Polypharmacy and Quality of Life Among Dialysis Patients: A Qualitative Study

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Almost all patients who receive dialysis experience polypharmacy, but little is known about their experiences with medication or perceptions toward it. In this qualitative study, we aimed to gain insight into dialysis patients' experiences with polypharmacy, the ways they integrate their medication into their daily lives, and the ways it affects their quality of life. STUDY DESIGN: Qualitative study using semistructured interviews. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Patients who received dialysis from 2 Dutch university hospitals. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed independently by 2 researchers through thematic content analysis. RESULTS: Overall, 28 individuals were interviewed (29% women, mean age 63 ± 16 years, median dialysis vintage 25.5 [interquartile range, 15-48] months, mean daily number of medications 10 ± 3). Important themes were as follows: (1) their own definition of what constitutes "medication," (2) their perception of medication, (3) medication routines and their impact on daily (quality of) life, and (4) interactions with health care professionals and others regarding medication. Participants generally perceived medication as burdensome but less so than dialysis. Medication was accepted as an essential precondition for their health, although participants did not always notice these health benefits directly. Medication routines and other coping mechanisms helped participants reduce the perceived negative effects of medication. In fact, medication increased freedom for some participants. Participants generally had constructive relationships with their physicians when discussing their medication. LIMITATIONS: Results are context dependent and might therefore not apply directly to other contexts. CONCLUSIONS: Polypharmacy negatively affected dialysis patients' quality of life, but these effects were overshadowed by the burden of dialysis. The patients' realization that medication is important to their health and effective coping strategies mitigated the negative impact of polypharmacy on their quality of life. Physicians and patients should work together continuously to evaluate the impact of treatments on health and other aspects of patients' daily lives. PLAIN-LANGUAGE SUMMARY: People receiving dialysis treatment are prescribed a large number of medications (polypharmacy). Polypharmacy is associated with a number of issues, including a lower health-related quality of life. In this study we interviewed patients who received dialysis treatment to understand how they experience polypharmacy in the context of their daily lives. Participants generally perceived medication as burdensome but less so than dialysis and accepted medication as an essential precondition for their health. Medication routines and other coping mechanisms helped participants mitigate the perceived negative effects of medication. In fact, medication led to increased freedom for some participants. Participants had generally constructive relationships with their physicians when discussing their medication but felt that physicians sometimes do not understand them

Polypharmacy and Quality of Life Among Dialysis Patients: A Qualitative Study

Rationale & Objective: Almost all patients who receive dialysis experience polypharmacy, but little is known about their experiences with medication or perceptions toward it. In this qualitative study, we aimed to gain insight into dialysis patients’ experiences with polypharmacy, the ways they integrate their medication into their daily lives, and the ways it affects their quality of life. Study Design: Qualitative study using semistructured interviews. Setting & Participants: Patients who received dialysis from 2 Dutch university hospitals. Analytical Approach: Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed independently by 2 researchers through thematic content analysis. Results: Overall, 28 individuals were interviewed (29% women, mean age 63 ± 16 years, median dialysis vintage 25.5 [interquartile range, 15-48] months, mean daily number of medications 10 ± 3). Important themes were as follows: (1) their own definition of what constitutes “medication,” (2) their perception of medication, (3) medication routines and their impact on daily (quality of) life, and (4) interactions with health care professionals and others regarding medication. Participants generally perceived medication as burdensome but less so than dialysis. Medication was accepted as an essential precondition for their health, although participants did not always notice these health benefits directly. Medication routines and other coping mechanisms helped participants reduce the perceived negative effects of medication. In fact, medication increased freedom for some participants. Participants generally had constructive relationships with their physicians when discussing their medication. Limitations: Results are context dependent and might therefore not apply directly to other contexts. Conclusions: Polypharmacy negatively affected dialysis patients’ quality of life, but these effects were overshadowed by the burden of dialysis. The patients’ realization that medication is important to their health and effective coping strategies mitigated the negative impact of polypharmacy on their quality of life. Physicians and patients should work together continuously to evaluate the impact of treatments on health and other aspects of patients’ daily lives. Plain-Language Summary: People receiving dialysis treatment are prescribed a large number of medications (polypharmacy). Polypharmacy is associated with a number of issues, including a lower health-related quality of life. In this study we interviewed patients who received dialysis treatment to understand how they experience polypharmacy in the context of their daily lives. Participants generally perceived medication as burdensome but less so than dialysis and accepted medication as an essential precondition for their health. Medication routines and other coping mechanisms helped participants mitigate the perceived negative effects of medication. In fact, medication led to increased freedom for some participants. Participants had generally constructive relationships with their physicians when discussing their medication but felt that physicians sometimes do not understand them

A bivalent meningococcal B vaccine in adolescents and young adults

BACKGROUND MenB-FHbp is a licensed meningococcal B vaccine targeting factor H-binding protein. Two phase 3 studies assessed the safety of the vaccine and its immunogenicity against diverse strains of group B meningococcus. METHODS We randomly assigned 3596 adolescents (10 to 18 years of age) to receive MenB-FHbp or hepatitis A virus vaccine and saline and assigned 3304 young adults (18 to 25 years of age) to receive MenB-FHbp or saline at baseline, 2 months, and 6 months. Immunogenicity was assessed in serum bactericidal assays that included human complement (hSBAs). We used 14 meningococcal B test strains that expressed vaccine-heterologous factor H-binding proteins representative of meningococcal B epidemiologic diversity; an hSBA titer of at least 1:4 is the accepted correlate of protection. The five primary end points were the proportion of participants who had an increase in their hSBA titer for each of 4 primary strains by a factor of 4 or more and the proportion of those who had an hSBA titer at least as high as the lower limit of quantitation (1:8 or 1:16) for all 4 strains combined after dose 3. We also assessed the hSBA responses to the primary strains after dose 2; hSBA responses to the 10 additional strains after doses 2 and 3 were assessed in a subgroup of participants only. Safety was assessed in participants who received at least one dose. RESULTS In the modified intention-to-treat population, the percentage of adolescents who had an increase in the hSBA titer by a factor of 4 or more against each primary strain ranged from 56.0 to 85.3% after dose 2 and from 78.8 to 90.2% after dose 3; the percentages of young adults ranged from 54.6 to 85.6% and 78.9 to 89.7%, after doses 2 and 3, respectively. Composite responses after doses 2 and 3 in adolescents were 53.7% and 82.7%, respectively, and those in young adults were 63.3% and 84.5%, respectively. Responses to the 4 primary strains were predictive of responses to the 10 additional strains. Most of those who received MenB-FHbp reported mild or moderate pain at the vaccination site. CONCLUSIONS MenB-FHbp elicited bactericidal responses against diverse meningococcal B strains after doses 2 and 3 and was associated with more reactions at the injection site than the hepatitis A virus vaccine and saline. (Funded by Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT01830855 and NCT01352845.)