Effectiveness of intravenous methylprednisolone pulse in patients with severe microscopic polyangiitis and granulomatosis with polyangiitis.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of two different intravenous methylprednisolone (IVMP) pulse doses in patients with severe microscopic polyangiitis (MPA) and granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA). METHODS: We emulated a target trial using observational data from the nationwide registry in Japan. Patients with severe glomerulonephritis or diffuse alveolar haemorrhage were selected and pseudo-randomised into three groups using propensity score-based overlap weighting as follows: non-IVMP, IVMP 0.5 g/day, and IVMP 1.0 g/day. The primary outcome was all-cause death, and the secondary outcomes were composite all-cause death and kidney failure, severe relapse, and serious infection from 2 to 48 weeks after treatment initiation. To estimate the treatment effects, the Cox proportional hazard model and Fine-Gray subdistribution hazard model were used. RESULTS: In this emulated target trial, of 201 eligible patients (MPA, 175; GPA, 26), 6 (2.8%) died, 4 (2.0%) had kidney failure, 11 (5.3%) had severe relapse, and 40 (19.8%) had severe infections. Hazard ratios (HR) for IVMP 0.5 g/day and IVMP 1.0 g/day pulse groups compared with non-IVMP pulse were as follows: all-cause death = 0.46 (95% confidence interval [95%CI]: 0.07-2.81) and 0.07 (95%CI: 0.01-0.41); all-cause death/kidney failure = 1.18 (95%CI: 0.26-5.31) and 0.59 (95%CI: 0.08-4.52); subdistribution HRs for severe relapse = 1.26 (95%CI: 0.12-13.70) and 3.36 (95%CI: 0.49-23.29); and serious infection = 1.88 (95%CI: 0.76-4.65) and 0.94 (95%CI: 0.28-3.13). CONCLUSIONS: IVMP 1.0 g/day pulse may improve 48-week mortality in patients with severe MPA/GPA.

Perceptions regarding the concept and definition of patient-reported outcomes among healthcare stakeholders in Japan with relation to quality of life: a cross-sectional study.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are frequently used in a variety of settings, including clinical trials and clinical practice. The definition of PRO and quality of life (QOL) and their relationship have been concluded through discussions among experts that has been the premise of PRO guidelines are not clearly stated in the guidelines. Therefore, the definition of PRO, especially in relation to QOL, is sometimes explained simply, as "PRO includes QOL," but this complicated matters. This study investigated the perceptions of PRO among various stakeholders (including patients and their families, the industry, clinicians, regulatory or health technology assessment personnel, and academic researchers) in Japan to clarify its definitions and that of QOL, including their relationship.We conducted a two-step survey: a qualitative interview survey and a web-based survey to ensure the validity of the survey. During the interviews, eight stakeholders described their perceptions and thoughts on PRO and its relationship to QOL, and their experience of using PRO. Overall 253 clinicians, 249 company employees, and 494 patients participated in the web survey to confirm how the findings of the interview survey supported the results.In the interview survey, patient advocates described various perspectives of PRO and QOL, including unexpected dynamic relationships, while the most other stakeholders explained PRO and QOL with the language used in the guidelines, but their responses were split. The web-based survey revealed that all stakeholders had a lower awareness of PRO than QOL. The most common perception of PRO, especially in the relationship to QOL, was "they did not fully overlap." Although there were differences in perceptions of the relationship between PRO and QOL among clinicians, company employees, and patients, all perceived PRO as a tool to facilitate communication in clinical practice.The present results are inconsistent with the simplified explanation of PRO, but consistent with the original PRO guideline definitions, which also considered the role of PRO in clinical practice. To make PRO a more potent tool, all stakeholders using PRO should confirm its definition and how it differs from QOL, have a unified recognition in each PRO use, and avoid miscommunication.

How to select and understand guidelines for patient-reported outcomes: a scoping review of existing guidance.

BACKGROUND: Over the past few decades, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) have been used to understand patient health conditions better. Therefore, numerous PRO measures (questionnaires) and guidelines or guidance have been developed. However, it is challenging to select target guidance from among the many available guidance and to understand the chosen guidance. This study comprehensively collected the existing PRO guidance for clinical trials or studies and practices to support novice PRO users in academia, industry, clinical practice, and regulatory and reimbursement decision-making. METHODS: For the scoping review, we searched the MEDLINE, Embase, Google Books, WorldCat, and the National Library of Medicine (NLM) Bookshelf databases from 2009 to 2023. The eligibility criteria were PRO guidance for clinical trials, clinical practice, or application such as health technology assessment. Those guidance cover aspects such as quality of life (QOL), PRO, health-related QOL, health state utilities, psychometric requirements, implementation methods, analysis and interpretation, or clinical practice applications. After the systematic search, three researchers individually reviewed the collected data, and the reviewed articles and books were scrutinized using the same criteria. RESULTS: We collected the PRO guidance published in articles and books between 2009 and 2023. From the database searches, 1,455 articles and 387 books were identified, of which one book and 33 articles were finally selected. The collected PRO guidance was categorized into the adoption of PRO measures, design and reporting of trials or studies using PROs, implementation of PRO evaluation in clinical trials or studies or clinical practice, analysis and interpretation of PROs, and application of PRO evaluation. Based on this categorization, we suggest the following for novices: When selecting guidance, novices should clarify the "place" and "purpose" where the guidance will be used. Additionally, they should know that the terminology related to PRO and the scope and expectations of PROs vary by "places" and "purposes". CONCLUSIONS: From this scoping review of existing PRO guidance, we provided summaries and caveats to assist novices in selecting guidance that fits their purpose and understanding it.

