ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2020
New Intravenous Calcimimetic Agents: New Options, New Problems. An Example on How Clinical, Economical and Ethical Considerations Affect Choice of Treatment.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDialysis treatment is improving, but several long-term problems remain unsolved, including metabolic bone disease linked to chronic kidney disease (CKD-MBD). The availability of new, efficacious but expensive drugs (intravenous calcimimetic agents) poses ethical problems, especially in the setting of budget limitations.
methodsReasons of choice, side effects, biochemical trends were discussed in a cohort of 15 patients (13% of the dialysis population) who stared treatment with intravenous calcimimetics in a single center. All patients had previously been treated with oral calcimimetic agents; dialysis efficacy was at target in 14/15; hemodiafiltration was employed in 10/15. Median Charlson Comorbidity Index was 8. The indications were discussed according to the principlist ethics (beneficience, non maleficience, justice and autonomy). Biochemical results were analyzed to support the clinical-ethical choices.
resultsIn the context of a strict clinical and biochemical surveillance, the lack of side effects ensured "non-maleficence"; efficacy was at least similar to oral calcimimetic agents, but tolerance was better. Autonomy was respected through a shared decision-making model; all patients appreciated the reduction of the drug burden, and most acknowledged better control of their biochemical data. The ethical conflict resides in the balance between the clinical "beneficience, non-maleficience" advantage and "justice" (economic impact of treatment, potentially in attrition with other resources, since the drug is expensive and included in the dialysis bundle). The dilemma is more relevant when a patient's life expectancy is short (economic impact without clear clinical advantages), or when non-compliance is an issue (unclear advantage if the whole treatment is not correctly taken).
conclusionsIn a context of person-centered medicine, autonomy, beneficence and non-maleficence should weight more than economic justice. While ethical discussions are not aimed at finding "the right answer" but asking "the right questions", this example can raise awareness of the importance of including an ethical analysis in the choice of "economically relevant" drugs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.