Objective: A hospital Formulary (HF) is useful not only for providing a list of formulary drugs, but also for drug safety management and clinical practice in hospitals.  Our Pharmacy Division serves as a clinical training facility for the Faculty of Medicine and offers a bedside learning (BSL) program that allows students to participate in medical services.  Providing medical students with a requisite understanding of pharmacotherapy in order to effectively provide medical services is the goal of the core curriculum of medical education and HF use in BSL may be effective in achieving this goal.  We conducted a survey in order to examine the usefulness of an HF for medical students during clinical training and to determine what drug information is required by students.
Methods: Between April 2012 and March 2013, a questionnaire survey was conducted on 88 fifth-year medical students    who participated in a 1-day BSL program using an HF.
Results: The response rate was 100%.  All students responded that they understood how to use the HF and believed it was useful in BSL.  However, the level of satisfaction with the explanatory notes was significantly lower than that of other sections providing clinically useful additional information such as monographs or supplementary tables (p<0.05).  More than 80% of the students considered monographs to be useful for obtaining information on side effects, warnings and contraindications, dosage and administration, indications, dosing in renal impairment, and drug name.  Students generally considered supplementary tables useful for obtaining information on serious side effects and their early identification, points of drug use in renal dysfunction, appropriate drug use in cancer chemotherapy, insulin and diabetes treatment, calculations of pediatric dosing, and a list of clinically used abbreviations.
Conclusion: These results suggest that medical students believe an HF is useful in BSL.  When medical students participate in pharmacotherapy during BSL programs outside the Pharmacy Division, an HF that not only lists drugs but also contains supplementary tables of clinically useful information may be required.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the present study was to clarify the relationship between white matter tracts and cognitive symptoms in children with high-functioning autism spectrum disorder (ASD). METHODS: We examined the cognitive functions of 17 children with high-functioning ASD and 18 typically developing (TD) controls and performed diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) tractography. We compared the results between the groups and investigated the correlations between the cognitive scores and DTI parameters within each group. RESULTS: The Comprehension scores in the ASD group exhibited a positive correlation with mean diffusivity (MD) in the forceps minor (F minor). In the TD group, the Comprehension scores were positively correlated with fractional anisotropy (FA) in the right inferior fronto-occipital fasciculus (IFO) and left anterior thalamic radiation (ATR), and negatively correlated with MD in the left ATR, radial diffusivity (RD) in the right IFO, and RD in the left ATR. Additionally, a positive correlation was observed between the Matching Numbers scores and MD in the left uncinate fasciculus and F minor, and RD in the F minor. Furthermore, the Sentence Questions scores exhibited a positive correlation with RD in the right inferior longitudinal fasciculus. Relative to TD controls, the specific tract showing a strong correlation with the cognitive scores was reduced in the ASD group. CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate that white matter tracts connecting specific brain areas may exhibit a weaker relationship with cognitive functions in children with ASD, resulting in less efficient cognitive pathways than those observed in TD children.
Anisotropy ; Autism Spectrum Disorder ; Autistic Disorder ; Brain ; Child ; Cognition ; Comprehension ; Diffusion Tensor Imaging ; Humans ; Neurobehavioral Manifestations ; Surgical Instruments ; White Matter

Objective: In the global phase 3 Study 309/KEYNOTE-775 (NCT03517449) at the first interim analysis, lenvatinib+pembrolizumab significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and objective response rate (ORR) versus treatment of physician’s choice chemotherapy (TPC) in patients with previously treated advanced/recurrent endometrial cancer (EC). This exploratory analysis evaluated outcomes in patients enrolled in East Asia at the time of prespecified final analysis. Methods: Women ≥18 years with histologically confirmed advanced, recurrent, or metastatic EC with progressive disease after 1 platinum-based chemotherapy (2 if 1 given in neoadjuvant/ adjuvant setting) were enrolled. Patients were randomized 1:1 to lenvatinib 20 mg orally once daily plus pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks (≤35 cycles) or TPC (doxorubicin or paclitaxel). Primary endpoints were PFS per RECIST v1.1 by blinded independent central review and OS. No alpha was assigned for this subgroup analysis. Results: Among 155 East Asian patients (lenvatinib+pembrolizumab, n=77; TPC, n=78), median follow-up time (data cutoff: March 1, 2022) was 34.3 (range, 25.1–43.0) months.Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for PFS (lenvatinib+pembrolizumab vs. TPC) were 0.74 (0.49–1.10) and 0.64 (0.44–0.94) in the mismatch repair proficient (pMMR) and all-comer populations, respectively. HRs (95% CI) for OS were 0.68 (0.45–1.02) and 0.61 (0.41–0.90), respectively. ORRs were 36% with lenvatinib+pembrolizumab and 22% with TPC (pMMR) and 39% and 21%, respectively (all-comers). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 97% and 96% (grade 3–5, 74% and 72%), respectively. Conclusion Lenvatinib+pembrolizumab provided clinically meaningful benefit with manageable safety compared with TPC, supporting its use in East Asian patients with previously treated advanced/recurrent EC.

