Search

In this international study, we examined the incidence of hip fractures, postfracture treatment, and all-cause mortality following hip fractures, based on demographics, geography, and calendar year. We used patient-level healthcare data from 19 countries and regions to identify patients aged 50 years and older hospitalized with a hip fracture from 2005 to 2018. The age- and sex-standardized incidence rates of hip fractures, post-hip fracture treatment (defined as the proportion of patients receiving anti-osteoporosis medication with various mechanisms of action [bisphosphonates, denosumab, raloxifene, strontium ranelate, or teriparatide] following a hip fracture), and the all-cause mortality rates after hip fractures were estimated using a standardized protocol and common data model. The number of hip fractures in 2050 was projected based on trends in the incidence and estimated future population demographics. In total, 4,115,046 hip fractures were identified from 20 databases. The reported age- and sex-standardized incidence rates of hip fractures ranged from 95.1 (95% confidence interval [CI] 94.8–95.4) in Brazil to 315.9 (95% CI 314.0–317.7) in Denmark per 100,000 population. Incidence rates decreased over the study period in most countries; however, the estimated total annual number of hip fractures nearly doubled from 2018 to 2050. Within 1 year following a hip fracture, post-hip fracture treatment ranged from 11.5% (95% CI 11.1% to 11.9%) in Germany to 50.3% (95% CI 50.0% to 50.7%) in the United Kingdom, and all-cause mortality rates ranged from 14.4% (95% CI 14.0% to 14.8%) in Singapore to 28.3% (95% CI 28.0% to 28.6%) in the United Kingdom. Males had lower use of anti-osteoporosis medication than females, higher rates of all-cause mortality, and a larger increase in the projected number of hip fractures by 2050. Substantial variations exist in the global epidemiology of hip fractures and postfracture outcomes. Our findings inform possible actions to reduc

Kiyoshi Kubota,1,2 Nobuhiro Ooba2 1NPO Drug Safety Research Unit Japan, Tokyo, Japan; 2Department of Clinical Pharmacy, Nihon University School of Pharmacy, Funabashi, Chiba, JapanCorrespondence: Kiyoshi Kubota, NPO Drug Safety Research Unit Japan, 6-2-9-2F Soto-Kanda, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, 101-0021, Japan, Tel +81-3-6284-4206, Fax +81-3-6284-4207, Email kubota@dsrujp.orgPurpose: To compare the effectiveness and safety of reduced or standard daily doses of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) with warfarin in Japanese patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). We used post-hoc analyses to identify patient groups that could benefit from reduced-dose DOACs.Patients and Methods: Using the National Database of Health Insurance Claims and Specific Health Checkups of Japan, we identified 944,776 patients with NVAF who had started an oral anticoagulant after at least one year of non-use between April 2011 and March 2016. We matched patients taking any, reduced, or standard doses of DOACs 1:1 with those taking warfarin. We measured treatment effectiveness based on admission due to stroke or systemic embolism (S/SE) and safety based on admission due to any bleeding (defined as major bleeding, MB). We compared both outcomes between DOACs and warfarin using the Cox proportional hazards model. We used post-hoc analysis to match patients receiving reduced-dose DOACs to those receiving standard-dose DOACs and compared treatment effectiveness and safety.Results: More than half of patients receiving DOACs used a reduced dose. The occurrences of S/SE and MB in patients receiving any, reduced, or standard doses of DOACs were equal to or lower than those receiving warfarin. In the post-hoc analysis, the risk of S/SE and MB was similar between reduced and standard doses of DOACs except for those with a history of cerebral infarction and CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥ 3, where the risk of S/SE was lower for reduced doses of any and individual DOACs.Conclusion: Findings from the current st

Kiyomi Sadamoto,1– 3 Mikio Murata,2,4 Masaho Hayashi,2,4 Hiroyuki Ura,1 Kiyoshi Kubota2,4 1Department of Clinical Pharmacy, Shonan University of Medical Science, Yokohama, Kanagawa, Japan; 2MECSION, General Incorporated Association, Hiratsuka, Kanagawa, Japan; 3Sadamoto Clinic, Ninomiya, Kanagawa, Japan; 4Department of Clinical Pharmacy Yokohama University of Pharmacy, Yokohama, Kanagawa, JapanCorrespondence: Kiyomi Sadamoto, Tel +81-45-921-0111Fax +81-45-821-0116Email kiyomi.sadamoto@gmail.comBackground: Blister packs with paperboard backing, which is useful for displaying instructions and information, are the most popular type of packaging for osteoporosis drugs in Japan. However, the main users of drugs are the aged, who often find blister packs difficult to open or drop their pills during opening. In this study, we compared different types of blister packs in terms of usability and handling.Methods: We conducted a subjective and objective study to compare commonly used blister packs with newly designed ones that have a jagged notch designed to hold a pill temporarily and a perforated line that enables the pack to be held easily in one hand. Regarding subjective data, packaging and sensory tests were performed. The participants in the sensory test were healthy older adults and patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We also measured the pinch power of all participants.Results: A comparison of several items, including opening status, prevention of pill dropping, and understanding of the instructions, using a numerical rating scale revealed no significant differences between ordinary (type A) and newly designed (type B) packaging. However, the scores for type B were the same or better than those for type A for every evaluation item. In addition, more than 85% of the participants reported preferring to use type B. More than 80% of the participants in both groups reported dropping pills using type A, which seemed to be related to their preference for type B. In th

Introduction Hip fractures are associated with a high burden of morbidity and mortality. Globally, there is wide variation in the incidence of hip fracture in people aged 50 years and older. Longitudinal and cross-geographical comparisons of health data can provide insights on aetiology, risk factors, and healthcare practices. However, systematic reviews of studies that use different methods and study periods do not permit direct comparison across geographical regions. Thus, the objective of this study is to investigate global secular trends in hip fracture incidence, mortality and use of postfracture pharmacological treatment across Asia, Oceania, North and South America, and Western and Northern Europe using a unified methodology applied to health records. Methods and analysis This retrospective cohort study will use a common protocol and an analytical common data model approach to examine incidence of hip fracture across population-based databases in different geographical regions and healthcare settings. The study period will be from 2005 to 2018 subject to data availability in study sites. Patients aged 50 years and older and hospitalised due to hip fracture during the study period will be included. The primary outcome will be expressed as the annual incidence of hip fracture. Secondary outcomes will be the pharmacological treatment rate and mortality within 12 months following initial hip fracture by year. For the primary outcome, crude and standardised incidence of hip fracture will be reported. Linear regression will be used to test for time trends in the annual incidence. For secondary outcomes, the crude mortality and standardised mortality incidence will be reported. Ethics and dissemination Each participating site will follow the relevant local ethics and regulatory frameworks for study approval. The results of the study will be submitted for peer-reviewed scientific publications and presented at scientific conferences.