ABSTRACT
Palliative care is a growing medical specialty focusing on providing compassionate and holistic management for those facing life-threatening diseases. These patients frequently present with physical, functional, emotional, and psychosocial problems that require comprehensive interdisciplinary management. However, there is a substantial opportunity to improve care for patients in palliative care who also have a substance use disorder (SUD). These opportunities include direct provision of SUD treatments by specialist palliative care providers and the integration of physical medicine and rehabilitation services. The purpose of this article is to examine the misunderstood and underutilized interaction between palliative care and SUDs, as well as describing the unique opportunities provided by physical medicine and rehabilitation providers to achieve a patient's palliative care goals and optimize overall quality of life. Substance Use Disorder is a chronic, often relapsing, illness that is relevant to palliative care practice due to the potential for significant morbidity and mortality through organ failure, chronic infections, and overdose syndromes. In traditional palliative care practice, it has been observed that past or current SUD diagnoses are often left untreated, resulting in increased distress, and exacerbating an already complex medical situation. Furthermore, many of these patients also experience physical, functional, or psychosocial changes that, when left untreated, will worsen distress and quality of life. To provide more comprehensive and successful palliative care for patients with SUD, the authors recommend an increased emphasis on specialist palliative care training in SUD management, proactive integration of rehabilitation services into the palliative care team, and consistent advocacy for these steps in various arenas. Combined, these actions can improve the care team's ability to provide a holistic, patient-centered approach that can have substantial positive outcomes for patients, health systems, and society.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Herpes zoster (HZ) develops in up to 50% of unvaccinated individuals, accounting for >1 million cases annually in the United States. A live attenuated HZ vaccine (LAV) is Food and Drug Administration approved for those age 50 years or older, though Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommendations are only for those age 60 years or older. LAV efficacy is ~70% for persons 50-59 years of age, with lower efficacy in older adults. A new 2-dose adjuvanted subunit vaccine (SUV) has >95% efficacy in persons 50-69 years of age and remains ~90% efficacious in persons vaccinated at age 70 years. METHODS: To estimate the relative cost-effectiveness of SUV, LAV, and no vaccination (NoV) strategies, a Markov model was developed based on published data on vaccine efficacy, durability of protection, quality of life, resource utilization, costs, and disease epidemiology. The perspective was US societal, and the cycle length was 1 year with a lifelong time horizon. SUV efficacy was estimated to wane at the same rate as LAV. Outcomes evaluated included lifetime costs, discounted life expectancy, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). RESULTS: For individuals vaccinated at age 50 years, the ICER for LAV vs NoV was $118 535 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY); at age 60 years, the ICER dropped to $42 712/QALY. SUV was more expensive but had better ICERs than LAV. At age 50, the ICER was $91 156/QALY, and it dropped to $19 300/QALY at age 60. CONCLUSIONS: Vaccination with SUV was more cost-effective than LAV in all age groups studied. Vaccination with SUV at age 50 years appears cost-effective, with an ICER <$100 000/QALY.
