MATERIALS AND METHODS: Physicians who managed H. pylori eradication in daily practice across 10 Southeast Asian countries were invited to participate in an online questionnaire, which included questions about the local availability of antimicrobial susceptibility tests (ASTs) and their preferred eradication regimens in real-world practice. An empiric regimen was considered inappropriate if it did not follow the local guidelines/consensus, particularly if it contained antibiotics with a high reported resistance rate or was recommended not to be empirically used worldwide.
RESULTS: There were 564 valid responses, including 314 (55.7%) from gastroenterologists (GIs) and 250 (44.3%) from non-GI physicians. ASTs were unavailable in 41.7%. In countries with low and intermediate clarithromycin resistance, the most common first-line regimen was PAC (proton pump inhibitor [PPI], amoxicillin, clarithromycin) (72.7% and 73.2%, respectively). Regarding second-line therapy, the most common regimen was bismuth-based quadruple therapy, PBMT (PPI, bismuth, metronidazole, tetracycline) (50.0% and 59.8%, respectively), if other regimens were used as first-line treatment. Concomitant therapy (PPI, amoxicillin, clarithromycin, metronidazole) (30.5% and 25.9%, respectively) and PAL (PPI, amoxicillin, levofloxacin) (22.7% and 27.7%, respectively) were favored if PBMT had been used as first-line treatment. In countries with high clarithromycin resistance, the most common first-line regimen was PBMT, but the utilization rate was only 57.7%. Alarmingly, PAC was prescribed in 27.8% of patients, ranking as the second most common regimen, and its prescription rate was higher in non-GI physicians than GI physicians (40.1% vs. 16.2%, p
METHODS: We collected data from 7954 asymptomatic subjects (age, 50-75 y) who received screening colonoscopy examinations at 14 sites in Asia. We randomly assigned 5303 subjects to the derivation cohort and the remaining 2651 to the validation cohort. We collected data from the derivation cohort on age, sex, family history of colorectal cancer, smoking, drinking, body mass index, medical conditions, and use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or aspirin. Associations between the colonoscopic findings of APN and each risk factor were examined using the Pearson χ2 test, and we assigned each participant a risk score (0-15), with scores of 0 to 3 as average risk and scores of 4 or higher as high risk. The scoring system was tested in the validation cohort. We used the Cochran-Armitage test of trend to compare the prevalence of APN among subjects in each group.
RESULTS: In the validation cohort, 79.5% of patients were classified as average risk and 20.5% were classified as high risk. The prevalence of APN in the average-risk group was 1.9% and in the high-risk group was 9.4% (adjusted relative risk, 5.08; 95% CI, 3.38-7.62; P < .001). The score included age (61-70 y, 3; ≥70 y, 4), smoking habits (current/past, 2), family history of colorectal cancer (present in a first-degree relative, 2), and the presence of neoplasia in the distal colorectum (nonadvanced adenoma 5-9 mm, 2; advanced neoplasia, 7). The c-statistic of the score was 0.74 (95% CI, 0.68-0.79), and for distal findings alone was 0.67 (95% CI, 0.60-0.74). The Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test statistic was greater than 0.05, indicating the reliability of the validation set. The number needed to refer was 11 (95% CI, 10-13), and the number needed to screen was 15 (95% CI, 12-17).
CONCLUSIONS: We developed and validated a scoring system to identify persons at risk for APN. Screening participants who undergo flexible sigmoidoscopy screening with a score of 4 points or higher should undergo colonoscopy evaluation.
METHODS: A multi-center, prospective colonoscopy study involving 16 Asia-Pacific regions was performed from 2008 to 2015. Consecutive self-referred CRC screening participants aged 40-70 years were recruited, and each subject received one direct optical colonoscopy. The prevalence of CRC, ACN, and colorectal adenoma was compared among subjects with different FDRs affected using Pearson's χ2 tests. Binary logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate the risk of these lesions, controlling for recognized risk factors including age, gender, smoking habits, alcohol drinking, body mass index, and the presence of diabetes mellitus.
