DESIGN: 1805 consecutive unselected patients with FGID who presented for primary or secondary care to 11 centres across Asia completed a cultural and linguistic adaptation of the Rome III Diagnostic Questionnaire that was translated to the local languages. Principal components factor analysis with varimax rotation was used to identify symptom clusters.
RESULTS: Nine symptom clusters were identified, consisting of two oesophageal factors (F6: globus, odynophagia and dysphagia; F9: chest pain and heartburn), two gastroduodenal factors (F5: bloating, fullness, belching and flatulence; F8 regurgitation, nausea and vomiting), three bowel factors (F2: abdominal pain and diarrhoea; F3: meal-related bowel symptoms; F7: upper abdominal pain and constipation) and two anorectal factors (F1: anorectal pain and constipation; F4: diarrhoea, urgency and incontinence).
CONCLUSION: We found that the broad categorisation used both in clinical practice and in the Rome system, that is, broad anatomical divisions, and certain diagnoses with long historical records, that is, IBS with diarrhoea, and chronic constipation, are still valid in our Asian societies. In addition, we found a bowel symptom cluster with meal trigger and a gas cluster that suggests a different emphasis in our populations. Future studies to compare a non-Asian cohort and to match to putative pathophysiology will help to verify our findings.
Methods: Key opinion leaders from Asian countries were organized into 4 teams to review 4 themes: symptoms and epidemiology, pathophysiology, diagnosis and investigations, and lifestyle modifications and treatments. The consensus development process was carried out by using a modified Delphi method.
Results: Thirty-seven statements were developed. Asian data substantiate the current global viewpoint that IBS is a disorder of gut-brain interaction. Socio-cultural and environmental factors in Asia appear to influence the greater overlap between IBS and upper gastrointestinal symptoms. New classes of treatments comprising low fermentable oligo-, di-, monosacharides, and polyols diet, probiotics, non-absorbable antibiotics, and secretagogues have good evidence base for their efficacy.
Conclusions: Our consensus is that all patients with functional gastrointestinal disorders should be evaluated comprehensively with a view to holistic management. Physicians should be encouraged to take a positive attitude to the treatment outcomes for IBS patients.
METHODS: We conducted an anonymized survey from May to June 2020 in 33 countries. Knowledge, attitudes, and practices on personal hygiene and social distancing as well as psychological impact of COVID-19 were assessed. Statistical analysis was performed to determine differences in well-being and compliance to social distancing measures between respondents with and without self-reported IBS. Factors associated with improvement or worsening of IBS symptoms were evaluated.
RESULTS: Out of 2704 respondents, 2024 (74.9%) did not have IBS, 305 (11.3%) had self-reported IBS, and 374 (13.8%) did not know what IBS was. Self-reported IBS respondents reported significantly worse emotional, social, and psychological well-being compared with non-IBS respondents and were less compliant to social distancing measures (28.2% vs 35.3%, P = 0.029); 61.6% reported no change, 26.6% reported improvement, and 11.8% reported worsening IBS symptoms. Higher proportion of respondents with no change in IBS symptoms were willing to practice social distancing indefinitely versus those who deteriorated (74.9% vs 51.4%, P = 0.016). In multivariate analysis, willingness to continue social distancing for another 2-3 weeks (vs longer period) was significantly associated with higher odds of worsening IBS.
CONCLUSION: Our study showed that self-reported IBS respondents had worse well-being and compliance to social distancing measures than non-IBS respondents. Future research will focus on occupational stress and dietary changes during COVID-19 that may influence IBS.
OBJECTIVE: This survey aims to assess differences in mental health, knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) of preventive measures for COVID-19 amongst healthcare professionals (HCP) and non-healthcare professionals.
DESIGN: Multi-national cross-sectional study was carried out using electronic surveys between May-June 2020.
SETTING: Multi-national survey was distributed across 36 countries through social media, word-of-mouth, and electronic mail.
PARTICIPANTS: Participants ≥21 years working in healthcare and non-healthcare related professions.
MAIN OUTCOME: Risk factors determining the difference in KAP towards personal hygiene and social distancing measures during COVID-19 amongst HCP and non-HCP.
RESULTS: HCP were significantly more knowledgeable on personal hygiene (AdjOR 1.45, 95% CI -1.14 to 1.83) and social distancing (AdjOR 1.31, 95% CI -1.06 to 1.61) compared to non-HCP. They were more likely to have a positive attitude towards personal hygiene and 1.5 times more willing to participate in the contact tracing app. There was high compliance towards personal hygiene and social distancing measures amongst HCP. HCP with high compliance were 1.8 times more likely to flourish and more likely to have a high sense of emotional (AdjOR 1.94, 95% CI (1.44 to 2.61), social (AdjOR 2.07, 95% CI -1.55 to 2.78), and psychological (AdjOR 2.13, 95% CI (1.59-2.85) well-being.
CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: While healthcare professionals were more knowledgeable, had more positive attitudes, their higher sense of total well-being was seen to be more critical to enhance compliance. Therefore, focusing on the well-being of the general population would help to enhance their compliance towards the preventive measures for COVID-19.
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.
METHODS: Data were collected via the Internet in 24 countries, personal interviews in 7 countries, and both in 2 countries, using the Rome IV diagnostic questionnaire, Rome III irritable bowel syndrome questions, and 80 items to identify variables associated with FGIDs. Data collection methods differed for Internet and household groups, so data analyses were conducted and reported separately.
RESULTS: Among the 73,076 adult respondents (49.5% women), diagnostic criteria were met for at least 1 FGID by 40.3% persons who completed the Internet surveys (95% confidence interval [CI], 39.9-40.7) and 20.7% of persons who completed the household surveys (95% CI, 20.2-21.3). FGIDs were more prevalent among women than men, based on responses to the Internet survey (odds ratio, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.6-1.7) and household survey (odds ratio, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.3-1.4). FGIDs were associated with lower quality of life and more frequent doctor visits. Proportions of subjects with irritable bowel syndrome were lower when the Rome IV criteria were used, compared with the Rome III criteria, in the Internet survey (4.1% vs 10.1%) and household survey (1.5% vs 3.5%).
CONCLUSIONS: In a large-scale multinational study, we found that more than 40% of persons worldwide have FGIDs, which affect quality of life and health care use. Although the absolute prevalence was higher among Internet respondents, similar trends and relative distributions were found in people who completed Internet vs personal interviews.
METHODS: The two RFGES survey methods are described in detail, and differences in DGBI findings summarized for household versus Internet surveys globally, and in more detail for China and Turkey. Logistic regression analysis was used to elucidate factors contributing to these differences.
RESULTS: Overall, DGBI were only half as prevalent when assessed with household vs Internet surveys. Similar patterns of methodology-related DGBI differences were seen within both China and Turkey, but prevalence differences between the survey methods were dramatically larger in Turkey. No clear reasons for outcome differences by survey method were identified, although greater relative reduction in bowel and anorectal versus upper gastrointestinal disorders when household versus Internet surveying was used suggests an inhibiting influence of social sensitivity.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings strongly indicate that besides affecting data quality, manpower needs and data collection time and costs, the choice of survey method is a substantial determinant of symptom reporting and DGBI prevalence outcomes. This has important implications for future DGBI research and epidemiological research more broadly.
METHODS: The GI-COVID-19 is a prospective, multicenter, controlled study. Patients with and without COVID-19 diagnosis were recruited at hospital admission and asked for GI symptoms at admission and after 1 month, using the validated Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale questionnaire.
RESULTS: The study included 2036 hospitalized patients. A total of 871 patients (575 COVID+ and 296 COVID-) were included for the primary analysis. GI symptoms occurred more frequently in patients with COVID-19 (59.7%; 343/575 patients) than in the control group (43.2%; 128/296 patients) (P < 0.001). Patients with COVID-19 complained of higher presence or intensity of nausea, diarrhea, loose stools, and urgency as compared with controls. At a 1-month follow-up, a reduction in the presence or intensity of GI symptoms was found in COVID-19 patients with GI symptoms at hospital admission. Nausea remained increased over controls. Factors significantly associated with nausea persistence in COVID-19 were female sex, high body mass index, the presence of dyspnea, and increased C-reactive protein levels.
DISCUSSION: The prevalence of GI symptoms in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 is higher than previously reported. Systemic and respiratory symptoms are often associated with GI complaints. Nausea may persist after the resolution of COVID-19 infection.
DESIGN: GI-COVID-19 is a prospective, multicentre, controlled study. Patients with and without COVID-19 diagnosis were evaluated on hospital admission and after 1, 6 and 12 months post hospitalisation. Gastrointestinal symptoms, anxiety and depression were assessed using validated questionnaires.
RESULTS: The study included 2183 hospitalised patients. The primary analysis included a total of 883 patients (614 patients with COVID-19 and 269 controls) due to the exclusion of patients with pre-existing gastrointestinal symptoms and/or surgery. At enrolment, gastrointestinal symptoms were more frequent among patients with COVID-19 than in the control group (59.3% vs 39.7%, p<0.001). At the 12-month follow-up, constipation and hard stools were significantly more prevalent in controls than in patients with COVID-19 (16% vs 9.6%, p=0.019 and 17.7% vs 10.9%, p=0.011, respectively). Compared with controls, patients with COVID-19 reported higher rates of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) according to Rome IV criteria: 0.5% versus 3.2%, p=0.045. Factors significantly associated with IBS diagnosis included history of allergies, chronic intake of proton pump inhibitors and presence of dyspnoea. At the 6-month follow-up, the rate of patients with COVID-19 fulfilling the criteria for depression was higher than among controls.
CONCLUSION: Compared with controls, hospitalised patients with COVID-19 had fewer problems of constipation and hard stools at 12 months after acute infection. Patients with COVID-19 had significantly higher rates of IBS than controls.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04691895.