骨质疏松症筛查预防骨折:美国预防服务工作组的系统证据综述。

Q1 Medicine
Leila C Kahwati, Christine E Kistler, Graham Booth, Nila Sathe, Rachel D'Amico Gordon, Ebiere Okah, Roberta C Wines, Meera Viswanathan
{"title":"骨质疏松症筛查预防骨折:美国预防服务工作组的系统证据综述。","authors":"Leila C Kahwati, Christine E Kistler, Graham Booth, Nila Sathe, Rachel D'Amico Gordon, Ebiere Okah, Roberta C Wines, Meera Viswanathan","doi":"10.1001/jama.2024.21653","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>Fragility fractures result in significant morbidity.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To review evidence on osteoporosis screening to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and trial registries through January 9, 2024; references, experts, and literature surveillance through July 31, 2024.</p><p><strong>Study selection: </strong>Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews of screening; pharmacotherapy studies for primary osteoporosis; predictive and diagnostic accuracy studies.</p><p><strong>Data extraction and synthesis: </strong>Two reviewers assessed titles/abstracts, full-text articles, study quality, and extracted data; when at least 2 similar studies were available, meta-analyses were conducted.</p><p><strong>Main outcomes and measures: </strong>Hip, clinical vertebral, major osteoporotic, and total fractures; mortality; harms; accuracy.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Three RCTs and 3 systematic reviews reported benefits of screening in older, higher-risk women. Two RCTs used 2-stage screening: Fracture Risk Assessment Tool estimate with bone mineral density (BMD) testing if risk threshold exceeded. One RCT used BMD plus additional tests. Screening was associated with reduced hip (pooled relative risk [RR], 0.83 [95% CI, 0.73-0.93]; 3 RCTs; 42 009 participants) and major osteoporotic fracture (pooled RR, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.88-0.99]; 3 RCTs; 42 009 participants) compared with usual care. Corresponding absolute risk differences were 5 to 6 fewer fractures per 1000 participants screened. The discriminative accuracy of risk assessment instruments to predict fracture or identify osteoporosis varied by instrument and fracture type; most had an area under the curve between 0.60 and 0.80 to predict major osteoporotic fracture, hip fracture, or both. Calibration outcomes were limited. Compared with placebo, bisphosphonates (pooled RR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.45-1.00]; 6 RCTs; 12 055 participants) and denosumab (RR, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.37-0.97] from the largest RCT [7808 participants]) were associated with reduced hip fractures. Compared with placebo, no statistically significant associations were observed for adverse events.</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>Screening in higher-risk women 65 years or older was associated with a small absolute risk reduction in hip and major fractures compared with usual care. No evidence evaluated screening with BMD alone or screening in men or younger women. Risk assessment instruments, BMD alone, or both have poor to modest discrimination for predicting fracture. Osteoporosis treatment with bisphosphonates or denosumab over several years was associated with fracture reductions and no meaningful increase in adverse events.</p>","PeriodicalId":17196,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Medical Association","volume":" ","pages":"509-531"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Screening for Osteoporosis to Prevent Fractures: A Systematic Evidence Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.\",\"authors\":\"Leila C Kahwati, Christine E Kistler, Graham Booth, Nila Sathe, Rachel D'Amico Gordon, Ebiere Okah, Roberta C Wines, Meera Viswanathan\",\"doi\":\"10.1001/jama.2024.21653\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>Fragility fractures result in significant morbidity.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To review evidence on osteoporosis screening to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and trial registries through January 9, 2024; references, experts, and literature surveillance through July 31, 2024.</p><p><strong>Study selection: </strong>Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews of screening; pharmacotherapy studies for primary osteoporosis; predictive and diagnostic accuracy studies.</p><p><strong>Data extraction and synthesis: </strong>Two reviewers assessed titles/abstracts, full-text articles, study quality, and extracted data; when at least 2 similar studies were available, meta-analyses were conducted.</p><p><strong>Main outcomes and measures: </strong>Hip, clinical vertebral, major osteoporotic, and total fractures; mortality; harms; accuracy.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Three RCTs and 3 systematic reviews reported benefits of screening in older, higher-risk women. Two RCTs used 2-stage screening: Fracture Risk Assessment Tool estimate with bone mineral density (BMD) testing if risk threshold exceeded. One RCT used BMD plus additional tests. Screening was associated with reduced hip (pooled relative risk [RR], 0.83 [95% CI, 0.73-0.93]; 3 RCTs; 42 009 participants) and major osteoporotic fracture (pooled RR, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.88-0.99]; 3 RCTs; 42 009 participants) compared with usual care. Corresponding absolute risk differences were 5 to 6 fewer fractures per 1000 participants screened. The discriminative accuracy of risk assessment instruments to predict fracture or identify osteoporosis varied by instrument and fracture type; most had an area under the curve between 0.60 and 0.80 to predict major osteoporotic fracture, hip fracture, or both. Calibration outcomes were limited. Compared with placebo, bisphosphonates (pooled RR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.45-1.00]; 6 RCTs; 12 055 participants) and denosumab (RR, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.37-0.97] from the largest RCT [7808 participants]) were associated with reduced hip fractures. Compared with placebo, no statistically significant associations were observed for adverse events.</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>Screening in higher-risk women 65 years or older was associated with a small absolute risk reduction in hip and major fractures compared with usual care. No evidence evaluated screening with BMD alone or screening in men or younger women. Risk assessment instruments, BMD alone, or both have poor to modest discrimination for predicting fracture. Osteoporosis treatment with bisphosphonates or denosumab over several years was associated with fracture reductions and no meaningful increase in adverse events.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17196,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the American Medical Association\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"509-531\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the American Medical Association\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2024.21653\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Medical Association","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2024.21653","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