RESULTS: Among 11,797 asymptomatic subjects, the prevalence of CRC was 0.6% (none: 0.6%; siblings: 1.1%; mother: 0.5%; father: 1.2%; ≥2 members: 3.1%, P<0.001), that of ACN was 6.5% (none: 6.1%; siblings: 8.3%; mother: 7.7%; father: 8.7%; ≥2 members: 9.3%, P<0.001), and that of colorectal adenoma was 29.3% (none: 28.6%; siblings: 33.5%; mother: 31.8%; father: 31.1%; ≥2 members: 38.1%, P<0.001). In multivariate regression analyses, subjects with at least one FDR affected were significantly more likely to have CRC (adjusted odds ratio (AOR)=2.02-7.89), ACN (AOR=1.55-2.06), and colorectal adenoma (AOR=1.31-1.92) than those without a family history. The risk of CRC (AOR=0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34-2.35, P=0.830), ACN (AOR=1.07, 95% CI 0.75-1.52, P=0.714), and colorectal adenoma (AOR=0.96, 95% CI 0.78-1.19, P=0.718) in subjects with either parent affected was similar to that of subjects with their siblings affected.
CONCLUSIONS: The risk of colorectal neoplasia was similar among subjects with different FDRs affected. These findings do not support the need to discriminate proband identity in screening participants with affected FDRs when their risks of colorectal neoplasia were estimated.
METHODS: A total of 1402 ACLF patients, enrolled in the APASL-ACLF Research Consortium (AARC) with 90-day follow-up, were analyzed. An ACLF score was developed in a derivation cohort (n = 480) and was validated (n = 922).
RESULTS: The overall survival of ACLF patients at 28 days was 51.7%, with a median of 26.3 days. Five baseline variables, total bilirubin, creatinine, serum lactate, INR and hepatic encephalopathy, were found to be independent predictors of mortality, with AUROC in derivation and validation cohorts being 0.80 and 0.78, respectively. AARC-ACLF score (range 5-15) was found to be superior to MELD and CLIF SOFA scores in predicting mortality with an AUROC of 0.80. The point scores were categorized into grades of liver failure (Gr I: 5-7; II: 8-10; and III: 11-15 points) with 28-day cumulative mortalities of 12.7, 44.5 and 85.9%, respectively. The mortality risk could be dynamically calculated as, with each unit increase in AARC-ACLF score above 10, the risk increased by 20%. A score of ≥11 at baseline or persisting in the first week was often seen among nonsurvivors (p = 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: The AARC-ACLF score is easy to use, dynamic and reliable, and superior to the existing prediction models. It can reliably predict the need for interventions, such as liver transplant, within the first week.
METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study of IBD demographics, disease phenotype and treatment across 38 centers in 15 countries of South Asia, South-East Asia and Middle East. Intergroup comparisons included gross national income (GNI) per capita.
RESULTS: Among 10,400 patients, ulcerative colitis (UC) was twice as common as Crohn's disease (CD), with a male predominance (UC 6678, CD 3495, IBD-Unclassified 227, 58% male). Peak age of onset was in the third decade, with a low proportion of elderly onset IBD (5% age >60). Familial IBD was rare (5%). The extent of UC was predominantly distal (proctitis/left sided 67%), with most being treated with mesalamine (94%), steroids (54%), or immunomodulators (31%). Ileocolic CD (43%) was commonest, with low rates of perianal disease (8%) and only 6% smokers. Diagnostic delay for CD was common (median 12 months; IQR 5-30). Treatment of CD included mesalamine, steroids and immunomodulator (61%, 51% and 56% respectively), but a fifth received empirical anti-tubercular therapy. Treatment with biologics was uncommon (4% UC,13% CD) which increased in countries with higher GNI per capita. Surgery rates were 0.1 (UC) and 2 (CD)/100 patient/years.
CONCLUSIONS: The IBD-ENC cohort provides insight into IBD in South-East Asia and the Middle East, but is not yet population-based. UC is twice as common as CD, familial disease uncommon and rates of surgery are low. Biologic use correlates with per capita GNI.
