Rural vs urban inequalities in stage at diagnosis for lung cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Early diagnosis of lung cancer increases the chance of survival. The aim of this study was to measure the relationship between geographic residence in Saskatchewan and stage of lung cancer at the time of diagnosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective cohort analysis of 2,972 patients with a primary diagnosis of either non-small cell cancer (NSCLC) or small cell lung cancer (SCLC) between 2007 and 2012 was performed. Incidence proportion of early and advanced stage cancer, and relative risk of being diagnosed with advanced-stage lung cancer relative to early-stage was calculated. RESULTS: Compared to urban Saskatchewan, rural Saskatchewan lung cancer patients had a higher relative risk of advanced stage NSCLC (relative risk [RR] = 1.11, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.01-1.22). Rural Saskatchewan was further subdivided into north and south. The relative risk of advanced stage NSCLC in rural north Saskatchewan compared to urban Saskatchewan was even greater (RR = 1.17, 95% CI: 1.03-1.31). Although not statistically significant, there was a trend for a higher incidence of advanced stage SCLC in rural and rural north vs urban Saskatchewan (RR = 1.16, 95% CI: 0.95-1.43 and RR = 1.22; 95% CI: 0.94-1.58, respectively). There was a higher incidence proportion of advanced stage NSCLC in rural areas relative to urban (31.6-34.4 vs 29.5 per 10,000 people). CONCLUSION: Patients living in rural Saskatchewan have higher incidence proportion of and were more likely to present with advanced stage NSCLC in comparison to urban Saskatchewan patients at time of diagnosis. This inequality was even greater in rural north Saskatchewan.

Effects of Wait Times on Treatment Adherence and Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Severe Sleep-Disordered Breathing: A Secondary Analysis of a Noninferiority Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Sleep-disordered breathing (SDB) is common and associated with substantial adverse health consequences. Long wait times for SDB care are commonly reported; however, it is unclear whether wait times for care are associated with clinical outcomes. Objective: To evaluate the association of wait times for care with clinical outcomes for patients with severe SDB. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study is a secondary analysis of a randomized clinical noninferiority trial comparing management by alternative care practitioners (ACPs) with traditional sleep physician-led care between October 2014 and May 2017. The study took place at Foothills Medical Centre Sleep Centre, a tertiary care multidisciplinary sleep clinic at the University of Calgary. Patients with severe SDB (defined as a respiratory event index ≥30 events per hour during home sleep apnea testing, mean nocturnal oxygen saturation ≤85%, or suspected sleep hypoventilation syndrome) were recruited for the study. Patients were excluded if they were suspected of having a concomitant sleep disorder other than SDB or had previously been treated with positive airway pressure (PAP) therapy for SDB. Data were analyzed from October 2017 to January 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes were assessed 3 months after treatment initiation with adherence to PAP therapy as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included Epworth Sleepiness Scale score, health-related quality of life, and patient satisfaction measured using the Visit-Specific Satisfaction Instrument-9. Multiple regression models were used to assess the associations between wait times and each of the outcomes. t tests were used to compare wait times for patients who were adherent to PAP therapy (≥4 hours per night for 70% of nights) with those for nonadherent patients. Results: One hundred fifty-six patients (112 [71.8%] men; mean [SD] age, 56 [12] years) were included in the analysis. The mean time from referral to initial visit was 88 days (95% CI, 79 to 96 days), and the mean time to treatment was 123 days (95% CI, 112 to 133 days). Shorter wait time to treatment initiation was associated with adherence to PAP therapy (odds ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.98 to 0.99; P = .04), greater improvement in Epworth Sleepiness Scale score (mean coefficient, -9.37; 95% CI, -18.51 to -0.24; P = .04), and higher Visit-Specific Satisfaction Instrument-9 score (mean coefficient, -0.024; 95% CI, -0.047 to -0.0015; P = .04) at 3 months. Compared with nonadherent patients, those who were adherent to treatment waited a mean of 15 fewer days (95% CI, 12 to 19 days) for initial assessment (P = .07) and 30 fewer days (95% CI, 23 to 35 days) for treatment initiation (P = .008). Conclusions and Relevance: Earlier initiation of treatment for severe SDB was associated with better PAP adherence and greater improvements in daytime sleepiness and patient satisfaction. These findings suggest that system interventions to improve timely access may modify patient behavior and improve clinical outcomes. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02191085.

Cost-effectiveness of indwelling pleural catheter compared with talc in malignant pleural effusion.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Malignant pleural effusion is associated with morbidity and mortality. A randomized controlled trial previously compared clinical outcomes and resource use with indwelling pleural catheter (IPC) and talc pleurodesis in this population. Using unpublished quality of life data, we estimate the cost-effectiveness of IPC compared with talc pleurodesis. METHODS: Healthcare utilization and costs were captured during the trial. Utility weights produced by the EuroQol Group five-dimensional three-level questionnaire and survival were used to determine quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated over the 1-year trial period. Sensitivity analysis used patient survival data and modelled additional nursing time required per week for catheter drainage. RESULTS: Utility scores, cost and QALYs gained did not differ significantly between groups. The ICER for IPC compared with talc was favorable at $US10 870 per QALY gained. IPC was less costly with a probability exceeding 95% of being cost-effective when survival was <14 weeks, and was more costly when 2-h nursing time per week was assumed for catheter drainage. CONCLUSION: IPC is cost-effective when compared with talc, although substantial uncertainty exists around this estimate. IPC appears most cost-effective in patients with limited survival. If significant nursing time is required for catheter drainage, IPC becomes less likely to be cost-effective. Either therapy may be considered as a first-line option in treating malignant pleural effusion in patients without history of prior pleurodesis, with consideration for patient survival, support and preferences.

Comparing cost of indwelling pleural catheter vs talc pleurodesis for malignant pleural effusion.

BACKGROUND: Malignant pleural effusion is associated with short life expectancy and significant morbidity. A randomized controlled trial comparing indwelling pleural catheters (IPCs) with talc pleurodesis found that IPCs reduced in-hospital time and the need for additional procedures but were associated with excess adverse events. METHODS: Using data from the clinical trial, we compared costs associated with use of IPCs and with talc pleurodesis. Resource use and adverse events were captured through case report forms over the 1-year trial follow-up. Costs for outpatient and inpatient visits, diagnostic imaging, nursing, and doctor time were obtained from the UK National Health Service reference costs and University of Kent's Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2011 and inflated to 2013 using the UK Consumer Price Index. Procedure supply costs were obtained from the manufacturer. Difference in mean costs was compared using nonparametric bootstrapping. All costs were converted to US dollars using the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Purchasing Power Parity Index. RESULTS: Overall mean cost (SD) for managing patients with IPCs and talc pleurodesis was $4,993 ($5,529) and $4,581 ($4,359), respectively. The incremental mean cost difference was $401, with 95% CI of -$1,387 to $2,261. The mean cost related to ongoing drainage in the IPC group was $1,011 ($732) vs $57 ($213) in the talc pleurodesis group (P = .001). This included the cost of drainage bottles, dressing changes in the first month, and catheter removal. There was no significant difference in cost of the initial intervention or adverse events between the groups. For patients with survival < 14 weeks, IPC is significantly less costly than talc pleurodesis, with mean cost difference of -$1,719 (95% CI, -$3,376 to -$85). CONCLUSIONS: There is no significant difference in the mean cost of managing patients with IPCs compared with talc pleurodesis. For patients with limited survival, IPC appears less costly. TRIAL REGISTRY: isrctn.org; No.: ISRCTN87514420; URL: www.isrctn.org.