イートモ対訳のサンプル

2020年1月16日 (木)

REDUCE-IT試験

Medical Translator NARITAです。

 

リョウさんから情報をいただきました。ありがとうございます。

Vas

 

Vascepaで検索するとたくさんプレスリリースが見つかります。

https://www.bloomberg.co.jp/news/articles/2019-11-15/Q0ZDART1UM0W01

https://dresources.jp/archives/3859

これらのプレスリリースでVascepaの概略を知った上で、みなさん大好きなNEJMのarticleを対訳化してみよう。

すでに魚油関係の対訳は収録されていますが、さらに充実させようと思います。

日本の製薬会社も絡んでいるようだから、対訳化しておく価値はありそうです。

 

念のため、NEJMによる和訳も吟味しておきます。

後で。

 

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1812792

Cardiovascular Risk Reduction with Icosapent Ethyl for Hypertriglyceridemia

 

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Patients with elevated triglyceride levels are at increased risk for ischemic events. Icosapent ethyl, a highly purified eicosapentaenoic acid ethyl ester, lowers triglyceride levels, but data are needed to determine its effects on ischemic events.

 

METHODS

We performed a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving patients with established cardiovascular disease or with diabetes and other risk factors, who had been receiving statin therapy and who had a fasting triglyceride level of 135 to 499 mg per deciliter (1.52 to 5.63 mmol per liter) and a low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level of 41 to 100 mg per deciliter (1.06 to 2.59 mmol per liter). The patients were randomly assigned to receive 2 g of icosapent ethyl twice daily (total daily dose, 4 g) or placebo. The primary end point was a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, coronary revascularization, or unstable angina. The key secondary end point was a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke.

 

RESULTS

A total of 8179 patients were enrolled (70.7% for secondary prevention of cardiovascular events) and were followed for a median of 4.9 years. A primary end-point event occurred in 17.2% of the patients in the icosapent ethyl group, as compared with 22.0% of the patients in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68 to 0.83; P<0.001); the corresponding rates of the key secondary end point were 11.2% and 14.8% (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.83; P<0.001). The rates of additional ischemic end points, as assessed according to a prespecified hierarchical schema, were significantly lower in the icosapent ethyl group than in the placebo group, including the rate of cardiovascular death (4.3% vs. 5.2%; hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.66 to 0.98; P=0.03). A larger percentage of patients in the icosapent ethyl group than in the placebo group were hospitalized for atrial fibrillation or flutter (3.1% vs. 2.1%, P=0.004). Serious bleeding events occurred in 2.7% of the patients in the icosapent ethyl group and in 2.1% in the placebo group (P=0.06).

 

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with elevated triglyceride levels despite the use of statins, the risk of ischemic events, including cardiovascular death, was significantly lower among those who received 2 g of icosapent ethyl twice daily than among those who received placebo. (Funded by Amarin Pharma; REDUCE-IT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01492361. opens in new tab.)

https://www.nejm.jp/abstract/vol380.p11

高トリグリセリド血症に対するイコサペント酸エチルによる心血管リスクの低減

 

背景

トリグリセリド高値の患者は虚血性イベントのリスクが高い.高純度エイコサペンタエン酸エチルエステルであるイコサペント酸エチルはトリグリセリド値を低下させるが,虚血性イベントに及ぼす影響を明らかにするためのデータが必要である.

 

方 法

心血管疾患を有する患者,または糖尿病と他の危険因子を有する患者で,スタチン療法を受けており,空腹時トリグリセリド値 135~499 mg/dL(1.52~5.63 mmol/L),低比重リポ蛋白コレステロール値 41~100 mg/dL(1.06~2.59 mmol/L)の例を対象に,多施設共同無作為化二重盲検プラセボ対照試験を行った.患者を,イコサペント酸エチル 2 g を 1 日 2 回(1 日量 4 g)投与する群とプラセボを投与する群に無作為に割り付けた.主要評価項目は,心血管死亡,非致死的心筋梗塞,非致死的脳卒中,冠血行再建,不安定狭心症の複合とした.主な副次的評価項目は,心血管死亡,非致死的心筋梗塞,非致死的脳卒中の複合とした.

 

結 果

8,179 例を登録し(70.7%は心血管イベントの二次予防目的),中央値 4.9 年間追跡した.主要評価項目イベントは,イコサペント酸エチル群の 17.2%で発生したのに対し,プラセボ群では 22.0%であり(ハザード比 0.75,95%信頼区間 [CI] 0.68~0.83,P<0.001),対応する主な副次的評価項目の発生率はそれぞれ 11.2%と 14.8%であった(ハザード比 0.74,95% CI 0.65~0.83,P<0.001).イコサペント酸エチル群のほうがプラセボ群よりも,事前に規定した階層的手法で評価した,追加の虚血性イベント評価項目の発生率,たとえば心血管死亡率(4.3% 対 5.2%,ハザード比 0.80,95% CI 0.66~0.98,P=0.03)などが有意に低かった.心房細動や心房粗動による入院の割合は,イコサペント酸エチル群のほうがプラセボ群よりも高かった(3.1% 対 2.1%,P=0.004).重篤な出血イベントは,イコサペント酸エチル群の 2.7%とプラセボ群の 2.1%で発生した(P=0.06).

 

結 論

スタチンを使用していてもトリグリセリド高値の患者において,心血管死亡などの虚血性イベントのリスクは,イコサペント酸エチル 2 g を 1 日 2 回投与した例のほうが,プラセボ投与例よりも有意に低かった.(Amarin Pharma 社から研究助成を受けた.REDUCE-IT 試験:ClinicalTrials.gov 登録番号 NCT01492361)

 

本文については、NEJMによる和訳がないので、機械にかけながら、イートモ用に対訳化・編集する予定です。

時間のある時に。

一応、ブログ上にキープします。

 

こんな作業を毎日続けていれば、翻訳会社のトライアル水準よりもいつの間にかはるか上に行くわけです。

その上、ビジネスマナーが良ければ翻訳会社は手放しませんよ。

気が付いたら翻訳会社のトライアル水準をはるかに超えていたという人じゃないと現場で通用しません。

翻訳スクールに行ったり、翻訳関係の検定を受けたり、トライアルとか検定合格を目標にする意味がわからん。

 

そこのあなた!

