BACKGROUND:

Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) profoundly affects the quality of patients' lives. A systematic review was performed to evaluate critically the published literature and to examine what is known about health-related quality of life (HRQL) in patients with IPF.

METHODS:

The MEDLINE, EMBASE, Health and Psychosocial Instruments, and Cochrane Library databases were searched to 1 April 2004. Abstracts and bibliographies of published articles were scanned and contact was made with investigators. Included studies analysed HRQL (or quality of life) in at least 10 patients with IPF. Two reviewers independently selected studies, evaluated their quality according to predetermined criteria, and abstracted data on study design, patients' demographic and clinical characteristics, and quality of life outcome measures.

RESULTS:

Seven studies met the inclusion criteria. The studies enrolled 512 patients with IPF and used three different instruments to measure HRQL. All studies had important limitations in methodological quality; none measured longitudinal changes in HRQL over time. Patients reported substantially impaired HRQL, especially in domains that measured physical health and level of independence. Patients with IPF appear to have similar impairments in HRQL to those with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Measures of dyspnoea were moderately correlated with scores from domains that measured physical health (R2 = 0.03-0.66) and energy/fatigue/pep (R2 = 0.19-0.55), but measures of pulmonary function and gas exchange did not correlate as strongly with these and other domains.

CONCLUSION:

Studies of HRQL in patients with IPF suggest that, in addition to the obvious effect on physical health, general health, energy level, respiratory symptoms, and level of independence are also impaired. Variability in HRQL among patients is not fully explained by measures of dyspnoea or pulmonary function, suggesting that HRQL measures provide unique information. More research is needed to identify or design appropriate measurement instruments for patients with IPF and to examine changes in HRQL over time or in response to specific treatments.

BACKGROUND: Gender differences in health system usage can lead to differences in the incidence of morbidity and mortality. We conducted a pilot screening targeted towards men to evaluate gender differences in cardiovascular disease risk factor detection and time since last clinic visit.

METHODS: Three evening sessions in two communities screened 148 people, mean age 47.7 years. Height, weight, body mass index, blood pressure, blood glucose, and total cholesterol were measured. A questionnaire on past medical history was administered. Participants with elevated measurements were referred to appropriate care.

RESULTS: Men accounted for 60.1% of those screened; 65.5% of the group was overweight, and 22.3% was obese with 42.6% hypertension, 39.2% hypercholesterolemia, and 2.7% high blood glucose. Among men aged 35 to 65, 65.2% were overweight, 20.3% obese, 46.4% hypertensive, 42.0% hypercholesterolemic, and 1.5% with high blood glucose. Within the last 2 years, 53.3% of men and 9.1% of women aged 35 to 65 had not visited a doctor (P = 0.004).

CONCLUSIONS: A significant portion of those screened had elevated cardiovascular disease risk factors. Given that men visited doctors significantly less frequently, efforts to involve men in prevention of cardiovascular disease within these communities are warranted.

In recent years, hepatitis B has taken a backseat to hepatitis C because of the increased prevalence of hepatitis C in the United States and western Europe. However, hepatitis B has reclaimed the attention of gastroenterologists and other health care professionals because of 3 developments: the introduction of polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA testing; the improved understanding of the nature of HBV-related disease; and the introduction of potent, orally administered new antiviral agents. In our editorial, we discuss the treatment of HBV, which has evolved rapidly, and then comment on the cost-effectiveness of HBV therapies.

BACKGROUND: Only limited research tracks United States trends in the use of statins recorded during outpatient visits, particularly use by patients at moderate to high cardiovascular risk.

METHODS AND FINDINGS: Data collected between 1992 and 2002 in two federally administered surveys provided national estimates of statin use among ambulatory patients, stratified by coronary heart disease risk based on risk factor counting and clinical diagnoses. Statin use grew from 47% of all lipid-lowering medications in 1992 to 87% in 2002, with atorvastatin being the leading medication in 2002. Statin use by patients with hyperlipidemia, as recorded by the number of patient visits, increased significantly from 9% of patient visits in 1992 to 49% in 2000 but then declined to 36% in 2002. Absolute increases in the rate of statin use were greatest for high-risk patients, from 4% of patient visits in 1992 to 19% in 2002. Use among moderate-risk patients increased from 2% of patient visits in 1992 to 14% in 1999 but showed no continued growth subsequently. In 2002, 1 y after the release of the Adult Treatment Panel III recommendations, treatment gaps in statin use were detected for more than 50% of outpatient visits by moderate- and high-risk patients with reported hyperlipidemia. Lower statin use was independently associated with younger patient age, female gender, African American race (versus non-Hispanic white), and non-cardiologist care.

