» Articles » PMID: 38494464

Bone Health Status Evaluation in Men by Means of REMS Technology

Abstract

Background: Osteoporosis in males is largely under-diagnosed and under-treated, with most of the diagnosis confirmed only after an osteoporotic fracture. Therefore, there is an urgent need for highly accurate and precise technologies capable of identifying osteoporosis earlier, thereby avoiding complications from fragility fractures.

Aims: This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy and precision of the non-ionizing technology Radiofrequency Echographic Multi Spectrometry (REMS) for the diagnosis of osteoporosis in a male population in comparison with conventional Dual-energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DXA).

Methods: A cohort of 603 Caucasian males aged between 30 and 90 years were involved in the study. All the enrolled patients underwent lumbar and femoral scans with both DXA and REMS. The diagnostic agreement between REMS and DXA-measured BMD was expressed by Pearson correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman method. The accuracy of the diagnostic classification was evaluated by the assessment of sensitivity and specificity considering DXA as reference.

Results: A significant correlation between REMS- and DXA-measured T-score values (r = 0.91, p < 0.0001) for lumbar spine and for femoral neck (r = 0.90, p < 0.0001) documented the substantial equivalence of the two measurement techniques. Bland-Altman outcomes showed that the average difference in T-score measurement is very close to zero (-0.06 ± 0.60 g/cm for lumbar spine and - 0.07 ± 0.44 g/cm for femoral neck) confirming the agreement between the two techniques. Furthermore, REMS resulted an effective technique to discriminate osteoporotic patients from the non-osteoporotic ones on both lumbar spine (sensitivity = 90.1%, specificity = 93.6%) and femoral neck (sensitivity = 90.9%, specificity = 94.6%). Precision yielded RMS-CV = 0.40% for spine and RMS-CV = 0.34% for femur.

Conclusion: REMS, is a reliable technology for the diagnosis of osteoporosis also in men. This evidence corroborates its high diagnostic performance already observed in previous studies involving female populations.

Citing Articles

Radiofrequency Echographic Multi Spectrometry-A Novel Tool in the Diagnosis of Osteoporosis and Prediction of Fragility Fractures: A Systematic Review.

Icatoiu E, Vladulescu-Trandafir A, Groseanu L, Berghea F, Cobilinschi C, Potcovaru C Diagnostics (Basel). 2025; 15(5).

PMID: 40075802 PMC: 11898608. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics15050555.


Proposed practice parameters for the performance of radiofrequency echographic multispectrometry (REMS) evaluations.

Zambito K, Kushchayeva Y, Bush A, Pisani P, Kushchayeva S, Peters M Bone Jt Open. 2025; 6(3):291-297.

PMID: 40049216 PMC: 11884906. DOI: 10.1302/2633-1462.63.BJO-2024-0107.R1.


Cost-effectiveness of radiofrequency echographic multi-spectrometry for the diagnosis of osteoporosis in the United States.

Reginster J, Silverman S, Alokail M, Al-Daghri N, Hiligsmann M JBMR Plus. 2024; 9(1):ziae138.

PMID: 39664931 PMC: 11631096. DOI: 10.1093/jbmrpl/ziae138.


Glycogen Storage Disease Type I and Bone: Clinical and Cellular Characterization.

Vai S, Falchetti A, Corbetta S, Bianchi M, Alberio C, Carrara S Calcif Tissue Int. 2024; 115(5):661-672.

PMID: 39453459 PMC: 11531425. DOI: 10.1007/s00223-024-01302-4.


Pro-Osteogenic Effect of the Nutraceutical BlastiMin Complex in Women with Osteoporosis or Osteopenia: An Open Intervention Clinical Trial.

Sabatelli S, Scarpa E, Giuliani A, Giordani C, Sabbatinelli J, Rippo M Int J Mol Sci. 2024; 25(16).

PMID: 39201253 PMC: 11354786. DOI: 10.3390/ijms25168565.


References
1.
Camacho P, Petak S, Binkley N, Diab D, Eldeiry L, Farooki A . AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGISTS/AMERICAN COLLEGE OF ENDOCRINOLOGY CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINES FOR THE DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT OF POSTMENOPAUSAL OSTEOPOROSIS-2020 UPDATE. Endocr Pract. 2020; 26(Suppl 1):1-46. DOI: 10.4158/GL-2020-0524SUPPL. View

2.
Ravaud P, Reny J, Giraudeau B, Porcher R, Dougados M, Roux C . Individual smallest detectable difference in bone mineral density measurements. J Bone Miner Res. 1999; 14(8):1449-56. DOI: 10.1359/jbmr.1999.14.8.1449. View

3.
Albano D, Agnollitto P, Petrini M, Biacca A, Ulivieri F, Sconfienza L . Operator-Related Errors and Pitfalls in Dual Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry: How to Recognize and Avoid Them. Acad Radiol. 2020; 28(9):1272-1286. DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2020.07.028. View

4.
Diez-Perez A, Brandi M, Al-Daghri N, Branco J, Bruyere O, Cavalli L . Radiofrequency echographic multi-spectrometry for the in-vivo assessment of bone strength: state of the art-outcomes of an expert consensus meeting organized by the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis.... Aging Clin Exp Res. 2019; 31(10):1375-1389. PMC: 6763416. DOI: 10.1007/s40520-019-01294-4. View

5.
Cortet B, Dennison E, Diez-Perez A, Locquet M, Muratore M, Nogues X . Radiofrequency Echographic Multi Spectrometry (REMS) for the diagnosis of osteoporosis in a European multicenter clinical context. Bone. 2020; 143:115786. DOI: 10.1016/j.bone.2020.115786. View