翻訳スクールや検定なんかでもたもたしていないで、イートモで一気にジャンプして、早く機械を利用する側に入らんと、今までの努力が無駄になりまっせ。w

いやホント。

 

Among patients with cardiovascular risk factors who are receiving treatment for secondary or primary prevention, the rates of cardiovascular events remain high.1-3 Even in patients receiving appropriate treatment with statins, a substantial residual cardiovascular risk remains.4 In such patients, an elevated triglyceride level serves as an independent marker for an increased risk of ischemic events, as shown in epidemiologic and mendelian randomization studies.5-9 In randomized trials, medications that reduce triglyceride levels, such as extended-release niacin and fibrates, have not reduced the rates of cardiovascular events when administered in addition to appropriate medical therapy, including statins.10 Contemporary trials and recent meta-analyses of n−3 fatty acid products have not shown a benefit in patients receiving statin therapy.11-13

 

In the Japan EPA Lipid Intervention Study (JELIS), 18,645 Japanese patients with hypercholesterolemia were randomly assigned to receive either low-intensity statin therapy plus 1.8 g of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) daily or statin therapy alone (there was no placebo group). The risk of major coronary events was significantly lower, by 19%, in the group that received EPA plus statin therapy than in the group that received statin therapy alone.14

 

These considerations led to the design of the Reduction of Cardiovascular Events with Icosapent Ethyl–Intervention Trial (REDUCE-IT).15 Icosapent ethyl is a highly purified and stable EPA ethyl ester that has been shown to lower triglyceride levels and is used as an adjunct to diet in adult patients who have triglyceride levels of at least 500 mg per deciliter (5.64 mmol per liter).16,17 In addition, icosapent ethyl may have antiinflammatory, antioxidative, plaque-stabilizing, and membrane-stabilizing properties.18-21 We hypothesized that the risk of cardiovascular events would be lower with icosapent ethyl therapy than with placebo among patients in whom elevated triglyceride levels served as a marker of residual risk despite statin therapy.

 

Methods

TRIAL DESIGN

The design of REDUCE-IT has been published previously.15 In brief, REDUCE-IT was a phase 3b randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial comparing icosapent ethyl (2 g twice daily with food [total daily dose, 4 g]) with a placebo that contains mineral oil to mimic the color and consistency of icosapent ethyl. Randomization was stratified according to cardiovascular risk stratum (secondary-prevention cohort or primary-prevention cohort, with primary prevention capped at 30% of enrolled patients), use or no use of ezetimibe, and geographic region. Further details of the study design are provided in Figure S1 in the Supplementary Appendix, available with the full text of this article at NEJM.org. Patients were enrolled and followed at 473 participating sites in 11 countries. The first patient underwent randomization on November 28, 2011, and the last on August 4, 2016.

 

The trial was sponsored by Amarin Pharma. The steering committee, which consisted of academic physicians (see the Supplementary Appendix), and representatives of the sponsor developed the protocol, available at NEJM.org, and were responsible for the conduct and oversight of the study, as well as the interpretation of the data. The sponsor was responsible for the collection and management of the data. The protocol was approved by the relevant health authorities, institutional review boards, and ethics committees. All the data analyses were performed by the sponsor, and the primary, secondary, and tertiary adjudicated end-point analyses were validated by an independent statistician from the data and safety monitoring committee. The first author vouches for the completeness and accuracy of the data and analyses and for the fidelity of the trial to the protocol.

 

ELIGIBILITY

Patients could be enrolled if they were 45 years of age or older and had established cardiovascular disease or were 50 years of age or older and had diabetes mellitus and at least one additional risk factor. Eligible patients had a fasting triglyceride level of 150 to 499 mg per deciliter (1.69 to 5.63 mmol per liter) and a low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol level of 41 to 100 mg per deciliter (1.06 to 2.59 mmol per liter) and had been receiving a stable dose of a statin for at least 4 weeks; because of the intraindividual variability of triglyceride levels, the initial protocol allowed for a 10% lower triglyceride level from the target lower limit, which permitted patients to be enrolled if they had a triglyceride level of at least 135 mg per deciliter (1.52 mmol per liter). The first protocol amendment in May 2013 changed the lower limit of the acceptable triglyceride level from 150 mg per deciliter to 200 mg per deciliter (2.26 mmol per liter), with no allowance for variability. Patients were excluded if they had severe heart failure, active severe liver disease, a glycated hemoglobin level greater than 10.0%, a planned coronary intervention or surgery, a history of acute or chronic pancreatitis, or known hypersensitivity to fish, shellfish, or ingredients of icosapent ethyl or placebo. Further details regarding inclusion and exclusion criteria are provided in Tables S1 and S2 in the Supplementary Appendix. Written informed consent was obtained from all patients.

 

END POINTS

The primary efficacy end point was a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction (including silent myocardial infarction), nonfatal stroke, coronary revascularization, or unstable angina in a time-to-event analysis. While the steering committee and the sponsor remained unaware of the trial-group assignments, a second protocol amendment in July 2016 designated the key secondary end point as a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke in a time-to-event analysis. After the primary efficacy end-point analysis was performed, the prespecified secondary efficacy end points were examined in a hierarchical fashion in the following order: the key secondary efficacy end point; a composite of cardiovascular death or nonfatal myocardial infarction; fatal or nonfatal myocardial infarction; emergency or urgent revascularization; cardiovascular death; hospitalization for unstable angina; fatal or nonfatal stroke; a composite of death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke; and death from any cause. Prespecified tertiary end points are listed in the Supplementary Appendix. Adjudication of all the above events was performed by an independent clinical end-point committee whose members were unaware of the trial-group assignments and lipid levels.

 

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

In this event-driven trial, it was estimated that approximately 1612 adjudicated primary end-point events would be necessary to provide the trial with 90% power to detect a 15% lower risk of the primary composite end point in the icosapent ethyl group than in the placebo group. We estimated that a sample size of approximately 7990 patients would be required to reach that number of primary end-point events. The primary efficacy analysis was based on the time from randomization to the first occurrence of any component of the primary composite end point. If the risk of the primary composite end point was significantly lower with icosapent ethyl than with placebo at a final two-sided alpha level of 0.0437 (as determined with the use of O’Brien–Fleming boundaries generated with the Lan–DeMets alpha-spending function approach after accounting for two prespecified interim efficacy analyses), the key secondary end point and other prespecified secondary end points were to be tested in a hierarchical fashion at the same final alpha level of 0.0437. All analyses were performed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals were generated with the use of a Cox proportional-hazards model that included trial-group assignment as a covariate, stratified according to cardiovascular risk category, geographic region, and use of ezetimibe. Log-rank P values from a Kaplan–Meier analysis that was stratified according to the three randomization factors are reported to evaluate the timing of events in the two trial groups. With respect to the tertiary and subgroup efficacy analyses, 95% confidence intervals (which were not adjusted for multiple comparisons) are reported. An independent data and safety monitoring committee oversaw the study and performed two prespecified interim efficacy reviews.

