METHODS: An online survey was conducted among participants of the MD Training Program for Regulatory Authorities which provide International Medical Device Regulators Forum (IMDRF) adverse event terminology and codes, and six virtual MDAE cases.
RESULTS: All 29 of the 72 participants were regulators. In all cases, most participants selected the broad (level 1) codes rather than the detailed (level 2 or level 3) codes. While responders selected a variety of codes for all annexes in case 1, over 50% of responders selected the intended codes in case 6. The codes for cause investigation were chosen more frequently than other annexes for device problem, components, and health effect. No differences were observed in code selection amongst different stakeholders.
CONCLUSIONS: We identified the diversification in terminology and code selection for reporting MDAEs.
METHODS: We trained twenty-three participants from twelve Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) member economies about international guidelines for medical device vigilance. We developed and used six virtual cases and six questions. We divided participants into six groups and compared their opinions. We also surveyed the country's opinion to investigate the beginning point of 'patient use'. The phases of 'patient use' are divided into: 1) inspecting, 2) preparing, and 3) applying medical device.
RESULTS: As for the question on the beginning point of 'patient use,' 28.6%, 35.7%, and 35.7% of participants provided answers regarding the first, second, and third phases, respectively. In training for applying international guidelines to virtual cases, only one of the six questions reached a consensus between the two groups in all six virtual cases. For the other five questions, different judgments were given in at least two groups.
CONCLUSION: From training courses using virtual cases, we found that there was no consensus on 'patient use' point of view of medical devices. There was a significant difference in applying definitions of adverse events written in guidelines regarding the medical device associated incidents. Our results point out that international harmonization effort is needed not only to harmonize differences in regulations between countries but also to overcome diversity in perspectives existing at the site of medical device use.
AIM OF THE STUDY: The molecular mechanisms of the anti-inflammatory properties of M. accedens are not yet understood. Therefore, we examined those mechanisms using a methanol extract of M. accedens (Ma-ME) and determined the target molecule in macrophages.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated the anti-inflammatory effects of Ma-ME in lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-stimulated RAW264.7 cells and in an HCl/EtOH-triggered gastritis model in mice. To investigate the anti-inflammatory activity, we performed a nitric oxide (NO) production assay and ELISA assay for prostaglandin E2 (PGE2). RT-PCR, luciferase gene reporter assays, western blotting analyses, and a cellular thermal shift assay (CETSA) were conducted to identify the mechanism and target molecule of Ma-ME. The phytochemical composition of Ma-ME was analyzed by HPLC and LC-MS/MS.
RESULTS: Ma-ME suppressed the production of NO and PGE2 and the mRNA expression of proinflammatory genes (iNOS, IL-1β, and COX-2) in LPS-stimulated RAW264.7 cells without cytotoxicity. Ma-ME inhibited NF-κB activation by suppressing signaling molecules such as IκBα, Akt, Src, and Syk. Moreover, the CETSA assay revealed that Ma-ME binds to Syk, the most upstream molecule in the NF-κB signal pathway. Oral administration of Ma-ME not only alleviated inflammatory lesions, but also reduced the gene expression of IL-1β and p-Syk in mice with HCl/EtOH-induced gastritis. HPLC and LC-MS/MS analyses confirmed that Ma-ME contains various anti-inflammatory flavonoids, including quercetin, daidzein, and nevadensin.
CONCLUSIONS: Ma-ME exhibited anti-inflammatory activities in vitro and in vivo by targeting Syk in the NF-κB signaling pathway. Therefore, we propose that Ma-ME could be used to treat inflammatory diseases such as gastritis.
CONCLUSIONS: We have provided an overview of current evidence and expert-agreed recommendations for the definition, investigation, and management of OD. As for our original Position Paper, we hope that this updated document will encourage clinicians and researchers to adopt a common language, and in so doing, increase the methodological quality, consistency, and generalisability of work in this field.
STUDY DESIGN: The study is a systematic review regarding the evaluation of the existing questionnaire and a cohort study regarding the validation of our new MSGS questionnaire.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A Multidisciplinary Salivary Gland Society (MSGS) questionnaire consisting of 20 questions and two scoring systems was developed to quantify symptoms of dry mouth and sialadenitis. Validation of the questionnaire was carried out on 199 patients with salivary pathologies (digestive, nasal, or age-related xerostomia, post radiation therapy, post radioiodine therapy, Sjögren's syndrome, IgG4 disease, recurrent juvenile parotitis, stones, and strictures) and a control group of 66 healthy volunteers. The coherence of the questionnaire's items, its reliability to distinguish patients from healthy volunteers, its comparison with unstimulated sialometry, and the time to fill both versions were assessed.
RESULTS: The novel MSGS questionnaire showed good internal coherence of the items, indicating its pertinence: the scale reliability coefficients amounted to a Cronbach's alpha of 0.92 for Q10 and 0.90 for Q3. The time to complete Q3 and Q10 amounted, respectively, to 5.23 min (±2.3 min) and 5.65 min (±2.64 min) for patients and to 3.94 min (±3.94 min) and 3.75 min (±2.11 min) for healthy volunteers. The difference between Q3 and Q10 was not significant.
CONCLUSION: We present a novel self-administered questionnaire quantifying xerostomia and non-tumoral salivary gland pathologies. We recommend the use of the Q10 version, as its scale type is well known in the literature and it translation for international use will be more accurate. Laryngoscope, 132:322-331, 2022.