Non-small cell lung cancer with tumor proportion score > 90% could increase the risk of severe immune-related adverse events in first-line treatments with immune checkpoint inhibitors: A retrospective single-center study.

BACKGROUND: Since 2015, immune checkpoint inhibitors have been a clinical treatment strategy for patients with advanced or recurrent non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, the relationship between immune-related adverse event (irAE) risk factors and patient clinical characteristics is unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the relationship between irAE risk and the clinical characteristics of patients with NSCLC. METHODS: We included patients with advanced or recurrent NSCLC with known programmed death-ligand 1 expression levels treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. We retrospectively examined the medical records of 260 patients with NSCLC (March 2016-November 2020) and analyzed the relationship between the patient clinical characteristics and irAEs. RESULTS: Our retrospective analysis revealed that tumor proportion score (TPS) ≥ 90% and adenocarcinoma histology were independent risk factors for irAEs (odds ratio: 3.750 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.58-8.89 and 0.424 95% CI: 0.19-0.97, respectively) in first-line treatment. However, in patients receiving second- or later-line treatments, no clinical characteristics were identified as risk factors for irAEs. Furthermore, no difference was observed in the response rates to first-line treatments between the TPS ≥ 90% and TPS < 90% groups (74% vs. 71%, p = 0.83). In later-line treatments, the TPS ≥ 90% group had a better response rate than the TPS < 90% group (55% vs. 17%, p < 0.05). However, no significant differences in overall survival were observed in either of the groups. CONCLUSIONS: TPS ≥ 90% and adenocarcinoma histology were independent risk factors for irAEs in previously untreated patients with advanced or recurrent NSCLC. Therefore, patients at high risk of irAEs require additional monitoring.

Long-term safety and effectiveness of biosimilar insulin glargine in Japanese patients with diabetes mellitus in routine clinical practice: results of a post-marketing safety study.

Objective: To evaluate the long-term safety and effectiveness of biosimilar insulin glargine (GLY) in real-world clinical practice.Methods: This prospective, non-interventional, multicenter, observational, post-marketing safety study (PMSS) enrolled Japanese patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes mellitus (T1DM or T2DM) starting GLY therapy, and was required by Japanese Pharmaceutical Affairs Law mandating post-marketing safety surveillance to acquire safety and effectiveness data of biosimilar products. Data collected from the 12-month observation included patient characteristics, adverse events, and blood glucose control.Results: The study enrolled 141 patients with T1DM and 1104 patients with T2DM. Pre-study insulin was used by 94.1% of patients with T1DM and 75.0% with T2DM. 65.4% of patients with T1DM and 64.3% with T2DM switched from the reference product (GLY-switched), while 25.0% with T2DM were insulin-naive. Adverse events were reported by 5.7% and 8.5% in T1DM and T2DM, respectively. Similar incidences were reported in GLY-switched. Adverse events were reported by 10.7% in insulin-naive T2DM. Baseline mean hypoglycemic events/month were 1.8 and 0.1 in T1DM and T2DM, respectively: the mean change from baseline (CFB) was -1.2 (p = .066) and 0.0 (p = .915), respectively. Baseline mean HbA1c was 8.4% and 8.7% in T1DM and T2DM, respectively; the mean CFB was -0.5% (p < .001) and -0.9% (p < .001), respectively, and -1.5% (p < .001) in insulin-naive T2DM.Conclusions: This first long-term Japanese PMSS of GLY demonstrated adverse events, hypoglycemia, and glycemic control consistent with the known GLY profile for T1DM and T2DM patients, in routine clinical practice.

Relationship Between Pain Alleviation and Disease-specific Health-related Quality of Life Measures in Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain Receiving Duloxetine: Exploratory Post Hoc Analysis of a Japanese Phase 3 Randomized Study.