Objective: In the global phase 3 Study 309/KEYNOTE-775 (NCT03517449) at the first interim analysis, lenvatinib+pembrolizumab significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and objective response rate (ORR) versus treatment of physician’s choice chemotherapy (TPC) in patients with previously treated advanced/recurrent endometrial cancer (EC). This exploratory analysis evaluated outcomes in patients enrolled in East Asia at the time of prespecified final analysis. Methods: Women ≥18 years with histologically confirmed advanced, recurrent, or metastatic EC with progressive disease after 1 platinum-based chemotherapy (2 if 1 given in neoadjuvant/ adjuvant setting) were enrolled. Patients were randomized 1:1 to lenvatinib 20 mg orally once daily plus pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks (≤35 cycles) or TPC (doxorubicin or paclitaxel). Primary endpoints were PFS per RECIST v1.1 by blinded independent central review and OS. No alpha was assigned for this subgroup analysis. Results: Among 155 East Asian patients (lenvatinib+pembrolizumab, n=77; TPC, n=78), median follow-up time (data cutoff: March 1, 2022) was 34.3 (range, 25.1–43.0) months.Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for PFS (lenvatinib+pembrolizumab vs. TPC) were 0.74 (0.49–1.10) and 0.64 (0.44–0.94) in the mismatch repair proficient (pMMR) and all-comer populations, respectively. HRs (95% CI) for OS were 0.68 (0.45–1.02) and 0.61 (0.41–0.90), respectively. ORRs were 36% with lenvatinib+pembrolizumab and 22% with TPC (pMMR) and 39% and 21%, respectively (all-comers). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 97% and 96% (grade 3–5, 74% and 72%), respectively. Conclusion Lenvatinib+pembrolizumab provided clinically meaningful benefit with manageable safety compared with TPC, supporting its use in East Asian patients with previously treated advanced/recurrent EC.

Objective: In the global phase 3 Study 309/KEYNOTE-775 (NCT03517449) at the first interim analysis, lenvatinib+pembrolizumab significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and objective response rate (ORR) versus treatment of physician’s choice chemotherapy (TPC) in patients with previously treated advanced/recurrent endometrial cancer (EC). This exploratory analysis evaluated outcomes in patients enrolled in East Asia at the time of prespecified final analysis. Methods: Women ≥18 years with histologically confirmed advanced, recurrent, or metastatic EC with progressive disease after 1 platinum-based chemotherapy (2 if 1 given in neoadjuvant/ adjuvant setting) were enrolled. Patients were randomized 1:1 to lenvatinib 20 mg orally once daily plus pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks (≤35 cycles) or TPC (doxorubicin or paclitaxel). Primary endpoints were PFS per RECIST v1.1 by blinded independent central review and OS. No alpha was assigned for this subgroup analysis. Results: Among 155 East Asian patients (lenvatinib+pembrolizumab, n=77; TPC, n=78), median follow-up time (data cutoff: March 1, 2022) was 34.3 (range, 25.1–43.0) months.Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for PFS (lenvatinib+pembrolizumab vs. TPC) were 0.74 (0.49–1.10) and 0.64 (0.44–0.94) in the mismatch repair proficient (pMMR) and all-comer populations, respectively. HRs (95% CI) for OS were 0.68 (0.45–1.02) and 0.61 (0.41–0.90), respectively. ORRs were 36% with lenvatinib+pembrolizumab and 22% with TPC (pMMR) and 39% and 21%, respectively (all-comers). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 97% and 96% (grade 3–5, 74% and 72%), respectively. Conclusion Lenvatinib+pembrolizumab provided clinically meaningful benefit with manageable safety compared with TPC, supporting its use in East Asian patients with previously treated advanced/recurrent EC.