Search

Background: Although both hemodialysis and continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) are covered by national healthcare insurance, 98% of kidney failure disease patients are treated with hemodialysis. This study compared the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and utility scores of patients receiving hemodialysis and CAPD in Indonesia and determined factors associated with HRQoL and utility scores., Methods: A cross-sectional study was performed using the Kidney Disease Quality of Life-36 and EQ-5D-5L instruments at six hospitals. Utility scores were presented as SF-6D and EQ-5D scores. Factors associated with the EQ-5D were evaluated using Tobit regressions due to ceiling effects, while the SF-6D and HRQoL were assessed using generalized linear models since the data were not normally distributed., Results: Among the 613 patients, 76% were treated with hemodialysis. After adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics and clinical parameters, CAPD patients reported better HRQoL compared to hemodialysis patients in terms of the SF-6D ( p = .038), mental component summary ( p = .020), symptoms ( p = .005), and effects of kidney disease ( p <.001), but no significant differences were reported in EQ-5D ( p = .083), physical component summary ( p = .323), burden of kidney disease ( p = .111), and kidney summary scores ( p = .068). Poorer HRQoL and utility scores were likely experienced by older patients who were male, married, with diabetes, treated in Class A hospitals, and with lower education, hemoglobin, and albumin levels., Conclusion: In Indonesia, patients treated with CAPD had better HRQoL and utility scores compared to patients undergoing hemodialysis. Therefore, CAPD should be promoted by healthcare professionals as the first treatment option for patients who are eligible for both hemodialysis and CAPD., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsThe author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: MJP and CB reported grants and honoraria from various pharmaceutical companies. However, all grants and honoraria were fully unrelated to this specific study. The other authors declare that they have no competing interests related to this specific study and topic.

Background: Histo-blood group antigen (HBGA) status may affect vaccine efficacy due to rotavirus strains binding to HBGAs in a P genotype-dependent manner. This study aimed to determine if HBGA status affected vaccine take of the G3P[6] neonatal vaccine RV3-BB., Methods: DNA was extracted from stool samples collected in a subset (n = 164) of the RV3-BB phase IIb trial in Indonesian infants. FUT2 and FUT3 genes were amplified and sequenced, with any single-nucleotide polymorphisms analyzed to infer Lewis and secretor status. Measures of positive cumulative vaccine take were defined as serum immune response (immunoglobulin A or serum-neutralizing antibody) and/or stool excretion of RV3-BB virus. Participants were stratified by HBGA status and measures of vaccine take., Results: In 147 of 164 participants, Lewis and secretor phenotype were determined. Positive vaccine take was recorded for 144 (97.9%) of 147 participants with the combined phenotype determined. Cumulative vaccine take was not significantly associated with secretor status (relative risk, 1.00 [95% CI, .94-1.06]; P = .97) or Lewis phenotype (relative risk, 1.03 [95% CI, .94-1.14]; P = .33), nor was a difference observed when analyzed by each component of vaccine take., Conclusions: The RV3-BB vaccine produced positive cumulative vaccine take, irrespective of HBGA status in Indonesian infants., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. Murdoch Children's Research Institute holds the license for the RV3-BB vaccine. All authors: No reported conflicts. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America.)

Objectives: The aim of this review is to appraise and assimilate evidence from studies that have reported on the cost-effectiveness of screening programs for chronic kidney disease (CKD)., Methods: The study protocol was registered on International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO). The final search was conducted on 18 January 2023 using 7 databases. Screening of articles, data extraction, and quality assessment was performed by 2 independent reviewers. The ISPOR-AMCP-NPC checklist was used to assess the credibility of the included studies., Results: From 4948 retrieved studies, a final total of 20 studies were included in the qualitative synthesis. Studies found that screening in diabetic populations was cost-effective (n = 8, 57%) or even cost-saving (n = 6, 43%). Four studies (67%) found that screening in hypertensive populations was also cost-effective. For the general population, findings were inconsistent across studies in which many found screening to be cost-effective (n = 11, 69%), some cost-saving (n = 2, 12%), and others not cost-effective (n = 3, 19%). The most influential parameters identified were prevalence of CKD and cost of screening., Conclusions: Screening for CKD in patients with diabetes or hypertension is recommended from a cost-effectiveness point of view. For the general population, despite some inconsistent findings, the majority of studies demonstrated that screening in this population is cost-effective, depending mainly on the prevalence and the costs of screening. Healthcare decision makers need to consider the prevalence, stratification strategies, and advocate for lower screening costs to reduce the burden on healthcare budgets and to make screening even more favorable from the health-economic perspective., Competing Interests: Author Disclosures Prof Dr Postma reports grants and personal fees from Pharmacoeconomics Advice Groningen (PAG) B.V., grants and personal fees from Health-Ecore, outside the submitted work; Prof Dr Postma holds stocks in Health-Ecore and PAG B.V., all pharmacoeconomic consultancy companies. Prof Dr Boersma received grants and honoraria from various other medical and pharmaceutical companies and he holds stocks in Health-Ecore B.V. No other disclosures were reported., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc.)