AIM: This Clinical Guidance is aimed to help practitioners assess, diagnose and manage their patients with osteoporosis (OP), using the best available evidence.
METHODS: A literature search using PubMed (MEDLINE) and The Cochrane Library identified all relevant articles on OP and its assessment, diagnosis and treatment, from 2005, to update from the previous edition published in 2006. The studies were assessed and the level of evidence assigned; 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 OP, highlighting the new data that have changed the way we assess and treat OP. Instead of starting treatment based on bone mineral density alone, there has been a move to assessing 10-year fracture risk before treatment, using tools such as the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX). There has been a re-evaluation on calcium supplementation and more emphasis on the importance of vitamin D. There has been concern about the potential adverse effects of the long-term usage of bisphosphonates, which we have discussed fully. New drugs that have been licensed since 2006 in Malaysia have been included.
CONCLUSIONS: Adequate intake of calcium (1000 mg from both diet and supplements) and vitamin D (800 IU) daily remain important in the treatment of OP. However, in confirmed OP, pharmacological therapy with anti-resorptives is the mainstay of treatment. Patients need to be regularly assessed while on medication and treatment adjusted as required.
OBJECTIVES: To develop and validate the Osteoporosis Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire (OPSQ) and to assess the opinion of postmenopausal osteoporotic women towards pharmaceutical care.
METHODS: A 16-item instrument was designed. Each response consists of a five-point Likert-like scale with higher scores indicating greater satisfaction. The face and content validity was established via consultation with an endocrinologist and three pharmacists as well as feedback from participants in a preliminary study. Postmenopausal osteoporotic women taking bisphosphonates were recruited and randomly allocated to the intervention (n=90) and control groups (n=90). Pharmaceutical care was provided at month 2 to the intervention group while the control group received standard pharmacy services. The OPSQ was administered at month 6 (end of the intervention period), to assess patients' satisfaction. Factor analysis was performed using varimax rotation. Internal reliability was established using Cronbach's alpha. Construct validity was performed by using the Mann-Whitney U test.
RESULTS: The internal reliability of the OPSQ produced a Cronbach's alpha of 0.86. Factor analysis identified one component in the OPSQ, which measured patient satisfaction. The intervention group showed significantly better overall OPSQ score than the control group (91.89+/-7.22% versus 84.32+/-7.48%, p<0.001). This indicates that the OPSQ was able to differentiate between participants who received pharmaceutical care from those who did not.
CONCLUSIONS: The 16-item OPSQ developed in this study has high internal reliability and is a valid instrument for assessing osteoporotic women's satisfaction with pharmaceutical care service in Malaysia.
BACKGROUND: A vast amount of literature describes the incidence of fracture as a risk for recurrent osteoporotic fractures in western and Asian countries. Osteoporosis evaluation and treatment after a low-trauma fracture, however, has not been well characterized in postmenopausal women in Asia. The purpose of this study was to characterize patient and health system characteristics associated with the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis among postmenopausal women hospitalized with a fragility fracture in Asia.
METHODS: Patient surveys and medical charts of postmenopausal women (N=1,122) discharged after a fragility hip fracture from treatment centers in mainland China, Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, Malaysia, Taiwan, and Thailand between July 1, 2006 and June 30, 2007 were reviewed for bone mineral density (BMD) measurement, osteoporosis diagnosis, and osteoporosis treatment.
RESULTS: The mean (SD) age was 72.9 (11.5) years. A BMD measurement was reported by 28.2% of patients, 51.5% were informed that they had osteoporosis, and 33.0% received prescription medications for osteoporosis in the 6 months after discharge. Using multivariate logistic regression analyses, prior history of fracture decreased the odds of a BMD measurement (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.45-0.88). Having a BMD measurement increased the odds of osteoporosis diagnosis (OR 10.1, 95% CI 6.36-16.0), as did having health insurance (OR 4.95, 95% CI 1.51-16.21 for private insurance with partial self-payment relative to 100% self-payment). A history of fracture was not independently associated with an osteoporosis diagnosis (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.56-1.15). Younger age reduced the odds of receiving medication for osteoporosis (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.36-0.96 relative to age ≥65), while having a BMD measurement increased the odds (OR 1.79, 95% CI 1.23-2.61).
CONCLUSIONS: Osteoporosis diagnosis and treatment in Asian countries were driven by BMD measurement but not by fracture history. Future efforts should emphasize education of general practitioners and patients about the importance of fracture.