METHODS: Published literature, information from statistical bureaus, clinician surveys and extrapolation of selected data from the European Union were used to determine the socioeconomic costs of AR and urticaria.
RESULTS: Many patients in Asia suffer from perennial allergies and experience symptoms of AR and urticaria for up to 298 days per year. An estimate of the indirect costs of patients insufficiently treated for AR and urticaria amounts to USD 105.4 billion a year, which equates to USD 1,137-2,195 per patient due to absenteeism and presenteeism. Adherence to guideline-approved treatment can lead to estimated savings of up to USD 104 billion.
CONCLUSIONS: The current study suggests that within Asia, the socioeconomic impact of AR and urticaria is similar to that seen in the European Union in spite of the lower wages in Asia. This is due to the mainly perennial allergens prevailing in Asia, whereas the sensitization patterns observed in the European Union are dominated by seasonal exposure to pollen. These results underline the need for governmental initiatives to increase public awareness on the prevention and treatment of these and other allergic diseases as well as greater research funding and large-scale studies to reduce their growing socioeconomic burden in coming years.
METHODS: Three national influenza surveillance systems with different levels of development (Australia, China and Malaysia) were compared and their adherence to World Health Organization (WHO) guidance was evaluated using a structured framework previously tested in several European countries consisting of seven surveillance sub-systems, 19 comparable outcomes and five evaluation criteria. Based on the results, experts from the Asia-Pacific Alliance for the Control of Influenza (APACI) issued recommendations for the improvement of existing surveillance systems.
RESULTS: Australia demonstrated the broadest scope of influenza surveillance followed by China and Malaysia. In Australia, surveillance tools covered all sub-systems. In China, surveillance did not cover non-medically attended respiratory events, primary care consultations, and excess mortality modelling. In Malaysia, surveillance consisted of primary care and hospital sentinel schemes. There were disparities between the countries across the 5 evaluation criteria, particularly regarding data granularity from health authorities, information on data representativeness, and data communication, especially the absence of publicly available influenza epidemiological reports in Malaysia. This dual approach describing the scope of surveillance and evaluating the adherence to WHO guidance enabled APACI experts to make a number of recommendations for each country that included but were not limited to introducing new surveillance tools, broadening the use of specific existing surveillance tools, collecting and sharing data on virus characteristics, developing immunization status registries, and improving public health communication.
CONCLUSIONS: Influenza monitoring in Australia, China, and Malaysia could benefit from the expansion of existing surveillance sentinel schemes, the broadened use of laboratory confirmation and the introduction of excess-mortality modelling. The results from the evaluation can be used as a basis to support expert recommendations and to enhance influenza surveillance capabilities.
METHODOLOGY: A retrospective study on IOL using the CRB in women with previous caesarean section or grandmultiparity between January 2014 and March 2015. All cases were identified from the Sarawak General Hospital CRB request registry. Individual admission notes were traced and data extracted using a standardised proforma.
RESULTS: The overall success rate of vaginal delivery after IOL was 50%, although this increases to about two-thirds when sub analysis was performed in women with previous tested scars and the unscarred, grandmultiparous woman. There was a significant change in Bishop score prior to insertion and after removal of the CRB. The Bishop score increased by a score of 3.2 (95% CI 2.8-3.6), which was statistically significant (p<0.01) and occurred across both subgroups, not limited to the grandmultipara. There were no cases of hyperstimulation but one case of intrapartum fever and scar dehiscence each (1.4%). Notably, there were two cases of change in lie/presentation after CRB insertion.
CONCLUSION: CRB adds to the obstetricians' armamentarium and appears to provide a reasonable alternative for the IOL in women at high risk of uterine rupture. Rates of hyperstimulation, maternal infection and scar dehiscence are low and hence appeals to the user.