Thalidomide-associated deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Biomedical subjects
Publications and source records attributed to Charles L Bennett.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Factors that influence the choice of anagrelide, hydroxyurea, or interferon-alfa (IFN-alpha) for treatment of essential thrombocythemia include efficacy, toxicity, and cost. Anagrelide has the US Food and Drug Administration's approval to be used for treating patients with thrombocythemia secondary to chronic myeloproliferative disorders. In contrast, the use of IFN-alpha and hydroxyurea are considered "off-label." We performed an incremental cost-effectiveness analysis to compare anagrelide, hydroxyurea, and IFN-alpha for treating essential thrombocythemia, in terms of estimated impact on life expectancy. The case used for this analysis was of a 40-year-old man with essential thrombocythemia. Clinical assumptions were based on information obtained from nonrandomized clinical trials, and the economic assumptions were derived from information abstracted from observational studies. Lifelong treatment use of anagrelide versus hydroxyurea would cost approximately $72,000 per additional year of life gained, while the use of IFN-alpha was found to be both more costly and less effective than anagrelide. The results were very sensitive to the risk of leukemia caused by hydroxyurea, with an incremental cost-effectiveness of anagrelide compared with hydroxyurea of $156,969 per additional year of life gained if the lifetime leukemia risk drops from a baseline of .08 to.05. Given that many commonly used medical interventions cost in the range of $50,000 to $100,000 per year of life gained, and the generally poor outcome associated with treatment-related leukemia that can result from hydroxyurea, anagrelide could be considered a therapeutic alternative that is clinically effective at an acceptable cost.
OBJECTIVE: Our purpose was to describe the relationship between health literacy, ethnicity, and cervical cancer screening practices and to evaluate physician recognition of low literacy. STUDY DESIGN: We studied a prospective cohort of English-speaking patients > or =18 years (n = 529) in ambulatory women's clinics. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to evaluate demographics, health practices and beliefs, and knowledge regarding cervical cancer screening and prevention. Physicians' assessments of patient reading skills were obtained. RESULTS: Low health literacy (<9th grade) was found among 40% of participants. Minority women were half as likely to know the purpose of the Papanicolaou test (9% vs 21%; P <.03) and were significantly more likely to have low literacy levels compared with white women (46% vs 15%; P <.05). Literacy was the only factor independently associated with knowledge related to cervical cancer screening (adjusted odds ratio, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.05-4.80). Physicians detected only 20% of the lowest readers. CONCLUSION: Poor health literacy was a better predictor of cervical cancer screening knowledge than ethnicity or education, yet physicians infrequently recognized low literacy. Improved physician awareness and development of low literacy interventions may improve cervical cancer screening, particularly for the most vulnerable women.
OBJECTIVES: In 1991, small cell lung cancer (SCLC) was reported as the first tumour type where colony stimulating factor (CSF) support was clinically effective. We reviewed 13 health services research studies that addressed CSF use as supportive care for SCLC. METHODS: Findings from American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) membership surveys, patterns of care studies, ASCO evidence-based guidelines and cost-effectiveness studies for CSF use were reviewed. RESULTS: For primary prophylaxis for SCLC, ASCO CSF clinical guidelines clearly do not support granulocyte (G)-CSF use. Cost-effectiveness models indicate that CSF use in this setting is associated with as much as US$1900 incremental patient care costs per cycle given an 18% febrile neutropenia rate. ASCO membership surveys found that < 10% of respondents supported CSF as primary prophylaxis while a patterns-of-care study found 55% use. In the secondary prophylaxis setting, ASCO CSF guidelines in 1994, 1996 and 1997 were equally supportive of CSF use versus dose reduction but dose-reduction was considered the preferred option in 2000. Over half of the ASCO member respondents in 1994 and in 1997 supported G-CSF use; cost-effectiveness models indicated that CSF use incurred an additional US$144 and 277 per cycle and the patterns of care study found 27% use of CSF in the community practice setting. CONCLUSIONS: In 2002, the findings of a decade of health services studies have shifted towards not being supportive of CSF use for primary or secondary prophylaxis for SCLC patients.
This pilot study evaluates a shared decision-making approach to individual decision making in localized prostate cancer care. The approach is based on a decision analytic model that incorporates patient utilities, ie, patient preferences among possible health states that might occur with prostate cancer treatments. Data on comorbidities, histologic grade of the biopsy, and age were obtained for 13 patients with newly diagnosed localized prostate cancer who received care in a Veterans Administration medical center. Using a standard gamble technique, interviewers obtained patient utilities for 5 distinct health states related to prostate cancer treatment. Utilities and patient clinical and pathologic characteristics were incorporated into the decision analytic model, and the derived quality-adjusted life expectancies were shared with the treating urologist before the first patient-physician discussion about treatment options. The results of the pilot study raised 2 major concerns. First, 4 patients had utility scores of 1.0 for all of the possible health states, and 7 patients had inconsistent utilities in which they rated both impotence and incontinence as a better health state than having just one of these problems. Second, the model recommended radiation therapy to individuals with a broad range of clinical characteristics, pathologic findings, and utility scores. Many of the patients who were recommended radiation therapy by the model received discordant recommendations from the treating urologist. Future refinements of both the utility assessment exercise and decision analytic model may be needed before the feasibility of the model in the clinical setting can be determined.
The financial impact of cancer can be large, even among persons with comprehensive health insurance policies. Prior studies have found that women with cancer are especially likely to suffer financial hardship. Although controversial, cancer insurance policies are designed to reduce the financial burden of cancer. In this study, we provide estimates of the costs incurred by a cohort of breast cancer patients who were covered by private, Medicare, or Medicaid health insurance. In all, 156 women were interviewed about cancer-related out-of-pocket costs and their knowledge and use of cancer insurance policies. Out-of-pocket expenditures and lost income costs averaged $1,455 per month and varied widely. The majority of out-of-pocket costs were for co-payments for hospitalizations and physician visits. The financial burden of breast cancer accounted for a mean of 98%, 41%, and 26% of monthly income among female breast cancer patients with annual household income levels of < or = $30,000, $30,001-$60,000, and > $60,000, respectively. Cancer insurance policies provided reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenditures for 3% of the women in our study. Our data indicate that even among women with comprehensive health insurance policies, the financial burden of breast cancer can be substantial. Affordable programs that provide reimbursement for medical and nonmedical costs incurred following a diagnosis of breast cancer should be developed, especially for lower income women.