Bone Density Variation and Its Effects on Risk of Vertebral Deformity in Men and Women Studied in Thirteen European Centers: The EVOS Study

In Europe there is a 3‐fold variation, according to geographical center, in risk of vertebral deformity in men and women over the age of 50. We investigated the relationship between bone density, as assessed by dual‐energy X‐ray absorptiometry (DEXA) of the spine and hip and prevalent vertebral deformities in 13 of the 36 centers participating in the European Vertebral Osteoporosis Study (EVOS). Each center recruited an age‐stratified sample of men and women aged 50 years and over, and of those who agreed to densitometry, 288/2088 women and 233/1908 men were found to have one or more deformities of the vertebrae between T4 and L4 as assessed by the McCloskey algorithm. DEXA was in each case performed on L2–L4, the proximal femur, or both. Bone densitometry results were cross‐calibrated between centers using the European Spine Phantom prototype and results expressed as bone mineral density (BMD, g/cm2). In both genders, subjects with deformities involving loss of anterior vertebral body height alone comprised over 20% of the total with deformities and these related poorly to BMD. Other classes of deformity were found by logistic regression to relate significantly to BMD in one or both genders, with odds ratios for the risk of any of these ranging from 1.67 to 2.11 for a 1 SD reduction in bone density at spine, femoral neck, or trochanter (p < 0.001). Adjusting for anthropometric variables and BMD did not remove the effect of age on risk which rose 1.67‐ to 1.78‐fold per decade according to gender. The greater unadjusted rate of increase in deformity risk with age in women was attributable to their faster rate of bone loss with age; after adjusting for age, body mass index (BMI), and BMD at the trochanter in grams per square centimeter, men had a 2‐fold higher risk of deformity than women. Analysis of the relationship between mean bone density and the prevalence of deformity in each center demonstrated no significant differences between centers in either gender, after adjusting for BMD, age, and BMI together with an a posteriori statistical adjustment for imperfect cross‐calibration of densitometers. It is concluded that BMD is an important determinant of deformity risk in both genders. Together with age, BMD explains much of the differences in risk both between the sexes and between individual geographical centers in Europe.

[1]  R. Eastell,et al.  Classification of vertebral fractures , 1991, Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

[2]  S. Cummings,et al.  A new approach to defining normal vertebral dimensions , 1991, Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

[3]  H. Steinbach Roentgen Diagnosis of Diseases of Bone , 1967 .

[4]  Klaus Engelke,et al.  Universal standardization for dual X‐ray absorptiometry: Patient and phantom cross‐calibration results , 1994, Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

[5]  J. Davis,et al.  Predicting vertebral deformity using bone densitometry at various skeletal sites and calcaneus ultrasound. , 1995, Bone.

[6]  K. Kodama,et al.  The incidence of thoracic vertebral fractures in a Japanese population, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 1958-86. , 1991, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[7]  M Schemper,et al.  Explained variation for logistic regression. , 1996, Statistics in medicine.

[8]  C. Cooper,et al.  Influence of Physical Activity on Vertebral Deformity in Men and Women: Results from the European Vertebral Osteoporosis Study , 1997, Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

[9]  A. Hofman,et al.  [Vertebral deformities and bone density in the elderly; the ERGO Study (Erasmus Rotterdam Health and the Elderly). ERGO Study Group]. , 1995, Nederlands tijdschrift voor geneeskunde.

[10]  P. Geusens,et al.  Aging of the thoracic spine: distinction between wedging in osteoarthritis and fracture in osteoporosis--a cross-sectional and longitudinal study. , 1994, Bone.

[11]  J. Dequeker,et al.  The European spine phantom: reply to Dr Peter Tothill's letter. , 1996, Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA.

[12]  T. Spector,et al.  Prevalence of vertebral fracture in women and the relationship with bone density and symptoms: The chingford study , 1993, Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

[13]  W. Kalender,et al.  The European Spine Phantom--a tool for standardization and quality control in spinal bone mineral measurements by DXA and QCT. , 1995, European journal of radiology.

[14]  P. Ruegsegger,et al.  Dual X‐ray absorptiometry of the proximal femur: Normal european values standardized with the european spine phantom , 1995, Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

[15]  J Dequeker,et al.  Dual X-ray absorptiometry--cross-calibration and normative reference ranges for the spine: results of a European Community Concerted Action. , 1995, Bone.

[16]  S. Santavirta,et al.  Determinants of osteoporotic thoracic vertebral fracture. Screening of 57,000 Finnish women and men. , 1992, Acta orthopaedica Scandinavica.

[17]  A. Silman,et al.  Variation in vertebral height ratios in population studies , 1994, Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

[18]  S. Cummings,et al.  Risk factors for hip fracture in white women. Study of Osteoporotic Fractures Research Group. , 1995, The New England journal of medicine.

[19]  J. H. Schuenemeyer,et al.  Generalized Linear Models (2nd ed.) , 1992 .

[20]  P. McCullagh,et al.  Generalized Linear Models, 2nd Edn. , 1990 .

[21]  A. Silman,et al.  Survey response rates: national and regional differences in a European multicentre study of vertebral osteoporosis. , 1995, Journal of epidemiology and community health.

[22]  Richard Eastell,et al.  Erratum: 1991 Classification of vertebral fractures (J Bone Miner Res 6:207-215) , 1991 .

[23]  P. Tothill Cross-calibration of DXA scanners for spine measurements. , 1995, Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA.

[24]  E. DeLong,et al.  Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. , 1988, Biometrics.

[25]  Robert Epstein,et al.  Comparison of methods for defining prevalent vertebral deformities: The study of osteoporotic fractures , 1995, Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

[26]  A. Silman,et al.  The prevalence of vertebral deformity in European men and women: The european vertebral osteoporosis study , 1996, Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.