Economics of dialysis dependence following renal replacement therapy for critically ill acute kidney injury patients

Background The obective of this study was to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing intermittent with continuous renal replacement therapy (IRRT versus CRRT) as initial therapy for acute kidney injury (AKI) in the intensive care unit (ICU). Methods Assuming some patients would potentially be eligible for either modality, we modeled life year gained, the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and healthcare costs for a cohort of 1000 IRRT patients and a cohort of 1000 CRRT patients. We used a 1-year, 5-year and a lifetime horizon. A Markov model with two health states for AKI survivors was designed: dialysis dependence and dialysis independence. We applied Weibull regression from published estimates to fit survival curves for CRRT and IRRT patients and to fit the proportion of dialysis dependence among CRRT and IRRT survivors. We then applied a risk ratio reported in a large retrospective cohort study to the fitted CRRT estimates in order to determine the proportion of dialysis dependence for IRRT survivors. We conducted sensitivity analyses based on a range of differences for daily implementation cost between CRRT and IRRT (base case: CRRT day $632 more expensive than IRRT day; range from$200 to $1000) and a range of risk ratios for dialysis dependence for CRRT as compared with IRRT (from 0.65 to 0.95; base case: 0.80). Results Continuous renal replacement therapy was associated with a marginally greater gain in QALY as compared with IRRT (1.093 versus 1.078). Despite higher upfront costs for CRRT in the ICU ($4046 for CRRT versus $1423 for IRRT in average), the 5-year total cost including the cost of dialysis dependence was lower for CRRT ($37 780 for CRRT versus $39 448 for IRRT on average). The base case incremental cost-effectiveness analysis showed that CRRT dominated IRRT. This dominance was confirmed by extensive sensitivity analysis. Conclusions Initial CRRT is cost-effective compared with initial IRRT by reducing the rate of long-term dialysis dependence among critically ill AKI survivor

Reporting of harm in randomized controlled trials evaluating stents for percutaneous coronary intervention

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The aim of this study was to assess the reporting of harm in randomized controlled trials evaluating stents for percutaneous coronary intervention.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The study design was a methodological systematic review of randomized controlled trials. The data sources were MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. All reports of randomized controlled trials assessing stent treatment for coronary disease published between January 1, 2003, and September 30, 2008 were selected.</p> <p>A standardized abstraction form was used to extract data.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>132 articles were analyzed. Major cardiac adverse events (death, cardiac death, myocardial infarction or stroke) were reported as primary or secondary outcomes in 107 reports (81%). However, 19% of the articles contained no data on cardiac events. The mode of data collection of adverse events was given in 29 reports (22%) and a definition of expected adverse events was provided in 47 (36%). The length of follow-up was reported in 95 reports (72%). Assessment of adverse events by an adjudication committee was described in 46 reports (35%), and adverse events were described as being followed up for 6 months in 24% of reports (n = 32), between 7 to 12 months in 42% (n = 55) and for more than 1 year in 4% (n = 5). In 115 reports (87%), numerical data on the nature of the adverse events were reported per treatment arm. Procedural complications were described in 30 articles (23%). The causality of adverse events was reported in only 4 articles.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Several harm-related data were not adequately accounted for in articles of randomized controlled trials assessing stents for percutaneous coronary intervention.</p> <p>Trials Registration</p> <p>Trials manuscript: 5534201182098351 (T80802P)</p

A qualitative study of the impact of severe asthma and its treatment showing that treatment burden is neglected in existing asthma assessment scales

