ABSTRACT
The COVID-19 pandemic has unveiled the frailty of our societies from too many points of view to look away. We need to understand why we were all caught unprepared. On the one hand, we have all short memories. As we forget too quickly, we were unable to recognize key factors influencing response and preparedness to public health threats. For many years, economic evaluation pushed governments all over the world to cut resources for public health systems, with COVID-19 pandemic the question arises: do we spend too much or too little on health care? What is the right amount to spend on health? Moreover, in many countries, the privatisation, or semi-privatisation, of healthcare may give rise to inequitable access to health care for everyone. Although COVID-19 is very "democratic", its consequences aren't. According to OECD, income inequality in OECD countries is at its highest level for the past half century. Three main causes have been recognized, technological revolution, globalization, and "financialisation". In this scenario, lockdown measures adopted to save lives are showing dramatic economic consequences. To address post COVID-19 reconstruction we need to go beyond GDP. As an economic measure this has many shortcomings in describing the real well-being of a country, and since what we measure affects what we do, new paradigms will have to guide the post COVID-19 reconstruction strategies, as the fate of countries and their citizens is at stake.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Anaemia is a risk factor for death, adverse cardiovascular outcomes and poor quality of life in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Erythropoietin Stimulating Agents (ESA) are the most used treatment option. In observational studies, higher haemoglobin (Hb) levels (around 11-13 g/dL) are associated with improved survival and quality of life compared to Hb levels around 9-10 g/dL. Randomized studies found that targeting higher Hb levels with ESA causes an increased risk of death, mainly due to adverse cardiovascular outcomes. It is possible that this is mediated by ESA dose rather than haemoglobin concentration, although this hypothesis has never been formally tested. METHODS: We present the protocol of the Clinical Evaluation of the Dose of Erythropoietins (C.E. DOSE) trial, which will assess the benefits and harms of a high versus a low ESA dose therapeutic strategy for the management of anaemia of end stage kidney disease (ESKD). This is a randomized, prospective open label blinded end-point (PROBE) design trial due to enroll 900 haemodialysis patients. Patients will be randomized 1:1 to 4000 UI/week i. v. versus 18000 UI/week i. v. of epoetin alfa, beta or any other epoetin in equivalent doses. The primary outcome of the trial is a composite of cardiovascular events. In addition, quality of life and costs of these two strategies will be assessed. The study has been approved and funded by the Italian Agency of Drugs (Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA)) within the 2006 funding plan for independent research on drugs (registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT00827021)).
Subject(s)
Anemia/drug therapy , Hematinics/administration & dosage , Renal Dialysis , Anemia/economics , Anemia/etiology , Diabetic Nephropathies/complications , Disease Management , Dose-Response Relationship, Drug , Double-Blind Method , Female , Hematinics/adverse effects , Hematinics/economics , Hematinics/pharmacology , Hematinics/therapeutic use , Hemoglobins/analysis , Humans , Kidney Failure, Chronic/blood , Kidney Failure, Chronic/complications , Kidney Failure, Chronic/therapy , Meta-Analysis as Topic , Middle Aged , Observational Studies as Topic , Outcome Assessment, Health Care , Quality of Life , Renal Dialysis/adverse effects , Renal Dialysis/economics , Research Design , RiskABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Assessment of patient satisfaction is not performed routinely in many healthcare institutions. In this review, we discuss methodological aspects of assessment of patient satisfaction in hemodialysis. We also present a pilot study conducted in the Gambro Healthcare Italy dialysis clinics network. METHODS: Patient satisfaction was assessed in a network of hemodialysis units by using an internally validated Italian translation of the Choices for Healthy Outcomes in Caring for ESRD (CHOICE) questionnaire. A cross-sectional analytic study design was used and data analysed with univariate and multivariate hierarchical logistic regression to explore correlates of the risk of being unsatisfied with dialysis treatment. Covariates which were considered include a series of over 20 clinical, demographic, organizational and structural aspects. In addition, unexplained inter-centre residual variability due to 'case-mix' was explored and plotted. RESULTS: Seventeen dialysis units participated in this cross-sectional analysis and 758/1001 (75.7%) provided answers to the questionnaires. There was a statistically significant association on multivariate hierarchical analysis between the risk of being unsatisfied with dialysis treatment and interdialysis body weight gain (unit of increase: 1 kg, p=0.004). On the contrary, the risk of unsatisfaction with dialysis treatment was significantly lower in patients with higher dry weight (unit of increase: 1 kg, p=0.002). Our multivariate hierarchical analysis identified some residual variability between dialysis units (n=6 outliers) which may not be explained by any of over 20 potential confounding covariates which were explored. CONCLUSIONS: Assessment of ''customer satisfaction'' is standard practice in private for profit product companies in general but needs to be increasingly recognized as a standard in both public and private providers of healthcare services. Social research methods, which are used for this type of analysis, need to be fine tuned and actively implemented in order to better understand how we may influence the quality of service we provide to our patients and the level at which they rate it.
