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.
Aim: To consolidate the literature regarding the barriers faced by primary care physicians in making house calls.
Design of the study: Literature review.
Method: Studies were sourced from PubMed and Embase.
Results: 7 studies were selected to be in the literature review. Barriers to making house calls by primary care physicians include inadequate remuneration, lack of time and training, unconducive home environment, concerns with professional liability and safety, and perceived low value-added in the patient's quality of care.
Conclusion: While primary care physicians do recognize the value of house calls in patient care, the perceived limited standard of care that can be achieved in the home setting, busy clinic practice (large patient loads), coupled with inadequate remuneration make house calls unrealistic for many doctors. These barriers must be addressed to ensure accessibility to primary health care services for the immobile, frail, and sick is not being compromised. One of the solutions may be to expose medical students and residents to house calls early through mentorship.
OBJECTIVE: This review aims to synthesize the current evidence on digital health interventions targeting adolescents and young people with mental health conditions, aged between 10-24 years, with a focus on effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and generalizability to low-resource settings (eg, low- and middle-income countries).
METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, PubMed, PsycINFO, and Cochrane databases between January 2010 and June 2020 for systematic reviews and meta-analyses on digital mental health interventions targeting adolescents and young people aged between 10-24 years. Two authors independently screened the studies, extracted data, and assessed the quality of the reviews.
RESULTS: In this systematic overview, we included 18 systematic reviews and meta-analyses. We found evidence on the effectiveness of computerized cognitive behavioral therapy on anxiety and depression, whereas the effectiveness of other digital mental health interventions remains inconclusive. Interventions with an in-person element with a professional, peer, or parent were associated with greater effectiveness, adherence, and lower dropout than fully automatized or self-administered interventions. Despite the proposed utility of digital interventions for increasing accessibility of treatment across settings, no study has reported sample-specific metrics of social context (eg, socioeconomic background) or focused on low-resource settings.
CONCLUSIONS: Although digital interventions for mental health can be effective for both supplementing and supplanting traditional mental health treatment, only a small proportion of existing digital platforms are evidence based. Furthermore, their cost-effectiveness and effectiveness, including in low- and middle-income countries, have been understudied. Widespread adoption and scale-up of digital mental health interventions, especially in settings with limited resources for health, will require more rigorous and consistent demonstrations of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness vis-à-vis the type of service provided, target population, and the current standard of care.
METHODS: This study will use a multicentre, open-label non-inferiority trial design comparing cefiderocol and standard of care antibiotics. Eligible participants will be adult inpatients who are diagnosed with a bloodstream infection with a Gram-negative organism on the basis of a positive blood culture result where the acquisition meets the definition for healthcare-associated or hospital-acquired. It will compare cefiderocol with the current standard of care (SOC) antibiotic regimen according to the patient's treating clinician. Eligible participants will be randomised 1:1 to cefiderocol or SOC and receive 5-14 days of antibiotic therapy. Trial recruitment will occur in at least 20 sites in ten countries (Australia, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, Turkey and Greece). The sample size has been derived from an estimated 14 day, all-cause mortality rate of 10% in the control group, and a non-inferiority margin of 10% difference in the two groups. A minimum of 284 patients are required in total to achieve 80% power with a two-sided alpha level of 0.05. Data describing demographic information, risk factors, concomitant antibiotics, illness scores, microbiology, multidrug-resistant organism screening, discharge and mortality will be collected.
DISCUSSION: With increasing antimicrobial resistance, there is a need for the development of new antibiotics with broad activity against Gram-negative pathogens such as cefiderocol. By selecting a population at risk for multi-drug-resistant pathogens and commencing study treatment early in the clinical illness (within 48 h of index blood culture) the trial hopes to provide guidance to clinicians of the efficacy of this novel agent.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: The GAME CHANGER trial is registered under the US National Institute of Health ClinicalTrials.gov register, reference number NCT03869437 . Registered on March 11, 2019.
METHODS: This prospective, randomized controlled, open-label trial evaluated 50 women with insulin-treated GDM randomized to either retrospective CGM (6-day sensor) at 28, 32 and 36 weeks' gestation (Group 1, CGM, n = 25) or usual antenatal care without CGM (Group 2, control, n = 25). All women performed seven-point capillary blood glucose (CBG) profiles at least 3 days per week and recorded hypoglycaemic events (symptomatic and asymptomatic CBG care without increasing severe hypoglycaemia. (Clinical Trials Registry No.: NCT02204657).