Monitoring intracellular, interstitial, and intravascular volume changes during fluid management procedures

The bioimpedance spectroscopic (BIS) analytical algorithm described in this report allows for the non-invasive measurement of intravascular, interstitial, and intracellular volume changes during various fluid management procedures. The purpose of this study was to test clinical use feasibility and to demonstrate the validity of the BIS algorithm in computing compartmental volume shifts in human subjects undergoing fluid management treatment. Validation was performed using volume changes recorded from 20 end stage renal disease patients. The validation procedure involved mathematically deriving post hoc hematocrit profiles from the BIS data-generated fluid redistribution time profiles. These derived hematocrit profiles were then compared to serial hematocrit values measured simultaneously by a CritLine^® monitor during 60 routine hemodialysis sessions. Regression and Bland–Altman analyses confirm that the BIS algorithm can be used to reliably derive the continuous and real-time rates of change of the compartmental fluid volumes. Regression results yielded a R ² > 0.99 between the two measures of hematocrit at different times during dialysis. The slopes of the regression equations at the different times were nearly identical, demonstrating an almost one-to-one correspondence between the BIS and CritLine^® hematocrits. Bland–Altman analysis show that the BIS algorithm can be used interchangeably with the CritLine^® monitor for the measurement of hematocrit. The present study demonstrates for the first time that BIS can provide real-time continuous measurements of compartmental intravascular, interstitial and intracellular fluid volume changes during fluid management procedures when used in conjunction with this new algorithm.     

Comparison of biomarkers between allergic rhinitis only and allergic rhinitis with concomitant asthma

This post hoc analysis suggests distinct immunologic profiles in the allergic rhinitis (AR)‐only and the AR & AA phenotypes.     

Challenges in the implementation of the EAACI AIT guidelines: A situational analysis of current provision of allergen immunotherapy

Purpose

The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) has produced Guidelines on Allergen Immunotherapy (AIT). We sought to gauge the preparedness of primary care to participate in the delivery of AIT in Europe.

Methods

We undertook a mixed‐methods, situational analysis. This involved a purposeful literature search and two surveys: one to primary care clinicians and the other to a wider group of stakeholders across Europe.

Results

The 10 papers identified all pointed out gaps or deficiencies in allergy care provision in primary care. The surveys also highlighted similar concerns, particularly in relation to concerns about lack of knowledge, skills, infrastructural weaknesses, reimbursement policies and communication with specialists as barriers to evidence‐based care. Almost all countries (92%) reported the availability of AIT. In spite of that, only 28% and 44% of the countries reported the availability of guidelines for primary care physicians and specialists, respectively. Agreed pathways between specialists and primary care physicians were reported as existing in 32%‐48% of countries. Reimbursement appeared to be an important barrier as AIT was only fully reimbursed in 32% of countries. Additionally, 44% of respondents considered accessibility to AIT and 36% stating patient costs were barriers.

Conclusions

Successful working with primary care providers is essential to scaling‐up AIT provision in Europe, but to achieve this, the identified barriers must be overcome. Development of primary care interpretation of guidelines to aid patient selection, establishment of disease management pathways and collaboration with specialist groups are required as a matter of urgency.     

Challenges in the implementation of EAACI guidelines on allergen immunotherapy: A global perspective on the regulation of allergen products

Regulatory approaches for allergen immunotherapy (AIT) products and the availability of high‐quality AIT products are inherently linked to each other. While allergen products are available in many countries across the globe, their regulation is very heterogeneous. First, we describe the regulatory systems applicable for AIT products in the European Union (EU) and in the United States (US). For Europe, a depiction of the different types of relevant procedures, as well as the committees involved, is provided and the fundamental role of national agencies of the EU member states in this complex and unique network is highlighted. Furthermore, the regulatory agencies from Australia, Canada, Japan, Russia, and Switzerland provided information on the system implemented in their countries for the regulation of allergen products. While AIT products are commonly classified as biological medicinal products, they are made available by varying types of procedures, most commonly either by obtaining a marketing authorization or by being distributed as named patient products. Exemptions from marketing authorizations in exceptional cases, as well as import of allergen products from other countries, are additional tools applied by countries to ensure availability of needed AIT products. Several challenges for AIT products are apparent from this analysis and will require further consideration.     

The cost-effectiveness of losartan versus captopril in patients with symptomatic heart failure.

The Losartan Heart Failure ELITE Study recently found that in patients with symptomatic heart failure and a left ventricular ejection fraction of /=65 years with symptomatic heart failure. Data on health care resource utilization were collected as part of the trial. We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis to estimate the lifetime benefits of treatment and the associated costs. We observed no differences between treatments in the number of hospitalizations, hospital days, and emergency room visits per patient over the trial period. We estimated the total cost of losartan to be USD 54 (95% CI: USD -1,717, USD 1,755) less per patient than captopril over this time frame. We also estimated that over the projected remaining lifetime of the study population, losartan compared to captopril would increase survival by 0.20 years (undiscounted) at an average cost of USD 769 (discounted) more per patient. This cost increase translated into a cost-effectiveness ratio of USD 4,047 per year of life gained for losartan relative to captopril. In patients with symptomatic heart failure, losartan compared to captopril increased survival with better tolerability at a cost well within the range accepted as cost-effective.