Comparison of the Male Osteoporosis Risk Estimation Score (MORES) With FRAX in Identifying Men at Risk for Osteoporosis.

PURPOSE: We wanted to compare the male osteoporosis risk estimation score (MORES) with the fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX) in screening men for osteoporosis. METHODS: This study reports analysis of data from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III), a nationally representative sample of the US population, comparing the operating characteristics of FRAX and MORES to identify men at risk for osteoporosis using a subset of 1,498 men, aged 50 years and older, with a valid dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scan. DXA-derived bone mineral density using a T score of -2.5 or lower at either the femoral neck or total hip defined the diagnosis of osteoporosis. Outcomes included the operating characteristics, area under the receiver-operator characteristic curve, and agreement of the FRAX and MORES. RESULTS: Sixty-seven (4.5%) of the 1,498 men had osteoporosis of the hip. The sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC) for the MORES were 0.96 (95% CI, 0.87-0.99), 0.61 (95% CI, 0.58-0.63), and 0.87 (95% CI, 0.84-0.91), respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, and AUC for the FRAX were 0.39 (95% CI, 0.27-0.51), 0.89 (95% CI, 0.88-0.91), and 0.79 (95% CI, 0.75-0.84) respectively. Agreement was poor. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the MORES, the FRAX underperformed as a screening strategy for osteoporosis using the threshold score suggested by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). An integrated approach that uses the MORES to determine which men should have a DXA scan and the FRAX to guide treatment decisions, based on the risk of a future fracture, identified 82% of men who were candidates for treatments based on National Osteoporosis Foundation guidelines.

The effect of fluoxetine on progression in progressive multiple sclerosis: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

Preclinical studies suggest that fluoxetine may have neuroprotective properties. In this pilot study forty-two patients with secondary or primary progressive MS were randomized to receive fluoxetine 20 mg twice daily or placebo for 2 years. Every 3 months the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), 9-hole peg test (9-HPT) and ambulation index (AI) were assessed. Brain MRI scans, Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite, Fatigue Impact Scale, Guy's neurological disability Scale and SF-36 were performed at baseline, year 1 and year 2. Seven out of 20 (35%) patients in the fluoxetine group and 7 out of 22 (32%) patients in the placebo group had sustained progression on the EDSS, 9-HPT, or AI at 2 years. No differences were identified between the 2 treatment groups with respect to secondary clinical outcomes and T2 lesion load, grey matter volume and white matter volume. An unanticipated low rate of disability progression in the placebo group decreased the statistical power. At least 200 patients would have been needed to detect a 50% treatment effect. This trial shows that fluoxetine was generally well tolerated, but no assumptions can be made about a possible treatment effect. An adequately powered controlled trial of fluoxetine in progressive MS is still warranted. This trial is registered with Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN38456328.