CONCLUSION: Despite notable improvements in the past decade, clinical practice fails to institute recommended statin therapy during many ambulatory visits of patients at moderate-to-high cardiovascular risk. Innovative approaches are needed to promote appropriate, more aggressive statin use for eligible patients.

Background: Weaponized Bacillus anthracis is one of the few biological agents that can cause death and disease in sufficient numbers to devastate an urban setting.

Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of strategies for prophylaxis and treatment of an aerosolized B. anthracis bioterror attack.

Design: Decision analytic model.

Data Sources: We derived probabilities of anthrax exposure, vaccine and treatment characteristics, and their costs and associated clinical outcomes from the medical literature and bioterrorism-preparedness experts.

Target Population: Persons living and working in a large metropolitan U.S. city.

Time Horizon: Patient lifetime.

Perspective: Societal.

Intervention: We evaluated 4 postattack strategies: no prophylaxis, vaccination alone, antibiotic prophylaxis alone, or vaccination and antibiotic prophylaxis, as well as preattack vaccination versus no vaccination.

Outcome Measures: Costs, quality-adjusted life-years, life-years, and incremental cost-effectiveness.

Results of Base-Case Analysis: If an aerosolized B. anthracis bioweapon attack occurs, postexposure prophylactic vaccination and antibiotic therapy for those potentially exposed is the most effective (0.33 life-year gained per person) and least costly ($355 saved per person) strategy, as compared with vaccination alone. At low baseline probabilities of attack and exposure, mass previous vaccination of a metropolitan population is more costly ($815 million for a city of 5 million people) and not more effective than no vaccination.

Results of Sensitivity Analysis: If prophylactic antibiotics cannot be promptly distributed after exposure, previous vaccination may become cost-effective.

Limitations: The probability of exposure and disease critically depends on the probability and mechanism of bioweapon release.

Conclusions: In the event of an aerosolized B. anthracis bioweapon attack over an unvaccinated metropolitan U.S. population, postattack prophylactic vaccination and antibiotic therapy is the most effective and least expensive strategy.

Background: Although the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommend routine HIV counseling, testing, and referral (HIVCTR) in settings with at least a 1 percent prevalence of HIV, roughly 280,000 Americans are unaware of their human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. The effect of expanded screening for HIV is unknown in the era of effective antiretroviral therapy.

Methods: We developed a computer simulation model of HIV screening and treatment to compare routine, voluntary HIVCTR with current practice in three target populations: "high-risk" (3.0 percent prevalence of undiagnosed HIV infection; 1.2 percent annual incidence); "CDC threshold" (1.0 percent and 0.12 percent, respectively); and "U.S. general" (0.1 percent and 0.01 percent). Input data were derived from clinical trials and observational cohorts. Outcomes included quality-adjusted survival, cost, and cost-effectiveness.

Results: In the high-risk population, the addition of one-time screening for HIV antibodies with an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) to current practice was associated with earlier diagnosis of HIV (mean CD4 cell count at diagnosis, 210 vs. 154 per cubic millimeter). One-time screening also improved average survival time among HIV-infected patients (quality-adjusted survival, 220.7 months vs. 219.8 months). The incremental cost-effectiveness was $36,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Testing every five years cost $50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, and testing every three years cost $63,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. In the CDC threshold population, the cost-effectiveness ratio for one-time screening with ELISA was $38,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, whereas testing every five years cost $71,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, and testing every three years cost $85,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. In the U.S. general population, one-time screening cost $113,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained.

Conclusions: In all but the lowest-risk populations, routine, voluntary screening for HIV once every three to five years is justified on both clinical and cost-effectiveness grounds. One-time screening in the general population may also be cost-effective.

Background:

The costs, benefits, and cost-effectiveness of screening for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in health care settings during the era of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) have not been determined.

Methods:

We developed a Markov model of costs, quality of life, and survival associated with an HIV-screening program as compared with current practice. In both strategies, symptomatic patients were identified through symptom-based case finding. Identified patients started treatment when their CD4 count dropped to 350 cells per cubic millimeter. Disease progression was defined on the basis of CD4 levels and viral load. The likelihood of sexual transmission was based on viral load, knowledge of HIV status, and efficacy of counseling.

Results:

Given a 1 percent prevalence of unidentified HIV infection, screening increased life expectancy by 5.48 days, or 4.70 quality-adjusted days, at an estimated cost of $194 per screened patient, for a cost-effectiveness ratio of $15,078 per quality-adjusted life-year. Screening cost less than $50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year if the prevalence of unidentified HIV infection exceeded 0.05 percent. Excluding HIV transmission, the cost-effectiveness of screening was $41,736 per quality-adjusted life-year. Screening every five years, as compared with a one-time screening program, cost $57,138 per quality-adjusted life-year, but was more attractive in settings with a high incidence of infection. Our results were sensitive to the efficacy of behavior modification, the benefit of early identification and therapy, and the prevalence and incidence of HIV infection.

