Assessing bone impairment in ankylosing spondylitis (AS) using the trabecular bone score (TBS) and high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography (HR-pQCT).

OBJECTIVES: To compare bone quality using the trabecular bone score (TBS) and bone microarchitecture in the distal tibia using high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography (HR-pQCT) in ankylosing spondylitis (AS) patients and healthy controls (HC). METHODS: Areal bone mineral density (aBMD) and TBS (TBS iNsight software) were evaluated using DXA (Hologic, QDR 4500); while volumetric bone mineral density (vBMD) and bone microarchitecture were analyzed in the distal tibia using HR-pQCT (Scanco) in 73 male patients with AS and 52 age-matched HC. RESULTS: AS patients were a mean 41.6 ±â€¯7.9 years old and had a mean disease duration of 16.4 ±â€¯8.6 y, with a mean mSASSS 25.6 ±â€¯16.4. No difference was observed in lumbar spine aBMD in AS patients and HC (p = 0.112), but total hip BMD (p = 0.011) and TBS (p < 0.001) were lower in AS patients. In the distal tibia, reduced trabecular volumetric density [Tb.vBMD (p < 0.006)] and structural alterations - trabecular thickness (Tb.Th), p = 0.044 and trabecular separation (Tb.Sp), p = 0.039 - were observed in AS patients relative to controls. Further analysis comparing TBS < 1.310 and TBS ≥ 1.310 in AS patients revealed a higher mean body mass index [BMI] (p = 0.010), lower tibia cortical vBMD [Ct.vBMD] (p = 0.007), lower tibia cortical thickness [Ct.Th]: (p = 0.048) in the former group. On logistic regression analysis, BMI (OR = 1.27; 95%IC = 1.08-1.50, p = 0.005), (VF 4.65; 1.13-19.1, p = 0.033) and tibial Ct.vBMD (0.98; 0.97-1.00, p = 0.007) were associated with a lower TBS (<1.310). CONCLUSIONS: The present study demonstrates that TBS and HR-pQCT imaging are important technologies evaluating bone impairment in AS patients. Moreover, in these patients vertebral fractures were associated with lower TBS.

The trabecular bone score: Relationships with trabecular and cortical microarchitecture measured by HR-pQCT and histomorphometry in patients with chronic kidney disease.

The trabecular bone score (TBS) is a novel tool using grayscale variograms of the lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD) to assess trabecular bone microarchitecture. Studies in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) suggest it may be helpful in assessing fracture risk. However, TBS has not been validated as a measure of trabecular architecture against transiliac bone biopsy with histomorphometry in CKD patients. We hypothesized that TBS would reflect trabecular architecture at the iliac crest in CKD patients. We obtained tetracycline double labeled transiliac crest bone biopsy, areal BMD of the spine, total hip, femoral neck (FN) and spine TBS by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), and cortical and trabecular volumetric density and microarchitecture by high resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography (HR-pQCT) in CKD patients from two centers: twenty-two patients from Columbia University Medical Center, USA and thirty patients from Hospital das Clinicas - Universidade de São Paulo, Brazil. Two patients were excluded for outlier status. Univariate and multivariate relationships between TBS and measures from DXA, HR-pQCT and histomorphometry were determined. Patients were 50.2 ±â€¯15.8 years old, 23 (46%) were men, and 33 (66%) were on dialysis. TBS was <1.31 in 21 (42%) patients and 22%, 14% and 10% had T-scores ≤ -2.5 at spine, FN and total hip respectively. In univariate regression, TBS was significantly associated with trabecular bone volume (BV/TV), trabecular width (Tb.Wi), trabecular spacing, cortical width but not with trabecular number or cortical porosity. FN Z-score and height were also associated with cancellous BV/TV and Tb.Wi, In multivariate analysis, TBS remained an independent predictor of BV/TV and Tb.Wi. There were no relationships between TBS and dynamic parameters from histomorphometry. These data suggest that TBS reflected trabecular microarchitecture and cortical width measured by bone biopsy in CKD patients. Future studies should address its utility in the identification of CKD patients who may benefit from fracture prevention strategies.

Quantitative ultrasound for the detection and management of osteoporosis.