 

Results

PATIENTS

A total of 19,212 patients were screened, of whom 8179 (43%) underwent randomization. At the time of database lock, vital status was available for 99.8% of the patients; 152 patients (1.9%) did not complete the final study visits, and 578 patients (7.1%) withdrew consent. Details regarding the disposition of the patients are provided in Figure S2 in the Supplementary Appendix.

The baseline characteristics of the patients are shown in Table 1. Among the patients who underwent randomization, 70.7% were enrolled on the basis of secondary prevention (i.e., patients had established cardiovascular disease) and 29.3% on the basis of primary prevention (i.e., patients had diabetes mellitus and at least one additional risk factor). The median age of the patients was 64 years; 28.8% were female, and 38.5% were from the United States. At baseline, the median LDL cholesterol level was 75.0 mg per deciliter (1.94 mmol per liter), the median high-density lipoprotein cholesterol level was 40.0 mg per deciliter (1.03 mmol per liter), and the median triglyceride level was 216.0 mg per deciliter (2.44 mmol per liter).22

 

FOLLOW-UP AND EFFECTS ON LIPIDS

The median duration of follow-up was 4.9 years (maximum, 6.2 years). The median change in triglyceride level from baseline to 1 year was a decrease of 18.3% (−39.0 mg per deciliter [−0.44 mmol per liter]) in the icosapent ethyl group and an increase of 2.2% (4.5 mg per deciliter [0.05 mmol per liter]) in the placebo group; the median reduction from baseline (as estimated with the use of the Hodges–Lehmann approach) was 19.7% greater in the icosapent ethyl group than in the placebo group (a 44.5 mg per deciliter [0.50 mmol per liter] greater reduction; P<0.001). The median change in LDL cholesterol level from baseline was an increase of 3.1% (2.0 mg per deciliter [0.05 mmol per liter]) in the icosapent ethyl group and an increase of 10.2% (7.0 mg per deciliter [0.18 mmol per liter]) in the placebo group — a 6.6% (5.0 mg per deciliter [0.13 mmol per liter]) lower increase with icosapent ethyl than with placebo (P<0.001). The results with respect to levels of EPA and lipid, lipoprotein, and inflammatory biomarkers are provided in Table S4 in the Supplementary Appendix.

 

CLINICAL END POINTS

Figure 1.

 

Cumulative Incidence of Cardiovascular Events.

A total of 1606 adjudicated primary end-point events occurred. A primary end-point event occurred in 17.2% of the patients in the icosapent ethyl group, as compared with 22.0% of the patients in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68 to 0.83; P<0.001), an absolute between-group difference of 4.8 percentage points (95% CI, 3.1 to 6.5); the number needed to treat to avoid one primary end-point event was 21 (95% CI, 15 to 33) over a median follow-up of 4.9 years.23,24 The event curves based on a Kaplan–Meier analysis of the primary efficacy end point are provided in Figure 1A. The results of time-to-event analyses of each component of the primary end point are provided in Figure S3 in the Supplementary Appendix. A key secondary efficacy end-point event (Figure 1B) occurred in 11.2% of the patients in the icosapent ethyl group, as compared with 14.8% of the patients in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.83; P<0.001), corresponding to an absolute between-group difference of 3.6 percentage points (95% CI, 2.1 to 5.0); the number needed to treat to avoid one key secondary end-point event was 28 (95% CI, 20 to 47) over a median follow-up 4.9 years.23,24

 

 

 

As a result of the review of the submitted plan for the post-marketing surveillance, PMDA has concluded as follows:

 Since the data submitted in the present application contain only a limited amount of information on the safety of crizotinib in Japanese patients, it is necessary to promptly collect relevant information. Therefore, the post-market surveillance should be conducted involving all patients treated with crizotinib.

 Among adverse events requiring caution in administering crizotinib, ILD in particular may occur with a higher incidence in Japanese patients than in foreign patients. ILD resulted in death in some patients [see “4.(iii).B.(3).2) ILD” of the Review Report (1)]. Therefore, the number of patients analyzed should be adjusted so that predicting factors for ILD can be identified in the all-case surveillance.

 The maximum observation period may be set at 52 weeks, as planned by the applicant. The follow-up of patients treated with crizotinib for >52 weeks should be performed separately from the all-case surveillance so that the final results of the all-case surveillance can be obtained promptly. In addition, it is necessary to analyze the information obtained from the all-case surveillance at an early stage and, based on the results of the analysis, to re-design the surveillance plan.

The surveillance plan should be designed to make sure that the following information on the priority items of the all-case surveillance be collected:

 Characteristic features of ILD (e.g., patient background, imaging findings, severity, time to onset and outcome, outcome, treatment given, response to the treatment, predicting factors)

 Clinical characteristics of visual disturbance (e.g., time to onset, symptom duration, signs of aggravation)

 Safety of crizotinib in patients with hepatic impairment

 Safety of crizotinib in patients with severe renal impairment

 Clinical characteristics of neuropathy (e.g., reversibility)

 Incidence and clinical characteristics of photosensitivity (e.g., reversibility)

 

The above conclusion of PMDA was supported by the expert advisors at the Expert Discussion, with the following comments:

 To allow detailed investigation of ILD, the plan should be designed in such a way that the

applicant can obtain the data of chest imaging in patients with ILD (i) before the start of crizotinib administration, (ii) during crizotinib administration, (iii) at the onset of ILD, and (iv) after treatment with corticoid or other drugs.

 It is recommended to collect information in the post-marketing surveillance on the safety and the method of dose reduction in patients in whom crizotinib dose is reduced, temporarily withdrawn, or discontinued.

 

PMDA considered it necessary to appropriately address the expert advisors’ opinion on information collection from patients in whom crizotinib dose is reduced, interrupted, or discontinued as a result of chest imaging for ILD. Therefore, PMDA instructed the applicant to revise the design of the surveillance plan to allow the collection of the above information on patients with ILD, in addition to the revision to ensure information collection as described above.

 

The applicant accepted it.

