4.5 Article

Epidemiology of Inflammatory Bowel Disease from 1981 to 2014: Results from a Territory-Wide Population-Based Registry in Hong Kong

期刊

INFLAMMATORY BOWEL DISEASES
卷 22, 期 8, 页码 1954-1960

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1097/MIB.0000000000000846

关键词

IBD; prevalence; Hong Kong

资金

  1. Jessie and Thomas Tam Foundation
  2. Abbvie Pharmaceuticals

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background:Incidence of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is increasing in Asia, but population-based prevalence data are limited. This study examined IBD incidence and prevalence based on results of a territory-wide IBD registry in Hong Kong.Methods:We collected data on 2575 patients with IBD (1541 ulcerative colitis [UC], 983 Crohn's disease [CD], 51 IBD unclassified) from 1981 to 2014 using hospital and territory-wide administrative coding system. Prevalence and incidence, disease phenotype, surgery, and mortality were analyzed.Results:Adjusted prevalence of IBD, UC, CD, and IBD unclassified per 100,000 individuals in 2014 were 44.0, 24.5, 18.6, and 0.9, respectively. Age-adjusted incidence of IBD per 100,000 individuals increased from 0.10 (95% confidence interval, 0.06-0.16) in 1985 to 3.12 (95% confidence interval, 2.88-3.38) in 2014. UC:CD incidence ratio reduced from 8.9 to 1.0 over 30 years (P < 0.001). A family history of IBD was reported in 3.0% of patients. Stricturing or penetrating disease was found in 41% and perianal disease in 25% of patients with CD. 5-aminosalicylate use was common in UC (96%) and CD (89%). Cumulative rates of surgery for CD were 20.3% at 1 year and 25.7% at 5 years, and the corresponding rates for UC were 1.8% and 2.1%, respectively. Mortality for CD and UC was not significantly different from the general population.Conclusions:In a population-based study in Hong Kong, prevalence of IBD is lower than in the west although comparable to that of other East Asian countries. Complicated CD is common. Overall mortality remains low in Asians with IBD.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据