DESIGN: Clinical questions relevant to the afore-mentioned major issues were drafted for which expert panels formulated relevant statements and textural explanations.A Delphi method using an anonymous system was employed to develop the consensus, the level of which was predefined as ≥80% of agreement. Two rounds of voting and amendments were completed before the meeting at which clinical questions and consensus were finalised.
RESULTS: Twenty eight clinical questions and statements were finalised after extensive amendments. Critical consensus was achieved: (1) definition for the GOJ, (2) definition of the GOJZ spanning 1 cm proximal and distal to the GOJ as defined by the end of palisade vessels was accepted based on the anatomical distribution of cardiac type gland, (3) chemical and bacterial (Helicobacter pylori) factors as the primary causes of inflammation, metaplasia and neoplasia occurring in the GOJZ, (4) a new definition of Barrett's oesophagus (BO).
CONCLUSIONS: This international consensus on the new definitions of BO, GOJ and the GOJZ will be instrumental in future studies aiming to resolve many issues on this important anatomic area and hopefully will lead to better classification and management of the diseases surrounding the GOJ.
METHODS: Patients with AIH-ACLF without baseline infection/hepatic encephalopathy were identified from APASL ACLF research consortium (AARC) database. Diagnosis of AIH-ACLF was based mainly on histology. Those treated with steroids were assessed for non-response (defined as death or liver transplant at 90 days for present study). Laboratory parameters, AARC, and model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) scores were assessed at baseline and day 3 to identify early non-response. Utility of dynamic SURFASA score [- 6.80 + 1.92*(D0-INR) + 1.94*(∆%3-INR) + 1.64*(∆%3-bilirubin)] was also evaluated. The performance of early predictors was compared with changes in MELD score at 2 weeks.
RESULTS: Fifty-five out of one hundred and sixty-five patients (age-38.2 ± 15.0 years, 67.2% females) with AIH-ACLF [median MELD 24 (IQR: 22-27); median AARC score 7 (6-9)] given oral prednisolone 40 (20-40) mg per day were analyzed. The 90 day transplant-free survival in this cohort was 45.7% with worse outcomes in those with incident infections (56% vs 28.0%, p = 0.03). The AUROC of pre-therapy AARC score [0.842 (95% CI 0.754-0.93)], MELD [0.837 (95% CI 0.733-0.94)] score and SURFASA score [0.795 (95% CI 0.678-0.911)] were as accurate as ∆MELD at 2 weeks [0.770 (95% CI 0.687-0.845), p = 0.526] and better than ∆MELD at 3 days [0.541 (95% CI 0.395, 0.687), p 6, MELD score > 24 with SURFASA score ≥ - 1.2, could identify non-responders at day 3 (concomitant- 75% vs either - 42%, p
METHODOLOGY: One thousand two hundred and sixteen prospectively enrolled patients with ACLF (males 98%, mean age 42.5 ± 9.4 years, mean CTP, MELD and AARC scores of 12 ± 1.4, 29.7 ± 7 and 9.8 ± 2 respectively) from the Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver (APASL) ACLF Research Consortium (AARC) database were analysed retrospectively. Patients with or without metabolic risk factors were compared for severity (CTP, MELD, AARC scores) and day 30 and 90 mortality. Information on overweight/obesity, type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), hypertension and dyslipidaemia were available in 1028 (85%), 1019 (84%), 1017 (84%) and 965 (79%) patients respectively.
RESULTS: Overall, 392 (32%) patients died at day 30 and 528 (43%) at day 90. Overweight/obesity, T2DM, hypertension and dyslipidaemia were present in 154 (15%), 142 (14%), 66 (7%) and 141 (15%) patients, respectively, with no risk factors in 809 (67%) patients. Patients with overweight/obesity had higher MELD scores (30.6 ± 7.1 vs 29.2 ± 6.9, P = .007) and those with dyslipidaemia had higher AARC scores (10.4 ± 1.2 vs 9.8 ± 2, P = .014). Overweight/obesity was associated with increased day 30 mortality (HR 1.54, 95% CI 1.06-2.24, P = .023). None of other metabolic risk factors, alone or in combination, had any impact on disease severity or mortality. On multivariate analysis, overweight or obesity was significantly associated with 30-day mortality (aHR 1.91, 95% CI 1.41-2.59, P