This post hoc analysis of a Japanese phase 3 randomized study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01855919) investigated relationships between pain severity (assessed by the Brief Pain Inventory [BPI]) and disease-specific health-related quality of life (assessed by the 24-item Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire [RDQ-24]) in duloxetine-treated patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP). METHODS: Patients with CLBP duration >6 months and BPI average score ≥4 received duloxetine 60 mg/d (N = 230) or placebo (N = 226) for 14 weeks. Spearman rank correlation coefficients were calculated for (1) BPI change from baseline and RDQ item change from baseline and (2) BPI change from baseline and the RDQ item baseline score in duloxetine-treated patients. RESULTS: Duloxetine treatment significantly improved the RDQ-24 total score compared with placebo; the greatest improvements were observed for RDQ02, RDQ17, and RDQ13. The strongest correlations between BPI change from baseline and RDQ item change from baseline were for RDQ13, RDQ23, and RDQ10. The correlation coefficients for the correlations between BPI change from baseline and the RDQ item baseline score were generally small. DISCUSSION: This post hoc analysis suggested that improvement in pain severity was associated with improvement in the RDQ-24 total score and in some individual RDQ items in duloxetine-treated patients with CLBP. Furthermore, positive responses to duloxetine in terms of the RDQ13, RDQ23, and RDQ10 items may correlate with better pain responses. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY: The study described in this manuscript was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01855919).

Duloxetine in patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain in Japan: a randomized, doubleblind, noninferiority comparative study with pregabalin.

PURPOSE: Duloxetine and pregabalin are recommended as first-line treatments for diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP). However, studies have not reported a direct comparison between duloxetine and pregabalin. We conducted a postmarketing, randomized, double-blind study to assess the noninferiority of duloxetine compared with pregabalin after 12 weeks of treatment in adult patients with DPNP in Japan (NCT02417935). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients (N = 303) with distal symmetrical DPNP were randomized to and were administered duloxetine (40-60 mg/day) or pregabalin (300-600 mg/day). The primary endpoint was the change from baseline in weekly mean of the 24-hour average pain score (numeric rating scale [NRS]). Noninferiority of duloxetine compared with pregabalin was assessed with the primary endpoint at week 12. Secondary measures, including night pain and worst pain, Brief Pain Inventory-Severity and Interference rating short form (BPI-SF), Clinical Global Impression of Improvement (CGI-I), Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I), and Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI), health outcome measures (EuroQol 5-Dimension index and VAS), and safety were also assessed. RESULTS: For the 24-hour NRS average pain score, the difference between the duloxetine and pregabalin groups was 0.072 (95% CI: - 0.295, 0.439), and the upper bound of the 95% CI (0.439) did not exceed the predefined noninferiority margin (0.51), at the end of the study period. For secondary outcome measures (night pain, worst pain, BPI-SF, CGI-I, PGI-I, NPSI) and health outcome measures, both the duloxetine and pregabalin treatment groups showed an improvement from baseline with no significant between-group difference. Duloxetine and pregabalin were well tolerated and the safety profiles were consistent with previously reported results. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated the noninferior efficacy of duloxetine compared with pregabalin in the treatment of adult patients with DPNP. The safety analyses showed an acceptable tolerability based on safety profiles of duloxetine and pregabalin.

Real clinical management of patients with isolated superior mesenteric artery dissection in Japan.

