Translation, reliability, and validity of Japanese version of the Respiratory Distress Observation Scale

Dyspnea is a common, distressing symptom of cardiopulmonary and neuromuscular diseases and is defined as “a subjective experience of breathing discomfort that consists of qualitatively distinct sensations that vary in intensity.” However, Japanese intensive care units (ICUs) do not routinely screen for dyspnea, as no validated Japanese version of the Respiratory Distress Observation Scale (RDOS) is available. Therefore, we aimed to translate the English version of this questionnaire into Japanese and assess its validity and reliability. To translate the RDOS, we conducted a prospective observational study in a 12-bed ICU of a universal hospital that included 42 healthcare professionals, 10 expert panels, and 128 ventilated patients. The English version was translated into Japanese, and several cross-sectional web-based questionnaires were administered to the healthcare professionals. After completing the translation process, a validity and reliability evaluation was performed in the ventilated patients. Inter-rater reliability was evaluated using Cohen’s weighted kappa coefficient. Criterion validity was ascertained based on the correlation between RDOS and the dyspnea visual analog scale. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was used to evaluate the ability of the RDOS to identify patients with self-reported dyspnea. The average content validity index at the scale level was 0.95. Data from the 128 patients were collected and analyzed. Cohen’s weighted kappa coefficient and the correlation coefficient between the two scales were 0.76 and 0.443 (95% confidence intervals 0.70–0.82 and 0.23–0.62), respectively. For predicting self-reported dyspnea, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.81 (95% confidence interval 0.67–0.97). The optimal cutoff used was 1, with a sensitivity and specificity of 0.89 and 0.61, respectively. Our findings indicated that the Japanese version of the RDOS is acceptable for face validity, understandability, criterion validity, and inter-rater reliability in lightly sedated mechanically ventilated patients, indicating its clinical utility

The effectiveness of a multidisciplinary QI activity for accidental fall prevention: Staff compliance is critical

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Accidental falls among inpatients are a substantial cause of hospital injury. A number of successful experimental studies on fall prevention have shown the importance and efficacy of multifactorial intervention, though success rates vary. However, the importance of staff compliance with these effective, but often time-consuming, multifactorial interventions has not been fully investigated in a routine clinical setting. The purpose of this observational study was to describe the effectiveness of a multidisciplinary quality improvement (QI) activity for accidental fall prevention, with particular focus on staff compliance in a non-experimental clinical setting.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This observational study was conducted from July 2004 through December 2010 at St. Luke’s International Hospital in Tokyo, Japan. The QI activity for in-patient falls prevention consisted of: 1) the fall risk assessment tool, 2) an intervention protocol to prevent in-patient falls, 3) specific environmental safety interventions, 4) staff education, and 5) multidisciplinary healthcare staff compliance monitoring and feedback mechanisms.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The overall fall rate was 2.13 falls per 1000 patient days (350/164331) in 2004 versus 1.53 falls per 1000 patient days (263/172325) in 2010, representing a significant decrease (p = 0.039). In the first 6 months, compliance with use of the falling risk assessment tool at admission was 91.5% in 2007 (3998/4368), increasing to 97.6% in 2010 (10564/10828). The staff compliance rate of implementing an appropriate intervention plan was 85.9% in 2007, increasing to 95.3% in 2010.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>In our study we observed a substantial decrease in patient fall rates and an increase of staff compliance with a newly implemented falls prevention program. A systematized QI approach that closely involves, encourages, and educates healthcare staff at multiple levels is effective.</p

Safety and efficacy of eculizumab in anti-acetylcholine receptor antibody-positive refractory generalised myasthenia gravis (REGAIN): a phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre study

Background Complement is likely to have a role in refractory generalised myasthenia gravis, but no approved therapies specifically target this system. Results from a phase 2 study suggested that eculizumab, a terminal complement inhibitor, produced clinically meaningful improvements in patients with anti-acetylcholine receptor antibody-positive refractory generalised myasthenia gravis. We further assessed the efficacy and safety of eculizumab in this patient population in a phase 3 trial. Methods We did a phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre study (REGAIN) in 76 hospitals and specialised clinics in 17 countries across North America, Latin America, Europe, and Asia. Eligible patients were aged at least 18 years, with a Myasthenia Gravis-Activities of Daily Living (MG-ADL) score of 6 or more, Myasthenia Gravis Foundation of America (MGFA) class II\ue2\u80\u93IV disease, vaccination against Neisseria meningitides, and previous treatment with at least two immunosuppressive therapies or one immunosuppressive therapy and chronic intravenous immunoglobulin or plasma exchange for 12 months without symptom control. Patients with a history of thymoma or thymic neoplasms, thymectomy within 12 months before screening, or use of intravenous immunoglobulin or plasma exchange within 4 weeks before randomisation, or rituximab within 6 months before screening, were excluded. We randomly assigned participants (1:1) to either intravenous eculizumab or intravenous matched placebo for 26 weeks. Dosing for eculizumab was 900 mg on day 1 and at weeks 1, 2, and 3; 1200 mg at week 4; and 1200 mg given every second week thereafter as maintenance dosing. Randomisation was done centrally with an interactive voice or web-response system with patients stratified to one of four groups based on MGFA disease classification. Where possible, patients were maintained on existing myasthenia gravis therapies and rescue medication was allowed at the study physician's discretion. Patients, investigators, staff, and outcome assessors were masked to treatment assignment. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change from baseline to week 26 in MG-ADL total score measured by worst-rank ANCOVA. The efficacy population set was defined as all patients randomly assigned to treatment groups who received at least one dose of study drug, had a valid baseline MG-ADL assessment, and at least one post-baseline MG-ADL assessment. The safety analyses included all randomly assigned patients who received eculizumab or placebo. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01997229. Findings Between April 30, 2014, and Feb 19, 2016, we randomly assigned and treated 125 patients, 62 with eculizumab and 63 with placebo. The primary analysis showed no significant difference between eculizumab and placebo (least-squares mean rank 56\uc2\ub76 [SEM 4\uc2\ub75] vs 68\uc2\ub73 [4\uc2\ub75]; rank-based treatment difference \ue2\u88\u9211\uc2\ub77, 95% CI \ue2\u88\u9224\uc2\ub73 to 0\uc2\ub796; p=0\uc2\ub70698). No deaths or cases of meningococcal infection occurred during the study. The most common adverse events in both groups were headache and upper respiratory tract infection (ten [16%] for both events in the eculizumab group and 12 [19%] for both in the placebo group). Myasthenia gravis exacerbations were reported by six (10%) patients in the eculizumab group and 15 (24%) in the placebo group. Six (10%) patients in the eculizumab group and 12 (19%) in the placebo group required rescue therapy. Interpretation The change in the MG-ADL score was not statistically significant between eculizumab and placebo, as measured by the worst-rank analysis. Eculizumab was well tolerated. The use of a worst-rank analytical approach proved to be an important limitation of this study since the secondary and sensitivity analyses results were inconsistent with the primary endpoint result; further research into the role of complement is needed. Funding Alexion Pharmaceuticals