Conclusions:

The cost-effectiveness of routine HIV screening in health care settings, even in relatively low-prevalence populations, is similar to that of commonly accepted interventions, and such programs should be expanded.

PURPOSE:

The cost-effectiveness of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and defibrillation training for laypersons unselected for risk of encountering cases of cardiac arrest is not known. We compared the costs and health benefits of alternative resuscitation training strategies for adults without professional first-responder duties who are at average risk of encountering cases of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

METHODS:

We constructed a cost-effectiveness analytic model. Data on cardiac arrest epidemiology and the effectiveness of CPR/defibrillation training were obtained from the medical literature. Instructional costs were determined from a survey of training programs. Downstream cardiac arrest survivor quality-adjusted life expectancy and long-term health care costs were derived from prior studies. We compared three strategies for training unselected laypersons: CPR/defibrillation training alone, training combined with home defibrillator purchase, and no training. The main outcome measures were total instructional costs for trainees combined with health care costs for additional cardiac arrest survivors, and quality-adjusted survival for additional patients resuscitated by trainees.

RESULTS:

CPR/defibrillation training yielded 2.7 quality-adjusted hours of life at a cost of 62 US dollars per trainee (202,400 US dollars per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] gained). Training laypersons in CPR/defibrillation with subsequent defibrillator purchase cost 2,489,700 US dollars per QALY. In contrast, CPR/defibrillation training cost less than 75,000 US dollars per QALY if trainees lived with persons older than 75 years or with persons who had cardiac disease, or if total training costs were less than 10 US dollars.

CONCLUSION:

Training unselected laypersons in CPR/defibrillation is costly compared with other public health initiatives. Conversely, training laypersons selected by occupation, low training costs, or having high-risk household companions is substantially more efficient.

Objective:

Hypertension affects more than 50 million people in the United States alone. Despite clear evidence regarding the beneficial effects of quality treatment for high blood pressure, many millions of diagnosed and undiagnosed hypertensives are not receiving the optimal standard of care. The difference in patient outcomes achieved with present hypertension treatment methods and those thought to be possible using best practice treatment methods is known as a quality gap, and such gaps are at least partly responsible for the loss of thousands of lives each year. This review was organized to bring a systematic assessment of different quality improvement (QI) strategies and their effects to the process of identifying and managing hypertension.

Search Strategy and Inclusion Criteria:

Investigators searched the MEDLINE® database, the Cochrane Collaboration's Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) registry, article bibliographies, and relevant journals for experimental evaluations of QI interventions aimed at improving hypertension screening and management of non-pregnant adults with primary hypertension. The reviewers included randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials, controlled before/after studies, and interrupted time series in which at least one reported outcome measure included changes in blood pressure, or provider or patient adherence to a recommended process of care.

Data Collection and Analysis:

Relevant data were abstracted independently by two reviewers. Each QI intervention was classified into one or more of the following components: provider education, provider reminders, facilitated relay of clinical information, patient education, promotion of self-management, patient reminders, audit and feedback, organizational change, or financial incentives. Certain categories were further subdivided into major subtypes (e.g., professional meetings for provider education and disease management for organizational change). The researchers also evaluated the impact of clinical information systems as a mediator for interventions of all types. They compared the different QI strategies in terms of the median effects achieved for blood pressure control and for a generalized measure of provider or patient adherence.

Main Results:

Sixty-three articles reporting a total of 82 comparisons met the inclusion criteria. Studies of hypertension identification were found to be too heterogeneous for quantitative analysis. The majority of screening studies were clinic-based (with a few offered at work sites), and the most common strategies involved patient and/or provider reminders. These generally showed positive results; several studies found that patients were more likely to know their blood pressure or attend clinic visits after receiving reminders. Across all studies with a variety of strategies, the median reductions in systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) were 4.5 mmHg (interquartile range: 1.5, 11.0) and 2.1 mmHg (interquartile range: -0.2, 5.0), respectively. The median increase in the proportion of patients in the target SBP range and target DBP range was 16.2 percent (interquartile range: 10.3, 32.2), and 6.0 percent (interquartile range: 1.5, 17.5), respectively. Studies that focused on improving provider adherence showed a range of median reduction of 1.3 percent to a median improvement of 3.3 percent across all QI strategies. Overall, patient adherence showed a median improvement of 2.8 percent (interquartile

range: 1.9, 3.0).

Conclusion:

The findings of this review suggest that QI strategies appear, in general, to be associated with the improved identification and control of hypertension.