PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted at a tertiary care hospital in Malaysia from 1st January to 21st May 2019. Seventy admissions for COPD exacerbation involving 58 patients were analyzed.
RESULTS: The majority of the patients were male (89.8%), had a mean age of 71.95 ± 7.24 years and a median smoking history of 40 (IQR = 25) pack-years, 84.5% were in GOLD group D and 91.4% had a mMRC grading of 2 or greater. Approximately 60.3% had upper or lower respiratory tract infection as the cause of exacerbation; one in five patients had uncompensated hypercapnic respiratory failure at presentation, and 27.6% needed mechanical ventilatory support. Approximately 43.1% of patients had a history of exacerbation that required hospitalisation in the past year. The mean blood eosinophil concentration was 0.38 ± 0.46 x109 cells/L. The 30-day readmission rate was 20.3%, revisit rate to the emergency room within 30 days after discharge was 3.4%, and in-hospital mortality rate was 1.7%. Among all characteristics, a higher baseline mMRC grade (p = 0.038) and history of exacerbation in the past 1 year (p < 0.001) were statistically associated with 30-day readmission.
CONCLUSION: The 30-day readmission rate for COPD exacerbation in a Malaysian tertiary hospital is similar to the rates in high-income countries. Exacerbation in the previous year and a higher baseline mMRC grading were significant risk factors for 30-day readmission in patients with COPD. Strategies of COPD management should concentrate on improvement of symptoms control by optimisation of pharmacotherapy, and early initiation of pulmonary rehabilitation, and structured integrated care programs to reduce readmission rates.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The CKD-CHECK (CKD-CHECK EGFR Chart in Kidney disease) is a toolkit that was developed to auto-generate patients' eGFR trend using a line graph, displaying the trend visually over a year. It identifies patients with rapid CKD progression, triggers the doctors to order appropriate tests (proteinuria quantification or renal imaging) and helps in decision making (continued monitoring at primary care level or referral to nephrologist). The toolkit was piloted among medical officers practising in a hospital-based primary care clinic treating patients with eGFR<60ml/min/1.73m2 using an interventional before-after study design from February to May 2022. In the preintervention period, the CKD patients were managed based on standard practice. The doctors then used the CKDCHECK toolkit on the same group of CKD patients during the intervention period. The feasibility and acceptability of the toolkit was assessed at the end of the study period using the Acceptability of Intervention Measure (AIM) and Feasibility of Intervention Measure (FIM) questionnaires. All patients' clinical data and referral rate were collected retrospectively through medical files and electronic data systems. Comparison between the pre- and post-intervention group were analysed using paired t-test and McNemar test, with statistical significance p value of <0.05.
RESULTS: A total of 25 medical officers used the toolkit on 60 CKD patients. The medical officers found the CKD-CHECK toolkit to be highly acceptable and feasible in primary care setting. The baseline characteristics of the patients were a mean age of 72 years old, predominantly females and Chinese ethnicity. Majority of the CKD patients had diabetes mellitus, hypertension and dyslipidemia. The numbers of CKD rapid progressors was similar (26.7% in the preintervention group vs 33.3% in the post-intervention group). There were no significant differences in terms of proteinuria assessment and ultrasound kidney for CKD rapid progressors before and after the intervention. However, a significant number of CKD rapid progressors were referred to nephrologists after the use of CKD-CHECK toolkit (p=0.016).
CONCLUSIONS: CKD-CHECK toolkit is acceptable and feasible to be used in primary care. Preliminary findings show that the CKD-CHECK toolkit improved the primary care doctor's referral of rapid CKD progressors to nephrologists.
METHODS: We used estimates of GBD 2019 to calculate international diabetes mortality at ages younger than 25 years in 1990 and 2019. Data sources for causes of death were obtained from vital registration systems, verbal autopsies, and other surveillance systems for 1990-2019. We estimated death rates for each location using the GBD Cause of Death Ensemble model. We analysed the association of age-standardised death rates per 100 000 population with the Socio-demographic Index (SDI) and a measure of universal health coverage (UHC) and described the variability within SDI quintiles. We present estimates with their 95% uncertainty intervals.
FINDINGS: In 2019, 16 300 (95% uncertainty interval 14 200 to 18 900) global deaths due to diabetes (type 1 and 2 combined) occurred in people younger than 25 years and 73·7% (68·3 to 77·4) were classified as due to type 1 diabetes. The age-standardised death rate was 0·50 (0·44 to 0·58) per 100 000 population, and 15 900 (97·5%) of these deaths occurred in low to high-middle SDI countries. The rate was 0·13 (0·12 to 0·14) per 100 000 population in the high SDI quintile, 0·60 (0·51 to 0·70) per 100 000 population in the low-middle SDI quintile, and 0·71 (0·60 to 0·86) per 100 000 population in the low SDI quintile. Within SDI quintiles, we observed large variability in rates across countries, in part explained by the extent of UHC (r2=0·62). From 1990 to 2019, age-standardised death rates decreased globally by 17·0% (-28·4 to -2·9) for all diabetes, and by 21·0% (-33·0 to -5·9) when considering only type 1 diabetes. However, the low SDI quintile had the lowest decline for both all diabetes (-13·6% [-28·4 to 3·4]) and for type 1 diabetes (-13·6% [-29·3 to 8·9]).
