PURPOSE: To review and generate consensus on best practices of fracture liaison service (FLS) in the Asia-Pacific (AP) region.
METHODS: In October 2017, the Taiwanese Osteoporosis Association (TOA) invited experts from the AP region (n = 23), the Capture the Fracture Steering Committee (n = 2), and the USA (n = 1) to join the AP region FLS Consensus Meeting in Taipei. After two rounds of consensus generation, the recommendations on the 13 Best Practice Framework (BPF) standards were reported and reviewed by the attendees. Experts unable to attend the on-site meeting reviewed the draft, made suggestions, and approved the final version.
RESULTS: Because the number of FLSs in the region is rapidly increasing, experts agreed that it was timely to establish consensus on benchmark quality standards for FLSs in the region. They also agreed that the 13 BPF standards and the 3 levels of standards were generally applicable, but that some clarifications were necessary. They suggested, for example, that patient and family education be incorporated into the current standards and that communication with the public to promote FLSs be increased.
CONCLUSIONS: The consensus on the 13 BPF standards reviewed in this meeting was that they were generally applicable and required only a few advanced clarifications to increase the quality of FLSs in the region.
METHODS: Literature search was performed using 6 electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Ovid MEDLINE, EconLit, National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database, and ISI Web of Knowledge). The final search was performed in October 2018. All potential economic studies were then checked for eligibility. The reporting and methodological qualities of each study were independently assessed by 2 authors of this review, using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards, Drummond, and Philips checklists. To compare the different currencies used in these studies, all costs were converted into US dollars (2016).
RESULTS: A total of 6 studies were included; most of them were performed from the healthcare provider perspective. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for evaluation performed for a lifetime horizon were reported at $8573 and $20 816 per quality-adjusted life-year in 2 studies. The model outcome was generally sensitive to the changes in trastuzumab drug acquisition cost and discount rate, as well as its clinical effectiveness. For the quality assessment, all studies fulfilled more than 50% of the requirements in the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards, Drummond, and Philips checklists.
CONCLUSIONS: Adjuvant trastuzumab therapy is considered a cost-effective option for early breast cancer in Asian countries including China, Iran, Japan, Singapore, and Taiwan. All studies were generally well conducted. Economic evaluations from the societal perspective, with inclusion of indirect and informal care costs, are warranted to facilitate informed decision making among policy makers.