Resource utilization and costs during the initial years of lung cancer screening with computed tomography in Canada.

BACKGROUND: It is estimated that millions of North Americans would qualify for lung cancer screening and that billions of dollars of national health expenditures would be required to support population-based computed tomography lung cancer screening programs. The decision to implement such programs should be informed by data on resource utilization and costs. METHODS: Resource utilization data were collected prospectively from 2059 participants in the Pan-Canadian Early Detection of Lung Cancer Study using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT). Participants who had 2% or greater lung cancer risk over 3 years using a risk prediction tool were recruited from seven major cities across Canada. A cost analysis was conducted from the Canadian public payer's perspective for resources that were used for the screening and treatment of lung cancer in the initial years of the study. RESULTS: The average per-person cost for screening individuals with LDCT was $453 (95% confidence interval [CI], $400-$505) for the initial 18-months of screening following a baseline scan. The screening costs were highly dependent on the detected lung nodule size, presence of cancer, screening intervention, and the screening center. The mean per-person cost of treating lung cancer with curative surgery was $33,344 (95% CI, $31,553-$34,935) over 2 years. This was lower than the cost of treating advanced-stage lung cancer with chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or supportive care alone, ($47,792; 95% CI, $43,254-$52,200; p = 0.061). CONCLUSION: In the Pan-Canadian study, the average cost to screen individuals with a high risk for developing lung cancer using LDCT and the average initial cost of curative intent treatment were lower than the average per-person cost of treating advanced stage lung cancer which infrequently results in a cure.

Optimal medical therapy at discharge in patients with acute coronary syndromes: temporal changes, characteristics, and 1-year outcome.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data on the recent trend in the use of optimal evidence-based medical therapies after acute coronary syndromes (ACSs). We sought to evaluate (1) the temporal changes in medical management of patients discharged after an ACS; (2) patient and practice characteristics associated with optimal medical therapy at discharge; and (3) the association between discharge medication use and 1-year outcome. METHODS: The Canadian ACS I (September 1999-June 2001) and ACS II (October 2002-December 2003) Registries were prospective, multicenter, observational studies of 6853 patients admitted for ACS. We examined the discharge use of medications among 5833 hospital survivors who did not have any contraindications to antiplatelet/anticoagulant, beta-blocker, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, or lipid-modifying therapies. Optimal medical therapy was defined as the use of all indicated medications. Follow-up data at 1 year were collected by telephone interview. We performed hierarchical logistic regression to identify patient characteristics and care patterns associated with optimal medical treatment and to examine its relationship with 1-year mortality. RESULTS: There were significant increases in the discharge use of all 4 classes of medications over time; 28.9% and 51.8% of patients in ACS I and ACS II Registries, respectively, were prescribed optimal medical therapy (P < .001). Advanced age, female sex, prior heart failure, renal dysfunction, and coronary bypass surgery during hospitalization were negative independent predictors of optimal medical therapy. Conversely, enrollment in ACS II Registry, history of dyslipidemia, presence of ST elevation and abnormal cardiac biomarker, previous myocardial infarction, and previous coronary revascularization were independently associated with the use of combination therapy. After adjusting for other validated prognosticators, patients receiving optimal medical therapy had significantly lower 1-year mortality (adjusted odds ratio 0.54, 95% confidence interval 0.36-0.81, P = .003) compared with those given 0 or 1 drug at discharge. Over the 1-year follow-up period, substantial numbers of patients discontinued therapies, whereas others were initiated on treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the temporal increases in the combined use of evidence-based pharmacologic therapies, which is associated with improved outcome, medical management of ACS remains suboptimal. Quality improvement strategies are needed to enhance the appropriate use of effective therapies, targeting specifically the high-risk but undertreated patients who may derive the greatest therapeutic benefit.