Background People with severe asthma experience significant respiratory symptoms and suffer adverse effects of oral corticosteroids (OCS), including disturbed mood and physical symptoms. OCS impacts on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) have not been quantified. Asthma HRQoL scales are valid as outcome measures for patients requiring OCS only if they assess the deficits imposed by OCS. Aims The aim of this study was to compare the burden of disease and treatment in patients with severe asthma with items in eight asthma-specific HRQoL scales. Methods Twenty-three patients with severe asthma recruited from a severe asthma clinic were interviewed about the impact of their respiratory symptoms and the burden of their treatment. The domains from a thematic analysis of these interviews were compared with the items of eight asthma-specific HRQoL scales. Results In addition to the burden caused by symptoms, ten domains of OCS impact on HRQoL were identified: depression, irritability, sleep, hunger, weight, skin, gastric, pain, disease anxiety, and medication anxiety. Some patients experienced substantial HRQoL deficits attributed to OCS. Although all HRQoL scales include some OCS-relevant items, all eight scales fail to adequately assess the several types of burden experienced by some patients while on OCS. Conclusion The burden of OCS in severe asthma is neglected in policy and practice because it is not assessed in outcome studies. Existing asthma HRQoL scales provide an overly positive estimation of HRQoL in patients with frequent exposure to OCS and underestimate the benefit of interventions that reduce OCS exposure. Changes to existing measurement procedures are needed

The effect of high tibial osteotomy on the results of total knee arthroplasty: a matched case control study

BACKGROUND: We performed a matched case control study to assess the effect of prior high tibia valgus producing osteotomy on results and complications of total knee arthroplasty (TKA). METHODS: From 1996 until 2003 356 patients underwent all cemented primary total knee replacement in our institution. Twelve patients with a history of 14 HTO were identified and matched to a control group of 12 patients with 14 primary TKA without previous HTO. The match was made for gender, age, date of surgery, body mass index, aetiology and type of prosthesis. Clinical and radiographic outcome were evaluated after a median duration of follow-up of 3.7 years (minimum, 2.3 years). The SPSS program was used for statistical analyses. RESULTS: The index group had more perioperative blood loss and exposure difficulties with one tibial tuberosity osteotomy and three patients with lateral retinacular releases. No such procedures were needed in the control group. Mid-term HSS, KSS and WOMAC scores were less favourable for the index group, but these differences were not significant. The tibial slope of patients with prior HTO was significantly decreased after this procedure. The tibial posterior inclination angle was corrected during knee replacement but posterior inclination was significantly less compared to the control group. No deep infection or knee component loosening were seen in the group with prior HTO. CONCLUSION: We conclude that TKA after HTO seems to be technically more demanding than a primary knee arthroplasty, but clinical outcome was almost identical to a matched group that had no HTO previously

Completeness and Changes in Registered Data and Reporting Bias of Randomized Controlled Trials in ICMJE Journals after Trial Registration Policy

We assessed the adequacy of randomized controlled trial (RCT) registration, changes to registration data and reporting completeness for articles in ICMJE journals during 2.5 years after registration requirement policy.For a set of 149 reports of 152 RCTs with ClinicalTrials.gov registration number, published from September 2005 to April 2008, we evaluated the completeness of 9 items from WHO 20-item Minimum Data Set relevant for assessing trial quality. We also assessed changes to the registration elements at the Archive site of ClinicalTrials.gov and compared published and registry data.RCTs were mostly registered before 13 September 2005 deadline (n = 101, 66.4%); 118 (77.6%) started recruitment before and 31 (20.4%) after registration. At the time of registration, 152 RCTs had a total of 224 missing registry fields, most commonly 'Key secondary outcomes' (44.1% RCTs) and 'Primary outcome' (38.8%). More RCTs with post-registration recruitment had missing Minimum Data Set items than RCTs with pre-registration recruitment: 57/118 (48.3%) vs. 24/31 (77.4%) (χ(2) (1) = 7.255, P = 0.007). Major changes in the data entries were found for 31 (25.2%) RCTs. The number of RCTs with differences between registered and published data ranged from 21 (13.8%) for Study type to 118 (77.6%) for Target sample size.ICMJE journals published RCTs with proper registration but the registration data were often not adequate, underwent substantial changes in the registry over time and differed in registered and published data. Editors need to establish quality control procedures in the journals so that they continue to contribute to the increased transparency of clinical trials