Quantitative ultrasound (QUS) appears to be developing into an acceptable, low-cost and readily-accessible alternative to dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) measurements of bone mineral density (BMD) in the detection and management of osteoporosis. Perhaps the major difficulty with their widespread use is that many different QUS devices exist that differ substantially from each other, in terms of the parameters they measure and the strength of empirical evidence supporting their use. But another problem is that virtually no data exist outside of Caucasian or Asian populations. In general, heel QUS appears to be most tested and most effective. Some, but not all heel QUS devices are effective assessing fracture risk in some, but not all populations, the evidence being strongest for Caucasian females > 55 years old, though some evidence exists for Asian females > 55 and for Caucasian and Asian males > 70. Certain devices may allow to estimate the likelihood of osteoporosis, but very limited evidence exists supporting QUS use during the initiation or monitoring of osteoporosis treatment. Likely, QUS is most effective when combined with an assessment of clinical risk factors (CRF); with DXA reserved for individuals who are not identified as either high or low risk using QUS and CRF. However, monitoring and maintenance of test and instrument accuracy, precision and reproducibility are essential if QUS devices are to be used in clinical practice; and further scientific research in non-Caucasian, non-Asian populations clearly is compulsory to validate this tool for more widespread use.

Quantitative ultrasound for the detection and management of osteoporosis: [review] / Ultrasonido cuantitativo para la detección y manejo de osteoporosis: [revisión]

Quantitative ultrasound (QUS) appears to be developing into an acceptable, low-cost and readily-accessible alternative to dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) measurements of bone mineral density (BMD) in the detection and management of osteoporosis. Perhaps the major difficulty with their widespread use is that many different QUS devices exist that differ substantially from each other, in terms of the parameters they measure and the strength of empirical evidence supporting their use. But another problem is that virtually no data exist outside of Caucasian or Asian populations. In general, heel QUS appears to be most tested and most effective. Some, but not all heel QUS devices are effective assessing fracture risk in some, but not all populations, the evidence being strongest for Caucasian females > 55 years old, though some evidence exists for Asian females > 55 and for Caucasian and Asian males > 70. Certain devices may allow to estimate the likelihood of osteoporosis, but very limited evidence exists supporting QUS use during the initiation or monitoring of osteoporosis treatment. Likely, QUS is most effective when combined with an assessment of clinical risk factors (CRF); with DXA reserved for individuals who are not identified as either high or low risk using QUS and CRF. However, monitoring and maintenance of test and instrument accuracy, precision and reproducibility are essential if QUS devices are to be used in clinical practice; and further scientific research in non-Caucasian, non-Asian populations clearly is compulsory to validate this tool for more widespread use.

El ultrasonido cuantitativo (QUS) es una alternativa para la detección y manejo de la osteoporosis de bajo costo y uso práctico, si se compara con las densitometrías de rayos X de doble haz de baja energía (DXA) que determinan densidad mineral ósea (BMD). La mayor dificultad para el uso generalizado del QUS por un lado es que existen muchos instrumentos que son significativamente diferentes uno del otro y por otro en la calidad de la evidencia en que se justifica su empleo, que generalmente es insuficiente y/o poco sistematizada. Otro problema importante del QUS, es que prácticamente no existe información que no sea la generada en poblaciones asiáticas o caucásicas. En general, los estudios de calcáneo realizados con QUS son los más utilizados y mejor validados para evaluar el riesgo de fracturas en algunas poblaciones. La evidencia más grande de su efectividad se conoce para las mujeres caucásicas y asiáticas mayores de 55 años e incluso para los hombres asiáticos mayores de 70 años. Varios instrumentos cuentan con buen sustento científico, que los vuelve confiables para establecer un pronóstico preciso e identificar el riesgo individual de sufrir fracturas por osteoporosis, sin embargo, existe poca evidencia que respalde su uso para iniciar y monitorear el resultado del tratamiento de la osteoporosis. El QUS mejora su efectividad diagnóstica cuando se combina con los resultados de un cuestionario que identifica riesgos clínicos. En un escenario ideal, el DXA se debe reservar solo para aquellos individuos que no puedan ser identificados de manera confiable usando QUS y el cuestionario de riesgos clínicos. Si se quiere aceptar a los instrumentos QUS en la práctica clínica, para el monitoreo es indispensable asegurar y mantener la exactitud, precisión y reproducibilidad de los instrumentos y de los técnicos que los utilizan. Se requieren más estudios científicos de poblaciones no caucásicas o asiáticas para validar el uso generalizado del QUS.