Organ donation in the United States

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/72348/1/j.1600-6143.3.s4.4.x.pd

Health Insurance and Cardiac Transplantation A Call for Reform

Cardiac transplantation is an accepted therapy for patients with end-stage heart failure (ESHF). Presently in the U.S., patients with ESHF need to have health insurance or another funding source to be considered eligible for cardiac transplantation. Whether it is appropriate to exclude potential recipients solely due to lack of finances has received considerable interest including being the subject of a recent major motion picture (John Q, New Line Cinema, 2002). However, one important aspect of this debate has been underappreciated and insufficiently addressed. Specifically, organ donation does not require the donor to have health insurance. Thus, individuals donate their hearts although they themselves would not have been eligible to receive a transplant had they needed one. By querying Siminoff’s National Study of Family Consent to Organ Donation database, we find that this situation is not uncommon as ∼23% of organ donors are uninsured. Herein we also discuss how the funding requirement for cardiac transplantation has been addressed by the federal government in the past, its implications on the organ donor consent process, and its potential impact on organ donation rates. We call for a government-sponsored, multidisciplinary task force to address this situation in hopes of remedying the inequities in the present system of organ allocation

An investigation into the performance of the Adjuvant! Online prognostic programme in early breast cancer for a cohort of patients in the United Kingdom

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant! Online is an internet-based computer programme providing 10-year prognosis predictions for early breast cancer patients. It was developed in the United States, has been successfully validated in Canada, and is used in the United Kingdom and elsewhere. This study investigates the performance of Adjuvant! in a cohort of patients from the United Kingdom. METHODS: Data on the prognostic factors and management of 1065 women with early breast cancer diagnosed consecutively at the Churchill Hospital in Oxford between 1986 and 1996 were entered into Adjuvant! to generate predictions of overall survival (OS), breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS), and event-free survival (EFS) at 10 years. Such predictions were compared with the observed 10-year outcomes of these patients. RESULTS: For the whole cohort, Adjuvant! significantly overestimated OS (by 5.54%, P<0.001), BCSS (by 4.53%, P<0.001), and EFS (by 3.51%, P=0.001). For OS and BCSS, overestimation persisted across most demographic, pathologic, and treatment subgroups investigated. Differences between Adjuvant! predicted and observed EFS appeared smaller, and were significant for far fewer subgroups, only 5 out of the 28. The likely explanation for such discordance is that US breast cancer mortality rates (upon which Adjuvant! is based) appear to be systematically lower than breast cancer mortality rates in the United Kingdom. Differences in survival after recurrence would seem to be one contributory factor, with data suggesting that prognosis after relapse appears poorer in the United Kingdom. This may reflect the fact that new and more effective cancer drugs are often only approved for use in the United Kingdom many years after their adoption in the United States. CONCLUSION: The use of Adjuvant! by clinicians within the UK National Health Service is increasing, under the assumption that the programme is transferrable to the United Kingdom. At least for women treated for breast cancer at the Churchill Hospital in Oxford, however, Adjuvant!'s predictions were on the whole overoptimistic. If the findings reported here could be shown to be generalisable to other areas of the United Kingdom, then thought should perhaps be given to the development of a UK-specific version of the programme

Imminent brain death: point of departure for potential heart-beating organ donor recognition

Contains fulltext : 88186.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)PURPOSE: There is, in European countries that conduct medical chart review of intensive care unit (ICU) deaths, no consensus on uniform criteria for defining a potential organ donor. Although the term is increasingly being used in recent literature, it is seldom defined in detail. We searched for criteria for determination of imminent brain death, which can be seen as a precursor for organ donation. METHODS: We organized meetings with representatives from the field of clinical neurology, neurotraumatology, intensive care medicine, transplantation medicine, clinical intensive care ethics, and organ procurement management. During these meetings, all possible criteria were discussed to identify a patient with a reasonable probability to become brain dead (imminent brain death). We focused on the practical usefulness of two validated coma scales (Glasgow Coma Scale and the FOUR Score), brain stem reflexes and respiration to define imminent brain death. Further we discussed criteria to determine irreversibility and futility in acute neurological conditions. RESULTS: A patient who fulfills the definition of imminent brain death is a mechanically ventilated deeply comatose patient, admitted to an ICU, with irreversible catastrophic brain damage of known origin. A condition of imminent brain death requires either a Glasgow Coma Score of 3 and the progressive absence of at least three out of six brain stem reflexes or a FOUR score of E(0)M(0)B(0)R(0). CONCLUSION: The definition of imminent brain death can be used as a point of departure for potential heart-beating organ donor recognition on the intensive care unit or retrospective medical chart analysis.1 september 201

Financial considerations in the conduct of multi-centre randomised controlled trials: evidence from a qualitative study.