Taking also account of the comments from the Expert Discussion, PMDA instructed the applicant to re-examine the planned number of patinets analyzed to allow the analysis of predictive factors of ILD, etc.

 

The applicant responded as follows:

Currently, the incidence of ILD in Japanese patients in Studies A8081001, A8081005, A8081007, and A8081014 was 3.6% (4 of 111 patients*). Therefore, the incidence of crizotinib-induced ILD was assumed to be 4%. By referring to the results of surveillance on the predictive factors of ILD in other antineoplastic agents, the incidence of ILD in the low risk population is assumed to be 2.5%, and the planned number of patients is changed to 2000 to allow the detection, at a certain statistical power by χ2 test with a significance level of 0.05, of factors with a risk ratio of 2.0 when the range of the case composition ratio of factors studied is between 1:3 and 3:1. Assuming that 2000 patients are analyzed by χ2 test with a significance level of 0.15, the statistical power is ≥85% when the composition ratio is between 1:3 and 3:1. The applicant considers that it is possible to detect and investigate potential predictive factors by multivariate analysis of these and other factors.

*: Studies A8081007 and A8081014 are currently ongoing randomized, parallel group, comparative study and the accurate number of patients is unknown. The calculation is based on the assumption that, a half of patients treated with the investigational product on or before December 6, 2011 received crizotinib.

 

PMDA further instructed the applicant to collect the follow-up information of patients treated with crizotinib for >52 weeks separately from the all-case surveillance so that the final results of the allcase surveillance can be obtained promptly, and to address the PMDA’s conclusion that it is necessary to analyze the information obtained from the all-case surveillance at an early stage and, based on the results of the analysis, to re-design the surveillance plan.

 

The applicant responded as follows:

Re-examination of the available data showed that there were no adverse events that occurred with an increased incidence with the increase of treatment duration. Therefore, the follow-up of patients treated with crizotinib for >52 weeks will not be performed. Information obtained from the all-case surveillance will be subjected to analysis at an early stage and, based on the results of the analysis, additional safety measures will be taken and the surveillance plan will be re-designed, as necessary.

PMDA accepted the explanation of the applicant. Results of the early stage analysis of data obtained from the all-case surveillance should be provided to the medical practice, as appropriate.

Since the currently available safety and efficacy information on crizotinib is extremely limited, results of the ongoing 2 global phase III studies and other information to be obtained in future are very important. PMDA instructed the applicant that, when new information related to crizotinib, including the results of clinical studies, becomes available, it should be promptly supplied to the medical practice, to which the applicant agreed.

 

The rates of the primary and key secondary efficacy end points in selected prespecified subgroups are provided in Figures 2 and Figure 3; the findings show a consistent benefit with icosapent ethyl. Baseline triglyceride levels (≥150 vs. <150 mg per deciliter or ≥200 or <200 mg per deciliter) had no influence on the primary or key secondary efficacy end points (Figure 2 and Figure 3). The attainment of triglyceride levels of 150 mg per deciliter or higher or below 150 mg per deciliter at 1 year after randomization also had no influence on the efficacy of icosapent ethyl as compared with placebo with respect to the primary or key secondary efficacy end point (Fig. S4 in the Supplementary Appendix). In a post hoc analysis, we found no substantial difference in the benefit of icosapent ethyl as compared with placebo with respect to the primary end point according to whether the patients who received placebo had an increase in LDL cholesterol levels at 1 year or had no change or a decrease in LDL cholesterol levels.

 

Figure 4.

 

Hierarchical Testing of End Points.

In the prespecified hierarchical testing of end points (Figure 4), the rates of all individual and composite ischemic end points (except for death from any cause — the last secondary end point in the hierarchy) were significantly lower in the icosapent ethyl group than in the placebo group, including the rate of cardiovascular death (4.3% vs. 5.2%; hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.66 to 0.98; P=0.03). The rate of death from any cause was 6.7% in the icosapent ethyl group and 7.6% in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.02). The results for selected prespecified tertiary end points, which were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, are provided in Table S3 in the Supplementary Appendix. Among these results, the rates of adjudicated sudden cardiac death were 1.5% in the icosapent ethyl group and 2.1% in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.96), and the rates of cardiac arrest were 0.5% and 1.0%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.31 to 0.86).

 

SAFETY AND ADVERSE EVENTS

The overall rates of adverse events that occurred while the patients were in the trial and the rates of serious adverse events leading to discontinuation of the trial drug or placebo did not differ significantly between the trial groups (Table S5 in the Supplementary Appendix). The only serious adverse event that occurred at a frequency of at least 2% was pneumonia (2.6% in the icosapent ethyl group and 2.9% in the placebo group, P=0.42). Adverse events that occurred in at least 5% of patients are reported in Table S6 in the Supplementary Appendix. The rate of atrial fibrillation was significantly higher in the icosapent ethyl group than in the placebo group (5.3% vs. 3.9%), as was the rate of peripheral edema (6.5% vs. 5.0%), but the rate of anemia was significantly lower in the icosapent ethyl group than in the placebo group (4.7% vs. 5.8%), as were the rates of diarrhea (9.0% vs. 11.1%) and gastrointestinal adverse events (33.0% vs. 35.1%) (Table S7 in the Supplementary Appendix). The rate of the prespecified adjudicated tertiary end point of heart failure did not differ significantly between the icosapent ethyl group and the placebo group (4.1% and 4.3%, respectively). The rate of the prespecified adjudicated tertiary end point of hospitalization for atrial fibrillation or flutter was significantly higher in the icosapent ethyl group than in the placebo group (3.1% vs. 2.1%, P=0.004). The overall rates of serious adverse bleeding events that occurred while the patients were in the trial were 2.7% in the icosapent ethyl group and 2.1% in the placebo group (P=0.06), although there were no fatal bleeding events in either group; there were no significant differences between the icosapent ethyl group and the placebo group in the rates of adjudicated hemorrhagic stroke (0.3% vs. 0.2%, P=0.55), serious central nervous system bleeding (0.3% vs. 0.2%, P=0.42), or gastrointestinal bleeding (1.5% vs. 1.1%, P=0.15) (Table S8 in the Supplementary Appendix).

