METHODS: A multi-center, prospective colonoscopy study involving 16 Asia-Pacific regions was performed from 2008 to 2015. Consecutive self-referred CRC screening participants aged 40-70 years were recruited, and each subject received one direct optical colonoscopy. The prevalence of CRC, ACN, and colorectal adenoma was compared among subjects with different FDRs affected using Pearson's χ2 tests. Binary logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate the risk of these lesions, controlling for recognized risk factors including age, gender, smoking habits, alcohol drinking, body mass index, and the presence of diabetes mellitus.
RESULTS: Among 11,797 asymptomatic subjects, the prevalence of CRC was 0.6% (none: 0.6%; siblings: 1.1%; mother: 0.5%; father: 1.2%; ≥2 members: 3.1%, P<0.001), that of ACN was 6.5% (none: 6.1%; siblings: 8.3%; mother: 7.7%; father: 8.7%; ≥2 members: 9.3%, P<0.001), and that of colorectal adenoma was 29.3% (none: 28.6%; siblings: 33.5%; mother: 31.8%; father: 31.1%; ≥2 members: 38.1%, P<0.001). In multivariate regression analyses, subjects with at least one FDR affected were significantly more likely to have CRC (adjusted odds ratio (AOR)=2.02-7.89), ACN (AOR=1.55-2.06), and colorectal adenoma (AOR=1.31-1.92) than those without a family history. The risk of CRC (AOR=0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34-2.35, P=0.830), ACN (AOR=1.07, 95% CI 0.75-1.52, P=0.714), and colorectal adenoma (AOR=0.96, 95% CI 0.78-1.19, P=0.718) in subjects with either parent affected was similar to that of subjects with their siblings affected.
CONCLUSIONS: The risk of colorectal neoplasia was similar among subjects with different FDRs affected. These findings do not support the need to discriminate proband identity in screening participants with affected FDRs when their risks of colorectal neoplasia were estimated.
DESIGN: We estimated economic costs from the provider perspective to calculate the total cost and the cost per self-test kit distributed for three scenarios that differed by costing period (pilot, annual), the number of tests distributed (actual, planned, scaled assuming an epidemic peak) and self-test kit costs (pilot purchase price, 50% reduction).
SETTING: We used data collected between August and December 2022 in Brazil, Georgia, Malaysia, Ethiopia and the Philippines from pilot implementation studies designed to provide COVID-19 self-tests in a variety of settings-namely, workplace and healthcare facilities.
RESULTS: Across all five countries, 173 000 kits were distributed during pilot implementation with the cost/test distributed ranging from $2.44 to $12.78. The cost/self-test kit distributed was lowest in the scenario that assumed implementation over a longer period (year), with higher test demand (peak) and a test kit price reduction of 50% ($1.04-3.07). Across all countries and scenarios, test procurement occupied the greatest proportion of costs: 58-87% for countries with off-site self-testing (outside the workplace, for example, home) and 15-50% for countries with on-site self-testing (at the workplace). Staffing was the next key cost driver, particularly for distribution modalities that had on-site self-testing (29-35%) versus off-site self-testing (7-27%).
CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that it is likely to cost between $2.44 and $12.78 per test to distribute COVID-19 self-tests across common settings in five heterogeneous countries. Cost-effectiveness analyses using these results will allow policymakers to make informed decisions on optimally scaling up COVID-19 self-test distribution programmes across diverse settings and evolving needs.
METHODS: We performed a prospective, population-based study of IBD incidence in predefined catchment areas, collecting data for 1 year, starting on April 1, 2011. New cases were ascertained from multiple overlapping sources and entered into a Web-based database. Cases were confirmed using standard criteria. Local endoscopy, pathology, and pharmacy records were searched to ensure completeness of case capture.
RESULTS: We identified 419 new cases of IBD (232 of ulcerative colitis [UC], 166 of Crohn's disease [CD], and 21 IBD-undetermined). The crude annual overall incidence values per 100,000 individuals were 1.37 for IBD in Asia (95% confidence interval: 1.25-1.51; 0.76 for UC, 0.54 for CD, and 0.07 for IBD-undetermined) and 23.67 in Australia (95% confidence interval: 18.46-29.85; 7.33 for UC, 14.00 for CD, and 2.33 for IBD-undetermined). China had the highest incidence of IBD in Asia (3.44 per 100,000 individuals). The ratios of UC to CD were 2.0 in Asia and 0.5 in Australia. Median time from symptom onset to diagnosis was 5.5 months (interquartile range, 1.4-15 months). Complicated CD (stricturing, penetrating, or perianal disease) was more common in Asia than Australia (52% vs 24%; P = .001), and a family history of IBD was less common in Asia (3% vs 17%; P < .001).
CONCLUSIONS: We performed a large-scale population-based study and found that although the incidence of IBD varies throughout Asia, it is still lower than in the West. IBD can be as severe or more severe in Asia than in the West. The emergence of IBD in Asia will result in the need for specific health care resources, and offers a unique opportunity to study etiologic factors in developing nations.