Hopelessness and Related Variables among Cancer Patients in the Southern European Psycho-Oncology Study (SEPOS).

BACKGROUND: Although hopelessness has been studied in cancer, no data are available in non-English-speaking countries. OBJECTIVE: The authors sought to amass data from Southern European countries (Italy, Portugal, Spain, and Switzerland) in order to fill this void. METHOD: A group of 312 cancer patients completed the Mini-MAC Hopelessness subscale, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), the Cancer Worry Inventory (CWI), and a six-item Visual Analog scale (VAS) to measure intensity of physical symptoms, general well-being, difficulty in coping with cancer, intensity of social support from close relationships, leisure activity, and support from religious beliefs. RESULTS: Regression analysis indicated that HADS-Depression, VAS Maladaptive Coping and Well-Being, and the CWI explained 42% of the variance. CONCLUSION: Hopelessness in cancer patients seems not exclusively to correspond to depression, but is related to various other psychosocial factors, such as maladaptive coping, as well.

Avaliação do Tratamento da Dor Aguda em Obstetrícia

Os autores propuseram-se avaliar o tratamento da dor aguda no trabalho de parto e parto, (88 casos) e no post-operatório de cesariana (53 casos). Para a avaliação da dor utilizaram a VAS e a escala descritiva de dor; o grau de satisfação materna foi inquirido às 48 horas de internamento. A forma de administração influenciou a eficácia analgésica na altura do parto. Quanto à avaliação do pós-operatório às 2 horas após cesariana 24,5% das puérperas referiram VAS >3 e às 6 horas 20,8%, apesar de terem prescrição fixa de analgésicos. Às 24 horas 40% das puérperas referiram VAS >3 e às 48 horas 30%. Das 141 puérperas, 56 consideraram-se muito satisfeitas, 84 satisfeitas e apenas 1 insatisfeita.

A Prospective Assessment of Renal Transplantation Versus Haemodialysis: Which Therapeutic Modality Is Good Value for Society?

Background: Economic evaluations help health authorities facing budget constraints. This study compares the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and costs in patient subgroups on haemodialysis (HD) and renal transplantation (KT). Methods: In a prospective study with follow-up of 1-3 years, we performed a costutility analysis of KT vs. HD, adopting a lifetime horizon. A societal perspective was taken. Costs for organ procurement, KT eligibility, transplant surgery and follow-up of living donors were included. Key clinical events were recorded. HRQOL was assessed using the EuroQol instrument. Results: The HRQOL remained stable on HD patients. After KT, mean utility score improved at 3 months while mean EQ-VAS scores showed a sustained improvement. Mean annual cost for HD was 32,567.57€. Mean annual costs for KT in the year-1 and in subsequent years were, 60,210.09€ and 12,956.77€ respectively. Cost for initial hospitalization averaged 18,740.74€. HLA-mismatches increased costs by 75% for initial hospitalization (p < 0.001) and 41% in the year-1 (p < 0.05), and duplicate the risk of readmission in the year-1 (p < 0.05). The incremental costutility ratio was 5,534.46€/QALY, increasing 35% when costs for organ procurement were added. KT costs were 41,541.63€ more but provided additional 7.51 QALY. Conclusions: The KT is cost-effective compared with HD. Public funding should reflect the value created by the intervention and adapt to the organ demand.

Health-Related Quality of Life Impact of a Triple Combination of Olmesartan Medoxomil, Amlodipine Besylate and Hydrochlorotiazide in Subjects with Hypertension

BACKGROUND: A post-hoc analysis was performed on the data from a 54 weeks phase III study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00923091) to measure changes in the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of 2,690 patients aged ≥18 with moderate-to-severe hypertension who received one of six doses of olmesartan/amlodipine/hydrochlorothiazide (OLM/AML/HCTZ), using the MINICHAL and EQ-5D instruments. METHODS: Descriptive statistics were used to assess blood pressure and HRQoL scores over the study period. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to identify those factors that could possibly have influenced HRQoL. Linear regression was used to assess the relationship between changes in blood pressure and HRQoL scores. RESULTS: Patients' baseline MINICHAL mood and somatic domains scores were 5.5 and 2.6. Over the study period HRQoL improved as both MINICHAL scores decreased by 31-33%. Patients' baseline EQ-5D index and VAS scores were 0.9 and 73.4 respectively, increasing by 6% and 12% over the study period. Patients' QALY gain over the 54 weeks study period was estimated to be 0.029 QALYs. The ANCOVA showed that changes in patients' HRQoL was likely to have been influenced by patients' achievement of blood pressure control, the amount of concomitant medication and patients' last used dosage strength of antihypertensive. Linear regression showed that blood pressure improvement may have been associated with improved HRQoL. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that OLM/AML/HCTZ reduced blood pressure and significantly increased blood pressure control whilst improving patients' HRQoL. Achieving blood pressure control, amount of concomitant medication and dosage strength of antihypertensive impacted on patients' HRQoL.