METHODS: We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of primary antibiotic resistance to H pylori and the efficacy of first-line regimens in the Asia-Pacific region. We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for articles published between Jan 1, 1990, and Sept 30, 2016; we also searched abstracts from international conferences. Both observational studies and randomised controlled trials were eligible for inclusion in the analysis of primary antibiotic resistance, but only randomised controlled trials were eligible for inclusion in the analysis of efficacy of first-line therapies. Meta-analysis was by the random-effects model to account for the substantial variations in resistance across the region. We did subgroup analyses by country and study period (ie, before 2000, 2001-05, 2006-10, and 2011-15) to establish country-specific prevalences of primary antibiotic resistance and first-line eradication rates. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42017057905.
FINDINGS: 176 articles from 24 countries were included in our analysis of antibiotic resistance. The overall mean prevalences of primary H pylori resistance were 17% (95% CI 15-18) for clarithromycin, 44% (95% CI 39-48) for metronidazole, 18% (95% CI 15-22) for levofloxacin, 3% (95% CI 2-5) for amoxicillin, and 4% (95% CI 2-5) for tetracycline. Prevalence of resistance to clarithromycin and levofloxacin rose significantly over time during the period investigated, whereas resistance to other antibiotics remained stable. 170 articles from 16 countries were included in analysis of efficacy of first-line therapies. We noted unsatisfactory efficacy (ie, <80%) with clarithromycin-containing regimens in countries where the clarithromycin resistance rates were higher than 20%.
INTERPRETATION: The prevalence of primary antibiotic resistance varied greatly among countries in the Asia-Pacific region, and thus treatment strategy should be adapted relative to country-specific resistance patterns. Clarithromycin-containing regimens should be avoided in countries where the prevalence of clarithromycin resistance is higher than 20%.
FUNDING: Ministry of Health and Welfare of Taiwan, Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan, and Amity University.
METHODS: 28 experts from 11 countries reviewed the evidence and modified the statements using the Delphi method, with consensus level predefined as ≥80% of agreement on each statement. The Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was followed.
RESULTS: Consensus was reached in 26 statements. At an individual level, eradication of H. pylori reduces the risk of GC in asymptomatic subjects and is recommended unless there are competing considerations. In cohorts of vulnerable subjects (eg, first-degree relatives of patients with GC), a screen-and-treat strategy is also beneficial. H. pylori eradication in patients with early GC after curative endoscopic resection reduces the risk of metachronous cancer and calls for a re-examination on the hypothesis of 'the point of no return'. At the general population level, the strategy of screen-and-treat for H. pylori infection is most cost-effective in young adults in regions with a high incidence of GC and is recommended preferably before the development of atrophic gastritis and intestinal metaplasia. However, such a strategy may still be effective in people aged over 50, and may be integrated or included into national healthcare priorities, such as colorectal cancer screening programmes, to optimise the resources. Reliable locally effective regimens based on the principles of antibiotic stewardship are recommended. Subjects at higher risk of GC, such as those with advanced gastric atrophy or intestinal metaplasia, should receive surveillance endoscopy after eradication of H. pylori.
CONCLUSION: Evidence supports the proposal that eradication therapy should be offered to all individuals infected with H. pylori. Vulnerable subjects should be tested, and treated if the test is positive. Mass screening and eradication of H. pylori should be considered in populations at higher risk of GC.
METHODS: We performed a prospective, population-based study of IBD incidence in predefined catchment areas, collecting data for 1 year, starting on April 1, 2011. New cases were ascertained from multiple overlapping sources and entered into a Web-based database. Cases were confirmed using standard criteria. Local endoscopy, pathology, and pharmacy records were searched to ensure completeness of case capture.
RESULTS: We identified 419 new cases of IBD (232 of ulcerative colitis [UC], 166 of Crohn's disease [CD], and 21 IBD-undetermined). The crude annual overall incidence values per 100,000 individuals were 1.37 for IBD in Asia (95% confidence interval: 1.25-1.51; 0.76 for UC, 0.54 for CD, and 0.07 for IBD-undetermined) and 23.67 in Australia (95% confidence interval: 18.46-29.85; 7.33 for UC, 14.00 for CD, and 2.33 for IBD-undetermined). China had the highest incidence of IBD in Asia (3.44 per 100,000 individuals). The ratios of UC to CD were 2.0 in Asia and 0.5 in Australia. Median time from symptom onset to diagnosis was 5.5 months (interquartile range, 1.4-15 months). Complicated CD (stricturing, penetrating, or perianal disease) was more common in Asia than Australia (52% vs 24%; P = .001), and a family history of IBD was less common in Asia (3% vs 17%; P < .001).
CONCLUSIONS: We performed a large-scale population-based study and found that although the incidence of IBD varies throughout Asia, it is still lower than in the West. IBD can be as severe or more severe in Asia than in the West. The emergence of IBD in Asia will result in the need for specific health care resources, and offers a unique opportunity to study etiologic factors in developing nations.
METHODS: A steering committee identified three areas to address: (1) burden of disease and diagnosis of reflux disease; (2) proton pump inhibitor-refractory reflux disease; (3) Barrett's oesophagus. Three working groups formulated draft statements with supporting evidence. Discussions were done via email before a final face-to-face discussion. We used a Delphi consensus process, with a 70% agreement threshold, using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria to categorise the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations.
RESULTS: A total of 32 statements were proposed and 31 were accepted by consensus. A rise in the prevalence rates of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease in Asia was noted, with the majority being non-erosive reflux disease. Overweight and obesity contributed to the rise. Proton pump inhibitor-refractory reflux disease was recognised to be common. A distinction was made between refractory symptoms and refractory reflux disease, with clarification of the roles of endoscopy and functional testing summarised in two algorithms. The definition of Barrett's oesophagus was revised such that a minimum length of 1 cm was required and the presence of intestinal metaplasia no longer necessary. We recommended the use of standardised endoscopic reporting and advocated endoscopic therapy for confirmed dysplasia and early cancer.
CONCLUSIONS: These guidelines standardise the management of patients with refractory gastro-oesophageal reflux disease and Barrett's oesophagus in the Asia-Pacific region.
METHODS: A randomized, single blinded, prospective, multicenter trial at 9 high-volume tertiary-care referral centers in the Asia-Pacific region was performed. Patients with an intact papilla and conventional anatomy who did not have malignancy in the head of the pancreas or ampulla and were undergoing ERCP were recruited. ERCP was performed by using a standardized cannulation algorithm, and patients were randomized to either a 0.025-inch or 0.035-inch guidewire. The primary outcomes of the study were successful wire-guided cannulation and the incidence of PEP. Overall successful cannulation and ERCP adverse events also were studied.
RESULTS: A total of 710 patients were enrolled in the study. The primary wire-guided biliary cannulation rate was similar in 0.025-inch and 0.035-inch wire groups (80.7% vs 80.3%; P = .90). The rate of PEP between the 0.025-inch and the 0.035-inch wire groups did not differ significantly (7.8% vs 9.3%; P = .51). No differences were noted in secondary outcomes.
CONCLUSION: Similar rates of successful cannulation and PEP were demonstrated in the use of 0.025-inch and 0.035-inch guidewires. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT01408264.).