The Healthcare Experience of Autistic Patients in Orthopaedic Surgery and Closely Related Fields: A Scoping Review.

Orthopaedic and related care has the potential to present unique obstacles for patients with a range of autism manifestations. In this review, we aim to describe and analyze the literature on autistic patients' experience within orthopaedics and closely related fields. This literature search utilized the PubMed, Embase, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature databases. Three major concepts were built into the search terms: (1) patients on the autism spectrum; (2) patient experience; and (3) movement sciences, including orthopaedics, physical medicine and rehabilitation (PM&R), occupational therapy (OT), and physical therapy (PT). Our search yielded 35 topical publications, with the major topic areas addressed as follows: (1) clinical and perioperative management, (2) therapy interventions, (3) participation in exercise and social play, (4) sensory management and accommodations, (5) caregiver/parent training and involvement in care, (6) healthcare needs and barriers to care, and (7) utilization of technology. In the current literature, there are no studies that attempt to directly assess autistic patient experience with care practices and clinical environments in orthopaedics. Rigorous, direct examination of the experience of autistic patients within clinical orthopaedic settings is urgently needed to address this gap.

Cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab for advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients with varying comorbidity burden.

OBJECTIVES: While previous cost-effectiveness studies on pembrolizumab in stage IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have found these regimens to be cost-effective, their reliance on randomized controlled trial (RCT) data with strict inclusion criteria limits generalizability to patients with comorbidities. We estimated the cost-effectiveness of first-line pembrolizumab for patients with various comorbidities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In our base case analysis, we studied pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy (pembrolizumab combination therapy) versus chemotherapy alone. In a secondary analysis, we considered only patients with PD-L1 expression of at least 50% (PD-L1-high) and evaluated pembrolizumab monotherapy, pembrolizumab combination therapy, and chemotherapy alone. Microsimulation models were developed for the base case and the PD-L1-high analyses. To estimate outcomes of patients with differing comorbidities, we combined survival data from patients with few or no comorbidities from the RCTs with estimates from the general population obtained from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database. Comorbidity burden level was divided into three groups based on the Charlson score (equal to 0, 1, or 2+); patients with various other specific comorbidities were also analyzed. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were compared to a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $100,000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). RESULTS: In the Charlson 0, Charlson 1, and Charlson 2+ patient populations, estimated ICERs for pembrolizumab combination therapy in the base case model were $173,919/QALY, $175,165/QALY, and $181,777/QALY, respectively, compared to chemotherapy. In the PD-L1-high model, the Charlson 0, Charlson 1, and Charlson 2+ patients had ICERs of $147,406/QALY, $149,026/QALY, and $154,521/QALY with pembrolizumab combination therapy versus chemotherapy. Pembrolizumab monotherapy was weakly dominated for each comorbidity group in the PD-L1-high model. CONCLUSION: For patients with stage IV NSCLC and varying comorbidity burden, first-line treatment with pembrolizumab does not represent a cost-effective strategy compared to chemotherapy. Resources should be focused on collecting immunotherapy survival data for more representative NSCLC patient populations.

Cost and Utilization of Lung Cancer End-of-Life Care Among Racial-Ethnic Minority Groups in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The end-of-life period is a crucial time in lung cancer care. To have a better understanding of the racial-ethnic disparities in health care expenditures, access, and quality, we evaluated these disparities specifically in the end-of-life period for patients with lung cancer in the U.S. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database to analyze characteristics of lung cancer care among those diagnosed between the years 2000 and 2011. Linear and logistic regression models were constructed to measure racial-ethnic disparities in end-of-life care cost and utilization among non-Hispanic (NH) Asian, NH black, Hispanic, and NH white patients while controlling for other risk factors such as age, sex, and SEER geographic region. RESULTS: Total costs and hospital utilization were, on average, greater among racial-ethnic minorities compared with NH white patients in the last month of life. Among patients with NSCLC, the relative total costs were 1.27 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.21-1.33) for NH black patients, 1.36 (95% CI, 1.25-1.49) for NH Asian patients, and 1.21 (95% CI, 1.07-1.38) for Hispanic patients. Additionally, the odds of being admitted to a hospital for NH black, NH Asian, and Hispanic patients were 1.22 (95% CI, 1.15-1.30), 1.47 (95% CI, 1.32-1.63), and 1.18 (95% CI, 1.01-1.38) times that of NH white patients, respectively. Similar results were found for patients with SCLC. CONCLUSION: Minority patients with lung cancer have significantly higher end-of-life medical expenditures than NH white patients, which may be explained by a greater intensity of care in the end-of-life period. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This study investigated racial-ethnic disparities in the cost and utilization of medical care among lung cancer patients during the end-of-life period. Compared with non-Hispanic white patients, racial-ethnic minority patients were more likely to receive intensive care in their final month of life and had statistically significantly higher end-of-life care costs. The findings of this study may lead to a better understanding of the racial-ethnic disparities in end-of-life care, which can better inform future end-of-life interventions and help health care providers develop less intensive and more equitable care, such as culturally competent advanced care planning programs, for all patients.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Lung Cancer Screening in the United States: A Comparative Modeling Study.

