A pilot study comparing the efficiency of a novel asymmetric cellulose triacetate (ATA) dialyser membrane (Solacea-190H) to a standard high flux polysulfone dialyser membrane (FX-80) in the setting of extended hours haemodialysis.

AIM: To compare small, middle and large-middle molecule clearance; and expression of markers of inflammation, between Solacea-190H (asymmetric cellulose triacetate [ATA]) and FX-80 dialysers in long-hour haemodialysis patients. METHODS: This pilot, randomized cross-over trial recruited 10 home haemodialysis patients. The total study duration was 8 weeks, using each dialyser for 4 weeks. Removal of small (urea, phosphate, creatinine and indoxyl sulfate [IS]), middle and large-middle molecules (beta-2 microglobulin [ß2M], albumin), markers of inflammation (interleukin-6 [IL-6], malondialdehyde-modified low density lipoprotein [MDA-LDL] and alpha-1 microglobulin [α1M]), was evaluated in serum and dialysate samples. RESULTS: Reduction ratios [RR] were calculated for variables at the fourth week of each dialyzer sequence and results expressed as difference in mean RR between dialyzers. There was no difference in clearance of small molecules, with difference in mean RR for urea -2.43 (95% CI -6.44, 1.57; p = .19), creatinine -1.82 (95% CI -5.50, 1.85; p = .28) and phosphate -2.61 (95% CI -12.45, 7.23; p = .55); clearance of middle and large-middle molecules with difference in mean RR (range) for ß2M 2.2 (95% CI -3.2, 7.7; p = .35), IS 1.8 (95% CI -9.5, 13; p = .72) and albumin -0.6 (95% CI -5.5, 4.2; p = .77). There was lack of induction of markers of inflammation, including IL-6 15.2 (95% CI -31.9, 62.2; p = .47), MDA-LDL -8.1 (95% CI -22.1, 5.8; p = .21) and α1M -3.50 (95% CI -29.2, 22.2; p = .76). Dialysate removal results were concurrent. CONCLUSION: This study showed no difference in clearance of small, middle and large-middle molecules, nor expression of markers of inflammation between dialysers.

False economies in home-based parenteral antibiotic treatment: a health-economic case study of management of lower-limb cellulitis in Australia.

OBJECTIVES: The majority of healthcare costs accrued managing cellulitis can be attributed to the small proportion of patients treated with parenteral antibiotics. Hospital in the home (HITH) instead of or following initial inpatient treatment is a safe and effective alternative, but there are few data evaluating its cost-effectiveness for cellulitis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Our retrospective cohort study included all treatment episodes (by either HITH or an inpatient service for >24 h) with an ICD-10 primary diagnosis code of lower-leg cellulitis at a tertiary-level health service in Melbourne, Australia over 12 months (2012-13). Data included demography, social factors and ICD-10 codes mapped to major comorbidities constituting the Charlson comorbidity index (CCI). Differences in length of stay (LOS) and individual clinical costing (ICC) between HITH- and non-HITH-treated patients were tested with univariable and multivariable (generalized linear model) analyses. RESULTS: For 328 admissions in 294 patients, the average per-day costs were AU$431 for HITH and AU$761 for inpatient care. For 124 patients (38%) treated in HITH, both LOS [mean (95% CI) 7.48 days (6.76-8.20 days) versus 5.82 days (3.45-8.18 days)] and ICC [mean (95% CI) AU$5873 (AU$5212-AU$6534) versus AU$5196 (AU$4567- AU$5824)] were higher than those for patients with solely inpatient care. In multivariable analysis controlling for age, comorbidity, carer support and language, HITH remained associated with significantly longer LOS [1.63-fold (95% CI: 1.24- to 2.13-fold): P < 0.001] and non-significantly with higher cost [1.14-fold (95% CI: 0.97- to 1.34-fold): P = 0.11]. CONCLUSIONS: Management of cellulitis represents a substantial cost burden for hospital services. Modest per-day cost savings from HITH can be offset by much longer HITH LOS.

Fact or fallacy? Immunisation arguments in the New Zealand print media.

OBJECTIVE: To explore New Zealand's four major daily newspapers' coverage of immunisation with regards to errors of fact and fallacy in construction of immunisation-related arguments. METHODS: All articles from 2002 to 2007 were assessed for errors of fact and logic. Fact was defined as that which was supported by the most current evidence-based medical literature. Errors of logic were assessed using a classical taxonomy broadly based in Aristotle's classifications. RESULTS: Numerous errors of both fact and logic were identified, predominantly used by anti-immunisation proponents, but occasionally by health authorities. The proportion of media articles reporting exclusively fact changes over time during the life of a vaccine where new vaccines incur little fallacious reporting and established vaccines generate inaccurate claims. Fallacious arguments can be deconstructed and classified into a classical taxonomy including non sequitur and argumentum ad Hominem. CONCLUSION: Most media 'balance' given to immunisation relies on 'he said, she said' arguments using quotes from opposing spokespersons with a failure to verify the scientific validity of both the material and the source. IMPLICATIONS: Health professionals and media need training so that recognising and critiquing public health arguments becomes accepted practice: stronger public relations strategies should challenge poor quality articles to journalists' code of ethics and the health sector needs to be proactive in predicting and pre-empting the expected responses to introduction of new public health initiatives such as a new vaccine.