Employer-mandated obstructive sleep apnea treatment and healthcare cost savings among truckers.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of an employer-mandated obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) diagnosis and treatment program on non-OSA-program trucker medical insurance claim costs. METHODS: Retrospective cohort analysis; cohorts constructed by matching (randomly, with replacement) Screen-positive Controls (drivers with insurance screened as likely to have OSA, but not yet diagnosed) with Diagnosed drivers (n = 1,516; cases = 1,224, OSA Negatives = 292), on two factors affecting exposure to medical claims: experience level at hire and weeks of job tenure at the Diagnosed driver's polysomnogram (PSG) date (the "matching date"). All cases received auto-adjusting positive airway pressure (APAP) treatment and were grouped by objective treatment adherence data: any "Positive Adherence" (n = 932) versus "No Adherence" (n = 292). Bootstrap resampling produced a difference-in-differences estimate of aggregate non-OSA-program medical insurance claim cost savings for 100 Diagnosed drivers as compared to 100 Screen-positive Controls before and after the PSG/matching date, over an 18-month period. A two-part multivariate statistical model was used to set exposures and demographics/anthropometrics equal across sub-groups, and to generate a difference-in-differences comparison across periods that identified the effect of OSA treatment on per-member per-month (PMPM) costs of an individual driver, separately from cost differences associated with adherence choice. RESULTS: Eighteen-month non-OSA-program medical claim costs savings from diagnosing (and treating as required) 100 Screen-positive Controls: $153,042 (95% CI: -$5,352, $330,525). Model-estimated effect of treatment on those adhering to APAP: -$441 PMPM (95% CI: -$861, -$21). CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest a carrier-based mandatory OSA program generates substantial savings in non-OSA-program medical insurance claim costs.

Quantitative Test-Retest Measurement of 68Ga-PSMA-HBED-CC in Tumor and Normal Tissue.

The PET radiotracer 68Ga-PSMA (prostate-specific membrane antigen)-HBED-CC (N,N'-bis [2-hydroxy-5-(carboxyethyl)benzyl]ethylenediamine-N,N'-diacetic acid) shows potential as an imaging biomarker for recurrent and metastatic prostate cancer. The purpose of this study was to determine the repeatability of 68Ga-PSMA-HBED-CC in a test-retest trial in subjects with metastatic prostate adenocarcinoma. Methods: Subjects with metastatic prostate cancer underwent 2 PET/CT scans with 68Ga-PSMA-HBED-CC within 14 d (mean, 6 ± 4 d). Lesions in bone, nodes, prostate/bed, and visceral organs, as well as representative normal tissues (salivary glands and spleen), were segmented separately by 2 readers. Absolute and percentage differences in SUVmax and SUVmean were calculated for all test-retest regions. Repeatability was assessed using percentage difference, within-subject coefficient of variation (wCV), repeatability coefficient (RC), and Bland-Altman analysis. Results: Eighteen subjects were evaluated, 16 of whom demonstrated local or metastatic disease on 68Ga-PSMA-HBED-CC PET/CT. In total, 136 lesions were segmented in bone (n = 99), nodes (n = 27), prostate/bed (n = 7), and viscera (n = 3). The wCV for SUVmax was 11.7% for bone lesions and 13.7% for nodes. The RC was ±32.5% SUVmax for bone lesions and ±37.9% SUVmax for nodal lesions, meaning 95% of the normal variability between 2 measurements will be within these numbers, so larger differences are likely attributable to true biologic changes in tumor rather than normal physiologic or measurement variability. wCV in the salivary glands and spleen was 8.9% and 10.7% SUVmean, respectively. Conclusion: Repeatability measurements for PET/CT test-retests with 68Ga-PSMA-HBED-CC showed a wCV of 12%-14% SUVmax and an RC of ±33%-38% SUVmax in bone and nodal lesions. These estimates are an important aspect of 68Ga-PSMA-HBED-CC as a quantitative imaging biomarker. These estimates are similar to those reported for 18F-FDG, suggesting that 68Ga-PSMA-HBED-CC PET/CT may be useful in monitoring response to therapy.

Efficacy and Adverse Events in Metastatic Melanoma Patients Treated with Combination BRAF Plus MEK Inhibitors Versus BRAF Inhibitors: A Systematic Review.

We reviewed the literature to assess the efficacy and risk of constitutional, cardiac, gastrointestinal, and dermatological toxicities of combined BRAF plus MEK inhibitors versus BRAF inhibitors alone in patients with metastatic melanoma with BRAF mutations. Searches were conducted in PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Google scholar, ASCO, Scopus, and EMBASE for reports published from January 2010 through March 2019. Efficacy, including progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) rates, were assessed by hazard ratio (HR); objective response rates (ORR) were assessed by odds ratio (OR). The randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with comparison to vemurafenib monotherapy were included to determine constitutional, gastrointestinal, cardiac, and dermatological toxicities using PRISMA statistical analysis with relative risk (RR) for equal comparison to avoid inclusion bias. Five RTCs comprising 2307 patients were included to assess efficacy, while three of the five RCTs comprising 1776 patients were included to assess adverse events. BRAF plus MEK inhibitor combination therapy demonstrated overall better efficacy compared to BRAF inhibitor monotherapy. Combination therapies appear to have favorable dermatologic side effect profiles, similar constitutional and cardiac profiles, and slightly worse gastrointestinal profiles compares to monotherapy regimens.