METHODS: This was a prospective, international, multicenter cohort study of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in the Asia-Pacific. Arrests caused by trauma, patients who were not transported by emergency medical services (EMS), and pediatric out-of-hospital cardiac arrest cases (<18 years) were excluded from the analysis. Modifiable out-of-hospital factors (bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation [CPR] and defibrillation, out-of-hospital defibrillation, advanced airway, and drug administration) were compared for all out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients presenting to EMS and participating hospitals. The primary outcome measure was survival to hospital discharge or 30 days of hospitalization (if not discharged). We used multilevel mixed-effects logistic regression models to identify factors independently associated with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest survival, accounting for clustering within each community.
RESULTS: Of 66,780 out-of-hospital cardiac arrest cases reported between January 2009 and December 2012, we included 56,765 in the analysis. In the adjusted model, modifiable factors associated with improved out-of-hospital cardiac arrest outcomes included bystander CPR (odds ratio [OR] 1.43; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.31 to 1.55), response time less than or equal to 8 minutes (OR 1.52; 95% CI 1.35 to 1.71), and out-of-hospital defibrillation (OR 2.31; 95% CI 1.96 to 2.72). Out-of-hospital advanced airway (OR 0.73; 95% CI 0.67 to 0.80) was negatively associated with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest survival.
CONCLUSION: In the PAROS cohort, bystander CPR, out-of-hospital defibrillation, and response time less than or equal to 8 minutes were positively associated with increased out-of-hospital cardiac arrest survival, whereas out-of-hospital advanced airway was associated with decreased out-of-hospital cardiac arrest survival. Developing EMS systems should focus on basic life support interventions in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest resuscitation.
METHODS: The Asia-Pacific and Middle East Working Group on Nutrition in the ICU has identified major areas of uncertainty in clinical practice for healthcare professionals providing nutrition therapy in Asia-Pacific and the Middle East and developed a series of consensus statements to guide nutrition therapy in the ICU in these regions.
RESULTS: Accordingly, consensus statements have been provided on nutrition risk assessment and parenteral and enteral feeding strategies in the ICU, monitoring adequacy of, and tolerance to, nutrition in the ICU and institutional processes for nutrition therapy in the ICU. Furthermore, the Working Group has noted areas requiring additional research, including the most appropriate use of hypocaloric feeding in the ICU.
CONCLUSIONS: The objective of the Working Group in formulating these statements is to guide healthcare professionals in practicing appropriate clinical nutrition in the ICU, with a focus on improving quality of care, which will translate into improved patient outcomes.
METHODS: Cross-sectional survey design was used for the present study. Pricing data from ten counties including one from South-East Asia, two from Western Pacific and seven from Eastern Mediterranean regions were used in this study. Purchasing power parity (PPP)-adjusted mean unit prices for 26 anti-cancer drug presentations (similar pharmaceutical form, strength, and pack size) were used to compare prices of anti-cancer drugs across three regions. A structured form was used to extract relevant data. Data were entered and analysed using Microsoft Excel®.
RESULTS: Overall, Taiwan had the lowest mean unit prices while Oman had the highest prices. Six (23.1%) and nine (34.6%) drug presentations had a mean unit price below US$100 and between US$100 and US$500 respectively. Eight drug presentations (30.7%) had a mean unit price of more than US$1000 including cabazitaxel with a mean unit price of $17,304.9/vial. There was a direct relationship between income category of the countries and their mean unit price; low-income countries had lower mean unit prices. The average PPP-adjusted unit prices for countries based on their income level were as follows: low middle-income countries (LMICs): US$814.07; high middle income countries (HMICs): US$1150.63; and high income countries (HICs): US$1148.19.
CONCLUSIONS: There is a great variation in pricing of anticancer drugs in selected countires and within their respective regions. These findings will allow policy makers to compare prices of anti-cancer agents with neighbouring countries and develop policies to ensure accessibility and affordability of anti-cancer drugs.
METHODS: We conducted a rapid scoping review following the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). We searched Medline, Embase and PsychInfo databases and Google Scholar using a search strategy developed in consultation with a biomedical librarian. We included records related to mental health or psychosocial risk factors and COVID-19 among at-risk groups; that referred to one or more APEC member economies or had a global, thus generalizable, scope; English language papers, and papers with full text available.
RESULTS: A total of 132 records published between December 2019 and August 2020 were included in the final analysis. Several priority at-risk populations, risk factors, challenges and recommendations for standard and e-mental health care were identified. Results demonstrate that e-mental health care can be a viable option for care delivery but that specific accessibility and acceptability considerations must be considered. Options for in-person, hybrid or "low-tech" care must also remain available.
CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the urgent need for equitable standard and e-mental health care. It has also highlighted the persistent social and structural inequities that contribute to poor mental health. The APEC region is vast and diverse; findings from the region can guide policy and practice in the delivery of equitable mental health care in the region and beyond.
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.