How a bottom-up multi-stakeholder initiative helped transform the renal replacement therapy landscape in Spain

[Abstract] Healthcare reforms aim to change certain parts of the health system to improve quality of care, access, or financial sustainability. Traditionally, healthcare reform is understood as an action undertaken by a government at a national or local level. However, bottom-up changes can also lead to improvements in the health system. This paper describes the efforts of a coordinated multi-stakeholder advocacy group in Spain to promote a more cost-effective and patient-centred treatment for people receiving renal replacement therapy and assesses the outcomes of their advocacy for health system financing and patient satisfaction. It concludes that bottom-up initiatives do indeed have the power to change health policy and that policy makers should pay attention to their arguments

Multidifferential study of identified charged hadron distributions in ZZ-tagged jets in proton-proton collisions at s=\sqrt{s}=13 TeV

Jet fragmentation functions are measured for the first time in proton-proton collisions for charged pions, kaons, and protons within jets recoiling against a $Z$ boson. The charged-hadron distributions are studied longitudinally and transversely to the jet direction for jets with transverse momentum 20 $< p_{\textrm{T}} < 100$ GeV and in the pseudorapidity range $2.5 < \eta < 4$. The data sample was collected with the LHCb experiment at a center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 1.64 fb$^{-1}$. Triple differential distributions as a function of the hadron longitudinal momentum fraction, hadron transverse momentum, and jet transverse momentum are also measured for the first time. This helps constrain transverse-momentum-dependent fragmentation functions. Differences in the shapes and magnitudes of the measured distributions for the different hadron species provide insights into the hadronization process for jets predominantly initiated by light quarks.Comment: All figures and tables, along with machine-readable versions and any supplementary material and additional information, are available at https://cern.ch/lhcbproject/Publications/p/LHCb-PAPER-2022-013.html (LHCb public pages

Study of the B−→Λc+Λˉc−K−B^{-} \to \Lambda_{c}^{+} \bar{\Lambda}_{c}^{-} K^{-} decay

The decay $B^{-} \to \Lambda_{c}^{+} \bar{\Lambda}_{c}^{-} K^{-}$ is studied in proton-proton collisions at a center-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV using data corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 5 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ collected by the LHCb experiment. In the $\Lambda_{c}^+ K^{-}$ system, the $\Xi_{c}(2930)^{0}$ state observed at the BaBar and Belle experiments is resolved into two narrower states, $\Xi_{c}(2923)^{0}$ and $\Xi_{c}(2939)^{0}$, whose masses and widths are measured to be $$m(\Xi_{c}(2923)^{0}) = 2924.5 \pm 0.4 \pm 1.1 \,\mathrm{MeV}, \\ m(\Xi_{c}(2939)^{0}) = 2938.5 \pm 0.9 \pm 2.3 \,\mathrm{MeV}, \\ \Gamma(\Xi_{c}(2923)^{0}) = \phantom{000}4.8 \pm 0.9 \pm 1.5 \,\mathrm{MeV},\\ \Gamma(\Xi_{c}(2939)^{0}) = \phantom{00}11.0 \pm 1.9 \pm 7.5 \,\mathrm{MeV},$$ where the first uncertainties are statistical and the second systematic. The results are consistent with a previous LHCb measurement using a prompt $\Lambda_{c}^{+} K^{-}$ sample. Evidence of a new $\Xi_{c}(2880)^{0}$ state is found with a local significance of $3.8\,\sigma$, whose mass and width are measured to be $2881.8 \pm 3.1 \pm 8.5\,\mathrm{MeV}$ and $12.4 \pm 5.3 \pm 5.8 \,\mathrm{MeV}$, respectively. In addition, evidence of a new decay mode $\Xi_{c}(2790)^{0} \to \Lambda_{c}^{+} K^{-}$ is found with a significance of $3.7\,\sigma$. The relative branching fraction of $B^{-} \to \Lambda_{c}^{+} \bar{\Lambda}_{c}^{-} K^{-}$ with respect to the $B^{-} \to D^{+} D^{-} K^{-}$ decay is measured to be $2.36 \pm 0.11 \pm 0.22 \pm 0.25$, where the first uncertainty is statistical, the second systematic and the third originates from the branching fractions of charm hadron decays.Comment: All figures and tables, along with any supplementary material and additional information, are available at https://cern.ch/lhcbproject/Publications/p/LHCb-PAPER-2022-028.html (LHCb public pages

Measurement of the ratios of branching fractions R(D∗)\mathcal{R}(D^{*}) and R(D0)\mathcal{R}(D^{0})