Background: Recommendations vary regarding the maximum age at which to stop lung cancer screening: 80 years according to the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), 77 years according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), and 74 years according to the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST). Objective: To compare the cost-effectiveness of different stopping ages for lung cancer screening. Design: By using shared inputs for smoking behavior, costs, and quality of life, 4 independently developed microsimulation models evaluated the health and cost outcomes of annual lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT). Data Sources: The NLST; Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial; SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) program; Nurses' Health Study and Health Professionals Follow-up Study; and U.S. Smoking History Generator. Target Population: Current, former, and never-smokers aged 45 years from the 1960 U.S. birth cohort. Time Horizon: 45 years. Perspective: Health care sector. Intervention: Annual LDCT according to NLST, CMS, and USPSTF criteria. Outcome Measures: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) with a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Results of Base-Case Analysis: The 4 models showed that the NLST, CMS, and USPSTF screening strategies were cost-effective, with ICERs averaging $49 200, $68 600, and $96 700 per QALY, respectively. Increasing the age at which to stop screening resulted in a greater reduction in mortality but also led to higher costs and overdiagnosis rates. Results of Sensitivity Analysis: Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that the NLST and CMS strategies had higher probabilities of being cost-effective (98% and 77%, respectively) than the USPSTF strategy (52%). Limitation: Scenarios assumed 100% screening adherence, and models extrapolated beyond clinical trial data. Conclusion: All 3 sets of lung cancer screening criteria represent cost-effective programs. Despite underlying uncertainty, the NLST and CMS screening strategies have high probabilities of being cost-effective. Primary Funding Source: CISNET (Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network) Lung Group, National Cancer Institute.

Cost-effectiveness of Atezolizumab Combination Therapy for First-Line Treatment of Metastatic Nonsquamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in the United States.

Importance: Immune checkpoint inhibitor combination therapy has recently become the standard of care for first-line treatment of metastatic nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer. The implications of these first-line treatments are considerable, given the potential population of patients eligible to receive them and their high cost. Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adding atezolizumab to bevacizumab, carboplatin, and paclitaxel as a first-line treatment strategy for patients with metastatic nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer in the United States. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this economic evaluation, a primary microsimulation model was developed to assess atezolizumab combination vs bevacizumab, carboplatin, and paclitaxel alone in the first line (base case 1). A secondary model was developed to assess these treatments along with pembrolizumab combination and platinum doublet chemotherapy (base case 2). Treatment strategies and other simulated conditions were based on those from the IMpower150 and KEYNOTE-189 clinical trials. The study perspective was the US health care sector. One million patients with metastatic nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer were simulated for each treatment group. This study was performed from February 2019 through May 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were compared with a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Results: In base case 1, in which 1 million patients were simulated, treating with bevacizumab, carboplatin, and paclitaxel in the first line was associated with a mean cost of $112 551 (95% CI, $112 450-$112 653) and a mean survival of 1.48 QALYs (95% CI, 1.47-1.48 QALYs) per patient. Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, carboplatin, and paclitaxel was associated with a mean cost of $244 166 (95% CI, $243 864-$244 468) and a mean survival of 2.13 QALYs (95% CI, 2.12-2.13 QALYs) per patient, for an estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $201 676 per QALY (95% CI, $198 105-$205 355 per QALY). In base case 2, in which 1 million patients were simulated, pembrolizumab combination therapy was associated with a mean cost of $226 282 (95% CI, $226 007-$226 557) and a mean survival of 2.45 QALYs (95% CI, 2.44-2.46 QALYs) per patient. Pembrolizumab combination dominated atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, carboplatin, and paclitaxel, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $116 698 per QALY (95% CI, $115 088-$118 342 per QALY) between pembrolizumab combination and bevacizumab, carboplatin, and paclitaxel. Atezolizumab combination was not cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per QALY. Conclusions and Relevance: In this simulated model economic analysis, atezolizumab combination was not cost-effective compared with bevacizumab, carboplatin, and paclitaxel and provided suboptimal incremental benefit compared with cost vs pembrolizumab combination for first-line treatment. Although atezolizumab combination therapy provides clinical benefits, price reductions may be necessary for this treatment strategy to become cost-effective.

