Duc Ha1, Jacqueline Kerr, Andrew L Ries, Mark M Fuster, Scott M Lippman, James D Murphy. 1. From the Institute for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Colorado, Aurora, Colorado (DH); Division of Behavioral Medicine, Department of Family Medicine and Public Health, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California (JK); Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California (DH, ALR, MMF); Section of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, VA San Diego Healthcare System, San Diego, California (MMF); Moores Cancer Center, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California (SML); and Gastrointestinal and Palliative Radiation Oncology, Department of Radiation Medicine and Applied Sciences, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California (JDM).
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The cost-effectiveness of exercise interventions in lung cancer survivors is unknown. We performed a model-based cost-effectiveness analysis of an exercise intervention in lung cancer survivors. DESIGN: We used Markov modeling to simulate the impact of the Lifestyle Interventions and Independence for Elders exercise intervention compared with usual care for stage I-IIIA lung cancer survivors after curative-intent treatment. We calculated and considered incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of less than US $100,000/quality-adjusted life-year as cost-effective and assessed model uncertainty using sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: The base-case model showed that the Lifestyle Interventions and Independence for Elders exercise program would increase overall cost by US $4740 and effectiveness by 0.06 quality-adjusted life-years compared with usual care and have an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of US $79,504/quality-adjusted life-year. The model was most sensitive to the cost of the exercise program, probability of increasing exercise, and utility benefit related to exercise. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of US $100,000/quality-adjusted life-year, Lifestyle Interventions and Independence for Elders had a 71% probability of being cost-effective compared with 27% for usual care. When we included opportunity costs, Lifestyle Interventions and Independence for Elders had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of US $179,774/quality-adjusted life-year, exceeding the cost-effectiveness threshold. CONCLUSIONS: A simulation of the Lifestyle Interventions and Independence for Elders exercise intervention in lung cancer survivors demonstrates cost-effectiveness from an organization but not societal perspective. A similar exercise program for lung cancer survivors may be cost-effective.
OBJECTIVE: The cost-effectiveness of exercise interventions in lung cancer survivors is unknown. We performed a model-based cost-effectiveness analysis of an exercise intervention in lung cancer survivors. DESIGN: We used Markov modeling to simulate the impact of the Lifestyle Interventions and Independence for Elders exercise intervention compared with usual care for stage I-IIIA lung cancer survivors after curative-intent treatment. We calculated and considered incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of less than US $100,000/quality-adjusted life-year as cost-effective and assessed model uncertainty using sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: The base-case model showed that the Lifestyle Interventions and Independence for Elders exercise program would increase overall cost by US $4740 and effectiveness by 0.06 quality-adjusted life-years compared with usual care and have an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of US $79,504/quality-adjusted life-year. The model was most sensitive to the cost of the exercise program, probability of increasing exercise, and utility benefit related to exercise. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of US $100,000/quality-adjusted life-year, Lifestyle Interventions and Independence for Elders had a 71% probability of being cost-effective compared with 27% for usual care. When we included opportunity costs, Lifestyle Interventions and Independence for Elders had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of US $179,774/quality-adjusted life-year, exceeding the cost-effectiveness threshold. CONCLUSIONS: A simulation of the Lifestyle Interventions and Independence for Elders exercise intervention in lung cancer survivors demonstrates cost-effectiveness from an organization but not societal perspective. A similar exercise program for lung cancer survivors may be cost-effective.
Authors: Matthew J Resnick; Christina Lacchetti; Jonathan Bergman; Ralph J Hauke; Karen E Hoffman; Terrence M Kungel; Alicia K Morgans; David F Penson Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-02-09 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: P Agostini; H Cieslik; S Rathinam; E Bishay; M S Kalkat; P B Rajesh; R S Steyn; S Singh; B Naidu Journal: Thorax Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 9.139
Authors: Joseph R Carver; Charles L Shapiro; Andrea Ng; Linda Jacobs; Cindy Schwartz; Katherine S Virgo; Karen L Hagerty; Mark R Somerfield; David J Vaughn Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-06-18 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Carolyn D Runowicz; Corinne R Leach; N Lynn Henry; Karen S Henry; Heather T Mackey; Rebecca L Cowens-Alvarado; Rachel S Cannady; Mandi L Pratt-Chapman; Stephen B Edge; Linda A Jacobs; Arti Hurria; Lawrence B Marks; Samuel J LaMonte; Ellen Warner; Gary H Lyman; Patricia A Ganz Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2015-12-07 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Khaled El-Shami; Kevin C Oeffinger; Nicole L Erb; Anne Willis; Jennifer K Bretsch; Mandi L Pratt-Chapman; Rachel S Cannady; Sandra L Wong; Johnie Rose; April L Barbour; Kevin D Stein; Katherine B Sharpe; Durado D Brooks; Rebecca L Cowens-Alvarado Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2015-09-08 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: C S Kampshoff; J M van Dongen; W van Mechelen; G Schep; A Vreugdenhil; J W R Twisk; J E Bosmans; J Brug; M J M Chinapaw; Laurien M Buffart Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2018-03-01 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Claire M Nolan; Louise Longworth; Joanne Lord; Jane L Canavan; Sarah E Jones; Samantha S C Kon; William D-C Man Journal: Thorax Date: 2016-03-30 Impact factor: 9.139
Authors: Duc M Ha; Allan V Prochazka; David B Bekelman; Jennifer E Stevens-Lapsley; Edward D Chan; Robert L Keith Journal: JNCI Cancer Spectr Date: 2021-01-23
Authors: Andrew Gallagher; Violetta Shersher; Duncan Mortimer; Helen Truby; Terry Haines Journal: Appl Health Econ Health Policy Date: 2022-09-27 Impact factor: 3.686