重要性:脆性骨折导致显著的发病率。目的:回顾骨质疏松筛查的证据,为美国预防服务工作组提供信息。数据来源:PubMed, Embase, Cochrane图书馆,截止2024年1月9日的试验注册;参考文献,专家和文献监测,直到2024年7月31日。研究选择:随机临床试验(rct)和筛查的系统评价;原发性骨质疏松症的药物治疗研究预测和诊断准确性研究。数据提取和综合:两位审稿人评估标题/摘要、全文文章、研究质量和提取的数据;当至少有2个类似的研究可用时,进行荟萃分析。主要结局和指标:髋部骨折、临床椎体骨折、主要骨质疏松性骨折和全骨折;死亡率;危害;准确性。结果:3项随机对照试验和3项系统评价报告了筛查对老年、高风险妇女的益处。两项随机对照试验采用两阶段筛查:骨折风险评估工具评估与骨矿物质密度(BMD)测试是否超过风险阈值。一项随机对照试验采用骨密度和附加试验。筛查与髋部降低相关(合并相对危险度[RR], 0.83 [95% CI, 0.73-0.93];3相关;42( ,009名参与者)和严重骨质疏松性骨折(合并RR, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.88-0.99];3相关;42 009名参与者)与常规护理相比。相应的绝对风险差异是每1000名参与者少5到6例骨折。风险评估工具预测骨折或识别骨质疏松症的判别准确度因工具和骨折类型而异;大多数曲线下面积在0.60到0.80之间,可以预测骨质疏松性骨折、髋部骨折或两者兼而有之。校准结果有限。与安慰剂相比,双膦酸盐组(合并RR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.45-1.00];6相关;12 055名参与者)和denosumab (RR, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.37-0.97],来自最大的RCT[7808名参与者])与髋部骨折发生率相关。与安慰剂相比,未观察到不良事件有统计学意义的关联。结论和相关性:与常规护理相比,65岁及以上的高危妇女进行筛查与髋部和主要骨折的绝对风险降低有关。没有证据评价单独用BMD进行筛查或在男性或年轻女性中进行筛查。风险评估工具、单独的骨密度或两者在预测骨折方面的辨别能力都很差。用双膦酸盐或地诺单抗治疗骨质疏松症数年与骨折减少相关,且不良事件没有显著增加。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Screening for Osteoporosis to Prevent Fractures: A Systematic Evidence Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Importance: Fragility fractures result in significant morbidity.

Objective: To review evidence on osteoporosis screening to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Data sources: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and trial registries through January 9, 2024; references, experts, and literature surveillance through July 31, 2024.

Study selection: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews of screening; pharmacotherapy studies for primary osteoporosis; predictive and diagnostic accuracy studies.

Data extraction and synthesis: Two reviewers assessed titles/abstracts, full-text articles, study quality, and extracted data; when at least 2 similar studies were available, meta-analyses were conducted.

Main outcomes and measures: Hip, clinical vertebral, major osteoporotic, and total fractures; mortality; harms; accuracy.

Results: Three RCTs and 3 systematic reviews reported benefits of screening in older, higher-risk women. Two RCTs used 2-stage screening: Fracture Risk Assessment Tool estimate with bone mineral density (BMD) testing if risk threshold exceeded. One RCT used BMD plus additional tests. Screening was associated with reduced hip (pooled relative risk [RR], 0.83 [95% CI, 0.73-0.93]; 3 RCTs; 42 009 participants) and major osteoporotic fracture (pooled RR, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.88-0.99]; 3 RCTs; 42 009 participants) compared with usual care. Corresponding absolute risk differences were 5 to 6 fewer fractures per 1000 participants screened. The discriminative accuracy of risk assessment instruments to predict fracture or identify osteoporosis varied by instrument and fracture type; most had an area under the curve between 0.60 and 0.80 to predict major osteoporotic fracture, hip fracture, or both. Calibration outcomes were limited. Compared with placebo, bisphosphonates (pooled RR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.45-1.00]; 6 RCTs; 12 055 participants) and denosumab (RR, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.37-0.97] from the largest RCT [7808 participants]) were associated with reduced hip fractures. Compared with placebo, no statistically significant associations were observed for adverse events.

Conclusions and relevance: Screening in higher-risk women 65 years or older was associated with a small absolute risk reduction in hip and major fractures compared with usual care. No evidence evaluated screening with BMD alone or screening in men or younger women. Risk assessment instruments, BMD alone, or both have poor to modest discrimination for predicting fracture. Osteoporosis treatment with bisphosphonates or denosumab over several years was associated with fracture reductions and no meaningful increase in adverse events.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
45.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: JAMA, published continuously since 1883, is an international peer-reviewed general medical journal. JAMA is a member of the JAMA Network, a consortium of peer-reviewed, general medical and specialty publications.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信