 

Discussion

In REDUCE-IT, the risk of the primary composite end point of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, coronary revascularization, or unstable angina, assessed in a time-to-event analysis, was significantly lower, by 25%, among the patients who received 2 g of icosapent ethyl twice daily than among those who received placebo, corresponding to an absolute between-group difference of 4.8 percentage points in the rate of the end point and a number needed to treat of 21. The risk of the key secondary composite end point of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke in a time-to-event analysis was also significantly lower, by 26%, in the icosapent ethyl group than in the placebo group, corresponding to an absolute between-group difference of 3.6 percentage points in the rate of the end point and a number needed to treat of 28. Prespecified hierarchical testing of other secondary end points revealed that the risks of a variety of fatal and nonfatal ischemic events were lower in the icosapent ethyl group than in the placebo group, including a 20% lower risk of cardiovascular death. The benefits were observed against a background of appropriate statin use among patients who had a median LDL cholesterol level of 75.0 mg per deciliter at baseline.

 

The overall rates of adverse events were similar in the trial groups. Serious adverse events related to bleeding occurred in more patients in the icosapent ethyl group than in the placebo group, although the overall rates were low; there were no fatal bleeding events in either group, and the rates of adjudicated hemorrhagic stroke, serious central nervous system bleeding, and serious gastrointestinal bleeding were not significantly higher in the icosapent ethyl group than in the placebo group. The rate of hospitalization for atrial fibrillation or flutter was significantly higher in the icosapent ethyl group than in the placebo group, although the rates were low. The rates of adverse events and serious adverse events leading to discontinuation of trial drug were similar in the two groups.

 

The results of REDUCE-IT stand apart from the negative findings of several contemporary trials of other agents that also lower triglyceride levels, including other n−3 fatty acids, extended-release niacin, fenofibrate, and cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibitors.10-13 It is not known whether the lack of benefit from n−3 fatty acids in previous trials may be attributable to the low dose or to the low ratio of EPA to docosahexaenoic acid (DHA).12,13 Both the formulation (a highly purified and stable EPA ethyl ester) and dose (total daily dose of 4 g) used in REDUCE-IT were different from those in previous outcome trials of n−3 fatty acids. JELIS, which compared a combination of statin therapy and pure EPA with statin therapy alone, showed that the risk of ischemic events was significantly lower in the group that received the combination treatment than in the group that received statin therapy alone.14 Although the dose of EPA administered in JELIS (1.8 g daily) was lower than the EPA-equivalent dose used in REDUCE-IT (4 g daily), it resulted in a plasma EPA level (170 μg per milliliter in a Japanese population) similar to that attained in a previous 12-week lipid study in which a total daily dose of 4 g of icosapent ethyl was used in a Western population (183 μg per milliliter)25,26 and similar to that attained in the current trial. However, unlike the current trial, JELIS included an open-label design without a placebo group, used a low-intensity statin, and was conducted in a single country; patients also had higher levels of LDL cholesterol at baseline (182 mg per deciliter [4.71 mmol per liter] before initiation of statin therapy) and lower baseline triglyceride values (151 mg per deciliter [1.70 mmol per liter]) than the patients in REDUCE-IT.

 

Metabolic data provide evidence that icosapent ethyl–based formulations do not raise LDL cholesterol levels, whereas DHA-based formulations do.27 The results of the current trial should not be generalized to other n−3 fatty acid preparations — in particular, dietary-supplement preparations of n−3 fatty acid mixtures, which are variable and unregulated and which have not been shown to have clinical benefit.

 

A triglyceride level of 150 mg per deciliter or higher was an initial inclusion criterion in REDUCE-IT (although the required level was subsequently changed to ≥200 mg per deciliter); however, owing to allowance for variability in these levels, 10.3% of enrolled patients had triglyceride levels lower than 150 mg per deciliter at baseline. The observed cardiovascular benefits were similar across baseline levels of triglycerides (<150, ≥150 to <200, and ≥200 mg per deciliter). In addition, the significantly lower risk of major adverse cardiovascular events with icosapent ethyl than with placebo appeared to occur irrespective of the attained triglyceride level at 1 year (≥150 or <150 mg per deciliter), which suggests that the cardiovascular risk reduction was not associated with attainment of a more normal triglyceride level. These observations suggest that at least some of the effect of icosapent ethyl that resulted in a lower risk of ischemic events than that with placebo may be explained by metabolic effects other than a reduction of triglyceride levels.28

 

Mechanisms responsible for the benefit of icosapent ethyl observed in REDUCE-IT are currently not known. The timing of the divergence of the Kaplan–Meier event curves suggests a delayed onset of benefit, which may reflect the time that is needed for a benefit from a reduction in triglyceride levels to be realized or may indicate that other mechanisms are involved. The modestly higher rate of bleeding events with icosapent ethyl suggests that there may be an antithrombotic mechanism of action. However, it is unlikely that an antithrombotic effect would reduce the rate of elective revascularization. Also, if the full explanation involved an antiplatelet or anticoagulant effect, one might expect a large increase in the rate of major bleeding events, which was not observed.29 It is possible that membrane-stabilizing effects could explain part of the benefit.20,21,30 Stabilization or regression of coronary plaque (or both) may also play a part.19,31 Our observation of lower rates of cardiac arrest and sudden cardiac death with icosapent ethyl than with placebo in the current trial might support that mechanism, although these findings should be viewed as exploratory. It is also possible that the difference in high-sensitivity C-reactive protein level observed in REDUCE-IT may contribute to the benefit; the Canakinumab Antiinflammatory Thrombosis Outcome Study (CANTOS) showed a significant reduction in the risk of ischemic events with treatment targeted at inflammation.32-35 Blood samples obtained during REDUCE-IT have been banked for biomarker and genetic analyses that may provide more information regarding mechanisms of action.

 

Ongoing trials of moderate-to-high doses of pure EPA ethyl ester will provide further information on the effects of these agents.10,36 These trials include the Randomized Trial for Evaluation in Secondary Prevention Efficacy of Combination Therapy–Statin and EPA (RESPECT-EPA; UMIN Clinical Trials Registry number, UMIN000012069. opens in new tab), a secondary prevention outcomes trial involving statin-treated patients in Japan, and the Effect of Vascepa on Improving Coronary Atherosclerosis in People with High Triglycerides Taking Statin Therapy (EVAPORATE; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02926027. opens in new tab), which is examining changes in coronary plaque over 9 to 18 months.

