Abstract:BackgroundDXA is widely used in clinical practise in BMD measurement of osteoporosis. Forearm and axial BMD is the most common site to define in clinical practise. However, the relationship between forearm and axial BMD is not confirmed in RA patients.ObjectivesTo compare the forearm (bone mineral density) BMD between lumbar spine and left hip BMD by dual-energy X-ray abosorptionmetry (DXA), and explore the diagnostic value of the forearm BMD in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients.MethodsIn the study, 200 female patients with established RA underwent DXA of the lumber, left hip and non-superiority forearm DXA at the same time. We compared BMD at different sites, and the diagnostic cut-off value of abnormal axial BMD by forearm BMD was explored. Data analysis was performed by independent-sample t test and Pearson’s correlation test. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and calibration of predictions were assessed. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated to determine the correlation between cases of osteoporosis detected by the axial DXA scan and forearm.Results(1) The mean age of the 200 female patients was (55.9±13.8) years. Twenty (10.0%) patients had the fragility fracture history. Based on their axial DXA data and fracture history, 30 (15.0%) patients had normal BMD (T score≥-1.0), 170 (85.0%) patients had abnormal BMD. The mean forearm BMD was (0.35±0.13) g/cm2, and T score was -2.3±1.9. (2) Compared with abnormal axial BMD group, forearm BMD in normal axial group was significantly decreased [(0.33±0.13) g/cm2 vs (0.44±0.06) g/cm2, t=4.29, P<0.01], forearm T score was also significantly decreased [(-2.6±1.9) vs (-0.71±0.9), t=4.35, P<0.01]. T score of the forearm BMD was positively correlated with axial BMD T score, both at lumber and left hip respectively (r=0.488, 0.543, P<0.01). After correction by age, T score of the forearm remained positively correlated with axial T score by partial correlation analysis (Pearson partial vertebral r=0.46, P<0.001; left hip r=0.502, P<0.001). (3) The area under the ROC curve for diagnosis of lumber and hip osteoporosis were 0.757 (95%CI: 0.638, 0.876) and 0.615(95%CI: 0.481,0.749) separately. (4) The sensitivity and specificity for identifying osteoporosis in lumber were 86.5% and 50.1% respectively when the T-score threshold of forearm was defined as -3.52; however, the sensitivity and the specificity for identifying osteoporosis at left hip were 66.2% and 76.2% when T score threshold of forearm was defined as -2.5.ConclusionOur study has confirmed that DXA measurement performed of forearm analysis is capable of screening osteoporosis defined by axial BMD in female RA patients.References[1] Siris ES, Adler R, Bilezikian J, et al. The clinical diagnosis of osteoporosis: a position statement from the National Bone Health Alliance Working Group[J]. Osteoporos Int,2014,25(5):1439-1443. DOI: 10.1007/s00198-014-2655-z. [2] Hangartner TN, Warner S, Braillon P, Jankowski L, Shepherd J. The Official Positions of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry: acquisition of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry body composition and considerations regarding analysis and repeatability of measures[J]. J Clin Densitom. 2013. 16(4): 520-536. DOI: 10.1016/j.jocd.2013.08.007 [3] Kilic G, Ozgocmen S. Hand bone mass in rheumatoid arthritis: A review of the literature[J]. World J Orthop. 2015. 6(1): 106-116.DOI: 10.5312/wjo.v6.i1.106AcknowledgementnoneDisclosure of InterestsNone declared

Incongruent Treatment Recommendations Between Left and Right Hip Bone Mineral Densities

Radiographic Predictors for Bone Mineral Loss CORTICAL THICKNESS AND INDEX OF THE DISTAL FEMUR

E040 Differences in clinical characteristics in patients with extremes of discordance in bone mineral density in the hips

The association between dietary inflammation index and bone mineral density: results from the United States National Health and nutrition examination surveys

Do patients with type 2 diabetes have impaired hip bone microstructure? A study using 3D modeling of hip dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry

Quantitative computed tomography has higher sensitivity detecting critical bone mineral density compared to dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry in postmenopausal women and elderly men with osteoporotic fractures: a real-life study

Patients with Periprosthetic Femoral Hip Fractures are Commonly Classified as Having Osteoporosis Based on DXA Measurements

AB0356 COMPARISION FOREARM BONE MINERAL DENSITY BETWEEN LUMBAR SPINE AND HIP: A USEFUL TOOL TO SCREEN OSTEOPOROSIS IN FEMALE PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS

Intervals between bone mineral density testing with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry scans in clinical practice

Differential effects of teriparatide, denosumab and zoledronate on hip structural and mechanical parameters in osteoporosis; a real-life study

Densitometric and geometric measurement of the proximal femur in elderly women with and without osteoporotic vertebral fractures by volumetric quantitative multi-slice CT

Clinical Use of Trabecular Bone Score: The 2023 ISCD Official Positions

Disparities in Dual-energy X-ray Absorptiometry Scan Utilization Across Race/Ethnic Groups Before and After Hip Fractures

The Spatial Differences in Bone Mineral Density and Hip Structure Between Low-Energy Femoral Neck and Trochanteric Fractures in Elderly Chinese Using Quantitative Computed Tomography

Secondary Prevention of Osteoporosis Through Assessment of Individual and Multiple Risk Factors

Site-Specific Differences in Bone Mineral Density of Proximal Femur Correlate with the Type of Hip Fracture

Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry does not confirm validity of the Craig's test

Prediction of Osteoporosis from Proximal Femoral Cortical Bone Thickness and Hounsfield Unit Value with Clinical Significance.

Comparison of QCT and DXA: Osteoporosis Detection Rates in Postmenopausal Women.

Discordance in Diagnosis of Osteoporosis by Quantitative Computed Tomography and Dual-Energy X-ray Absorptiometry in Chinese Elderly Men.

Advanced measures from DXA and QCT: Fracture prediction beyond BMD Consensus of the Society of International Clinical Densitometry 2015 ( originally from Journal of Clinical Densitometry, 2015, 3:274-286)