Indian rheumatology association guidelines for management of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis

What traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine recommendations exist across osteoporosis clinical practice guidelines? A systematic review and quality assessment

Background

Traditional, complementary and integrative medicine (TCIM) is sought by more than 50% of patients with osteoporosis. Despite this, many healthcare providers lack the knowledge to adequately counsel patients on safe and effective TCIM use. The purpose of this study was to determine the quantity and quality of TCIM recommendations in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the treatment and/or management of osteoporosis.

Methods

MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL databases, in addition to the Guidelines International Network, and the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health website were searched from 2009–2020. CPGs making TCIM recommendations for the treatment/management of osteoporosis were assessed with the AGREE II instrument.

Results

Of 536 unique search results, 27 osteoporosis CPGs made mention of TCIM therapies. From highest to lowest, scaled domain percentages of all eligible CPGs averaged to 92.59% for scope and purpose, 88.79% for clarity in presentation, 55.04% for stakeholder involvement, 47.84% for editorial independence, 46.53% for rigor of development, and 36.96% for applicability. Of the 27 CPGs assessed, 4 CPGs were recommended as is by both appraisers, while 23 CPGs were recommended with modifications.

Conclusions

Recommendations pertaining to calcium and vitamin D supplementation and exercise were favorably recommended across nearly all CPGs. In the case of other TCIM interventions, recommendations varied greatly, which may present challenges for CPGs target users due to a lack of consistency. Given the varying quality of osteoporosis CPGs found, those requiring improvement may benefit from their guideline development panel utilizing the AGREE II instrument to inform future updates.

A systematic review of standard treatment guidelines in India

Background & objectives

Standard treatment guidelines (STGs) are the cornerstone to therapeutics. Multiple agencies in India develop STGs. This systematic review was conducted to find out STGs available in India, evaluate if these were as per World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations for STGs and compare these with National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines. Information on legal authority and responsibility for formulating STGs was also sought.

Methods

PRISMA guidelines were followed. Publications from PubMed and Google Scholar were searched for STGs using terms 'Standard Treatment Guidelines AND India'. Data from STGs were compiled in excel as per the WHO and authors' criteria for STGs and compared with NICE guidelines.

Results

PubMed and Google Scholar search provided 56 publications (out of 1695 search results) mentioning 27 STGs. Google search and replies from authors led us 36 STGs, totalling to 63 STGs. No STG mentioned any specific period of revision, eight STGs were not evidence-based, 55 had some Indian references, 48 STGs were for single disease and the remaining multi-disease, three STGs did not include diagnostic criteria, 16 STGs did not give prescribing information of recommended treatment and 16 STGs provide no referral criteria for patients. Fifty five STGs did not mention level of health care. While NICE is a single legal authority in England and guidelines are as per WHO recommendations for STGs, in India although Acts and rules do not vest authority, National Health Systems Resource Center is generally designated responsible for STGs.

Interpretation & conclusions

In India, although there are multiple STGs developed by various authorities and professionals for the same conditions, these fulfil WHO recommendations only partially. Authority with statutory duty collaborating with professional organizations, a standard methodology for adopting international guidelines, Indian data for evidence base, attention to local needs will help in developing better STGs and their acceptance.

Treatment recommendations based on fracture risk status are not consistently provided in osteoporosis guidelines

We examined international osteoporosis guidelines to determine the tools used to assess fracture risk, the classification of fracture risk presented, and the recommendations based on fracture risk status. We conducted a document analysis of guidelines from the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) website retrieved as of May 10, 2018, focusing on guidelines written in English only. Two reviewers independently reviewed each document and the following data were extracted: (1) fracture risk tool(s) endorsed; (2) classification system used to describe fracture risk status (e.g., low, moderate, high); and (3) recommendations based on risk status (e.g., pharmacological treatment). Two additional reviewers verified all data extraction. A total of 112 guidelines were listed on the IOF website, of which 94 were located either through the provided link or through a PubMed search. Of 70 guidelines written in English, 63 guidelines discussed the concept of fracture risk of which, 39 endorsed FRAX. Twenty-eight guidelines defined fracture risk categories or thresholds which determined recommendations. In total, 26 provided a risk category or threshold which constituted an indication for pharmacotherapy. Twelve guidelines reported a moderate, medium, or intermediate risk category which was associated with variable recommendations for testing and treatment. Despite the generally accepted international shift to fracture risk as a basis for treatment decisions, the majority of guidelines in English did not provide treatment recommendations based on fracture risk status. In guidelines with recommendations based on fracture risk status, thresholds and recommendations varied making international comparisons of treatment difficult.

Rheumatology science and practice in India

The practice of rheumatology in a country like India presents its own unique challenges, including the need to manage patients in a cost-constrained setting, where the lack of uniform government funding for healthcare merits the need to optimize the use of cheaper medicines, as well as devise innovative strategies to minimize the use of costlier drugs such as biologic disease-modifying agents. Use of immunosuppressive agents is also associated with increased risks of infectious complications, such as the reactivation of tuberculosis. In this narrative review, we provide a flavor of such challenges unique to Rheumatology practice in India, and review the published literature on the management of common rheumatic diseases from India. In addition, we critically review existing guidelines for the management of rheumatic diseases from this part of the world. We also discuss infectious etiologies of rheumatic complaints, such as leprosy, tuberculosis, and Chikungunya arthritis, which are often encountered here, and pose a diagnostic as well as therapeutic challenge for clinicians. There remains a need to identify and test more cost-effective strategies for Indian patients with rheumatic diseases, as well as the requirement for more government participation to enhance scant facilities for the treatment of such diseases as well as foster the development of healthcare services such as specialist nurses, occupational therapists and physiotherapists to enable better management of these conditions.

Rheumatology in India--quo vadis?

Rheumatology has been a neglected subspecialty in India. A staggering patient load, a severely inadequate number of trained rheumatology specialists, therapeutic nihilism and limited advocacy are some of the critical challenges that confront rheumatology care, and possibly explain the high rates of reliance on complementary and alternative medicines in India. Disease spectrum and treatment patterns are not remarkably different from those in other countries, but biologic agents have limited use and are administered for short periods only. Consequently, outcomes in India do not yet match those reported in developed countries. Furthermore, the high prevalence of infectious diseases continues to be a major contributor to mortality in patients with rheumatic disorders such as systemic lupus erythematosus. Several tropical diseases with rheumatic manifestations are relevant in India, including chikungunya, brucellosis, leptospirosis, dengue and melioidosis. To address the many problems with rheumatology care in India, curricular reforms, capacity building, patient education and political support are sorely needed.