Clinical outcomes of hemodialysis patients in a public-private partnership care framework in Italy: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Innovative care models such as public-private partnerships (PPPs) may help meet the challenge of providing cost-effective high-quality care for the steadily growing and complex chronic kidney disease population since they combine the expertise and efficiency of a specialized dialysis provider with the population care approach of a public entity. We report the five-years main clinical outcomes of a population of patients treated on hemodialysis within a PPP-care model in Italy. METHODS: This descriptive retrospective cohort study consisted of all consecutive hemodialysis patients treated in the NephroCare-operated Nephrology and Dialysis unit of the Seriate Hospital in 2012-2016, which exercises a PPP-care model. Clinical and treatment information was obtained from the European Clinical Database. Hospitalization outcomes and cumulative all-cause mortality incidences that accounted for competing risks were calculated. RESULTS: We included 401 hemodialysis patients (197 prevalent and 204 incident patients) in our study. The mean cohort age and age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index were 67.0 years and 6.7, respectively. Patients were treated with online high-volume hemodiafiltration or high-flux hemodialysis. Parameters of treatment efficiency were above the recommended targets throughout the study period. Patients in the PPP experienced benefits in terms of hospitalization (average number of hospital admissions/patient-year: 0.79 and 1.13 for prevalent and incident patients, respectively; average length of hospitalization: 8.9 days for both groups) and had low cumulative all-cause mortality rates (12 months: 10.6 and 7.8%, 5 years: 42.0 and 35.9%, for prevalent and incident patients, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Results of our descriptive study suggest that hemodialysis patients treated within a PPP-care model framework received care complying with recommended treatment targets and may benefit in terms of hospitalization and mortality outcomes.

Telmisartan in migraine prophylaxis: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

We evaluated telmisartan 80 mg for migraine prophylaxis. Migraine patients (n = 95) with three to seven migraine attacks in 3 months were randomized, double-blind to telmisartan or placebo. The primary end-point was the reduction in the number of migraine days (i.e. a day with > or = 1 h of symptoms) between the 4-week baseline period and the last 4 weeks of the 12-week treatment period. A responder was recorded when there was a symptom reduction of > or = 50% in these 4-week baseline and treatment periods. The reduction in migraine days was 1.65 with telmisartan and 1.14 with placebo (P > 0.05). Post hoc analyses adjusting for baseline and centre showed a 38% reduction in migraine days with telmisartan vs. 15% with placebo (P = 0.03), and a borderline significant difference in responders (40% vs. 25%, P = 0.07). The incidence of adverse events was similar between treatments. This study indicates that telmisartan might be effective in migraine prophylaxis.

Cancer patients and characteristics of pulmonary embolism.

OBJECTIVE: To check the hypothesis that cancer patients suffer from extended pulmonary embolism (PE) more frequently than patients without cancer we analysed PEs proved by computed tomography (CT)-imaging. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred and fifty consecutive CT scans at the University Hospital of Essen from March 2002 until December 2004 which proved a definite case of pulmonary embolism were retrospectively reviewed (79 men, 71 women; mean age 57+/-15 years). Underlying disease and blood parameters were included (haemoglobin, haematocrit, fibrinogen and total protein, if determined within 48 h before the CT scans). RESULTS: Patients with malignant disease were older (59+/-12 years vs. 54+/-19 years, p=0.05) and tend to have a higher rate of central PEs (52% vs. 34%, p=0.08) than patients without malignancies. The odds of a central PE in cancer patients was about twice as high as in patients without a malignant disease (Odds ratio: 2.08, 95%-confidence interval: 1.06-4.10; age-adjusted Odds ratio 1.88, 95%-confidence interval: 0.92-3.84). Additional adjustment for the clinical information dyspnoea, inhospital patient and clinically expected PE did not deteriorate the odds. Thrombus density determined in patients with central PE only shows a trend towards a lower density in patients with malignant disease (52+/-13 HE vs. 45+/-15 HE, p=0.13). There is no statistical evidence that thrombus density is related to one of the blood parameters or even blood density measured in the pulmonary artery. CONCLUSION: Although this is a retrospective study including a small number of patients it shows that cancer patients are at a higher risk for central PE than patients without cancer. Characteristics of the intrapulmonal thrombus in cancer and non-cancer patients seem to be different.

[Development of a screening tool for migraine prophylaxis]. / Entwicklung eines Migräneprophylaxe-Screeninginstruments (MPS).

The aim of the present study was to develop a screening tool to aid non-headache specialists, like general practitioners, in deciding whether migraine prophylaxis in the individual migraine patient is useful or not. The first step was the development of a questionnaire, consisting of 10 items, which was filled in by 132 migraineurs who called on neurologists or headache experts. Independently, the physicians filled in another questionnaire to answer the question of whether they decided to prescribe migraine prophylaxis and if they had, to give their reasons for doing so. Using logistic regression analysis, we identified the three questions which had the most influence on the decision regarding prophylaxis in the data set. As results, we identified the following three questions: 1. Do you suffer from migraine on more than 3 days/month? 2. Do you have to rest in bed while experiencing a migraine attack? 3. Do you have to take medication against migraine on more than 5 days/month? Validation of this reduced questionnaire is currently ongoing and involves 150 migraine patients of general practitioners.