PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

A R Hull

Publications and source records attributed to A R Hull.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

Drug substitution in transplantation: a National Kidney Foundation White Paper.

Specific safeguards to guide the approval process and substitution practices for generic immunosuppressive agents are necessary for the effective delivery of patient care. Currently, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires the demonstration of bioequivalence of generic drugs to innovator drugs in normal healthy subjects, a criterion that may be insufficient for critical-dose drugs. For generic equivalents of critical-dose drugs and for innovator critical-dose drugs, there should be a requirement for replicate studies measuring intrasubject variability and subject-treatment interactions to establish that bioequivalence holds true. Extensive testing of generic drugs in all target patient types is impractical and should not be required. However, when evidence suggests that the bioavailability of a critical-dose drug may vary substantially in certain subgroups, the FDA should require a demonstration of bioequivalence of generic versions to innovator products in these representative target populations. Changes in the approval process for generics should be accompanied by more consistent substitution practices. Pharmacists should notify the prescribing physician and patient whenever a critical-dose drug (generic or brand name) is dispensed in a different formulation from the one the patient has been taking. Therapeutic substitution for such drugs should not be made unless the prescribing physician has granted approval. The health care provider should consider instituting appropriate monitoring whenever patients are switched between generic formulations or between innovator drugs and generic formulations. Patients should be well informed about generic substitutes so that they can participate in treatment choices.

Biological Availability↗

The 1989 morbidity and mortality meeting: how far have we come?

The Morbidity, Mortality, and Prescription of Dialysis Symposium was an international meeting held almost 9 years ago in Dallas, TX. The proceedings were subsequently published in the American Journal of Kidney Diseases. This article reviews key material from that meeting and evaluates what we have accomplished in the intervening years.

Humans↗

Living kidney donation: a survey of professional attitudes and practices.

Living donation is an option for meeting the needs of patients with end-stage renal disease. We surveyed kidney transplant professionals to understand their attitudes, opinions, and practices regarding living donation and to generate a rough estimate of the national potential for living related kidney donation. Although this sample of health practitioners expressed strong support for living donation, their actual professional practice does not necessarily reflect such support. Given the disparity between support and practice, we recommend that leaders in the kidney transplant community focus on several concrete objectives to optimize living donation: estimate the underlying potential for living donation; identify and implement best demonstrated practices for making the living donation request; explore and respond to the ethical issues that surround living donation; and address the needs of both donors and recipients.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗

The legislative and regulatory process in the end-stage renal disease (ESRD) program, 1973 through 1997.

Although hemodialysis began in the early 1960s, it did not begin to really grow until 1973, when the Federal government started to pay for end-stage renal disease (ESRD) treatment under Medicare. Since then, the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) has made a series of mistakes while maintaining this very successful program. This article traces the steps HCFA took, and the responses by the providers that produced the situation we have today. This program pays the lowest amount for hemodialysis of any industrialized nation, and most likely as a result has the highest mortality rate (23%) of any of the same countries. The problem as outlined is that HCFA attempted to ration by price while ignoring quality. This has been compounded by the providers finding more and more ways to reduce cost to continue to make a profit while not improving quality. The result is a program that could have been much better, and a patient population that has suffered.

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, U.S.↗

Predictors of the excessive mortality rates of dialysis patients in the United States.

It is now well recognized that the United States has the highest mortality rate for end-stage renal disease patients receiving dialysis among the industrialized nations. The possible causes of this almost 25% gross mortality rate (23.6% in 1992) are becoming clearer. After numerous investigations of the various possibilities, it is now evident that the causes are multifactorial. Basically, the US reimbursement for dialysis payment rate has been kept low (essentially no increase since 1973) by allowing inflation to advance and maintaining the actual costs. The industry has responded in a number of ways, some of which have proven harmful. For example, the reuse of dialyzers was probably reasonable and has not proven to be a problem: reductions in staff for older and sicker populations has probably been harmful to the patient's well being; and the shortening of dialysis treatments may have produced more problems than any other change. Essentially, as patients receive less dialysis they feel worse and lose their appetite, thus resulting in weight loss. Frequently dialysis is reduced further because of reduction in certain chemical markers, eg, blood urea nitrogen, that nephrologists use as clinical measurements. This results in a malnourished patient with a low serum albumin level. It is believed but not yet proven that an increase in the dialysis prescription, ie, more dialysis, can reverse this decline. Currently the United States faces the challenges of reducing its mortality rate for end-stage renal disease patients to compare with that of other industrial countries while remaining at the current reimbursement rate, which is less than half that of Germany and one quarter that of Japan.

Humans↗