Search

Background: Outbreaks of norovirus infection can have detrimental impacts on long-term care facilities. This study investigated the incidence, clinical picture, treatment and resource use of norovirus gastroenteritis in long-term care facilities.Methods: Nineteen facilities in Osaka and Kyoto, Japan participated in questionnaire surveys conducted between 2009 and 2011 regarding the incidence of norovirus gastroenteritis. From clinical charts, the characteristics, symptoms, and treatment of infected residents were analyzed. Total drug cost per infected resident was calculated by multiplying the unit price for each drug by the daily dose and the number of days administered and summing the costs for each drug (USD 1 = JPY 100).Results: Over the 3-year period, 8 outbreaks of norovirus gastroenteritis occurred in 6 facilities. The mean clinical course of 107 infected residents in five facilities that granted permission to examine patients' medical records was 4 days, with all but one resident presenting with vomiting and/or diarrhea, and 84 (79%) also presenting with associated symptoms. Of 107 infected residents, 72 (67%) were isolated. The proportion of infected residents isolated varied from 50 to 100% depending on the facility. Of the infected residents, 81 (76%) received some type of medication, the most common being infusion (67 patients, 63%) and antibiotics (30 patients, 28%). The median total cost of all drugs administered was USD 4.4, and the median drug cost per infected resident per day was USD 2.0. Total drug cost over the entire treatment period was the highest for antibiotics, at USD 8.6.Conclusion: Clinical course was similar to those of norovirus cases examined at other long-term care facilities. The majority of infected residents received some type of medication. Although the economic burden was not large, not a few infected residents were given antibiotics, which are ineffective for norovirus. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Many of the posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) treatment guidelines recognize the use of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors as first-line pharmacological treatment. In Japan, there were no published studies investigating the effectiveness and safety of sertraline for PTSD in a clinical setting. Methods: We conducted a retrospective medical chart review of the dosage, effectiveness, and safety of sertraline for the PTSD treatment in Japan. Data were collected from medical charts of patients of PTSD, caused by various types of trauma, who were treated with sertraline between July 2006 and October 2012 during their regular clinical practice. To evaluate the effectiveness, the investigators retrospectively assessed the severity and improvement of the symptoms using the Clinical Global Impressions - Severity and the Clinical Global Impressions - Improvement. Results: The study population was 122 Japanese patients aged =18 years with a diagnosis of PTSD who were treated with sertraline (median duration, 10.6 months). Doses ranged from 12.5 to 150 mg/day, mostly 25 and 50 mg/day. The median duration of observation was 10.8 months. Out of those, 50% of patients were regarded as responders by using the Clinical Global Impressions - Improvement at the end of sertraline treatment or the last observation. Two-thirds (65.6%) of patients improved in the severity of PTSD, as assessed by Clinical Global Impressions - Severity, whereas 32.8% showed no change, and 1.6% worsened. Subgroups analyses and logistic regression analyses suggested that the type of traumatic events was the factor with the highest influence on the response rate. The adverse events in this chart review were consistent with the known safety profile of sertraline. There were no reports of serious or severe adverse events considered to be related to sertraline. Conclusions: Our study suggested the effectiveness of sertraline for the treatment of PTSD in a Japanese clinical setting, and the obtained safety profile was consistent with the generally known safety profile of sertraline. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: COPD remains a major health problem in Japan. Patients with COPD experience a reduced quality of life (QoL) and have a higher chance of work impairment and productivity loss. However, there is a lack of data on the impact of COPD in terms of QoL and work activity impairment in Japan. This study assessed the socioeconomic burden of COPD in Japan and the impact it may have on the working age population., Patients and Methods: This was a 2-year retrospective chart review in COPD patients aged ≥40 years, with at least one health care visit to clinic or hospital in the previous 12 months. Patients were required to have available medical charts for at least the previous 24 months. Symptoms were assessed using COPD assessment test score; EuroQoL Group 5 Dimension (EQ-5D-5L) and work productivity and activity impairment general health questionnaires were used to evaluate health-related QoL and work productivity, and health care resource utilization data were obtained from clinical charts., Results: In total, 71 patients aged <65 years, and 151 patients aged ≥65 years were included; the majority of patients had moderate or severe airflow limitation. Exacerbations (moderate or severe) were reported by ~35% of patients in both age groups; 52.1% and 62.9% of patients in the <65-year and ≥65-year age groups had COPD assessment test scores ≥10. EQ-5D-5L index scores in the <65-year and ≥65-year age groups were 0.79 and 0.77, respectively. Work productivity and activity impairment scores were higher in <65-year age group. Annual costs of health care resource use per patient in the <65-year and ≥65-year age groups were ¥438,975 (US$4,389) and ¥467,871 (US$4,678), respectively. Costs due to productivity loss were estimated to be ¥5,287,024 (US$52,870) in the <65-year age group and ¥3,018,974 (US$30,187) in the ≥65-year age group., Conclusion: COPD represents a significant socioeconomic burden in Japan. Patients with COPD report significant use of health care resources. Higher impact on work impairment and productivity loss was observed frequently in the working age population., Competing Interests: Disclosure The authors received no compensation related to the development of the manuscript. AI reports fees from Novartis, Chugai Pharmaceuticals Inc., Astellas Pharma Inc., CSL Behring Japan Inc., Fuji file Inc., Takeda Pharmaceuticals Inc., Sanofi Japan Inc. and grants from Gilead Sciences K.K., AbbVie GK, Abbott Japan Inc., Beckton Dickinson and Company, Eli Lilly Japan K.K., Milliman Inc., Creativ-Ceuticals Inc., Pfizer Inc., Intuitive Surgical G.K. and Terumo corporation. YF reports fees from Novartis and Boehringer Ingelheim. KH reports fees from Novartis, Nippon Boehringer Ingelheim Co. Ltd., Chugai Pharmaceuticals Co. Ltd. and Astellas Pharma Inc. MI reports fees from Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim and AstraZeneca. AN reports fees from Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Boehringer Ingelheim and AstraZeneca. MN reports fees from Novartis, Nippon Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca and grants from Novartis Pharma K.K. HY, KO and JG are employees of study sponsor. The authors report no other conflicts of interest in this work.