METHODS: A list of key clinical questions on the assessment, diagnosis and treatment of OP was formulated. A literature search using the PubMed, Medline, Cochrane Databases of Systematic Reviews, and OVID electronic databases identified all relevant articles on OP based on the key clinical questions, from 2014 onwards, to update from the 2015 edition. The articles were graded using the SIGN50 format. For each statement, studies with the highest level of evidence were used to frame the recommendation.
RESULTS: This article summarizes the diagnostic and treatment pathways for postmenopausal OP. Risk stratification of patients with OP encompasses clinical risk factors, bone mineral density measurements and FRAX risk estimates. Non-pharmacological measures including adequate calcium and vitamin D, regular exercise and falls prevention are recommended. Pharmacological measures depend on patients' fracture risk status. Very high-risk individuals are recommended for treatment with an anabolic agent, if available, followed by an anti-resorptive agent. Alternatively, parenteral anti-resorptive agents can be used. High-risk individuals should be treated with anti-resorptive agents. In low-risk individuals, menopausal hormone replacement or selective estrogen receptor modulators can be used, if indicated. Patients should be assessed regularly to monitor treatment response and treatment adjusted, as appropriate.
CONCLUSIONS: The pathways for the management of postmenopausal OP in Malaysia have been updated. Incorporation of fracture risk stratification can guide appropriate treatment.
PURPOSE: To review and generate consensus on best practices of fracture liaison service (FLS) in the Asia-Pacific (AP) region.
METHODS: In October 2017, the Taiwanese Osteoporosis Association (TOA) invited experts from the AP region (n = 23), the Capture the Fracture Steering Committee (n = 2), and the USA (n = 1) to join the AP region FLS Consensus Meeting in Taipei. After two rounds of consensus generation, the recommendations on the 13 Best Practice Framework (BPF) standards were reported and reviewed by the attendees. Experts unable to attend the on-site meeting reviewed the draft, made suggestions, and approved the final version.
RESULTS: Because the number of FLSs in the region is rapidly increasing, experts agreed that it was timely to establish consensus on benchmark quality standards for FLSs in the region. They also agreed that the 13 BPF standards and the 3 levels of standards were generally applicable, but that some clarifications were necessary. They suggested, for example, that patient and family education be incorporated into the current standards and that communication with the public to promote FLSs be increased.
CONCLUSIONS: The consensus on the 13 BPF standards reviewed in this meeting was that they were generally applicable and required only a few advanced clarifications to increase the quality of FLSs in the region.
METHODS: The 2-unit leadership course was piloted among second- and third-year students in a public college of pharmacy with a 4-year doctor of pharmacy curriculum. The participating students completed the LABS-III during the first and last classes as part of a quality improvement measure for course enhancement. Rasch analysis was then used to assess the reliability and validity evidence for the LABS-III.
RESULTS: A total of 24 students participated in the pilot course. The pre and postcourse surveys had 100% and 92% response rates, respectively. After Rasch analysis model fit was achieved, the item separation for the 14 nonextreme items was 2.19 with an item reliability of 0.83. The person separation index was 2.16 with a person reliability of 0.82.
CONCLUSION: The Rasch analysis revealed that the number of LABS-III items should be decreased and that the 3-point response scale should be used to improve functionality and use in classroom settings for PharmD students in the United States. Further research is needed to augment the reliability and validity evidence of the modified instrument for use at other United States colleges of pharmacy.
METHODS: A multi-speciality expert panel consisting of nine Malaysian physicians from different healthcare settings who manage a diverse OA patient population was convened. Using a combination of the ADAPTE process and modified Delphi method, the panel reviewed current evidence on the management of knee OA and synthesised a set of nine recommendations on the management of knee OA, supported by an algorithm that summarises the consensus' core messages.
RESULTS: A multimodal intervention strategy is the mainstay of OA management and the choice of any single or multimodal intervention may vary over the course of the disease. Overall, a non-pharmacological core treatment set of patient education, weight loss and exercise is recommended for all patients. When pharmacotherapy is indicated, symptomatic slow-acting drugs for osteoarthritis are recommended at the early stage of disease, and they can be paired with physical therapy as background treatment. Concurrent advanced pharmacotherapy that includes non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, intraarticular injections and short-term weak opioids can be considered if patients do not respond sufficiently to background treatment. Patients with severe symptomatic knee OA should be considered for knee replacement surgery. Management should begin with specific treatments with the least systemic exposure or toxicity, and the choice of treatment should be determined as a shared decision between patients and their team of healthcare providers.
CONCLUSIONS: This consensus presents nine recommendations that advocate an algorithmic approach in the management of patients living with knee OA. They are applicable to patients receiving treatment from primary to tertiary care providers in Malaysia as well as other countries.
INTRODUCTION: The International Osteoporosis Foundation and European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis published guidance for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in 2019. This manuscript seeks to apply this in an international setting, taking additional account of further categorisation of increased risk of fracture, which may inform choice of therapeutic approach.
METHODS: Clinical perspective and updated literature search.
RESULTS: The following areas are reviewed: categorisation of fracture risk and general pharmacological management of osteoporosis.
CONCLUSIONS: A platform is provided on which specific guidelines can be developed for national use to characterise fracture risk and direct interventions.
AIM: Based on this document, a Southeast Asia Working Group (SEAWG) wished to see how the new ESCEO algorithm developed in 2019 was perceived by Southeast Asian experts and how it was integrated into their clinical practice.
METHODS: A SEAWG was set up between members of the international ESCEO task force and a group of Southeast Asian experts.
RESULTS: Non-pharmacological management should always be combined with pharmacological management. In step 1, symptomatic slow-acting drugs for osteoarthritis are the main background therapy, for which high-quality evidence is available only for the formulations of patented crystalline glucosamine sulfate and chondroitin sulfate. In step 2, oral NSAIDs are a useful option, considering the cardiovascular/renal/gastrointestinal profiles of the individual patient. Intra-articular hyaluronic acid and corticosteroids are a possible alternative to oral NSAIDs, but limited evidence is available. If steps 1 and 2 do not give adequate relief of symptoms, tramadol can be used, but its safety is debated. In general, the indications of the ESCEO algorithm are important in Southeast Asian countries, but the reimbursement criteria of local health systems are an important aspect for adherence to the ESCEO algorithm.
CONCLUSION: This guidance provides evidence-based and easy-to-follow advice on how to establish a treatment algorithm in knee OA, for practical implementation in clinical practice in Southeast Asian countries.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This scoping review aims to explore the potential role and delivery of FLS services in Malaysia. Scientific and non-scientific sources relevant to FLS were identified from electronic bibliographic databases, specialist journals and relevant websites. Findings were categorised into themes and presented narratively.
RESULTS: FLS services remain concentrated in the Klang Valley. Even within FLS services, many do not have extensive coverage to risk assess all fracture patients. These services are multidisciplinary in nature where there are links between different departments, such as orthopaedics, osteoporosis expertise, bone densitometry, rehabilitation, falls services and primary care. FLS was able to increase the number of people undergoing fracture risk assessment and treatment. The importance of FLS was highlighted by local experts and stakeholders. Its implementation and delivery are supported by a number of national guidelines.
CONCLUSION: FLS is central to our national efforts to reduce the impending fragility fracture crisis in the coming years. Continued effort is needed to increase coverage within FLS services and across the country. Training, awareness of the problem, research, and policy change will support this endeavour.