A simulation study of the effect of lung cancer screening in China, Japan, Singapore, and South Korea.

More than 50% of the world's lung cancer cases occur in Asia and more than 20% of cancer deaths in Asia are attributable to lung cancer. The U.S. National Lung Screening Trial has shown that lung cancer screening with computed tomography (CT) can reduce lung cancer deaths. Using the Lung Cancer Policy Model-Asia (LCPM-Asia), we estimated the potential mortality reduction achievable through the implementation of CT-based lung cancer screening in China, Japan, Singapore, and South Korea. The LCPM-Asia was calibrated to the smoking prevalence of each of the aforementioned countries based on published national surveys and to lung cancer mortality rates from the World Health Organization. The calibrated LCPM-Asia was then used to simulate lung cancer deaths under screening and no-screening scenarios for the four countries. Using screening eligibility criteria recommended by the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), which are based on age and smoking history, we estimated the lung cancer mortality reduction from screening through year 2040. By 2040, lung cancer screening would result in 91,362 life-years gained and 4.74% mortality reduction in South Korea; 290,325 life-years gained and 4.33% mortality reduction in Japan; 3,014,215 life-years gained and 4.22% mortality reduction in China; and 8,118 life-years gained and 3.76% mortality reduction in Singapore. As for mortality reduction by smoker type, current smokers would have the greatest mortality reduction in each country, ranging from 5.56% in Japan to 6.86% in Singapore. Among the four countries, lung cancer screening under CMS eligibility criteria was most effective in South Korea and least effective in Singapore. Singapore's low smoking prevalence and South Korea's aging population and higher smoking prevalence may partially explain the discrepancy in effectiveness. CT screening was shown to be promising as a means of reducing lung cancer mortality in the four countries.

Cost-effectiveness and Budgetary Consequence Analysis of Durvalumab Consolidation Therapy vs No Consolidation Therapy After Chemoradiotherapy in Stage III Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in the Context of the US Health Care System.

Importance: In early 2018, durvalumab became the first immunotherapy to be approved for adjuvant treatment of patients with unresectable stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) whose cancer has not progressed after definitive chemoradiotherapy. However, the cost-effectiveness and potential economic implications of using this high-priced therapy in this indication are unknown to date. Objective: To explore the cost-effectiveness and potential budgetary consequences of durvalumab consolidation therapy vs no consolidation therapy after chemoradiotherapy in stage III NSCLC in the context of the US health care system. Design, Setting, and Participants: A decision analytic microsimulation model was developed in an academic medical setting to compare the following 2 postchemoradiotherapy strategies: all patients receive no consolidation therapy until progression vs all patients receive durvalumab consolidation therapy until progression or for a maximum of 1 year. The potential budgetary consequence was calculated by applying the proportion of patients with NSCLC who were diagnosed in stage III and received chemoradiotherapy to the projected number of annual new cases for 2018 to 2022 to find total eligible patients and then multiplied by the mean difference in annual cost between the strategies over this 5-year period. Simulated conditions were matched to those of the PACIFIC phase 3 randomized clinical trial and reasonable treatment strategies for metastatic NSCLC. All simulated patients begin disease free after having received radical treatment with chemoradiotherapy and are followed up as they progress to metastatic disease first-line treatment, metastatic disease second-line treatment, end-stage progressive disease, and death. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome of this study was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of durvalumab consolidation therapy vs no consolidation therapy, given as aggregate cost of treatment per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Results: Among 2 million simulated patients, durvalumab consolidation therapy was cost-effective compared with no consolidation therapy at a $100 000 per quality-adjusted life-year willingness-to-pay threshold, with an estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $67 421 per quality-adjusted life-year, and would contribute an additional $768 million to national cancer spending in year 1. The annual budgetary consequence would then decrease to $241 million in year 5. Conclusions and Relevance: Durvalumab consolidation therapy represents an indication where expensive immunotherapies can be cost-effective. Treating with immunotherapy earlier in the course of cancer progression can provide significant value, despite having a substantial budgetary consequence.

