A Prospective Assessment of Renal Transplantation Versus Haemodialysis: Which Therapeutic Modality Is Good Value for Society?

Background: Economic evaluations help health authorities facing budget constraints. This study compares the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and costs in patient subgroups on haemodialysis (HD) and renal transplantation (KT). Methods: In a prospective study with follow-up of 1-3 years, we performed a costutility analysis of KT vs. HD, adopting a lifetime horizon. A societal perspective was taken. Costs for organ procurement, KT eligibility, transplant surgery and follow-up of living donors were included. Key clinical events were recorded. HRQOL was assessed using the EuroQol instrument. Results: The HRQOL remained stable on HD patients. After KT, mean utility score improved at 3 months while mean EQ-VAS scores showed a sustained improvement. Mean annual cost for HD was 32,567.57€. Mean annual costs for KT in the year-1 and in subsequent years were, 60,210.09€ and 12,956.77€ respectively. Cost for initial hospitalization averaged 18,740.74€. HLA-mismatches increased costs by 75% for initial hospitalization (p < 0.001) and 41% in the year-1 (p < 0.05), and duplicate the risk of readmission in the year-1 (p < 0.05). The incremental costutility ratio was 5,534.46€/QALY, increasing 35% when costs for organ procurement were added. KT costs were 41,541.63€ more but provided additional 7.51 QALY. Conclusions: The KT is cost-effective compared with HD. Public funding should reflect the value created by the intervention and adapt to the organ demand.

American Society of Anesthesiologists Score: Still Useful After 60 Years? Results of the EuSOS Study

OBJECTIVE: The European Surgical Outcomes Study described mortality following in-patient surgery. Several factors were identified that were able to predict poor outcomes in a multivariate analysis. These included age, procedure urgency, severity and type and the American Association of Anaesthesia score. This study describes in greater detail the relationship between the American Association of Anaesthesia score and postoperative mortality. METHODS: Patients in this 7-day cohort study were enrolled in April 2011. Consecutive patients aged 16 years and older undergoing inpatient non-cardiac surgery with a recorded American Association of Anaesthesia score in 498 hospitals across 28 European nations were included and followed up for a maximum of 60 days. The primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality. Decision tree analysis with the CHAID (SPSS) system was used to delineate nodes associated with mortality. RESULTS: The study enrolled 46,539 patients. Due to missing values, 873 patients were excluded, resulting in the analysis of 45,666 patients. Increasing American Association of Anaesthesia scores were associated with increased admission rates to intensive care and higher mortality rates. Despite a progressive relationship with mortality, discrimination was poor, with an area under the ROC curve of 0.658 (95% CI 0.642 - 0.6775). Using regression trees (CHAID), we identified four discrete American Association of Anaesthesia nodes associated with mortality, with American Association of Anaesthesia 1 and American Association of Anaesthesia 2 compressed into the same node. CONCLUSION: The American Association of Anaesthesia score can be used to determine higher risk groups of surgical patients, but clinicians cannot use the score to discriminate between grades 1 and 2. Overall, the discriminatory power of the model was less than acceptable for widespread use.

Recommendations for Vaccination in Adult Patients with Systemic Inflammatory Rheumatic Diseases from the Portuguese Society of Rheumatology

Serious infections are a major cause of morbidity and mortality in systemic inflammatory rheumatic disease (SIRD) patients. Although vaccination may prevent numerous infections, vaccination uptake rates are low in this group of patients. OBJECTIVES: To develop evidence-based recommendations for vaccination in SIRD patients. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE (until 31 October 2014) and EMBASE (until 14 December 2014) databases, as well as the ACR and EULAR congress abstracts (2011-2014). Patients with any systemic inflammatory rheumatic disease were included and all vaccines were considered. Any safety and efficacy outcomes were admitted. Search results were submitted to title and abstract selection, followed by detailed review of suitable studies. Data were subsequently pooled according to the type of vaccine and the SIRD considered. Results were presented and discussed by a multidisciplinary panel and systematic literature review (SLR)-derived recommendations were voted according to the Delphi method. The level of agreement among rheumatologists was assessed using an online survey. RESULTS: Eight general and seven vaccine-specific recommendations were formulated. Briefly, immunization status should routinely be assessed in all SIRD patients. The National Vaccination Program should be followed and some additional vaccines are recommended. To maximize the efficacy of vaccination, vaccines should preferably be administered 4 weeks before starting immunosuppression or, if possible when disease activity is controlled. Non-live vaccines are safe in SIRD, including immunosuppressed patients. The safety of live attenuated vaccines in immunosuppressed patients deserves further ascertainment, but might be considered in particular situations. DISCUSSION: The present recommendations combine scientific evidence with the multidisciplinary expertise of our taskforce panel and attained desirable agreement among Portuguese rheumatologists. Vaccination recommendations need to be updated on a regular basis, as more scientific data regarding vaccination efficacy and safety, emergent infectious threats, new vaccines as well as new immunomodulatory therapies become available.