Comparison of Patient and Surgeon Expectations of Total Hip Arthroplasty

OBJECTIVES: Analysis of discrepancies between patient and surgeon expectations before total hip arthroplasty (THA) should enable a better understanding of motives of dissatisfaction about surgery, but this question has been seldom studied. Our objectives were to compare surgeons' and patients' expectations before THA, and to study factors which affected surgeon-patient agreement. METHODS: 132 adults (mean age 62.8+/-13.7 years, 52% men) on waiting list for THA in three tertiary care centres and their 16 surgeons were interviewed to assess their expectations using the Hospital for Special Surgery Total Hip Replacement Expectations Survey (range 0-100). Patients' and surgeons' answers were compared, for the total score and for the score of each item. Univariate analyses tested the effect of patients' characteristics on surgeons' and patients' expectations separately, and on surgeon-patient differences. RESULTS: Surgeon and patient expectations' mean scores were high (respectively 90.9+/-11.1 and 90.0+/-11.6 over 100). Surgeons' and patients' expectations showed no systematic difference, but there was little agreement on Bland and Altman graph and correlation coefficient was low. Patients had higher expectations than surgeons for sports. Patients rated their expectations according to trust in physician and mental quality of life, surgeons considered disability. More disabled patients and patients from a low-income professional category were often "more optimistic" than their surgeons. CONCLUSION: Surgeons and patients often do not agree on what to expect from THA. More disabled patients expect better outcomes than their surgeons

Satisfaction with care after total hip or knee replacement predicts self-perceived health status after surgery

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Inpatient satisfaction with care is a standard indicator of the quality of care delivered during hospitalization. Total hip and knee replacement (THR/TKR) for osteoarthritis (OA) are among the most successful orthopaedic interventions having a positive impact on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The aim was to evaluate the effect of satisfaction shortly after hospital discharge on 1-month, 6-month and 1-year Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short Form (SF-36) scores for OA patients after THR and TKR, controlling for patient characteristics, clinical presentation and preoperative SF-36 scores.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A multicenter prospective cohort study recruited 231 patients with OA scheduled to receive THR or TKR. Satisfaction was assessed by the Patients Judgment of Hospital Quality (PJHQ) questionnaire and HRQoL by the SF-36 questionnaire. Linear models for repeated measures assessed the relation between satisfaction (scores were dichotomized) and postoperative SF-36 scores.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Of 231 participants, 189 were followed up 12 months after discharge (mean age 69 SD = 8; 42.6% male). The mean length of hospital stay was 13.5 (SD = 4) days. After adjustment for preoperative SF-36 scores, sociodemographic and clinical patient characteristics, satisfied patients (PJHQ score > 70) had higher SF-36 scores 1 year after surgery than did less-satisfied patients. Admission, medical care, and nursing and daily care scores mainly predicted bodily pain, mental health, social functioning, vitality and general health scores of the SF-36.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Besides being a quality-of-care indicator, immediate postoperative patient satisfaction with care may bring a new insight into clinical practice, as a predictor of self-perceived health status after surgery.</p

Quality of reporting internal and external validity data from randomized controlled trials evaluating stents for percutaneous coronary intervention

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Stents are commonly used to treat patients with coronary artery disease. However, the quality of reporting internal and external validity data in published reports of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of stents has never been assessed.</p> <p>The objective of our study was to evaluate the quality of reporting internal and external validity data in published reports of RCTs assessing the stents for percutaneous coronary interventions.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A systematic literature review was conducted. Reports of RCTs assessing stents for percutaneous coronary interventions indexed in MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and published between January 2003 and September 2008 were selected. A standardized abstraction form was used to extract data. All analyses were adjusted for the effect of clustering articles by journal.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>132 articles were analyzed. The generation of the allocation sequence was adequate in 58.3% of the reports; treatment allocation was concealed in 34.8%. Adequate blinding was reported in one-fifth of the reports. An intention-to-treat analysis was described in 79.5%. The main outcome was a surrogate angiographic endpoint in 47.0%. The volume of interventions per center was described in two reports. Operator expertise was described in five (3.8%) reports. The quality of reporting was better in journals with high impact factors and in journals endorsing the CONSORT statement.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The current reporting of results of RCTs testing stents needs to be improved to allow readers to appraise the risk of bias and the applicability of the results.</p