BACKGROUND: Due to the rarity of this condition, clinical treatment and outcomes in isolated superior mesenteric artery dissection (ISMAD) patients remain unknown. The primary aim of this retrospective multicenter study was to elucidate the treatment strategies and in-hospital outcomes for ISMAD patients by using administrative data. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed patients that were primarily diagnosed with ISMAD using the Diagnosis Procedure Combination data collected at 141 hospitals in Japan in 2015. Patients with comorbidities that included "aneurysm" were excluded. RESULTS: A total of 221 ISMAD without aneurysm patients (male: 90.5%; mean age: 52.5±10.1 years) were enrolled, and 95 (67.4%) of these encountered just one ISMAD case per year. We found only one (0.5%) in-hospital death and length of stay for ISMAD patients was 13.2±9.1 days. One-third of patients received antiplatelet therapy (32.1%) and anticoagulation therapies, such as heparin (38.9%) and warfarin (10.0%). A total of 146 (66.1%) patients received antihypertensive treatment (either orally or via an intravenous route) during hospitalization. Twelve (5.4%) patients underwent surgical procedures during hospitalization as follows: 4 (33.3%) patients underwent bypass surgery, 3 (25.0%) patients underwent exploratory laparotomies, 2 (16.7%) patients underwent bowel resection, 1 (8.3%) patient underwent a thrombectomy, and 2 (16.7%) patients underwent surgical angioplasties. CONCLUSIONS: We found that conservative therapy for ISMAD patients without aneurysm is safe and is also associated with a low rate of surgical intervention in clinical practice.

Predicting treatment outcomes of major depressive disorder by early improvement in painful physical symptoms: a pooled analysis of double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of duloxetine.

OBJECTIVE: We determined if early improvement in painful physical symptoms (PPS) can be a predictor of remission in the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD). METHODS: We included randomized, double-blind, parallel-group clinical trials of duloxetine (40-60 mg/day) versus placebo for the acute treatment of MDD with associated PPS. Only those studies using the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and the Brief Pain Inventory - Short Form (BPI-SF) were included. Three studies met all criteria and included male or female outpatients aged ≥18 years who met the diagnostic criteria for MDD, had a MADRS total score ≥20, and had at least moderate pain (BPI-SF average pain score ≥3). Positive predictive values (PPVs) and negative predictive values (NPVs) of early improvement in PPS for remission were analyzed. PPVs were the proportion of patients with remission (MADRS total score ≤10) at week 8 out of patients who experienced early improvement in BPI-SF average pain score (≥30% decrease from baseline at week 1, 2, or 4). NPVs were the proportion of patients without remission (MADRS total score >10) at week 8 out of patients who did not experience early improvement in PPS. RESULTS: Data from 1,320 patients were analyzed (duloxetine N=641 and placebo N=679). The overall remission (MADRS total score ≤10 at week 8) rate for the duloxetine group was significantly higher than the placebo group (38.5% vs 21.8%; P<0.0001). For both treatment groups, PPVs of early improvement in BPI-SF (30% improvement from baseline) were higher than the overall remission rate for all weeks examined (weeks 1, 2, and 4); in general, NPVs of early improvement in BPI-SF for nonremission were higher than the overall nonremission rate. CONCLUSION: Early improvement in PPS can be a useful clinical indicator of subsequent treatment outcome for MDD patients with associated PPS.

Duloxetine 60 mg for chronic low back pain: post hoc responder analysis of double-blind, placebo-controlled trials.

INTRODUCTION: Duloxetine has demonstrated efficacy in chronic low back pain (CLBP). We examined the predictors of response to duloxetine for CLBP. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of pooled data from 4 double-blind, ran-domized, placebo-controlled trials of duloxetine (60 mg/day for 12-14 weeks) in adult patients with CLBP. Primary outcome was proportion of patients with ≥30% reduction in Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) average pain ("pain reduction") at 12-14 weeks. The proportion of patients with ≥30% and ≥50% (secondary outcome) pain reduction in duloxetine and placebo groups was compared. Variables for responder analyses were early improvement (≥15% pain reduction at Week 2), sex, age, baseline BPI average pain score, duration of CLBP, and number of painful body sites according to the Michigan Body Map (≥2 vs 1 [isolated CLBP]; 1 trial); relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. RESULTS: Compared with placebo (n = 653), a greater proportion of duloxetine-treated patients (n = 642) achieved ≥30% (59.7% vs 47.8%; P < 0.001) and ≥50% pain reduction (48.6% vs 35.1%; P < 0.001). Among duloxetine-treated patients, early improvement was associated with greater likelihood of ≥30% (RR [95% CI], 2.91 [2.30-3.67]) or ≥50% (3.24 [2.44-4.31]) pain reduction. Women were slightly more likely than men to achieve ≥30% (RR [95% CI], 1.14 [1.00-1.30]) or ≥50% (1.17 [0.99-1.38]) pain reduction. Response rates were similar between age, CLBP duration, and baseline BPI average pain score subgroups. Patients with ≥2 painful sites were more likely to respond to duloxetine 60 mg relative to placebo than patients with isolated CLBP (RR, duloxetine vs placebo [95% CI]: ≥30% reduction, ≥2 painful sites 1.40 [1.18-1.66], isolated CLBP 1.07 [0.78-1.48]; ≥50% reduction, ≥2 painful sites 1.51 [1.20-1.89], isolated CLBP 1.23 [0.81-1.88]). CONCLUSION: Early pain reduction was indicative of overall response. Patients with multiple painful sites had more benefit from duloxetine than patients with isolated CLBP.

