Predicting utility scores for prostate cancer: mapping the Prostate Cancer Index to the Patient-Oriented Prostate Utility Scale (PORPUS).

BACKGROUND: The Prostate Cancer Index (PCI) is a health profile instrument that measures health-related quality of life with six subscales: urinary, sexual, and bowel function and bother. The Patient-Oriented Prostate Utility Scale (PORPUS-U) measures utility (0=dead and 1=full health). Utility is a preference-based approach to measure health-related quality of life, required for decision analyses and cost-effectiveness analyses. We developed a function to estimate PORPUS-U utilities from PCI scores. METHODS: The development data set included 676 community-dwelling prostate cancer (PC) survivors who completed the PCI and PORPUS-U by mail. We fit three linear regression models: one used original PORPUS-U scores and two used log-transformed PORPUS-U scores, one with a hierarchy constraint and one without. The model selection was performed using stepwise selection and fivefold cross validation. The validation data included 248 PC outpatients with three assessments on the PCI and PORPUS-U. Scores were retransformed for validation, with Duan's smearing estimator applied to correct potential bias. The predictive ability of the models was assessed with R(2), root mean square error (RMSE) and by comparing predicted and observed utilities. RESULTS: The best-fitting model used the log-transformed PORPUS-U with no hierarchy constraint. The R(2) was 0.72. The RMSE ranged from 0.040 to 0.061 for the three validation data sets. Differences between predicted and observed utilities ranged from 0.000 to 0.006 but predicted utilities overestimated the lowest 5% of observed PORPUS-U scores and underestimated the highest observed scores. CONCLUSIONS: Our algorithm can calculate PORPUS-U utility scores from PCI scores, thus supplementing descriptive quality of life measures with utility scores in PC patients. Utilities derived from mapping algorithms are useful for assigning utility to groups of patients but are less accurate at predicting utility of individual patients. We are exploring statistical methods to improve the mapping of utilities from descriptive instruments.

Net costs of hospital-acquired and pre-admission PUs among older people hospitalised in Ontario.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the net cost of hospital-acquired and pre-admission pressure ulcers (PUs) in an acute-care setting in Ontario, Canada. METHOD: Cases of PUs were identified among hospitalised patients using Ontario Case Costing Initiative (OCCI) data from 2002-2006. Inpatient costs included direct and overhead costs.To determine the net cost of PUs, cases were matched controlling for age, gender, most responsible diagnosis and comorbidity. Mean net costs were estimated using Bayesian linear mixed models methods. Results were also reported by PU severity. RESULTS: In our study, there were 1351 cases of hospital-acquired PUs and 2523 cases of preadmission PUs over 5 years. Net cost of hospital-acquired PU ranged between CA$44000 for a category II PU to CA$90000 for a category IV PU. For pre-admission PU net cost was between CA$11 000 to CA$18500 for category II and category IV PU, respectively.The net cost of treating hospital-acquired PU is higher than pre-admission PU. Costs increase with increasing PU severity. CONCLUSION: The total net adjusted hospitalisation cost of a hospital-acquired PU in Ontario was CA$44000-90000, compared with CA$11 000-18500 for a pre-admission PU. Future studies should determine the attributable cost of PU using patient-level data to verify the accuracy of the study results.

Adding gabapentin to a multimodal regimen does not reduce acute pain, opioid consumption or chronic pain after total hip arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Gabapentin (GPN) is effective in reducing post-operative pain and opioid consumption, but its effects with regional anesthesia for total hip arthroplasty (THA) are not known. We designed this study to determine whether (1) gabapentin administration reduces pain and opioid use after THA using a multimodal analgesic regimen including spinal anesthesia; (2) pre-operative administration of gabapentin is more effective than post-operative administration. METHODS: After REB approval and informed consent, 126 patients were enrolled in a double-blinded, randomized-controlled study. Patients received acetaminophen 1 g per os (p.o.), celecoxib 400 mg p.o. and dexamethasone 8 mg intravenously, 1-2 h pre-operatively. Patients were randomly assigned to one of three treatment groups (G1: Placebo/Placebo; G2: GPN/Placebo; G3: Placebo/GPN). Patients received gabapentin 600 mg (G2) or placebo (G1 and G3) 2 h before surgery. All patients had spinal anesthesia [15 mg (3cc) of 0.5% hypobaric bupivacaine with 10 microg of fentanyl]. In the post-anesthetic care unit, patients received gabapentin 600 mg (G3) or placebo (G1 and G2). On the ward, patients received acetaminophen 1000 mg p.o. q6h, celecoxib 200 mg p.o. q12h and a morphine PCA device. Patients were interviewed 6 months post-surgery to determine the incidence and severity of chronic post-surgical pain. RESULTS: Mean+/-SD cumulative morphine (mg) consumption (G1=49.4+/-24.8, G2=47.2+/-30.1 and G3=56.1+/-38.2) at 48 h and pain scores at 12, 24, 36 and 48 h post-surgery were not significantly different among the groups [G1 (n=38), G2 (n=38) and G3 (n=38)]. Side effect profiles were similar across groups. Six months after surgery, the number of patients who reported chronic post-surgical pain (G1=10, G2=12 and G3=9) and the severity of the pain (G1=4.2+/-2.9, G2=4.1+/-2.2 and G3=4.9+/-2.2) did not differ significantly among the groups (P>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: A single 600 mg dose of gabapentin given pre-operatively or post-operatively does not reduce morphine consumption or pain scores in hospital or at 6 months after hip arthroplasty within the context of spinal anesthesia and a robust multimodal analgesia regimen.