Search

Background: Delivering effective tobacco dependence treatment that is feasible within lung cancer screening (LCS) programs is crucial for realizing the health benefits and cost savings of screening. Large-scale trials and systematic reviews have demonstrated that digital cessation interventions (i.e. web-based and text message) are effective, sustainable over the long-term, scalable, and cost-efficient. Use of digital technologies is commonplace among older adults, making this a feasible approach within LCS programs. Use of cessation treatment has been improved with models that proactively connect smokers to treatment rather than passive referrals. Proactive referral to cessation treatment has been advanced through healthcare systems changes such as modifying the electronic health record to automatically link smokers to treatment.Methods: This study evaluates the impact of a proactive enrollment strategy that links LCS-eligible smokers with an evidence-based intervention comprised of a web-based (WEB) program and integrated text messaging (TXT) in a three-arm randomized trial with repeated measures at one, three, six, and 12 months post randomization. The primary outcome is biochemically confirmed abstinence at 12 months post randomization. We will randomize 1650 smokers who present for a clinical LCS to: (1) a usual care control condition (UC) which consists of Ask-Advise-Refer; (2) a digital (WEB + TXT) cessation intervention; or (3) a digital cessation intervention combined with tobacco treatment specialist (TTS) counseling (WEB + TXT + TTS).Discussion: The scalability and sustainability of a digital intervention may represent the most cost-effective and feasible approach for LCS programs to proactively engage large numbers of smokers in effective cessation treatment. We will also evaluate the impact and cost-effectiveness of adding proven clinical intervention provided by a TTS. We expect that a combined digital/clinical intervention will yield higher quit rates than digital alone, but that it may not be as cost-effective or feasible for LCS programs to implement. This study is innovative in its use of interoperable, digital technologies to deliver a sustainable, scalable, high-impact cessation intervention and to facilitate its integration within clinical practice. It will add to the growing knowledge base about the overall effectiveness of digital interventions and their role in the healthcare delivery system.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03084835 . Registered on 9 March 2017. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: To compare one-year all-cause and uterine fibroid (UF)-related direct costs in patients treated with one of the following three uterine-sparing procedures: magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound (MRgFUS), uterine artery embolization (UAE) and myomectomy., Methods: This retrospective observational cohort study used healthcare claims for several million individuals with healthcare coverage from employers in the MarketScan Database for the period 2003-2010. UF patients aged 25-54 on their first UF procedure (index) date with 366-day baseline experience, 366-day follow-up period, continuous health plan enrollment during baseline and follow-up, and absence of any baseline UF procedures were included in the final sample. Cost outcomes were measured by allowed charges (sum of insurer-paid and patient-paid amounts). UF-related cost was defined as difference in mean cost between study cohorts and propensity-score-matched control cohorts without UF. Multivariate adjustment of cost outcomes was conducted using generalized linear models., Results: The study sample comprised 14,426 patients (MRgFUS = 14; UAE = 4,092; myomectomy = 10,320) with a higher percent of older patients in MRgFUS cohort (71% vs. 50% vs. 12% in age-group 45-54, P < 0.001). Adjusted all-cause mean cost was lowest for MRgFUS ($19,763; 95% CI: $10,425-$38,694) followed by myomectomy ($20,407; 95% CI: $19,483-$21,381) and UAE ($25,019; 95% CI: $23,738-$26,376) but without statistical significance. Adjusted UF-related costs were also not significantly different between the three procedures., Conclusions: Adjusted all-cause and UF-related costs at one year were not significantly different between patients undergoing MRgFUS, myomectomy and UAE.

Background: Existing literature on mood disorders suggests that the demographic distribution of bipolar disorder may differ from that of unipolar depression, and also that bipolar disorder may be especially disruptive to personal functioning. Yet, few studies have directly compared the populations with unipolar depressive and bipolar disorders, whether in terms of demographic characteristics or personal limitations. Furthermore, studies have generally examined work-related costs, without fully investigating the extensive personal limitations associated with diagnoses of specific mood disorders. The purpose of the present study is to compare, at a national level, the demographic characteristics, work productivity, and personal limitations among individuals diagnosed with bipolar disorder versus those diagnosed with unipolar depressive disorders and no mood disorder., Methods: The Medical Expenditure Panel Survey 2004-2006, a nationally representative survey of the civilian, non-institutionalized U.S. population, was used to identify individuals diagnosed with bipolar disorder and unipolar depressive disorders based on ICD-9 classifications. Outcomes of interest were indirect costs, including work productivity and personal limitations., Results: Compared to those with depression and no mood disorder, higher proportions of the population with bipolar disorder were poor, living alone, and not married. Also, the bipolar disorder population had higher rates of unemployment and social, cognitive, work, and household limitations than the depressed population. In multivariate models, patients with bipolar disorder or depression were more likely to be unemployed, miss work, and have social, cognitive, physical, and household limitations than those with no mood disorder. Notably, findings indicated particularly high costs for bipolar disorder, even beyond depression, with especially large differences in odds ratios for non-employment (4.6 for bipolar disorder versus 1.9 for depression, with differences varying by gender), social limitations (5.17 versus 2.85), cognitive limitations (10.78 versus 3.97), and work limitations (6.71 versus 3.19)., Conclusion: The bipolar disorder population is distinctly more vulnerable than the population with depressive disorder, with evidence of fewer personal resources, lower work productivity, and greater personal limitations. More systematic analysis of the availability and quality of care for patients with bipolar disorder is encouraged to identify effectively tailored treatment interventions and maximize cost containment.