Biology subjects

Fuster, M. M.

Publications and source records attributed to Fuster, M. M..

3 recordsLinked to original sources

bioRxiv2019

A Model-Based Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of an Exercise Program for Lung Cancer Survivors Following Curative-Intent Treatment

RationaleThe Institute of Medicine emphasizes care in the post-treatment phase of the cancer survivorship continuum. Physical exercise has been shown to be effective in improving physical function and quality of life in cancer survivors; however, its cost-effectiveness in lung cancer survivors is not well established. ObjectiveWe performed a model-based cost-effectiveness analysis of an exercise intervention in lung cancer survivors following curative-intent treatment. MethodsWe constructed a Markov model to simulate the impact of the Lifestyle Interventions and Independence for Elders (LIFE) exercise intervention compared to usual care for stage I-IIIA lung cancer survivors. Costs and utility benefit of exercise were extracted from the LIFE study. Baseline utilities, transition probabilities, and survival were modeled. We calculated and considered incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) <$100,000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) as cost-effective, and assessed model uncertainty using one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. ResultsOur base-case model found that the LIFE exercise program would increase overall cost by $4,740 and effectiveness by 0.06 QALYs compared to usual care, and have an ICER of $79,504/QALY. 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 $100,000/QALY, the LIFE exercise program had a 71% probability of being cost-effective compared to 27% for usual care. When we included opportunity costs, the LIFE exercise program had an ICER of $179,774/QALY, exceeding the cost-effectiveness threshold. ConclusionsA simulation of the LIFE exercise program in lung cancer survivors following curative-intent treatment demonstrates cost-effectiveness from an organization but not societal perspective. Strategies to effectively increase exercise remotely may be more cost-effective than in-facility strategies for these patients.

epidemiology↗

bioRxiv2019

Effects of Curative-Intent Lung Cancer Therapy on Functional Exercise Capacity and Patient-Reported Outcomes

BackgroundLung cancer treatment can lead to negative health consequences. We analyzed the effects of curative-intent lung cancer treatment on functional exercise capacity (EC) and patient-reported outcomes (PROs).\n\nMethodsWe performed a prospective-observational cohort study of consecutive patients with stage I-IIIA lung cancer undergoing curative-intent therapy and assessed functional EC [primary outcome, six-minute walk distance (6MWD)], cancer-specific quality of life (QoL) [secondary outcome, European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QoL Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC-QLQ-C30) summary score], and exploratory outcomes including dyspnea [University of California San Diego Shortness of Breath Questionnaire (UCSD-SOBQ)] and fatigue [Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI)] symptoms before and at 1 to 3 months post-treatment. We analyzed the time effect of treatment on outcomes using multivariable generalized estimating equations.\n\nResultsIn 35 enrolled participants, treatment was borderline-significantly associated with a clinically-meaningful decline in functional EC [(mean change, 95% CI) 6MWD = -25.4m (-55.3, +4.47), p=0.10], non-significant change in cancer-specific QoL [EORTC-QLQ-C30 summary score = - 3.4 (-9.8, +3.0), p=0.30], and statistically-significant and clinically-meaningful higher dyspnea [UCSD-SOBQ = +13.1 (+5.7, +20.6), p=0.001] and increased fatigue [BFI = +10.0 (+2.9, +17.0), p=0.006].\n\nConclusionsAmong the first prospective analysis of the effect of curative-intent lung cancer treatment on functional EC and PROs, we observed worsening dyspnea and fatigue, and possibly a decline in functional EC but not cancer-specific QoL at 1 to 3 months post-treatment. Interventions to reduce treatment-related morbidities and improve lung cancer survivorship may need to focus on reducing dyspnea, fatigue, and/or improving functional EC.\n\nConsent and ApprovalWritten informed consent was obtained from each participant included in this study. All human investigations were performed after approval by the VA San Diego Healthcare System institutional review board and in accord with an assurance filed with and approved by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

epidemiology↗

bioRxiv2018

Determinants of Heart Rate Recovery and Heart Rate Variability in Lung Cancer Survivors Eligible for Long-Term Cure

BackgroundLung cancer survivors are at increased risk for autonomic dysfunction. We aimed to identify determinants of parasympathetic nervous system (PNS) function as reflected by heart rate recovery (HRR) and heart rate variability (HRV) in lung cancer survivors eligible for long-term cure.\n\nMethodsWe performed a cross-sectional study of consecutive lung cancer survivors who completed curative-intent therapy for stage I-IIIA [≥]1 month previously. We tested a comprehensive list of variables related to baseline demographics, comorbidities, lung cancer characteristics, and physiological/functional measures using univariable and multivariable (MVA) linear regression analyses. We defined HRR as the difference in heart rate (HR) at 1-minute following and the end of the six-minute walk test (6MWT), and HRV the standard deviation of normal-to-normal R-R intervals (SDNN) and root-mean-square-of-successive-differences (rMSSD) from routine single 10-s electrocardiographs (ECGs).\n\nResultsIn 69 participants, the mean (standard deviation, SD) HRR was -10.6 (6.7) beats. In MVAs, significant independent determinants of HRR [{beta} (95% confidence interval)] were: age [0.17 (0.04, 0,30) for each year] and HR change associated with the 6MWT [0.01 (0.007, 0.02) for each beats/min. In 41 participants who had ECGs available for HRV measurements, the mean (SD) SDNN and rMSSD were 19.1 (15.6) and rMSSD 18.2 (14.6) ms, respectively. In MVAs, significant determinants of HRV were: total lung capacity [0.01 (0.00, 0.02), p=0.047 for each % predicted] and HRR [-0.04 (-0.07, -0.003) for each beat] for natural logarithm (Ln-)SDNN; and [0.01 (0.00, 0.02)] and [-0.04 (-0.07, -0.01)] for Ln-rMSSD, respectively.\n\nConclusionsWe measured determinants of HRR and HRV in lung cancer survivors eligible for long-term cure. HRR and/or HRV may be useful as indicators to stratify patients in interventional studies aimed at improving PNS function in lung cancer survivors, including through exercise training.

epidemiology↗