An observational study of duloxetine versus SSRI monotherapy in Japanese patients with major depressive disorder: subgroup analyses of treatment effectiveness for pain, depressive symptoms, and quality of life.

OBJECTIVE: To examine how clinical and demographic patient baseline characteristics influence effectiveness of duloxetine versus selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) treatment, in real-world Japanese clinical settings of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) and associated painful physical symptoms (PPS). METHODS: This was a multicenter, 12-week, prospective, observational study in patients with MDD (Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology ≥16) and at least moderate PPS (Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form [BPI-SF] average pain ≥3). Patients received duloxetine or SSRIs (escitalopram, sertraline, paroxetine, or fluvoxamine). Assessments were made by using BPI-SF average pain, 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D17), EuroQol 5-dimension questionnaire, Social Adaptation Self-Evaluation Scale, Global Assessment of Functioning, and ability to work. Predefined subgroups included the number of previous episodes of depression (0 vs ≥1), baseline BPI-SF average pain score (≤6 vs >6), baseline HAM-D17 total score (≤18 vs >18), baseline HAM-D17 retardation (≤7 vs >7) and anxiety somatic subscale scores (≤6 vs >6), and age (<65 vs ≥65 years). RESULTS: Treatment effectiveness was evaluated in 523 patients (duloxetine N=273, SSRIs N=250). Treatment with duloxetine was superior to SSRIs on most outcome measures in patients experiencing their first depressive episode, those with higher baseline PPS levels, and in patients with more severe baseline depression. This was also the case for older patients. In patients with less severe depression, SSRI treatment tended to show more improvements in depression and quality of life measures versus duloxetine treatment. CONCLUSION: These preplanned subgroup analyses of data from a prospective observational study suggest that, for Japanese MDD patients with PPS, duloxetine is more effective than SSRIs in patients with a first episode of MDD, with more severe depression, or more severe PPS.

An observational study of duloxetine versus SSRI monotherapy for the treatment of painful physical symptoms in Japanese patients with major depressive disorder: primary analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness of duloxetine monotherapy, in comparison with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) monotherapy, in the treatment of painful physical symptoms (PPS) in Japanese patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) in real-world clinical settings. METHODS: This was a multicenter, 12-week prospective, observational study. This study enrolled MDD patients with at least moderate PPS, defined as a Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form (BPI-SF) average pain score (item 5) ≥3. Patients were treated with duloxetine or SSRIs (escitalopram, sertraline, paroxetine, or fluvoxamine) for 12 weeks, and PPS were assessed by BPI-SF average pain score. The primary outcome was early improvement in the BPI-SF average pain score at 4 weeks post-baseline. RESULTS: A total of 523 patients were evaluated for treatment effectiveness (duloxetine N=273, SSRIs N=250). The difference in BPI-SF average pain score between the two groups was not statistically significant at 4 weeks post-baseline, the primary endpoint (least-squares mean change from baseline [95% confidence interval]: duloxetine, -2.8 [-3.1, -2.6]; SSRIs, -2.5 [-2.8, -2.3]; P=0.166). There was a numerical advantage for duloxetine in improvement from 4 to 12 weeks post-baseline, and the difference was statistically significant at 8 weeks post-baseline (least-squares mean change from baseline [95% confidence interval]: duloxetine, -3.6 [-3.9, -3.3]; SSRIs, -3.1 [-3.4, -2.8]; P=0.023). The 30% and 50% responder rates were significantly higher in patients treated with duloxetine at 4 and 8 weeks post-baseline. There were no serious adverse events experienced by duloxetine-treated patients. The rate of discontinuations due to adverse events was similar for duloxetine and the SSRIs (1.0% and 0.8% of patients, respectively). CONCLUSION: In this observational study, BPI-SF improvement was not significantly different at 4 weeks, the primary endpoint; however, patients treated with duloxetine tended to show better improvement in PPS compared to those treated with SSRIs.

