METHODS: The World Health Organization Service Availability and Readiness Assessment tool was used to collect data on the care of hip fractures in Malaysia, Thailand, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, and Nepal. Respondents were asked to provide details about the current pathway of care for patients with hip fracture, including pre-hospital transport, time to admission, time to surgery, and time to weightbearing, along with healthcare professionals involved at different stages of care, information on discharge, and patient follow-up.
RESULTS: Responses were received from 98 representative hospitals across the five countries. Most hospitals were publicly funded. There was consistency in clinical pathways of care within country, but considerable variation between countries. Patients mostly travel to hospital via ambulance (both publicly- and privately-funded) or private transport, with only half arriving at hospital within 12 hours of their injury. Access to surgery was variable and time to surgery ranged between one day and more than five days. The majority of hospitals mobilized patients on the first or second day after surgery, but there was notable variation in postoperative weightbearing protocols. Senior medical input was variable and specialist orthogeriatric expertise was unavailable in most hospitals.
CONCLUSION: This study provides the first step in mapping care pathways for patients with hip fracture in LMIC in South Asia. The previous lack of data in these countries hampers efforts to identify quality standards (key performance indicators) that are relevant to each different healthcare system.
PURPOSE: We aimed to examine the role of age-dependent intervention thresholds (ITs) applied to the Fracture Risk Assessment (FRAX) tool in therapeutic decision making for osteoporosis in the Malaysian population.
METHODS: Data were collated from 1380 treatment-naïve postmenopausal women aged 40-85 years who underwent bone mineral density (BMD) measurements for clinical reasons. Age-dependent ITs, for both major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) and hip fracture (HF), were calculated considering a woman with a BMI of 25 kg/m2, aged between 40 and 85years, with a prior fragility fracture, sans other clinical risk factors. Those with fracture probabilities equal to or above upper assessment thresholds (UATs) were considered to have high fracture risk. Those below the lower assessment thresholds (LATs) were considered to have low fracture risk.
RESULTS: The ITs of MOF and HF ranged from 0.7 to 18% and 0.2 to 8%, between 40 and 85years. The LATs of MOF ranged from 0.3 to 11%, while those of HF ranged from 0.1 to 5.2%. The UATs of MOF and HF were 0.8 to 21.6% and 0.2 to 9.6%, respectively. In this study, 24.8% women were in the high-risk category while 30.4% were in the low-risk category. Of the 44.8% (n=618) in the intermediate risk group, after recalculation of fracture risk with BMD input, 38.3% (237/618) were above the ITs while the rest (n=381, 61.7%) were below the ITs. Judged by the Youden Index, 11.5% MOF probability which was associated with a sensitivity of 0.62 and specificity of 0.83 and 4.0% HF probability associated with a sensitivity of 0.63 and a specificity 0.82 were found to be the most appropriate fixed ITs in this analysis.
CONCLUSION: Less than half of the study population (44.8%) required BMD for osteoporosis management when age-specific assessment thresholds were applied. Therefore, in more than half, therapeutic decisions can be made without BMD based on these assessment thresholds.
PURPOSE: Minimum clinical standards for assessment and management of osteoporosis are needed in the Asia-Pacific (AP) region to inform clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and to improve osteoporosis care. We present the framework of these clinical standards and describe its development.
METHODS: We conducted a structured comparative analysis of existing CPGs in the AP region using a "5IQ" model (identification, investigation, information, intervention, integration, and quality). One-hundred data elements were extracted from each guideline. We then employed a four-round Delphi consensus process to structure the framework, identify key components of guidance, and develop clinical care standards.
RESULTS: Eighteen guidelines were included. The 5IQ analysis demonstrated marked heterogeneity, notably in guidance on risk factors, the use of biochemical markers, self-care information for patients, indications for osteoporosis treatment, use of fracture risk assessment tools, and protocols for monitoring treatment. There was minimal guidance on long-term management plans or on strategies and systems for clinical quality improvement. Twenty-nine APCO members participated in the Delphi process, resulting in consensus on 16 clinical standards, with levels of attainment defined for those on identification and investigation of fragility fractures, vertebral fracture assessment, and inclusion of quality metrics in guidelines.
CONCLUSION: The 5IQ analysis confirmed previous anecdotal observations of marked heterogeneity of osteoporosis clinical guidelines in the AP region. The Framework provides practical, clear, and feasible recommendations for osteoporosis care and can be adapted for use in other such vastly diverse regions. Implementation of the standards is expected to significantly lessen the global burden of osteoporosis.