The ratios of branching fractions $\mathcal{R}(D^{*})\equiv\mathcal{B}(\bar{B}\to D^{*}\tau^{-}\bar{\nu}_{\tau})/\mathcal{B}(\bar{B}\to D^{*}\mu^{-}\bar{\nu}_{\mu})$ and $\mathcal{R}(D^{0})\equiv\mathcal{B}(B^{-}\to D^{0}\tau^{-}\bar{\nu}_{\tau})/\mathcal{B}(B^{-}\to D^{0}\mu^{-}\bar{\nu}_{\mu})$ are measured, assuming isospin symmetry, using a sample of proton-proton collision data corresponding to 3.0 fb${ }^{-1}$ of integrated luminosity recorded by the LHCb experiment during 2011 and 2012. The tau lepton is identified in the decay mode $\tau^{-}\to\mu^{-}\nu_{\tau}\bar{\nu}_{\mu}$. The measured values are $\mathcal{R}(D^{*})=0.281\pm0.018\pm0.024$ and $\mathcal{R}(D^{0})=0.441\pm0.060\pm0.066$, where the first uncertainty is statistical and the second is systematic. The correlation between these measurements is $\rho=-0.43$. Results are consistent with the current average of these quantities and are at a combined 1.9 standard deviations from the predictions based on lepton flavor universality in the Standard Model.Comment: All figures and tables, along with any supplementary material and additional information, are available at https://cern.ch/lhcbproject/Publications/p/LHCb-PAPER-2022-039.html (LHCb public pages

The Concordance between Patients' Renal Replacement Therapy Choice and Definitive Modality: Is It a Utopia?

INTRODUCTION:It is desirable for patients to play active roles in the choice of renal replacement therapy (RRT). Patient decision aid tools (PDAs) have been developed to allow the patients to choose the option best suited to their individual needs. MATERIAL AND METHODS:An observational, prospective registry was conducted in 26 Spanish hospitals between September 2010 and May 2012. The results of the patients' choice and the definitive RRT modality were registered through the progressive implementation of an Education Process (EP) with PDAs designed to help Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) patients choose RRT. RESULTS:Patients included in this study: 1044. Of these, 569 patients used PDAs and had made a definitive choice by the end of registration. A total of 88.4% of patients chose dialysis [43% hemodialysis (HD) and 45% peritoneal dialysis (PD)] 3.2% preemptive living-donor transplant (TX), and 8.4% conservative treatment (CT). A total of 399 patients began RRT during this period. The distribution was 93.4% dialysis (53.6% HD; 40% PD), 1.3% preemptive TX and 5.3% CT. The patients who followed the EP changed their mind significantly less often [kappa value of 0.91 (95% CI, 0.86-0.95)] than those who did not follow it, despite starting unplanned treatment [kappa value of 0.85 (95% CI, 0.75-0.95]. A higher agreement between the final choice and a definitive treatment was achieved by the EP and planned patients [kappa value of 0.93 (95% CI, 0.89-0.98)]. Those who did not go through the EP had a much lower index of choosing PD and changed their decision more frequently when starting definitive treatment [kappa value of 0.73 (95% CI, 0.55-0.91)]. CONCLUSIONS:Free choice, assisted by PDAs, leads to a 50/50 distribution of PD and HD choice and an increase in TX choice. The use of PDAs, even with an unplanned start, achieved a high level of concordance between the chosen and definitive modality

The Concordance between Patients’ Renal Replacement Therapy Choice and Definitive Modality: Is It a Utopia?

<div><p>Introduction</p><p>It is desirable for patients to play active roles in the choice of renal replacement therapy (RRT). Patient decision aid tools (PDAs) have been developed to allow the patients to choose the option best suited to their individual needs.</p><p>Material and Methods</p><p>An observational, prospective registry was conducted in 26 Spanish hospitals between September 2010 and May 2012. The results of the patients’ choice and the definitive RRT modality were registered through the progressive implementation of an Education Process (EP) with PDAs designed to help Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) patients choose RRT.</p><p>Results</p><p>Patients included in this study: 1044. Of these, 569 patients used PDAs and had made a definitive choice by the end of registration. A total of 88.4% of patients chose dialysis [43% hemodialysis (HD) and 45% peritoneal dialysis (PD)] 3.2% preemptive living-donor transplant (TX), and 8.4% conservative treatment (CT). A total of 399 patients began RRT during this period. The distribution was 93.4% dialysis (53.6% HD; 40% PD), 1.3% preemptive TX and 5.3% CT. The patients who followed the EP changed their mind significantly less often [kappa value of 0.91 (95% CI, 0.86–0.95)] than those who did not follow it, despite starting unplanned treatment [kappa value of 0.85 (95% CI, 0.75–0.95]. A higher agreement between the final choice and a definitive treatment was achieved by the EP and planned patients [kappa value of 0.93 (95% CI, 0.89–0.98)]. Those who did not go through the EP had a much lower index of choosing PD and changed their decision more frequently when starting definitive treatment [kappa value of 0.73 (95% CI, 0.55–0.91)].</p><p>Conclusions</p><p>Free choice, assisted by PDAs, leads to a 50/50 distribution of PD and HD choice and an increase in TX choice. The use of PDAs, even with an unplanned start, achieved a high level of concordance between the chosen and definitive modality.</p></div

Patient Flow during the registry period.

<p>Abbreviations: CT, conservative treatment; HD, in-center hemodialysis; HHD, home hemodialysis; PD, peritoneal dialysis; and TX, living-donor preemptive transplantation.</p

Patient Characteristics.

<p>The values are expressed as the median and interquartile intervals Q1 –Q3.</p

Definitive Treatment Method According to Whether the Patients Followed an Education Process or not.

<p>* p<0.001 compared with Educated Patients.</p><p>Abbreviations: RRT, renal replacement treatments; CT, conservative treatment; HD, in-center hemodialysis; PD, peritoneal dialysis; and TX, living-donor preemptive transplantation.</p><p>Definitive Treatment Method According to Whether the Patients Followed an Education Process or not.</p