The impact of carperitide usage on the cost of hospitalization and outcome in patients with acute heart failure: High value care vs. low value care campaign in Japan.

BACKGROUND: The usefulness of carperitide in patients with acute heart failure (AHF) has not been confirmed; carperitide is expensive, and thus, its routine use has not been shown to add much value in clinical settings. We analyzed the impact of carperitide usage on the outcome and cost of hospitalization in AHF patients. METHODS: Data obtained from the Diagnosis Procedure Combination (DPC) database from July 2014 until June 2015 from 371 hospitals were analyzed. Emergent patients with acute heart failure (ICD code I50* and DPC code 050130) who did not undergo any surgical procedures were enrolled. We compared the outcomes and cost between the carperitide group and non-carperitide group using propensity score matched analysis. RESULTS: In 37,891 heart failure patients (52.2% male; 79.2±11.9years), 13,421 pairs were selected according to the propensity score matching. In-hospital death occurred more frequently in the carperitide group (n=997; 7.4%) than in the non-carperitide group (n=844; 6.3%; p<0.01). Carperitide use was also related with higher costs of hospitalizations, and total dose of carperitide administered during hospitalization decreased with the increasing case volume (p<0.01). On the other hand, carperitide usage was frequently recognized in hospitals with larger annual case volumes (32.1%, Q1; 37.3%, Q2; 40.7%, Q3, p-value<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Carperitide usage negatively affected patient outcomes and cost of hospitalization. In hospitals with lower annual case volume, clinicians should pay attention to the total dose and duration of carperitide. On the other hand, in hospitals with larger annual case volumes, clinicians should pay attention to the thresholds/indications to prescribe carperitide in AHF patients.

Geographic variation in surgical outcomes and cost between the United States and Japan.

OBJECTIVES: Unwarranted geographic variation in spending has received intense scrutiny in the United States. However, few studies have compared variation in spending and surgical outcomes between the United States healthcare system and those of other nations. In this study, we compare the geographic variation in postsurgical outcomes and cost between the United States and Japan. STUDY DESIGN: This retrospective cohort study uses Medicare Part A data from the United States (2010-2011) and similar inpatient data from Japan (2012). Patients 65 years or older undergoing 1 of 5 surgeries (coronary artery bypass graft, abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, colectomy, pancreatectomy, or gastrectomy) were selected in the United States and Japan. METHODS: Reliability- and case-mix-adjusted coefficient of variation (COV) values were calculated using hierarchical modeling and empirical Bayes techniques for the following 5 outcomes: postoperative mortality, the development of a complication, death after complication (failure to rescue), length of stay, and the cost of the hospitalization. Sensitivity analyses were also performed by calculating patient demographic-and case-mix-adjusted COV values for each outcome using weighted age- and sex-standardized values. RESULTS: The variability of the postsurgical outcomes was uniformly lower in the United States compared with Japan. Cost variation was consistently higher in the United States for all surgeries. CONCLUSIONS: Although the US healthcare system may be more inefficient regarding costs, the presence of higher geographic variation in postoperative care in Japan, relative to the United States, suggests that the observed geographic variation in the United States-both for health expenditures and outcomes-is not a unique manifestation of its structural shortcomings.

