RESUMO
Background and Aim: Atrophic gastritis (AG) and gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM) are early changes in the stepwise progression to gastric adenocarcinoma. There is heterogeneity in international guidelines regarding the endoscopic diagnosis and surveillance of AG and GIM. This study aims to determine the prevalence of GIM in an Australian center and assess the approach of Australian endoscopists for these two conditions. Methods: We conducted a single-center retrospective study of adult patients between January 2015 and December 2020 diagnosed with GIM on gastric biopsy following upper gastric endoscopy. A web-based, 25-question, investigator-designed, multiple-choice survey was distributed among all registered endoscopists in Australia. Results: The overall prevalence of GIM within a single Australian center was 11.7% over 5 years. Of the 1026 patients identified, only 58.7% underwent mapping biopsies using the modified Sydney protocol. Among the cohort, 1.6% had low-grade dysplasia, 0.9% had high-grade dysplasia, and 1.8% had malignancy on initial gastroscopy. Two hundred and sixty-seven (7.2%) endoscopists completed the survey, 44.2% indicated they would perform mapping for all patients, and 36% only for high-risk patients. Only 1.5% (n = 4) of respondents were able to correctly identify all six endoscopic photos of GIM/AG. Conclusion: This study demonstrates that in a large tertiary center, GIM is a prevalent endoscopic finding, but the associated rates of dysplasia and cancer were low. Additionally, among a small proportion of surveyed Australian endoscopists, there is notable variability in the endoscopic approach for AG and GIM and significant knowledge gaps. More training is required to increase the recognition of GIM and compliance with histological mapping.
RESUMO
Background: A lack of geographic and racial diversity in clinical trial populations may arise from a disproportionate focus on the United States and Europe for trial leadership and conduct. Inadequate diversity may compromise the external validity to the Asia-Pacific (APAC) region, where 60% of global cardiometabolic disease exists. Objectives: This study aimed to assess the proportion and trends of Asian race participants and APAC authorship in cardiometabolic trials. Methods: We performed a systematic review of all cardiovascular, diabetes and obesity-related randomized controlled trials (phase ≥2, n = ≥100) published in these major medical journals: the New England Journal of Medicine, the Lancet, and the Journal of the American Medical Association between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2020. Trial leadership was defined by first authorship, and any listed author was considered a trial collaborator. Temporal trends were evaluated using the Jonckheere-Terpstra proportion test and correlations using Pearson's correlation coefficient. Participant-to-prevalence ratios (PPR) were determined using Global Health Data Exchange registry data. Results: A total of 8.3% (218,613 of 2,619,710) participants identified as being of Asian race and 7.7% of total enrollment occurred in APAC. APAC lead authorship occurred in 52 of 656 (7.9%) trials and collaboration in 10.1% (1312 of 13,000 of authors), which correlated with Asian enrollment (r = 0.63 and r = 0.76, respectively). A marginal increase in the proportion of Asian race (Δ1.40% ± 6.95%/year, P = 0.003) and APAC regional (Δ1.46% ± 8.67%/year, P = 0.003) enrollment was observed; however, severe regional underrepresentation persisted (PPR <0.30). Conclusions: Despite a favorable trend over the past decade, Asian participants and authors from APAC remain significantly underrepresented in seminal cardiometabolic trials; barriers to trial conduct and leadership in this region must be addressed.
RESUMO
Introduction: The goals of this retrospective cohort study of 129,443 persons admitted to Calgary acute care hospitals from 2013 to 2021 were to ascertain correlations of "potentially inappropriate medications" (PIMs), "potential prescribing omissions" (PPOs), and other risk factors with readmissions and mortality. Methods: Processing and analysis codes were built in Oracle Database 19c (PL/SQL), R, and Excel. Results: The percentage of patients dying during their hospital stay rose from 3.03% during the first admission to 7.2% during the sixth admission. The percentage of patients dying within 6 months of discharge rose from 9.4% after the first admission to 24.9% after the sixth admission. Odds ratios were adjusted for age, gender, and comorbidities, and for readmission, they were the post-admission number of medications (1.16; 1.12-1.12), STOPP PIMs (1.16; 1.15-1.16), AGS Beers PIMs (1.11; 1.11-1.11), and START omissions not corrected with a prescription (1.39; 1.35-1.42). The odds ratios for readmissions for the second to thirty-ninth admission were consistently higher if START PPOs were not corrected for the second (1.41; 1.36-1.46), third (1.41;1.35-1.48), fourth (1.35; 1.28-1.44), fifth (1.38; 1.28-1.49), sixth (1.47; 1.34-1.62), and seventh admission to thirty-ninth admission (1.23; 1.14-1.34). The odds ratios for mortality were post-admission number of medications (1.04; 1.04-1.05), STOPP PIMs (0.99; 0.96-1.00), AGS Beers PIMs (1.08; 1.07-1.08), and START omissions not corrected with a prescription (1.56; 1.50-1.63). START omissions for all admissions corrected with a prescription by a hospital physician correlated with a dramatic reduction in mortality (0.51; 0.49-0.53) within six months of discharge. This was also true for the second (0.52; 0.50-0.55), fourth (0.56; 0.52-0.61), fifth (0.63; 0.57-0.68), sixth (0.68; 0.61-0.76), and seventh admission to thirty-ninth admission (0.71; 0.65-0.78). Conclusions: "Potential prescribing omissions" (PPOs) consisted mostly of needed cardiac medications. These omissions occurred before the first admission of this cohort, and many persisted through their readmissions and discharges. Therefore, these omissions should be corrected in the community before admission by family physicians, in the hospital by hospital physicians, and if they continue after discharge by teams of family physicians, pharmacists, and nurses. These community teams should also meet with patients and focus on patients' understanding of their illnesses, medications, PPOs, and ability for self-care.
