Wymer, Kevin

Objective: The aim of this study was to develop a risk score utilizing C-reactive protein (CRP) and procalcitonin to better predict a clinical infection for patients with obstructive urolithiasis. Methods: A retrospective review was performed of patients presenting to the emergency room from December 2017 to February 2019 and who underwent upper urinary tract decompression due to concern for infection in the setting of obstructing urolithiasis. Over 30 clinical parameters were assessed and a composite risk score was created. Univariate and multivariate, forward, stepwise regression analyses were performed to identify predictors of true urinary tract infection (UTI). Results: Ninety-eight patients met inclusion criteria, of which a true UTI was identified in 50 (51%). The standard model of serum white blood cells >15 or temperature >38°C had an area under curve (AUC) of only 0.67 to predict UTI. A multivariable regression-based 4-point risk score (1 point for each of the following: positive urinary Gram stain, perinephric fat stranding on CT, serum CRP >21.95, and serum procalcitonin >0.36) had an AUC of 0.91 to predict UTI. Individually, these components had an AUC of 0.68, 0.68, 0.80, and 0.77, respectively. The chances of confirmed UTI were 8%, 11%, 68%, and 100% for risk scores of 0, 1, 2, and 3 to 4, respectively ( p < 0.001). Conclusions: Only 50% of patients with a suspected UTI and an obstructing stone were ultimately confirmed to have a UTI. A risk score consisting of Gram stain, perinephric fat stranding, CRP, and procalcitonin can improve UTI prediction and warrants further study.

ABSTRACT Background Traditionally, surgery has been considered the gold standard treatment for Peyronie’s disease (PD). Less-invasive alternatives, such as collagenase Clostridium histolyticum (CCH) and traction therapy, have been proposed and proven effective. Aim To compare cost-effectiveness of management options for PD. Methods A Markov analytic model was created to compare the cost-effectiveness of treatment with a novel traction device, RestoreX (RXPTT), vs CCH vs surgery. Outcomes were derived from single-institution, prospective data of 63 men treated with RXPTT, 115 with CCH, and 23 with plication or incision and grafting. Costs were based on 2017 Medicare reimbursement and utility values from the literature. Main Outcome Measures Model outcomes included complications for each treatment arm, as well as the probability of success, which was defined as ≥20% improvement in curvature. Univariable and multivariable sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the model. Results Overall success rates were 96% (surgery), 66% (CCH), and 48% (RXPTT). At 10 years after treatment, RXPTT was the most cost-effective, with mean costs per patient of $883 (RXPTT), $11,419 (surgery), and $33,628 (CCH). CCH and surgery both resulted in a gain of quality adjusted life years (QALYs) relative to RXPTT (9.44 and 9.36 vs 9.27, respectively). Sensitivity analysis demonstrated greater cost-effectiveness for surgery if lower (≤46%) rates of postoperative erectile dysfunction or length loss (≤3%). CCH became more cost-effective at lower costs (≤$16,726) or higher success rates (≥76%). On multivariable sensitivity analysis at a willingness to pay threshold of $100,000/QALY, the most cost-effective strategy was RXPTT in 49%, surgery in 48%, and CCH in 3% of simulations. At a willingness to treat threshold of $150,000/QALY, the most cost-effective treatment option was RXPTT in 33%, surgery in 55%, and CCH in 12% of simulations. Clinical Implications In an era of value-based care, this model can guide cost-effective treatment selection on the basis of provider, patient, and payer characteristics. Strengths & Limitations The current study represents the first cost-effectiveness comparison of treatment modalities for PD and is strengthened by prospective data collection, large CCH and traction sample sizes, and robust sensitivity analyses. Consistent with cost-effective models, the model is limited by assumptions and may not apply to all scenarios. Conclusions RXPTT represents a more cost-effective method for achieving ≥20% curvature improvement compared with surgery or CCH. Depending on treatment goals, rate of surgical complications, and willingness to pay threshold, surgery and CCH may become more cost-effective in select scenarios.