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: The questionnaire was created and developed through a literature review of current gastroparesis works of literature by the scientific committee of Asian Neurogastroenterology and Motility Association.
Results: A total of 490 doctors from across Asia (including Bangladesh, China, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam) participated in the survey. Gastroparesis is a significant gastrointestinal condition. However, a substantial proportion of respondents was unable to give the correct definition and accurate diagnostic test. The main reason for lack of interest in diagnosing gastroparesis was "the lack of reliable diagnostic tests" (46.8%) or "a lack of effective treatment" (41.5%). Only 41.7% of respondents had access to gastric emptying scintigraphy. Most doctors had never diagnosed gastroparesis at all (25.2%) or diagnosed fewer than 5 patients a year (52.1%).
Conclusions: Gastroparesis can be challenging to diagnose due to the lack of instrument, standardized method, and paucity of research data on normative value, risk factors, and treatment studies in Asian patients. Future strategies should concentrate on how to disseminate the latest knowledge of gastroparesis in Asia. In particular, there is an urgent need to estimate the magnitude of the problems in high risk and idiopathic patients as well as a standardized diagnostic procedure in Asia.
AIM: To evaluate the preferred diagnosis and management practices of BE among Asian endoscopists.
METHODS: Endoscopists from across Asia were invited to participate in an online questionnaire comprising eleven questions regarding diagnosis, surveillance and management of BE.
RESULTS: Five hundred sixty-nine of 1016 (56.0%) respondents completed the survey, with most respondents from Japan (n = 310, 54.5%) and China (n = 129, 22.7%). Overall, the preferred endoscopic landmark of the esophagogastric junction was squamo-columnar junction (42.0%). Distal palisade vessels was preferred in Japan (59.0% vs 10.0%, P < 0.001) while outside Japan, squamo-columnar junction was preferred (59.5% vs 27.4%, P < 0.001). Only 16.3% of respondents used Prague C and M criteria all the time. It was never used by 46.1% of Japanese, whereas 84.2% outside Japan, endoscopists used it to varying extents (P < 0.001). Most Asian endoscopists (70.8%) would survey long-segment BE without dysplasia every two years. Adherence to Seattle protocol was poor with only 6.3% always performing it. 73.2% of Japanese never did it, compared to 19.3% outside Japan (P < 0.001). The most preferred (74.0%) treatment of non-dysplastic BE was proton pump inhibitor only when the patient was symptomatic or had esophagitis. For BE with low-grade dysplasia, 6-monthly surveillance was preferred in 61.9% within Japan vs 47.9% outside Japan (P < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: Diagnosis and management of BE varied within Asia, with stark contrast between Japan and outside Japan. Most Asian endoscopists chose squamo-columnar junction to be the landmark for esophagogastric junction, which is incorrect. Most also did not consistently use Prague criteria, and Seattle protocol. Lack of standardization, education and research are possible reasons.
METHODS: This was an international web-based randomized control trial that enrolled non-expert endoscopists in 13 Asian countries. The participants were randomized into either education or non-education group. All participants took the pre-test and post-test to read 60 endoscopic images (40 high-risk FDL, 5 polypoid, 15 no lesions) and answered whether there was a lesion. Only the education group received a self-education program (video and training questions and answers) between the tests. The primary outcome was a detection rate of high-risk FDLs.
RESULTS: In total, 284 participants were randomized. After excluding non-responders, the final data analyses were based on 139 participants in the education group and 130 in the non-education group. The detection rate of high-risk FDLs in the education group significantly improved by 14.7% (66.6% to 81.3%) compared with -0.8% (70.8% to 70.0%) in the non-education group. Similarly, the detection rate of LST-NG, depressed lesions, and large SSLs significantly increased only in the education group by 12.7%, 12.0%, and 21.6%, respectively.
CONCLUSION: Short self-education focusing on detecting high-risk FDLs was effective for Asian non-expert endoscopists. (UMIN000042348).