The Direct Comparison of Two Interferon-gamma Release Assays in the Tuberculosis Screening of Japanese Healthcare Workers.

Objective Two interferon-gamma release assays (IGRAs), the QuantiFERON-TB Gold In-Tube (QFT-GIT) and T-SPOT.TB (T-SPOT), are commercially available. The agreement between the two IGRAs in the screening of healthcare workers (HCWs) for latent tuberculosis is not well known. Methods The QFT-GIT and T-SPOT tests were performed for the baseline tuberculosis screening of 654 HCWs who worked at Mie University Hospital in Japan. The results of the two tests were directly compared. Results Nineteen (2.9%), 28 (4.3%) and 33 (5.0%) of the 654 HCWs were found to be positive by the QFT-GIT, T-SPOT, and the QFT-GIT and/or T-SPOT methods using cut-off values of 0.35 IU/mL (QFT-GIT) and 6 spots (T-SPOT). After excluding 4 cases with indeterminate results, there were 14 concordant positive (2.2%), 618 concordant negative (95.1%), and 18 discordant (2.8%) results using the cut-off values of 0.35 IU/mL (QFT-GIT) and 6 spots (T-SPOT). The agreement of the two IGRAs was 97.2% (κ=0.595). When cut-off values of 0.35 IU/mL (QFT-GIT) and 8 spots (T-SPOT) were applied, there were 11 concordant positive (1.7%), 626 concordant negative (96.3%), and 13 discordant (2.0%) results, with 98.0% agreement (κ=0.618). When the borderline criteria for the QFT-GIT (0.1 to <0.35 IU/mL) and T-SPOT (5-7 spots) were applied, there were 11 concordant positive (1.7%), 11 concordant borderline (1.7%), 586 concordant negative (90.2%), and 42 discordant (6.5%) results, with 93.5% agreement between the two methods (κ=0.538). Conclusion When standard cut-off values were used, the agreement between the two IGRAs in the tuberculosis screening of Japanese HCWs was moderate to high. Importantly, some HCWs showed discordant results, especially those whose results were in the borderline zones.

Utility of electronic hand hygiene counting devices for measuring physicians' hand hygiene adherence applied to outpatient settings.

BACKGROUND: Our objectives were to evaluate the utility of electronic hand hygiene counting devices in outpatient settings and the impact of results feedback on physicians' hand hygiene behaviors. METHODS: We installed 130 electronic hand hygiene counting devices in our redesigned outpatient department. We remotely monitored physicians' hand hygiene practices during outpatient examinations and calculated the adherence rate as follows: number of hand hygiene counts divided by the number of outpatients examined multiplied by 100. Physician individual adherence rates were also classified into 4 categories. RESULTS: Two hundred and eighty physicians from 28 clinical departments were monitored for 3 months. The overall hand hygiene adherence rate was 10.7% at baseline, which improved significantly after feedback to 18.2% in the third month. Of the clinical departments, 78.6% demonstrated significant improvement in hand hygiene compliance. The change in the percentage of physicians in each category before and after feedback were as follows: very low (84.3% to 72.1%), low (8.6% to 14.3%), moderate (2.9% to 8.9%), and high (4.3% to 4.6%), from the first to third month, respectively. Based on category assessment, 17.1% of physicians were classified as responders. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians' adherence to hand hygiene practices during outpatient examinations was successfully monitored remotely using electronic counting devices. Audit and feedback of adherence data may have a positive impact on physicians' hand hygiene compliance.

Efficacy and safety of 10-mg azilsartan compared with 8-mg candesartan cilexetil in Japanese patients with hypertension: a randomized crossover non-inferiority trial.

We investigated whether 10 mg per day of azilsartan, one-half of the normal dosage, would be non-inferior to 8 mg per day of candesartan cilexetil for controlling blood pressure in Japanese patients with hypertension. In this open-label, randomized, crossover trial, 309 hypertensive Japanese adults treated with 8-mg candesartan cilexetil were randomized into two arms and received either 10-mg azilsartan or 8-mg candesartan cilexetil in a crossover manner. The primary efficacy outcome was systolic blood pressure, and the margin of non-inferiority was set to be 2.5 mm Hg. The participants were 67±11 years old, and 180 (58%) were male. The baseline systolic and diastolic blood pressure levels were 127.1±13.2 and 69.7±11.2 mm Hg, respectively. During the study period, the difference in systolic blood pressure between the treatments with 10-mg azilsartan and 8-mg candesartan cilexetil was -1.7 mm Hg, with the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) ranged from -3.2 to -0.2 mm Hg. The upper boundary of the 95% CI was below the margin of 2.5 mm Hg, confirming the non-inferiority of 10-mg azilsartan to 8-mg candesartan cilexetil. The difference also reached significance (P=0.037). The corresponding difference in diastolic blood pressure was -1.4 (95% CI: -2.4 to -0.4) mm Hg (P=0.006). Treatment with 10-mg azilsartan was similar to 8-mg candesartan cilexetil in its association with rare adverse events. In conclusion, 10-mg azilsartan was non-inferior to 8-mg candesartan cilexetil for controlling systolic blood pressure in Japanese hypertensive patients already being treated with 8-mg candesartan cilexetil.