INTRODUCTION: A study published in 2001 predicted a 30-50% increase in Singapore hip fracture incidence rates over the ensuing 30 years. To test that prediction, we examined the incidence of hip fracture in Singapore from 2000 to 2017.
METHODS: We carried out a population-based study of hip fractures among Singapore residents aged ≥ 50 years. National medical insurance claims data were used to identify admissions with a primary discharge diagnosis of hip fracture. Age-adjusted rates, based on the age distribution of the Singapore population of 2000, were analyzed separately by sex and ethnicity (Chinese, Malay, or Indian).
RESULTS: Over the 18-year study period, 36,082 first hip fractures were recorded. Total hip fracture admissions increased from 1487 to 2729 fractures/year in the years 2000 to 2017. Despite this absolute increase, age-adjusted fracture rates declined, with an average annual change of - 4.3 (95% CI - 5.0, - 3.5) and - 1.1 (95% CI - 1.7, - 0.5) fractures/100,000/year for women and men respectively. Chinese women had 1.4- and 1.9-fold higher age-adjusted rates than Malay and Indian women: 264 (95% CI 260, 267) versus 185 (95% CI 176, 193) and 141 (95% CI 132, 150) fractures/100,000/year, respectively. Despite their higher fracture rates, Chinese women were the only ethnic group exhibiting a decline, most evident in those ≥ 85 years, in age-adjusted fracture rate of - 5.3 (95% CI - 6.0, - 4.5) fractures/100,000/year.
CONCLUSION: Although the absolute number of fractures increased, steep drops in elderly Chinese women drove a reduction in overall age-adjusted hip fracture rates. Increases in the older population will lead to a rise in total number of hip fractures, requiring budgetary planning and new preventive strategies.
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.
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.