Assessing Change in Spine Bone Density from Different Numbers and Combinations of Lumbar Vertebrae: The Manitoba BMD Registry

Auryan Szalat; Harold Rosen; William D Leslie

doi:10.1016/j.jocd.2024.101493

Assessing Change in Spine Bone Density from Different Numbers and Combinations of Lumbar Vertebrae: The Manitoba BMD Registry

J Clin Densitom. 2024 Apr 10;27(3):101493. doi: 10.1016/j.jocd.2024.101493. Online ahead of print.

Authors

Auryan Szalat¹, Harold Rosen², William D Leslie³

Affiliations

¹ Osteoporosis Center, Internal Medicine Ward, Hadassah Medical Center, Faculty of Medicine, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel.
² Osteoporosis Prevention and Treatment Center, Division of Endocrinology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
³ Department of Internal Medicine, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. Electronic address: bleslie@sbgh.mb.ca.

PMID: 38643731
DOI: 10.1016/j.jocd.2024.101493

Abstract

Introduction: Change in bone mineral density (BMD) is considered significant when it exceeds the 95 % least significant change (LSC) derived from that facility's precision study. The lumbar spine is often affected by structural artifact such that not all four lumbar vertebrae are evaluable. Guidelines suggest using a site-matched LSC when omitting vertebrae from the BMD measurement. The current study describes significant BMD change related to intervening anti-osteoporosis treatment for different numbers and combinations of lumbar vertebrae using site-matched LSC values.

Methodology: We identified 10,526 untreated adult women mean age 59.6 years with baseline and repeat spine BMD testing (mean interval 4.7 years) where all 4 lumbar vertebrae were evaluable. Change in spine BMD for different combinations of lumbar vertebrae was assessed in relation to intervening anti-resorptive treatment, contrasting women with high treatment exposure (medication possession ratio, MPR ≥ 0.8) versus women who remained untreated. Site-matched LSC values were derived from 879 test-retest precision measurements.

Results: There was consistent linear trend between increasing MPR and BMD change exceeding the LSC for all lumbar vertebral combinations, positive with BMD increase and negative with BMD decrease (all p-trend <0.001). In the high treatment exposure group, mean percent increases in spine BMD were similar for all vertebral combinations, from L1-4 to a single vertebra. In untreated women, mean percent decreases in spine BMD were also similar for all vertebral combinations. The net treatment response (proportion of women with treatment-concordant changes minus proportion with treatment-discordant changes exceeding the LSC) was 29.7 % for 4 vertebrae, 27.5-30.0 % for 3 vertebrae, 22.4-28.5 % for 2 vertebrae, and 18.1-21.9 % for a single vertebra.

Conclusions: All numbers and combinations of lumbar vertebrae, when used in conjunction with site-matched LSC values, can provide clinically meaningful follow-up in treated and untreated patients, even when spine BMD is based on a single vertebral body.

Keywords: Bone mineral density; Dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry; Least significant change; Monitoring; Osteoporosis.