National Coordinating Centre for Research Methodology; Medical Research Council, UK Department of Health; Chief Scientist OfficeNot peer reviewedPublisher PD

Palliative chemotherapy or best supportive care? A prospective study explaining patients' treatment preference and choice

Item does not contain fulltextIn palliative cancer treatment, the choice between palliative chemotherapy and best supportive care may be difficult. In the decision-making process, giving information as well as patients' values and preferences become important issues. Patients, however, may have a treatment preference before they even meet their medical oncologist. An insight into the patient's decision-making process can support clinicians having to inform their patients. Patients (n=207) with metastatic cancer, aged 18 years or older, able to speak Dutch, for whom palliative chemotherapy was a treatment option, were eligible for the study. We assessed the following before they consulted their medical oncologist: (1) socio-demographic characteristics, (2) disease-related variables, (3) quality-of-life indices, (4) attitudes and (5) preferences for treatment, information and participation in decision-making. The actual treatment decision, assessed after it had been made, was the main study outcome. Of 207 eligible patients, 140 patients (68%) participated in the study. At baseline, 68% preferred to undergo chemotherapy rather than wait watchfully. Eventually, 78% chose chemotherapy. Treatment preference (odds ratio (OR)=10.3, confidence interval (CI) 2.8-38.0) and a deferring style of decision-making (OR=4.9, CI 1.4-17.2) best predicted the actual treatment choice. Treatment preference (total explained variance=38.2%) was predicted, in turn, by patients' striving for length of life (29.5%), less striving for quality of life (6.1%) and experienced control over the cause of disease (2.6%). Patients' actual treatment choice was most strongly predicted by their preconsultation treatment preference. Since treatment preference is positively explained by striving for length of life, and negatively by striving for quality of life, it is questionable whether the purpose of palliative treatment is made clear. This, paradoxically, emphasises the need for further attention to the process of information giving and shared decision-making

The Brustkrebs-Studien.de website for breast cancer patients: User acceptance of a German internet portal offering information on the disease and treatment options, and a clinical trials matching service

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The internet portal <url>http://www.brustkrebs-studien.de</url> (BKS) was launched in 2000 by the German Society of Senology (DGS) and the Baden-Württemberg Institute for Women's Health (IFG) to provide expert-written information on breast cancer online and to encourage and facilitate the participation of breast cancer patients in clinical trials. We describe the development of BKS and its applications, and report on website statistics and user acceptance.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Existing registries, including ClinicalTrials.gov, were analysed before we designed BKS, which combines a trial registry, a knowledge portal, and an online second opinion service. An advisory board guided the process. Log files and patient enquiries for trial participation and second opinions were analysed. A two-week user satisfaction survey was conducted online.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>During 10/2005-06/2010, the portal attracted 702,655 visitors, generating 15,507,454 page views. By 06/2010, the website's active scientific community consisted of 189 investigators and physicians, and the registry covered 163 clinical trial protocols. In 2009, 143 patients requested trial enrolment and 119 sought second opinions or individual treatment advice from the expert panel. During the two-week survey in 2008, 5,702 BKS visitors submitted 507 evaluable questionnaires. Portal acceptance was high. Respondents trusted information correctness (80%), welcomed self-matching to clinical trials (79%) and planned to use the portal in the future (76%) and recommend it to others (81%).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>BKS is an established and trusted breast cancer information platform offering up-to-date resources and protocols to the growing physician and patient community to encourage participation in clinical trials. Further studies are needed to assess potential increases in trial enrolment by eligibility matching services.</p