 

Our trial has certain limitations. First, at the time the trial was designed, there was relatively little use of ezetimibe or data supporting its use.37 However, subgroup analyses do not suggest a differential benefit for patients taking ezetimibe. Similarly, proprotein convertase subtilisin–kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors were not available for the majority of the patients in the trial.38 Second, if mineral oil in the placebo affected statin absorption in some patients, this might have contributed to differences in outcomes between the groups. However, the relatively small differences in LDL cholesterol levels between the groups would not be likely to explain the 25% lower risk observed with icosapent ethyl, and a post hoc analysis suggested a similar lower risk regardless of whether there was an increase in LDL cholesterol level among the patients in the placebo group. Although JELIS was designed as an open-label study that did not use a mineral oil placebo, it showed a 19% lower risk of ischemic events with statin therapy plus EPA than with statin therapy alone.

 

In conclusion, among patients with elevated triglyceride levels who were receiving statin therapy, the risk of major ischemic events, including cardiovascular death, was significantly lower with 2 g of icosapent ethyl twice daily (total daily dose, 4 g) than with placebo.

 

 

 

2020年1月11日 (土)

「パイプライン」

Medical Translator NARITAです。

 

連休中も医学翻訳の仕事や学習、お疲れさまです。

 

昨日あたりから目の疲労がかなりあるので、今日は午後8時前にはパソコンを切ろうと思います。

 

今日最後に見直したのがpipelineを含むイートモ対訳でした。

製薬企業に勤めている方でしたらすぐにピンとくるはずです。

https://answers.ten-navi.com/dictionary/cat04/2511/

 

要は「開発中」という意味。

製薬業界では「パイプライン」がわかりやすいので、イートモ対訳の場合、英文にpipelineと入っている場合には和文では「パイプライン」という表現を使うことにします。

和文で「パイプライン」となっているけど、「開発中」という意味があることを知った上で、イートモを利用してください。

「開発中」を英文表現したい場合には、当然developを使うわけですが、文脈によってはpipelineも使えることを知っておいてください。

 

どのような場合にpipeline含有表現が適しているか、実際のイートモ対訳のサンプルを以下に示します。

14件がヒットしました。その最初の部分です。

Pipeline

 

このように、イートモを活用するにはある一定レベル以上の実力が必要です。

トライアルを受ける一歩手前くらいの実力が必要です。

 

それよりも下のレベルの人にはイートモを利用するのは難しいかもしれません。

でも、イートモを活用できるレベルにならないと医学翻訳業界で活躍するなんてとても無理です。

悩ましいね。

 

2020年1月 9日 (木)

古いイートモサンプルを削除しました

Medical Translator NARITAです。

 

イートモサンプルのダウンロード【販促用】

としてイートモで検索したときのサンプルを提示しています。

 

イートモ対訳は常に見直し(修正および差し替え)を行っていますので、古いサンプルは不適切になっている可能性があります。

 

そこで、半年以上前に提示したイートモサンプルの記事をすべて削除しました。

 

今後も新しいイートモサンプルをご紹介しますので、要チェックです

 

「follow-up」と「follow up」

Medical Translator NARITAです。

 

イートモ対訳の見直しをしていると、いろいろ気付きがあります。

今回は、「follow-up」と「follow up」。

ご覧のように、ハイフンが付いているかどうかってこと。

しかも、日本語ではライフサイエンス辞書にもあるように、いろいろな言い方があります。

 

イートモではどちらかに統一せず、元の英文のままにしています。

和文では基本的に「追跡調査」としています。

 

例えば、「追跡調査不能」でしたら、

lost to follow-up

lost to follow up

の両方が混在しています。

 

いつも言うように、イートモは個人が作成した参考資料です。

内容の正確性が保証されているわけでありません。

正確な用例については他の市販品で調べるか、翻訳会社や翻訳スクールに問い合わせてください。

 

参考までに、「追跡調査不能」で検索したときのイートモ対訳を紹介します。

24件がヒットしました。

Tsuiseki

 

2020年1月 6日 (月)

「馴化期間」

Medical Translator NARITAです。

 

だいぶ前になりますが、

Purina Certified Rodent Chowについてのブログ記事を書きました。

http://i-honyaku.cocolog-nifty.com/blog/2019/10/post-8eb943.html

 

イートモ対訳の見直しがキリのいいところにきたので、イートモ用に和訳・編集しました。

せっかくなので、和訳にはみらいトランスレーターを利用させていただき、それをイートモ用に修正しました。

 

みらいトランスレーターによる和訳(編集なし) イートモ用に和訳・編集した対訳

During a 19-day acclimation period, rats were fed either Purina Certified Rodent Chow (laboratory chow) or a low-fluoride control diet (table 1).

19日間の順化期間中,ラットにPurina Certified Rodent Chow(実験用飼料)または低フッ素対照飼料(表1)を与えた。


During a 10-day acclimation period, rats were fed either Purina Certified Rodent Chow (laboratory chow) or a low-fluoride control diet.

10日間の馴化期間中、ラットにはPurina Certified Rodent Chow(実験用固形飼料)又は低フッ素対照飼料を与えた。


Rats were fed Purina Certified Rodent Chow 5002 and housed in stainless steel wire cages.

ラットにPurina Certified Rodent Chow5002を与え、ステンレス鋼ワイヤケージに収容した。


Rats were fed Purina Certified Rodent Chow and housed in stainless steel wire cages.

ラットにはPurina Certified Rodent Chowを与え、ステンレス製ワイヤーケージに収容した。


BALB/c mice were maintained on Purina Certified Rodent Chow 5002 (Richmond, IN, USA) and purified tap water ad libitum in microisolator cages under controlled lighting (12 h light/dark cycle).

BALB/cマウスをPurina Certified Rodent Chow5002(リッチモンド,インディアナ州 (アメリカ合衆国))および制御された照明(12時間明/暗サイクル)の下でマイクロアイソレーターケージ中で任意に精製した水道水で維持した。


BALB/c mice were maintained on Purina Certified Rodent Chow and purified tap water ad libitum in microisolator cages under controlled lighting (12 h light/dark cycle).

BALB/cマウスは、制御された照明の下(明暗各12時間周期)、マイクロアイソレーターケージに収容し、Purina Certified Rodent Chow及び水道水の自由摂取で飼育した。


Food (Ralston Purina Certified Rodent Chow) and water were provided ad libitum.

食物(Ralston Purina認定げっ歯類用飼料)と水は自由に与えられた。


Food and water were provided ad libitum.

飼料及び水は自由に与えた。


The animals, 8 to 10 weeks old, weighed 21.8 to 30.7 g and were housed in the animal facility of our institution (Boston University School of Medicine) and given free access to food (Purina Certified Rodent Chow, 5002) and distilled water.

