Stroke systems of care in the Philippines: Addressing gaps and developing strategies.

In the Philippines, the mortality from stroke during the last 10 years remains high. This paper aims to describe the gaps in stroke care and the development of stroke systems of care in the Philippines. Gaps in stroke systems of care include low number of neurologist, inadequate CT scan machines, lack of stroke training among health workers, lack of stroke protocols and pathways, poor community stroke awareness, low government insurance coverage with high out of pocket medical expenses, lack of infrastructure for EMS, inadequate acute stroke ready hospitals, stroke units and rehabilitation facilities. Although there are government programs for primary stroke prevention, the strategies are inadequate to address the stroke pandemic. The Stroke Society of the Philippines has worked with the government for nationwide and regional stroke training of health care workers, community stroke awareness, setting up acute stroke ready hospitals and acute stroke units in different areas of the country and adapting stroke protocols and pathways. Stroke registries are now utilized for quality improvement. Thrombolysis rate has improved from 1.4% in 2014-2016 to 11% in 2021 based on RES-Q database. Because of government subsidy, thrombolysis in the government hospitals is higher at 7.4% (range 4.4-16.9) compared to 4.8% (range 0-10.1) rate in private hospitals. Mechanical thrombectomy rate remained low at 0.4% of all acute ischemic stroke patients because of the cost. With limited resources, infrastructures for emergency medical service is lacking. The innovations done by other LMIC can be done in the Philippines including the use of technology to reach out to geographically isolated areas and use of mobile stroke units. Non neurologist can be trained to help treat stroke patients. Upgrading of the Philhealth insurance to cover for reperfusion therapies, adequate stroke infrastructures and network, and increase in community stroke awareness are areas for improvement in the Philippine stroke systems of care.

Executive summary of the 2020 clinical practice guidelines for the management of hypertension in the Philippines.

Hypertension is the most common cause of death and disability worldwide with its prevalence rising in low to middle income countries. It remains to be an important cause of morbidity and mortality in the Philippines with poor BP control as one of the main causes. Different societies and groups worked and collaborated together to develop the 2020 Philippine Clinical Practice Guidelines of hypertension arising for the need to come up with a comprehensive local practice guideline for the diagnosis, treatment, and follow up of persons with hypertension. A technical working group was organized into six clusters that analyzed the 30 clinical questions commonly asked in practice, looking into the definition of hypertension, treatment thresholds, blood pressure targets, and appropriate medications to reach targets. This guideline also includes recommendations for the specific management of hypertension among individuals with uncomplicated hypertension, hypertension among those with diabetes, stroke, chronic kidney disease, as well as hypertension among pregnant women and pediatric populations. It also looked into the appropriate screening and monitoring of patients when managing hypertension, and identification of groups who are at high risk for cardiovascular (CV) events. The ADAPTE process was used in developing the statements and recommendations which were then presented to a panel of experts for discussion and approval to come up with the final statements. This guideline aims to aid Filipino healthcare professionals to provide evidence-based care for persons with hypertension and help those with hypertension adequately control their blood pressure and reduce their CV risk.

Stroke units in the Philippines: An observational study.

BACKGROUND: In high-income countries, the management of stroke has changed substantially over the years with the advent of thrombolysis and endovascular treatment. However, in low-income countries, such interventions may not be available, or patients may come to the hospital outside the time window no longer qualified for this therapy. Most studies on stroke units were conducted in high-income countries. Unfortunately, there has been no local multicenter data with large patient numbers showing the effectiveness of stroke units in the Southeast Asian region. AIM: To compare the outcomes of patients allocated to stroke units (based on accepted criteria) to those allocated to general neurology wards in the Philippines. METHODS: This is an open, prospective, parallel, observational comparative study of patients from 11 institutions in the Philippines. Patients were allocated either to the stroke unit or to the general neurology ward by the admitting physician based on the criteria suggested by the Stroke Trialist Collaboration Group. The primary outcome was to determine in-hospital mortality at three- and six months in both stroke units and general neurology wards. The secondary outcomes were determined by a dichotomized modified Rankin scale: (0-2) independent and (3-5) dependent. RESULTS: A total of 1025 patients were included in the study. In the primary outcome, a higher mortality rate (8.4% vs 1.0%) in the general neurology ward (p = 0.000) was seen. The six-month mortality rate was statistically significant and higher among patients admitted to the general neurology ward (3.1% vs 0.8%) (p = 0.009). Patients admitted to the stroke unit attained an independent functional outcome (mRS 0-2) as compared to the general neurology ward (73% vs 61.5%) (p = 0.000). Analysis of functionality at six months favored patients admitted in the stroke unit (88.5% vs 81.4%) as compared to the general neurology ward. CONCLUSION: Patients specifically admitted to stroke units in the Philippines based on established criteria have better outcomes than those admitted to general neurology wards.