Effect of PD-L1 testing on the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of pembrolizumab for advanced urothelial carcinoma of the bladder in the United States.

PURPOSE: Our purpose was to evaluate the effect of PD-L1 testing on the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab for second-line treatment of advanced urothelial carcinoma in the bladder from the U.S. societal perspective. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We developed a microsimulation model to compare 3 treatment strategies: (1) treat all patients with standard-of-care chemotherapy, (2) treat all patients with pembrolizumab, and (3) treat patients with PD-L1-positive tumors at a ≥1% expression threshold with pembrolizumab, and all others with standard-of-care chemotherapy. Additionally, we performed a budget impact analysis based on the projected number of urothelial carcinoma patients eligible for second-line pembrolizumab treatment. RESULTS: Treating all patients with chemotherapy resulted in a mean cost of $17,232 and mean effect of 0.43 quality-adjusted life-years. The PD-L1 test strategy was the most efficient strategy, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $122,933/quality-adjusted life-year. Treating all patients with pembrolizumab resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $197,383/quality-adjusted life-year compared to the PD-L1 test strategy. The PD-L1 test strategy would produce an incremental budget impact of $14.9 million in the first year of use compared to chemotherapy, increasing to $16.5 million in the fifth year of use. Treating all patients with pembrolizumab would produce an incremental budget impact of $19.6 million compared to the PD-L1 test strategy in its first year of use, increasing to $20.9 million by year 5. CONCLUSIONS: Pembrolizumab was not cost-effective in either strategy based on a $100,000/quality-adjusted life-year willingness-to-pay threshold. Using PD-L1 testing to select for patients who may have better associated outcomes may improve the affordability of pembrolizumab.

Lung cancer costs by treatment strategy and phase of care among patients enrolled in Medicare.

BACKGROUND: We studied trends in lung cancer treatment cost over time by phase of care, treatment strategy, age, stage at diagnosis, and histology. METHODS: Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database for years 1998-2013, we allocated total and patient-liability costs into the following phases of care for 145 988 lung cancer patients: prediagnosis, staging, surgery, initial, continuing, and terminal. Patients served as self-controls to determine cancer-attributable costs based on individual precancer diagnosis healthcare costs. We fit linear regression models to determine cost by age and calendar year for each stage at diagnosis, histology, and treatment strategy and presented all costs in 2017 US dollars. RESULTS: Monthly healthcare costs prior to lung cancer diagnosis were $861 for a 70 years old in 2017 and rose by an average of $17 per year (P < 0.001). Surgery in 2017 cost $30 096, decreasing by $257 per year (P = 0.007). Chemotherapy and radiation costs remained stable or increased for most stage and histology groups, ranging from $4242 to $8287 per month during the initial six months of care. Costs during the final six months of life decreased for those who died of lung cancer or other causes. CONCLUSIONS: Cost-effectiveness analyses of lung cancer control interventions in the United States have been using outdated and incomplete treatment cost estimates. Our cost estimates enable updated cost-effectiveness analyses to determine the benefit of lung cancer control from a health economics point of view.

Benefits and harms of lung cancer screening in HIV-infected individuals with CD4+ cell count at least 500 cells/µl.

OBJECTIVE: Lung cancer is the leading cause of non-AIDS-defining cancer deaths among HIV-infected individuals. Although lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) is endorsed by multiple national organizations, whether HIV-infected individuals would have similar benefit as uninfected individuals from lung cancer screening is unknown. Our objective was to determine the benefits and harms of lung cancer screening among HIV-infected individuals. DESIGN: We modified an existing simulation model, the Lung Cancer Policy Model, for HIV-infected patients. DATA SOURCES: Veterans Aging Cohort Study, Kaiser Permanente Northern California HIV Cohort, and medical literature. TARGET POPULATION: HIV-infected current and former smokers. TIME HORIZON: Lifetime. PERSPECTIVE: Population. INTERVENTION: Annual LDCT screening from ages 45, 50, or 55 until ages 72 or 77 years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Benefits assessed included lung cancer mortality reduction and life-years gained; harms assessed included numbers of LDCT examinations, false-positive results, and overdiagnosed cases. RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: For HIV-infected patients with CD4 cell count at least 500 cells/µl and 100% antiretroviral therapy adherence, screening using the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services criteria (age 55-77, 30 pack-years of smoking, current smoker or quit within 15 years of screening) would reduce lung cancer mortality by 18.9%, similar to the mortality reduction of uninfected individuals. Alternative screening strategies utilizing lower screening age and/or pack-years criteria increase mortality reduction, but require more LDCT examinations. LIMITATIONS: Strategies assumed 100% screening adherence. CONCLUSION: Lung cancer screening reduces mortality in HIV-infected patients with CD4 cell count at least 500 cells/µl, with a number of efficient strategies for eligibility, including the current Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services criteria.