INTERPRETATION: Decreasing diabetes mortality at ages younger than 25 years remains an important challenge, especially in low and low-middle SDI countries. Inadequate diagnosis and treatment of diabetes is likely to be major contributor to these early deaths, highlighting the urgent need to provide better access to insulin and basic diabetes education and care. This mortality metric, derived from readily available and frequently updated GBD data, can help to monitor preventable diabetes-related deaths over time globally, aligned with the UN's Sustainable Development Targets, and serve as an indicator of the adequacy of basic diabetes care for type 1 and type 2 diabetes across nations.
FUNDING: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study of treated adult chronic disease patients was conducted using the fifth Indonesian Family Life Survey (IFLS-5) database. Descriptive analysis was used to identify the proportion of TM users, while a multivariate logistic regression was used to analyze their characteristics.
RESULTS: This study included 4901 subjects and identified 27.1% as TM users. The highest TM use was in subjects with cancer (43.9%), liver issues (38.3%), cholesterol issues (34.3%), diabetes (33.6%), and stroke (31.7%). Characteristics associated with TM users were a perception of one's current health as unhealthy (OR 2.59, 95% CI 1.76-3.81), low medication adherence (OR 2.49, 95% CI 2.17-2.85), age above 65 years (OR 2.17, 95% CI 1.63-2.90), having higher education (OR 1.64, 95% CI 1.17-2.29), and residence outside of Java (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.11-1.45).
CONCLUSIONS: Low medication adherence among TM users highlights the potentially irrational use of treatment in chronic diseases. Nevertheless, the longstanding use of TM users indicates the potential for its development. Further studies and interventions are needed to optimize TM use in Indonesia.
METHODS: This study employs a quantitative research design using a cross-sectional survey of 300 older persons over 60 years living in the six urban districts of Xi'an city. Data were collected using the Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ) and the Depression Anxiety Stress Scale (DASS-21). This study employed descriptive statistics and inferential methods to analyze the data. The inferential methods applied structural equation modeling (SEM) to test the hypothesis of the mediator role of health literacy between the presence of chronic disease and psychological distress.
RESULTS: In this study, chronic disease had an effect on health literacy among older persons living in Xi'an city (β=-0.047, p
METHODS: This single-centred prospective cohort study was conducted from January-to-June 2021, involving all patients admitted on suspicion of appendicitis. All patients were scored according to the Alvarado score, Appendicitis Inflammatory Response (AIR) score, Raja Isteri Pengiran Anak Saleha (RIPASA) score and Adult Appendicitis score (AAS). The final diagnosis for each patient was recorded. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated for each system. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was constructed for each scoring system, and the area under the curve (AUC) was calculated. Optimal cut-off scores were calculated using Youden's Index.
RESULTS: A total of 245 patients were recruited with 198 (80.8%) patients underwent surgery. RIPASA score had higher sensitivity and specificity than other scoring systems without being statistically significant (sensitivity 72.7%, specificity 62.3%, optimal score 8.5, AUC 0.724), followed by the AAS (sensitivity 60.2%, specificity 75.4%, optimal score 14, AUC 0.719), AIR score (sensitivity 76.7%, specificity 52.2%, optimal score 5, AUC 0.688) and Alvarado score (sensitivity 69.9%, specificity 62.3%, optimal score 5, AUC 0.681). Multiple logistic regression revealed anorexia (p-value 0.018), right iliac fossa tenderness (p-value 0.005) and guarding (p-value 0.047) as significant clinical factors independently associated with appendicitis.
CONCLUSION: Appendicitis scoring systems have shown moderate sensitivity and specificity in our population. The RIPASA scoring system has shown to be the most sensitive, specific and easy-to-use scoring system in the Malaysian population whereas the AAS is most accurate in excluding low-risk patients.
Methods: Histopathological examination of appendicectomies conducted between 2016 and 2017 in Melaka Hospital, Malaysia were traced and categorised into three groups: i) G1 (normal appendix), ii) G2 (acute appendicitis) and iii) G3 (perforated appendicitis). The reports were randomised and a total of 338 samples were collected. NLR values were compared between the three different groups and analysed.
Results: The median values of NLR for G1, G2 and G3 were 2.37, 5.25 and 9.27, respectively. We found a statistically significant difference in NLR between G1 and G2 (P < 0.001), and G2 and G3 (P < 0.001). The diagnostic values of NLR for acute appendicitis and perforated appendicitis were 3.11 (sensitivity: 75.23%, specificity: 68.70%) and 6.17 (sensitivity: 76.32%, specificity: 58.72%), respectively. There was a substantial correlation between NLR and disease severity, and a moderate correlation between NLR and duration of admission.
Conclusion: NLR, with a sensitivity of 75.23% and specificity of 68.70%, is a useful and reliable adjunct in diagnosing acute appendicitis. Hence, it will help in reducing the rate of negative appendicectomies.