The use of MCBs results in significant savings in cost and preparation time, which may have a beneficial effect on the economic burden associated with PN as well as a reduction in errors related to PN preparation.
To explore the preferences of Spanish healthcare professionals (haematologists and hospital pharmacists) for the treatment selection of active Chronic Lymphocytic Leukaemia (CLL) patients at first relapse, condition that mainly afflicts older adults. Methods: A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted among haematologists and hospital pharmacists. A literature review and a focus group informed the DCE design. CLL treatment settings were defined by seven attributes: four patient/disease-related attributes (age, functional status, comorbidities, and risk of the disease) and three treatment-related attributes (efficacy [hazard ratio of progression-free survival, HR-PFS], rate of discontinuations due to adverse events and cost). A mixed-logit model was used to determine choice-based preferences. Relative importance (RI) of attributes was calculated and compared between stakeholders. Willingnessto-pay (WTP) was estimated through the DCE. Besides, nine ad-hoc questions were posed, to explore more in depth CLL treatment decision making. Results: A total of 130 participants (72 haematologists and 58 hospital pharmacists) answered the DCE. All attributes were significant predictors of preferences (p b 0.05) in the multinomial model. Higher RI was obtained for treatment-related attributes: the highest rated being 'cost' (23.8%) followed by 'efficacy' (20.9%). Regarding patient-related attributes, the highest RI was obtained for 'age' (18.1%). No significant differences (p N 0.05) in RI between haematologists and pharmacists were found. WTP for the treatment was higher for younger CLL patients. Ad-hoc questions showed that patient age and functional status influence treatment decisions. Conclusions: For healthcare professionals, 'cost' and 'efficacy' (treatment-related attributes) and age (patientrelated attribute) are the main factors that determine CLL treatment selection at first relapse. WTP decreases as patient's age increases.
Background
Reliable determination of glomerular filtration rate (GFR) is crucial in the evaluation of living kidney donors. Although some guidelines recommend the use of measured GFR (mGFR), many centres still rely on estimated GFR (eGFR) obtained through equations or 24-h creatinine clearance. However, eGFR is neither accurate nor precise in reflecting real renal function. We analysed the impact of eGFR errors on evaluation and decision making regarding potential donors.
Methods
We evaluated 103 consecutive living donors who underwent mGFR via iohexol plasma clearance and eGFR by 51 creatinine- and/or cystatin C–based equations. The cut-off for living donation in our centre is GFR > 80 mL/min for donors >35 years of age or 90 mL/min for those <35 years of age. We analysed the misclassification of donors based on the cut-off for donation-based eGFR.
Results
Ninety-three subjects (90.3%) had mGFR values above (donors) and 10 [9.7% (95% confidence interval 5.4–17)] below (non-donors) the cut-off. In non-donors, most of the equations gave eGFR values above the cut-off, so donation would have been allowed based on eGFR. All non-donors were female with reduced weight, height and body surface. In donors, up to 32 cases showed eGFR below the cut-off, while mGFR was actually higher. Therefore an important number of donors would not have donated based on eGFR alone.
Conclusion
The misclassification of donors around the cut-off for donation is very common with eGFR, making eGFR unreliable for the evaluation of living kidney donors. Whenever possible, mGFR should be implemented in this setting.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.