Population impact of lung cancer screening in the United States: Projections from a microsimulation model.

BACKGROUND: Previous simulation studies estimating the impacts of lung cancer screening have ignored the changes in smoking prevalence over time in the United States. Our primary rationale was to perform, to our knowledge, the first simulation study that estimates the health outcomes of lung cancer screening with explicit modeling of smoking trends for the whole US population. METHODS/FINDINGS: Utilizing a well-validated microsimulation model, we estimated the benefits and harms of an annual low-dose computed tomography screening scenario with a realistic screening adherence rate versus a no-screening scenario for the US population from 2016-2030. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) eligibility criteria were applied: age 55-77 years at time of screening, history of at least 30 pack-years of smoking, and current smoker or former smoker with fewer than 15 years since quitting. In the screened population, cumulative mortality reduction was projected to reach 16.98% (95% CI 16.90%-17.07%). Cumulative mortality reduction was estimated to be 3.52% (95% CI 3.50%-3.53%) for the overall study population, with annual mortality reduction peaking at 4.38% (95% CI 4.36%-4.41%) in 2021 and falling to 3.53% (95% CI 3.50%-3.56%) by 2030. Lung cancer screening would save a projected 148,484 life-years (95% CI 147,429-149,540) across the total population through 2030. There were estimated to be 9,054 (95% CI 9,011-9,098) overdiagnosed cases among the 252,429 (95% CI 251,208-253,649) screen-detected lung cancer diagnoses, yielding an overdiagnosis rate of 3.59%. The limitations of our study are that we do not explicitly model race or socioeconomic status and our model was calibrated to data from studies performed in academic centers, both of which may impact the generalizability of our results. We also exclusively model the effects of the CMS guidelines for lung cancer screening and not any other screening strategies. CONCLUSIONS: The mortality reduction and life-years gained estimated by this study are lower than those of single birth cohort studies. Single cohort studies neglect the changing dynamics of smoking behavior across generations, whereas this study reflects the trend of decreasing smoking prevalence since the 1960s. Maximum benefit could be derived from lung cancer screening through 2021; in later years, mortality reduction due to screening will decline. If a comprehensive screening program is not implemented in the near future, the opportunity to achieve these benefits will have passed.

Evaluating lung cancer screening in China: Implications for eligibility criteria design from a microsimulation modeling approach.

More than half of males in China are current smokers and evidence from western countries tells us that an unprecedented number of smoking-attributable deaths will occur as the Chinese population ages. We used the China Lung Cancer Policy Model (LCPM) to simulate effects of computed tomography (CT)-based lung cancer screening in China, comparing the impact of a screening guideline published in 2015 by a Chinese expert group to a version developed for the United States by the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). The China LCPM, built using an existing lung cancer microsimulation model, can project population outcomes associated with interventions for smoking-related diseases. After calibrating the model to published Chinese smoking prevalence and lung cancer mortality rates, we simulated screening from 2016 to 2050 based on eligibility criteria from the CMS and Chinese guidelines, which differ by age to begin and end screening, pack-years smoked, and years since quitting. Outcomes included number of screens, mortality reduction, and life-years saved for each strategy. We projected that in the absence of screening, 14.98 million lung cancer deaths would occur between 2016 and 2050. Screening with the CMS guideline would prevent 0.72 million deaths and 5.8 million life-years lost, resulting in 6.58% and 1.97% mortality reduction in males and females, respectively. Screening with the Chinese guideline would prevent 0.74 million deaths and 6.6 million life-years lost, resulting in 6.30% and 2.79% mortality reduction in males and females, respectively. Through 2050, 1.43 billion screens would be required using the Chinese screening strategy, compared to 988 million screens using the CMS guideline. In conclusion, CT-based lung cancer screening implemented in 2016 and based on the Chinese screening guideline would prevent about 20,000 (2.9%) more lung cancer deaths through 2050, but would require about 445 million (44.7%) more screens than the CMS guideline.