淡化糖尿病的分型

现有的糖尿病分型有很大的局限性和逻辑上的矛盾,在临床工作中很不实用。分型对认识疾病和临床治疗有一定的帮助,但同时也限制了我们的思维空间。作者的意见并非要取消现有的分类方法,而是呼吁摒弃类别思维,淡化分型观念,把更多的精力放在糖尿病发病机理的研究上,更好的解决临床实际问题。2型糖尿病也包括免疫机制,而1型糖尿病也有非免疫机制——这并不是说这两种状况必须完全相同。     

Optimal Mode of clearance in critically ill patients with Acute Kidney Injury (OMAKI) - a pilot randomized controlled trial of hemofiltration versus hemodialysis: a Canadian Critical Care Trials Group project

Introduction

Among critically ill patients with acute kidney injury (AKI) needing continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT), the effect of convective (via continuous venovenous hemofiltration [CVVH]) versus diffusive (via continuous venovenous hemodialysis [CVVHD]) solute clearance on clinical outcomes is unclear. Our objective was to evaluate the feasibility of comparing these two modes in a randomized trial.

Methods

This was a multicenter open-label parallel-group pilot randomized trial of CVVH versus CVVHD. Using concealed allocation, we randomized critically ill adults with AKI and hemodynamic instability to CVVH or CVVHD, with a prescribed small solute clearance of 35 mL/kg/hour in both arms. The primary outcome was trial feasibility, defined by randomization of >25% of eligible patients, delivery of >75% of the prescribed CRRT dose, and follow-up of >95% of patients to 60 days. A secondary analysis using a mixed-effects model examined the impact of therapy on illness severity, defined by sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score, over the first week.

Results

We randomized 78 patients (mean age 61.5 years; 39% women; 23% with chronic kidney disease; 82% with sepsis). Baseline SOFA scores (mean 15.9, SD 3.2) were similar between groups. We recruited 55% of eligible patients, delivered >80% of the prescribed dose in each arm, and achieved 100% follow-up. SOFA tended to decline more over the first week in CVVH recipients (-0.8, 95% CI -2.1, +0.5) driven by a reduction in vasopressor requirements. Mortality (54% CVVH; 55% CVVHD) and dialysis dependence in survivors (24% CVVH; 19% CVVHD) at 60 days were similar.

Conclusions

Our results suggest that a large trial comparing CVVH to CVVHD would be feasible. There is a trend toward improved vasopressor requirements among CVVH-treated patients over the first week of treatment.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT00675818","term_id":"NCT00675818"}}NCT00675818     

A Mixed-Methods Exploration of the Needs of People Living with HIV (PLWH) Enrolled in Access to Care,a National HIV Linkage,Retention and Re-Engagement in Medical Care Program

Competing needs pose barriers to engagement in HIV medical care. Mixed methods were used to explore and describe the needs of participants enrolled in Access to Care, a national HIV linkage, retention and re-engagement in care (LRC) program that served people living with HIV who knew their status but were not engaged in care. When asked to prioritize their most urgent needs, participants reported housing or shelter (31%), HIV medical services (24%), and employment (8%). When we assessed the HIV continuum of care by needs status, we found no significant differences in linkage, retention, or viral suppression between participants with and without basic needs. Qualitative interviews with program staff contextualized the barriers to HIV medical care faced by participants and explored the strategies used by LRC programs to address participant needs. Study findings will be of use to future programs and have implications for HIV policy, in particular the implementation of the National HIV/AIDS Strategy (2015–2020).     

Cost and Threshold Analysis of Housing as an HIV Prevention Intervention

The Housing and Health study examines the effects of permanent supportive housing for homeless and unstably housed persons living with HIV. While promising as an HIV prevention intervention, providing housing may be more expensive to deliver than some other HIV prevention services. Economic evaluation is needed to determine if investment in permanent supportive housing would be cost-saving or cost-effective. Here we ask––what is the per client cost of delivering the intervention, and how many HIV transmissions have to be averted in order to exceed the threshold needed to claim cost-savings or cost-effectiveness to society? Standard methods of cost and threshold analysis were employed. Payor perspective costs range from $9,256 to $11,651 per client per year; societal perspective costs range from $10,048 to $14,032 per client per year. Considering that averting a new case of HIV saves an estimated $221,365 in treatment costs, the average cost-saving threshold across the three study cities is 0.0555. Expressed another way, if just one out of every 19 Housing & Health intervention clients avoided HIV transmission to an HIV seronegative partner the intervention would be cost-saving. The intervention would be cost-effective if it prevented just one HIV transmission for every 64 clients served.