A CASE OF GYNECOMASTIA ASSOCIATED WITH EFAVIRENZ

We herein report on an HIV-infected patient with gynecomastia caused by efavirenz (EFV). A 57-year-old man was diagnosed with HIV-1 infection in 1994. He started therapy with zidovudine / lamivudine, didanosine, and EFV in December 2002. He felt painfu1 breast hypertrophy after 5 months. There were firm, tender, unattached masses under the bilateral nipples, and ultrasonography showed benign enlargement of the breast without adipomastia. The blood levels of thyroid hormones, testosterone, estradiol, prolactin, and cortisol were normal. Therefore, we diagnosed him as having EFV-induced gynecomastia because of medication history and examinations. Although EFV was not stopped, his gynecomastia gradually improved

Clonal Dissemination of Macrolide-Resistant and Penicillin-Susceptible Serotype 3 and Penicillin-Resistant Taiwan 19F-14 and 23F-15 Streptococcus pneumoniae Isolates in Japan: a Pilot Surveillance Study

Large-scale surveillance studies using molecular techniques such as pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) have revealed that the spread of antibiotic-resistant pneumococci is due to clonal spread. However, in Japan, surveillance studies using such molecular techniques have never been done. Therefore, we conducted a pilot surveillance study to elucidate the present situation in Japan. Among the 145 isolates examined, the most prevalent serotype was type 19F (20%), for which most isolates were not susceptible to penicillin (86.2%) but were positive for the mef(A)/mef(E) gene (89.7%). The secondmost prevalent was serotype 3 (16.6%), for which most isolates were susceptible to penicillin (87.5%) and positive for the erm(B) gene (91.7%). PFGE analysis showed that both serotypes consisted mainly of clonally identical or related isolates and, in particular, 38% of the type 19F isolates were indistinguishable from or closely related to the Taiwan 19F-14 clone. In addition, some of the Japanese type 23F isolates with the erm(B) gene were indistinguishable from or related to the Taiwan 23F-15 clone as analyzed by PFGE. Based on the results of our pilot study performed in a single institution, it is likely that international antibiotic-resistant clones have already spread in Japan; therefore, a nationwide surveillance study should be urgently conducted

National trends in the outcomes of subarachnoid haemorrhage and the prognostic influence of stroke centre capability in Japan: retrospective cohort study

Objectives To examine the national, 6-year trends in in-hospital clinical outcomes of patients with subarachnoid haemorrhage (SAH) who underwent clipping or coiling and the prognostic influence of temporal trends in the Comprehensive Stroke Center (CSC) capabilities on patient outcomes in Japan.Design Retrospective study.Setting Six hundred and thirty-one primary care institutions in Japan.Participants Forty-five thousand and eleven patients with SAH who were urgently hospitalised, identified using the J-ASPECT Diagnosis Procedure Combination database.Primary and secondary outcome measures Annual number of patients with SAH who remained untreated, or who received clipping or coiling, in-hospital mortality and poor functional outcomes (modified Rankin Scale: 3–6) at discharge. Each CSC was assessed using a validated scoring system (CSC score: 1–25 points).Results In the overall cohort, in-hospital mortality decreased (year for trend, OR (95% CI): 0.97 (0.96 to 0.99)), while the proportion of poor functional outcomes remained unchanged (1.00 (0.98 to 1.02)). The proportion of patients who underwent clipping gradually decreased from 46.6% to 38.5%, while that of those who received coiling and those left untreated gradually increased from 16.9% to 22.6% and 35.4% to 38%, respectively. In-hospital mortality of coiled (0.94 (0.89 to 0.98)) and untreated (0.93 (0.90 to 0.96)) patients decreased, whereas that of clipped patients remained stable. CSC score improvement was associated with increased use of coiling (per 1-point increase, 1.14 (1.08 to 1.20)) but not with short-term patient outcomes regardless of treatment modality.Conclusions The 6-year trends indicated lower in-hospital mortality for patients with SAH (attributable to better outcomes), increased use of coiling and multidisciplinary care for untreated patients. Further increasing CSC capabilities may improve overall outcomes, mainly by increasing the use of coiling. Additional studies are necessary to determine the effect of confounders such as aneurysm complexity on outcomes of clipped patients in the modern endovascular era

Long-term safety and efficacy of alogliptin, a DPP-4 inhibitor, in patients with type 2 diabetes: a 3-year prospective, controlled, observational study (J-BRAND Registry)

Introduction Given an increasing use of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors to treat patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in the real-world setting, we conducted a prospective observational study (Japan-based Clinical Research Network for Diabetes Registry: J-BRAND Registry) to elucidate the safety and efficacy profile of long-term usage of alogliptin.Research design and methods We registered 5969 patients from April 2012 through September 2014, who started receiving alogliptin (group A) or other classes of oral hypoglycemic agents (OHAs; group B), and were followed for 3 years at 239 sites nationwide. Safety was the primary outcome. Symptomatic hypoglycemia, pancreatitis, skin disorders of non-extrinsic origin, severe infections, and cancer were collected as major adverse events (AEs). Efficacy assessment was the secondary outcome and included changes in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), fasting blood glucose, fasting insulin and urinary albumin.Results Of the registered, 5150 (group A: 3395 and group B: 1755) and 5096 (3358 and 1738) were included for safety and efficacy analysis, respectively. Group A patients mostly (>90%) continued to use alogliptin. In group B, biguanides were the primary agents, while DPP-4 inhibitors were added in up to ~36% of patients. The overall incidence of AEs was similar between the two groups (42.7% vs 42.2%). Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed the incidence of cancer was significantly higher in group A than in group B (7.4% vs 4.8%, p=0.040), while no significant incidence difference was observed in the individual cancer. Multivariate Cox regression analysis revealed that the imbalanced patient distribution (more elderly patients in group A than in group B), but not alogliptin usage per se, contributed to cancer development. The incidence of other major AE categories was with no between-group difference. Between-group difference was not detected, either, in the incidence of microvascular and macrovascular complications. HbA1c and fasting glucose decreased significantly at the 0.5-year visit and nearly plateaued thereafter in both groups.Conclusions Alogliptin as a representative of DPP-4 inhibitors was safe and durably efficacious when used alone or with other OHAs for patients with type 2 diabetes in the real world setting

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field