Browsing by keyword "Life Expectancy"
Now showing items 1-6 of 6
-
A healthy bottom line: healthy life expectancy as an outcome measure for health improvement effortsCONTEXT: Good health is the most important outcome of health care, and healthy life expectancy (HLE), an intuitive and meaningful summary measure combining the length and quality of life, has become a standard in the world for measuring population health. METHODS: This article critically reviews the literature and practices around the world for measuring and improving HLE and synthesizes that information as a basis for recommendations for the adoption and adaptation of HLE as an outcome measure in the United States. FINDINGS: This article makes the case for adoption of HLE as an outcome measure at the national, state, community, and health care system levels in the United States to compare the effectiveness of alternative practices, evaluate disparities, and guide resource allocation. CONCLUSIONS: HLE is a clear, consistent, and important population health outcome measure that can enable informed judgments about value for investments in health care.
-
Cystic fibrosisCystic fibrosis is the most common lethal genetic disease in white populations. The outlook for patients with the disease has improved steadily over many years, largely as a result of earlier diagnosis, more aggressive therapy, and provision of care in specialised centres. Researchers now have a more complete understanding of the molecular-biological defect that underlies cystic fibrosis, which is leading to new approaches to treatment. One of these treatments, hypertonic saline, is already in use, whereas others are in advanced stages of development. We review clinical care for cystic fibrosis and discuss recent advances in the understanding of its pathogenesis, implementation of screening of neonates, and development of therapies aimed at treating the basic defect.
-
Forecasting the effects of obesity and smoking on U.S. life expectancyBACKGROUND: Although increases in obesity over the past 30 years have adversely affected the health of the U.S. population, there have been concomitant improvements in health because of reductions in smoking. Having a better understanding of the joint effects of these trends on longevity and quality of life will facilitate more efficient targeting of health care resources. METHODS: For each year from 2005 through 2020, we forecasted life expectancy and quality-adjusted life expectancy for a representative 18-year-old, assuming a continuation of past trends in smoking (based on data from the National Health Interview Survey for 1978 through 1979, 1990 through 1991, 1999 through 2001, and 2004 through 2006) and past trends in body-mass index (BMI) (based on data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey for 1971 through 1975, 1988 through 1994, 1999 through 2002, and 2003 through 2006). The 2003 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey was used to examine the effects of smoking and BMI on health-related quality of life. RESULTS: The negative effects of increasing BMI overwhelmed the positive effects of declines in smoking in multiple scenarios. In the base case, increases in the remaining life expectancy of a typical 18-year-old are held back by 0.71 years or 0.91 quality-adjusted years between 2005 and 2020. If all U.S. adults became nonsmokers of normal weight by 2020, we forecast that the life expectancy of an 18-year-old would increase by 3.76 life-years or 5.16 quality-adjusted years. CONCLUSIONS: If past obesity trends continue unchecked, the negative effects on the health of the U.S. population will increasingly outweigh the positive effects gained from declining smoking rates. Failure to address continued increases in obesity could result in an erosion of the pattern of steady gains in health observed since early in the 20th century.
-
Individualizing therapy to prevent long-term consequences of estrogen deficiency in postmenopausal womenBACKGROUND: Alendronate sodium and raloxifene hydrochloride were recently approved for the prevention of postmenopausal osteoporosis, but data on their clinical efficacy are limited. We compared these drugs with hormone replacement therapy (HRT) to help women and physicians guide postmenopausal treatment decisions. OBJECTIVE: To help physicians understand how they can best help women choose the most beneficial therapy after menopause based on their individual risk profile. METHODS: We developed a decision analytic Markov model to compare the effects of alendronate therapy, raloxifene therapy, and HRT on risks of hip fracture, coronary heart disease (CHD), breast cancer, and life expectancy. Regression models linked individual risk factors to future disease risks and were modified by drug effects on bone density, lipid levels, and associated breast cancer effects. RESULTS: Hormone replacement therapy, alendronate therapy, and raloxifene therapy have similar predicted efficacies in preventing hip fractures (estimated relative risk, 0.57, 0.54, and 0.58, respectively). Hormone replacement therapy should be more than 10 times more effective than raloxifene therapy in preventing CHD, but raloxifene therapy may not induce breast cancer. Women at low risk for hip fracture, CHD, and breast cancer do not benefit significantly from any treatment. Among women at average risk, HRT was preferred unless raloxifene therapy could reduce the risk of breast cancer by at least 66%, compared with a 47% increase for HRT. Women at high risk for CHD benefit most from HRT; women at high risk for breast cancer but low risk for CHD benefit most from raloxifene therapy, but only if it lowers the risk of breast cancer. CONCLUSION: Because of significant differences in the impact of these drugs, treatment choice depends on an individual woman's risk for hip fracture, CHD, and breast cancer.
-
Patient-specific decisions about hormone replacement therapy in postmenopausal womenOBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of hormone replacement therapy on life expectancy in postmenopausal women with different risk profiles for heart disease, breast cancer, and hip fracture. DESIGN: Decision analysis using a Markov model. Published regression models were used to link risk factors to disease incidence and to estimate the lifetime risks of developing coronary heart disease (CHD), breast cancer, hip fracture, and endometrial cancer. The impact of hormone therapy on disease incidence was estimated from published epidemiologic studies. SETTING: Mathematical model applicable to primary care. INTERVENTIONS: Treatment with hormone replacement therapy or no hormone replacement therapy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Life expectancy. RESULTS: Hormone replacement therapy should increase life expectancy for nearly all postmenopausal women, with some gains exceeding 3 years, depending mainly on an individual's risk factors for CHD and breast cancer. For women with at least 1 risk factor for CHD, hormone therapy should extend life expectancy, even for women having first-degree relatives with breast cancer. Women without any risk factors for CHD or hip fracture, but who have 2 first-degree relatives with breast cancer, however, should not receive hormone therapy. CONCLUSIONS: The benefit of hormone replacement therapy in reducing the likelihood of developing CHD appears to outweigh the risk of breast cancer for nearly all women in whom this treatment might be considered. Our analysis supports the broader use of hormone replacement therapy.
-
The value of medical spending in the United States, 1960-2000BACKGROUND: The increased use of medical therapies has led to increased medical costs. To provide insight into the value of this increased spending, we compared gains in life expectancy with the increased costs of care from 1960 through 2000. METHODS: We estimated life expectancy in 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, and 2000 for four age groups. To control for the influence of nonmedical factors on survival, we assumed in our base-case analysis that 50 percent of the gains were due to medical care. We compared the adjusted increases in life expectancy with the lifetime cost of medical care in the same years. RESULTS: From 1960 through 2000, the life expectancy for newborns increased by 6.97 years, lifetime medical spending adjusted for inflation increased by approximately 69,000 dollars, and the cost per year of life gained was 19,900 dollars. The cost increased from 7,400 dollars per year of life gained in the 1970s to 36,300 dollars in the 1990s. The average cost per year of life gained in 1960-2000 was approximately 31,600 dollars at 15 years of age, 53,700 dollars at 45 years of age, and 84,700 dollars at 65 years of age. At 65 years of age, costs rose more rapidly than did life expectancy: the cost per year of life gained was 121,000 dollars between 1980 and 1990 and 145,000 dollars between 1990 and 2000. CONCLUSIONS: On average, the increases in medical spending since 1960 have provided reasonable value. However, the spending increases in medical care for the elderly since 1980 are associated with a high cost per year of life gained. The national focus on the rise in medical spending should be balanced by attention to the health benefits of this increased spending.