Cycloheximide in the nanomolar range inhibits seed germination of Orobanche minor.

From the 992 samples of culture extracts of microorganisms isolated from soil in Japan, we found that the extract of Streptomyces sp. no. 226 inhibited Orobanche minor seed germination without significantly affecting the seed germination of Trifolium pratense and the growth of Aspergillus oryzae and Escherichia coli. Using ESI-MS, 1H-NMR, and 13C-NMR, we identified the active compound as cycloheximide. Cycloheximide had half-maximum inhibitory concentrations of 2.6 ng/mL for the inhibition of seed germination of O. minor and 2.5 µg/mL for that of the conidial germination of A. oryzae. Since cycloheximide is known to inhibit translation by interacting with ribosomal protein L28 (RPL28) in yeast, we investigated whether RPL protein of O. minor plays a critical role in the inhibition of O. minor seed germination. Our data suggested that O. minor RPL27A was not sensitive to cycloheximide by comparing it to the strain expressing S. cerevisiae RPL28. These findings suggest the presence of an unidentified mechanism by which cycloheximide hinders O. minor seed germination.

Psychological Barriers to the Use of Opioid Analgesics for Treating Pain in Patients With Advanced Recurrent Cancer: A Multicenter Cohort Study.

Background: We aimed to gain insight into psychological barriers toward initiation of strong opioid analgesic use in patients with advanced recurrent cancer. Methods: This study included 46 patients who were prescribed with opioid analgesics for advanced recurrent cancer. The primary outcome was psychological barriers assessed using the Japanese version of the Barriers Questionnaire-II (JBQ-II). The secondary outcomes were psychological changes and pain relief one week after the induction of strong opioid analgesics. Results: The mean age of participants was 63.6 years. Furthermore, 26.1% had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of ≥3. The mean JBQ-II total score was 1.97 (95% confidence interval: 1.75-2.19). At the initiation of opioid therapy, there was no difference in the total scores between the baseline and one week later. Nevertheless, there was a significant difference in the subscale "disease progression" score (mean 2.97 vs. 2.59, difference in means 0.38, standard error 0.16, p = 0.026). Personalized Pain Goal (PPG) was achieved in about half of the participants, and a trend toward a higher score in the subscale "harmful effects" (concern about adverse events) was observed in those who did not achieve PPG. Conclusion: This study showed that patients with advanced recurrent cancer have psychological barriers to opioid induction. The relationship between the presence of psychological barriers before and after induction of opioid analgesics and the speed of pain improvement was determined. The results may provide fundamental information for prospective intervention studies to develop individualized education programs for patients with psychological barriers to opioids.Clinical Trial Registration Number UMIN000042443.

Effectiveness and safety of rituximab in severely relapsed antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitis: a retrospective analysis of a Japanese multicentre cohort from the J-CANVAS.

We aimed to clarify the long-term safety and efficacy of rituximab (RTX) as a remission induction therapy following severe relapse in patients with antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis (AAV). We retrospectively collected the data of patients with severely relapsed AAV from a Japanese multicentre cohort. The primary exposure was RTX use; the primary outcome was complete remission (CR) proportions at week 24. Baseline characteristics were compared between the RTX and non-RTX groups. We performed multivariate logistic regression analysis and one-to-one propensity score matching analysis as a sensitivity analysis. Totally, 100 patients were enrolled: 52 in the RTX group and 48 in the non-RTX group. Baseline characteristics were comparable between the two groups, except for age, AAV subtype and ANCA serotype. The median age was 71 vs. 75 years, and the PR3-ANCA positivity rate was 44.2% vs. 18.8% in the RTX and non-RTX groups, respectively. No significant difference was observed in CR proportions at week 24 between the two groups (79.2% vs. 68.1%, p = 0.321), with an adjusted odds ratio of 1.27 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.47-3.51). At week 48, CR proportions were significantly higher in the RTX group (91.7% vs. 64.9%, p = 0.005), with an adjusted odds ratio of 2.95 (95% CI 0.97-9.91). Serious infection rates were lower in the RTX group than in the non-RTX group, with no statistically significant difference. RTX was not superior to conventional immunosuppressive therapies at week 24 but showed significantly favourable results at week 48 for severely relapsed AAV.