Cost Impact of Intrathecal Polyanalgesia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost impact of dose escalation with intrathecal drug therapy and polyanalgesic admixtures and determine if increased cost is justified by improved pain control. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 110 patients, 80 patients with chronic non-cancer pain (Group A) and 30 with spasticity (Group B). Mean follow-up period was 73 months (Group A) and 112 months (Group B). Parameters assessed were: demographics, drug usage, drug costs, and pain/spasticity control. Two models were developed: 1) price model--estimated drug price per refill; 2) cost model--predicts costs/day by therapy types and four common pathologies over 5 years. RESULTS: All patients started on monotherapy with 63 continuing (Group A: 39; Group B: 24), with 47 (Group A: 41; Group B: 6) requiring dual-drug therapy of which 11 (Group A: 10; Group B: 1) progressed to triple-drug admixtures. After starting polyanalgesic regimes, patients were able to recapture lost pain control. Cost escalation in Group A at 5 years, as demonstrated by cost modeling, was 191%, 107%, and 89% for mono-, dual-, or triple-drug therapy, respectively. For Group B, most patients stayed in monotherapy and the 5-year increase was 104%. The difference in cost between monotherapy and dual therapy for Group A was $1.97/day (baseline) to $3.28/day (5th year) and between dual and triple therapy from $2.55/day (baseline) to $4.30/day (5th year). CONCLUSIONS: Polyanalgesia, while more costly, is justified based on its effectiveness in restoring pain control. Superior results are achieved when polyanalgesia is initiated early. Cost modeling enabled price prediction for the purposes of developing program budgets.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".