Trajectories of depression symptom improvement and associated predictor analysis: An analysis of duloxetine in double-blind placebo-controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: In the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD), it is not fully understood how individual symptoms improve over time (trajectory) in remitters. This study compared symptom improvement trajectories, as measured with the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D17), in remitters and nonremitters. METHODS: This analysis is based on 10 placebo-controlled, randomized, double-blind trials of duloxetine (40-60mg/day) for treatment of MDD from baseline up to week 8. Remission was defined as a HAM-D17 total score ≤7 at week 8 (last observation carried forward). Trajectories of HAM-D17 items were assessed by mixed model repeated measures analysis for treatment and remitter-nonremitter comparisons. Grouping of the trajectories was performed by factor analysis. Predictor analysis using HAM-D17 items was conducted by logistic regression. RESULTS: There were 1555 patients in the duloxetine group (489 [31.4%] remitters) and 1206 patients in the placebo group (290 [24.0%] remitters; P<.0001). For most items, the difference in trajectories between remitters and nonremitters appeared at early time points and increased over time. Treatment response trajectories were very similar for duloxetine and placebo remitters, while duloxetine nonremitters improved more than placebo nonremitters. For duloxetine remitters, we found 3 trajectory groups of HAM-D17 items. The predictor analysis showed that improvement in 6 individual items at week 1 or 2 was significantly associated with remission at week 8. LIMITATIONS: Generalizability of these results may be limited by the relatively short observation period used to define remission. CONCLUSIONS: Early monitoring of some symptoms of depression may prove useful in guiding treatment decisions.

The benchmark analysis of gastric, colorectal and rectal cancer pathways: toward establishing standardized clinical pathway in the cancer care.

Most clinical pathways in treating cancers in Japan are based on individual physician's personal experiences rather than on an empirical analysis of clinical data such as benchmark comparison with other hospitals. Therefore, these pathways are far from being standardized. By comparing detailed clinical data from five cancer centers, we have observed various differences among hospitals. By conducting benchmark analyses, providing detailed feedback to the participating hospitals and by repeating the benchmark a year later, we strive to develop more standardized clinical pathways for the treatment of cancers. The Cancer Quality Initiative was launched in 2007 by five cancer centers. Using diagnosis procedure combination data, the member hospitals benchmarked their pre-operative and post-operative length of stays, the duration of antibiotics administrations and the post-operative fasting duration for gastric, colon and rectal cancers. The benchmark was conducted by disclosing hospital identities and performed using 2007 and 2008 data. In the 2007 benchmark, substantial differences were shown among five hospitals in the treatment of gastric, colon and rectal cancers. After providing the 2007 results to the participating hospitals and organizing several brainstorming discussions, significant improvements were observed in the 2008 data study. The benchmark analysis of clinical data is extremely useful in promoting more standardized care and, thus in improving the quality of cancer treatment in Japan. By repeating the benchmark analyses, we can offer truly clinical evidence-based higher quality standardized cancer treatment to our patients.

Establishment of human cell lines showing circadian rhythms of bioluminescence.

We have established human retinal pigment epithelial cell lines stably expressing the luciferase gene, driven by the human Bmal1 promoter, to obtain human-derived cells that show circadian rhythms of bioluminescence after dexamethasone treatment. The average circadian period of bioluminescence for the obtained clones was 24.07+/-0.48 h. Lithium (10 mM) in the medium significantly lengthened the circadian period of bioluminescence, which is consistent with previous reports, while 2 mM or 5 mM lithium had no effect. This is the first report on the establishment of human-derived cell lines that proliferate infinitely and show circadian rhythms of bioluminescence, and also the first to investigate the effects of low-dose lithium on the circadian rhythms of human-derived cells in vitro. The established cells will be useful for various in vitro studies of human circadian rhythms and for the development of new therapies for human disorders related to circadian rhythm disturbances.