8~10週齢の動物は体重が21.8~30.7 gで,著者らの施設の動物施設(ボストン大学医学部)に収容し,食物(Purina Certified Rodent Chow、5002年)と蒸留水を自由に摂取させた。


The animals, 8 to 10 weeks old, weighed 20.0 to 30.0 g and were housed in the animal facility of our institution (Boston University School of Medicine) and given free access to food and distilled water.

これらの動物(8~10週齢)は体重20.0~30.0gで、当研究所の動物施設に収容し、飼料及び蒸留水を自由に与えた。


Mice were fed Prolab RMH 3200 (Agway, Inc., Syracuse, NY) until Week 51 of the study and then converted to Purina Certified Rodent Chow No. 5002 (Ralston-Purina Co., St. Louis, MO) for the remainder of the study.

試験の51週までマウスにProlab RMH3200(ニューヨーク州シラキュースのアグウェイ社)を与え、その後試験の残りの期間はPurina Certified Rodent Chow No.5002(ラルストン・プリーナ,ミズーリ州セントルイス)に変更した。


Mice were fed ABC Food until Week 50 of the study and then converted to Purina Certified Rodent Chow for the remainder of the study.

マウスには本試験の50週目までABC Foodを与え、その後、Purina Certified Rodent Chowに切り替えて本試験の残りの期間を飼育した。


Male and female Albino rats (weighing 208–216 g at study initiation) were obtained from Charles River Breeding Laboratories (Portage, MI, USA) and were allowed free access to lab chow (Purina Certified Rodent Chow, No. 5002, St. Louis, MO, USA) and municipal water ad libitum.

雌雄アルビノラット(試験開始時体重208~216g)をCharles River Breeding Laboratories(Portage,ミシガン州 (アメリカ合衆国))から入手し、自由に実験用固形飼料(Purina Certified Rodent Chow、No.5002、ミズーリ州セントルイス、米国)および水道水を自由摂取させた。


Male and female Albino rats (weighing 200–220 g at study initiation) were obtained from Charles River Breeding Laboratories and were allowed free access to lab chow and municipal water ad libitum.

雌雄のアルビノラット(試験開始時の体重200~220g)をCharles River Breeding Laboratoriesから入手し、実験用固形飼料及び市水を自由に与えた。

   

 

なお、acclimation periodについては、ライフサイエンス辞書で「順化期間」となっていますが、イートモではPMDAでの使われ方等を踏まえて「馴化期間」としています。

いつものように、ケースバイケースで対応してください。

 

 

2020年1月 3日 (金)

「比較評価」

Medical Translator NARITAです。

 

昨日は午後から遊んだので、今日は朝からみっちりとイートモ対訳を見直しました。

 

compared to

compared with

を含む対訳の見直しを。

 

見直ししているといろいろ気付きがあります。

 

今回は「比較評価」。

 

他の分野についてはわかりませんが、医薬系文書ではよく見かける表現です。

意味はわかると思いますが、どう英訳するか。

 

ライフサイエンス辞書には載っていません。

英辞郎にも適訳なし。

 

そんなときにはイートモということになります。

 

「比較評価」で検索すると19件ヒットしました。ご参考まで。

Hikaku

 

イートモユーザー様は翻訳トレーニングモードで実際に訳す練習をしてみてください。

これだけやれば「比較評価」の英訳はもう大丈夫。

 

さて、上記のイートモ和文のいくつかをおそらく一番性能がいいらしいマシーンである「みらいトランスレーター」に英訳させてみました。

 

イートモ和文 みらいトランスレーターによる英訳

ラクツロース呼気テストを用いて、口盲腸通過時間に対する薬剤Aの影響をモルヒネ及びプラセボと比較評価した。


The lactulose breath test was used to evaluate the effect of DRUG A on orocecal transit time compared with morphine and placebo.


会社Aは、3つの異なる集団を対象に、薬剤Aのベネフィット/リスクプロファイルを適切な比較薬と比較評価し、広範囲の患者における本剤の有用性を確立することを提案している。


Company A has proposed that the benefit/risk profile of DRUG A be compared with an appropriate comparator in three different populations to establish its utility in a wide range of patients.


薬剤A錠剤のバイオアベイラビリティを初期の試験で用いられたカプセル製剤と比較評価する試験Aが行われた。


Test A was conducted to evaluate the bioavailability of DRUG A tablets in comparison with the capsule formulation used in the earlier study.


試験Aは、薬剤A+薬剤B+薬剤Cの配合錠剤を1日1回単回投与したときのバイオアベイラビリティを、各薬剤の錠剤を1日1回併用投与した場合と比較評価する非盲検ランダム化クロスオーバー試験である。


Study A is an open-label, randomized, crossover trial evaluating the bioavailability of a single daily dose of DRUG A + DRUG B + DRUG C compared with a single daily dose of DRUG A + DRUG B + DRUG C.


本試験の目的は、糖尿病性腎疾患の進行を遅らせる薬剤Aの効果を他の降圧薬と比較評価することである。


The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of DRUG A in slowing the progression of diabetic kidney disease compared with other antihypertensive agents.


本試験の目的は、死亡及び心臓発作などその他の心臓の重大な有害事象を減らす薬剤Aのベネフィットをプラセボと比較評価することである。


The purpose of this study was to evaluate the benefit of DRUG A compared with placebo in reducing mortality and other major adverse cardiac events, such as heart attacks.


本研究の目的は、脳腫瘍の治療において、5-フルオロウラシルを腫瘍内に注射したときの治療効果を生分解性微粒子《生分解性マイクロスフェア》に充填した薬剤の治療効果と比較評価することであった。


The aim of this study was to evaluate the therapeutic effect of intratumoral injection of 5-fluorouracil in the treatment of brain tumors compared with that of a drug filled with biodegradable microparticles <<biodegradable microspheres>>.

 

やばいです。

医学翻訳の学習者よりもはるかに上です。

翻訳スピードを考えたら、用なしになるプロもかなり多いんじゃない?

