrimination of major osteoporotic fracture, AU-ROC values were 0.61 (95% CI, 0.59-0.63) for baseline total hip BMD, 0.53 (95% CI, 0.51-0.55) for change in total hip BMD, and 0.61 (95% CI, 0.59-0.63) for the combination of baseline total hip BMD and change in total hip BMD. Femoral neck and lumbar spine BMD values had similar ability to discriminate between women who experienced major osteoporotic fracture and those who did not. Associations between change in bone density and fracture risk did not differ by subgroup, including diabetes, age, race/ethnicity, body mass index, or baseline BMD T score. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this study suggest that a second BMD assessment approximately 3 years after the initial measurement was not associated with improved discrimination between women who did and did not experience subsequent hip fracture or major osteoporotic fracture beyond the baseline BMD value alone and should not routinely be performed.
Bibliographical noteFunding Information:
reported receiving grants from Amgen and receiving personal fees from Pfizer outside the submitted work. Dr Kaunitz reported receiving personal fees from Bayer, Mithra, Norton Rose Fulbright and Pfizer; receiving grants from Bayer, Mithra, and TherapeuticsMD outside the submitted work; and serving on advisory boards for Mithra and for Pfizer. Dr Watts reported receiving personal fees from AbbVie, Amgen, and Radius outside the submitted work. Drs Wactawski-Wende and Johnson reported receiving grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute during the conduct of the study. Drs Johnson and Jackson reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health during the conduct of the study. The University of Florida has received research funding from Allergan. No other disclosures were reported.
program is funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood, Institute, National Institutes of Health, US Department of Health and Human Services through contracts HHSN268201600018C,
PubMed: MeSH publication types
- Journal Article