まー、イートモ対訳は機械翻訳×PE時代にマッチしやすいように作成されているから、機械が翻訳しやすいのは当たり前ですけど。

 

以前にも書いたようにーーー

イートモを基本文(定型)として使う

イートモ対訳を基本にして、前後の文脈に応じてイートモ対訳を適当に改変しながら訳出に利用するというのがイートモの基本的な使い方になると思います。

 

それにしても機械の進歩はすごい。

逆に、械が理解しやすいよう、イートモ対訳のように解読してやるスキルがあれば、機械を利用して儲けられる側に入れるかもしれません。

 

2020年1月 2日 (木)

医薬系翻訳では比較表現が大事

Medical Translator NARITAです。

 

朝からイートモ対訳の見直しをしています。

 

ご存じのように医薬系文書には比較表現が非常に多く出てきます。

有効性は既存薬やプラセボと比較して決定されるので当然です。

いくつかの比較表現を自分のモノにしておくことがめちゃくちゃ大事。

しかも、機械は比較表現の扱いが苦手のようなのでなおさらです。

 

「比較して」

「比較すると」

「比べて」

「比べると」

「よりも」

などでイートモ検索してみてください。

 

ものすごくたくさんの対訳がヒットしますが、いくつかをピックアップして、実際に翻訳トレーニングしてみてね。

 

代表的な表現が

compared to

compared with

になると思います。

 

厳密には違いがあるようです。

Compared1

 

そういうことなのでしょう。

むかーし、ミキ・インターナショナルという医薬専門の翻訳会社に勤めていたとき、ネーティブさんに違いを教えてもらいました。

忘れましたけど。

医薬系のライターは意識的に区別していないようです。

 

主にネーティブによる英文を基にしたイートモを検索しても、

compared to 249件

compared with 313件

 

ところで、イートモ対訳の見直しでは、同時に訳語の統一も行っています。

Compared2

 

「よりも」を検索してcomparedを含む英文がたくさんヒットしなかったら、「比較して」で検索してみるなど、想像力をたくましくして検索してください。わからないとすぐに質問するのではなく、実際にいろいろ試してみることです。

 

上記のような統一対象の用語が千数百になっています。

統一対象の用語の数はもっと増えるだろうし、イートモ対訳ももっと増えるので、プログラミングは必須になるてでしょう。

 

用語の統一といっても、上記のように文章の性質によって適訳は変わってくるわけです。

1対1にはならない。

まー、私の言語センスはいまいちなので全面的に信用しないように!

医学翻訳仕事の現場ではご自身の言語センスを優先してください。

何度も言いますが、イートモは辞書ではなく参考資料です

 

そんなわけで(どんなわけで?)、だからー医薬系翻訳で比較表現はとても大事なので、今日から比較表現(まずはcompared to)についてイートモ対訳の見直しをしてます。

Compared

 

比較表現だけで膨大な件数のイートモ対訳があるので、その見直し・修正が終わったら、イートモ6.4の制作に取り掛かるという感じになると思います。

 

1月26日 イートモ6.4発売予定

 

1月26日にイートモユーザー様にはイートモ6.4無料ダウンロード用メールを送ります(新規のパスワードが記載されています)。

イートモユーザー様はイートモ6.4用の新規パスワードでイートモ6.4をダウンロードしてください。

イートモユーザー様は古いイートモ(イートモ6.3まで)を完全に削除してください。

 

2019年12月31日 (火)

「primary efficacy endpoint」

Medical Translator NARITAです。

 

イートモ対訳の見直しをしていると、いろいろ気付きがあります。

 

今回は、治験関係で必出の

"primary efficacy endpoint"

 

endpointとend point

厳密には意味が違うようですが、その違いを認識して英文を書いているライターは少ないご様子。

 

問題はそこではなく、和訳の際の"primary efficacy endpoint"の訳しかたです。

 

例によってPMDAに頼ります。

 

主要有効性評価項目 約605件
主要な有効性評価項目 約435 件
有効性の主要評価項目 約2,573 件
有効性主要評価項目 約1,223 件

 

まー、そんなわけでイートモでは「有効性の主要評価項目」としておきます。

和訳は面倒だし、儲からんし、英訳がおすすめです。

 

英訳の参考として、"primary efficacy endpoint"のイートモ対訳。

19件がヒットしました。

イートモ対訳収録用ファイルの画面です。

Primary

 

 

2019年12月27日 (金)

「indicated for」

Medical Translator NARITAです。

 

is indicated forの和訳は両者とも改良の余地ありです。イートモユーザーはイートモを参照のこと。

 

参考までに、"indicated for"を含むイートモ対訳を以下に示します。

65件ヒットしました。

和文はかなり修正しましたので、2020年1月26日発売の次期バージョン(イートモ6.4)でご覧ください。

 

なお、

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1912388

については、

いつものように、イートモ用に対訳化・編集して収録しようと思います。

 

参考までに、indicated forでイートモ検索してみました。

63件がヒットしました。

Indicated-for



2019年12月20日 (金)

「対症療法」

日本全国のイートモファンのみなさん、こんにちは。

Medical Translator NARITAです。

 

オッサンはイートモ対訳の見直しに必死になっています。

見直していると気付きがあります。

今回は「対症療法」。

 

医薬系の英訳をバリバリやっている方にはなんてことない用語です。

念のため、ライフサイエンス辞書でチェックしてみました。

Taisho1

 

これじゃ、医学翻訳者には物足りない。

翻訳用の辞書じゃないからしかたがないです。

コーパスを見れば英訳の参考になるヒントはあるけど、「~に対症療法を行った」ふうの英文は出てこない。

 

だったら、対訳の英辞郎。

Taisho2

 

全然あきませんな。

 

そんなら、みなさん大好きなWeblio。

Taisho32

 

オーマイガー😩

 

ロゼッタさんの究極の辞書を見ようと思ったら、開かない!

メンテナンス中か、それとも閉鎖?

 

だったら、みなさん、何で調べて英訳しているの?

 

みらい翻訳さんのMirai Translatorにかけてみたら、Mirai Translator のほうがそこら辺の辞書よりも優れているという結果でした。

 

イートモちゃんで調べた結果も示します。

Iitomochan_20191220191601

 

これだけのバリエーションがあればたいていの和文原稿の英訳に対応できるでしょう。

イートモちゃんで一気に壁を突破して製薬カスタムモデルを利用する側に入るしかないっすよ。

そうでなければ淘汰されるか、ゴミ取り要員になるしかない。

マジで。

Taisho432

 

フォト

イートモ

  • 1月16日現在の収録対訳件数
    43,485件(イートモ6.3から743件の増量) 医学翻訳の友 イートモ・トップ|なりた医学翻訳事務所
サイト内検索
ココログ最強検索 by 暴想