Comparative assessment of racial disparity in 30-day outcomes for Asian Americans undergoing carotid endarterectomy.

OBJECTIVE: Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is an effective treatment for carotid stenosis. All previous studies on racial disparity of CEA outcomes omitted Asian Americans. This study aimed to address this gap by investigating racial disparities in 30-day outcomes following CEA among Asian Americans. METHODS: Asian American and Caucasian patients who underwent CEA were identified in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program targeted database from 2011 to 2021. Patients with age less than 18 years old were excluded. Patients with symptomatic and asymptomatic carotid stenosis were examined separately. A 1:5 propensity-score matching was used to address preoperative differences. Thirty perioperative outcomes were assessed. RESULTS: There were 380 Asian Americans (2.27%) and 13,250 Caucasians (79.18%) with symptomatic carotid stenosis who underwent CEA. Also, 289 Asian Americans (1.40%) and 18,257 Caucasians (88.14%) with asymptomatic carotid stenosis had CEA. Asian Americans undergoing CEA presented with higher comorbid burdens and more severe symptomology. Also, asymptomatic Asian Americans were more likely to undergo surgeries for mild stenosis (<50%), which is not in line with practice guidelines. After 1:5 propensity-matching, all symptomatic Asian Americans were matched to 1550 Caucasian patients, and all asymptomatic Asian Americans were matched to 1445 Caucasians; preoperative differences were addressed. Asian Americans exhibited low overall 30-day mortality (symptomatic, 1.61%; asymptomatic, 0.35%) and stroke (symptomatic, 2.26%; asymptomatic, 0.69%). All perioperative outcomes were comparable to Caucasians, with the exception that Asian Americans experienced longer operation times. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence suggested that Asian Americans with asymptomatic stenosis were underrepresented in CEA. After propensity-score matching, Asian Americans demonstrated comparable 30-day outcomes to Caucasians. These suggest that, when afforded equal access to quality health care, CEA serves as an effective treatment for carotid stenosis among Asian Americans. Therefore, efforts may be aimed at addressing health care access, potentially in the screening for asymptomatic carotid stenosis in Asian Americans. This would ensure they have equitable benefits from CEA. Nevertheless, the exact preoperative differences and long-term CEA outcomes in Asian Americans should warrant further examination in future studies.

Cost-effectiveness of canagliflozin and dapagliflozin for treatment of patients with chronic kidney disease and type 2 diabetes.

AIM: To examine the cost-effectiveness of adding canagliflozin or dapagliflozin to standard of care (SoC) versus SoC alone in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and type 2 diabetes (T2D). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used a Markov microsimulation model to assess the cost-effectiveness of canagliflozin plus SoC (canagliflozin + SoC), dapagliflozin plus SoC (dapagliflozin + SoC) and SoC alone. Analyses were conducted from a healthcare system perspective. Costs were measured in 2021 Canadian dollars (C$), and effectiveness was measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). RESULTS: Over a patient's lifetime, canagliflozin + SoC and dapagliflozin + SoC yielded cost savings of C$33 460 and C$26 764 and generated 1.38 and 1.44 additional QALYs compared with SoC alone, respectively. While QALY gains with dapagliflozin + SoC were higher than those with canagliflozin + SoC, this strategy was also more costly with the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio exceeding the willingness to pay threshold of C$50 000 per QALY. Dapagliflozin + SoC, however, generated cost savings and QALY gains compared with canagliflozin + SoC over shorter time horizons of 5 or 10 years. CONCLUSIONS: Dapagliflozin + SoC was not cost-effective versus canagliflozin + SoC in patients with CKD and T2D over the lifetime horizon. However, adding canagliflozin or dapagliflozin to SoC was less costly and more effective relative to SoC alone for treatment of CKD and T2D.

Cost-effectiveness of dapagliflozin and empagliflozin for treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

BACKGROUND: The differences in cost and efficacy between dapagliflozin and empagliflozin in combination with standard of care (SoC) raise the question of which regimen would be cost-effective in treating heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of dapagliflozin plus SoC (dapagliflozin-SoC) versus empagliflozin plus SoC (empagliflozin-SoC) or SoC alone for treatment of HFrEF. METHODS: We developed a Markov model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of dapagliflozin-SoC, empagliflozin-SoC, and SoC alone from the healthcare system perspective over a lifetime horizon. Data on efficacy of dapagliflozin-SoC, empagliflozin-SoC, and SoC were obtained from randomized controlled trials. Costs were measured in 2022 US dollars, and effectiveness was measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). RESULTS: Among three strategies, dapagliflozin-SoC was the most cost-effective strategy and dominated empagliflozin-SoC in an extended sense. Compared with SoC alone, dapagliflozin-SoC and empagliflozin-SoC had incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) of $56,782 and $89,258 per QALY, respectively. Dapagliflozin-SoC cost more $5524 but yielded more 0.20 QALYs than empagliflozin-SoC, with the ICER of $27,861 per QALY. The cost-effectiveness of dapagliflozin-SoC, empagliflozin-SoC, and SoC alone did not depend on diabetic status. However, empagliflozin-SoC was no longer cost-effective versus SoC alone in HFrEF patients without CKD, and dapagliflozin-SoC was not cost-effective versus empagliflozin-SoC in HFrEF patients with CKD. CONCLUSION: Dapagliflozin-SoC was cost-effective versus empagliflozin-SoC or SoC alone for treatment of HFrEF.

Late outcomes of balloon angioplasty and angioplasty with selective stenting for superficial femoral-popliteal disease are equivalent.

OBJECTIVE: Several trials have reported early superior patency of stenting over isolated angioplasty (plain old balloon angioplasty [POBA]) for infra-inguinal occlusive disease, yet long-term data are sparse. The purpose of this study was to contrast long-term clinical outcomes and costs of angioplasty alone vs angioplasty with selective stenting in the treatment of femoropopliteal occlusive disease. METHODS: Patients undergoing primary endovascular treatments of the native femoropopliteal arteries from 2002 to 2009 were divided into two groups, POBA alone or stenting based on final treatment received at their index procedure. Study end points included actuarial 5-year primary patency (using strict criteria of any hemodynamic deterioration or return of symptoms), 5-year limb salvage, and 5-year survival and hospital costs. RESULTS: Eight hundred twenty-four primary procedures were performed during the study interval; 517 (63%) were POBA and 307 (37%) were stenting. The mean follow-up duration was 33 months (range, 0-98 months). The indication for intervention in the stenting group was claudication in 71% of the patients, whereas the remaining 29% had critical limb ischemia (CLI). In the POBA cohort, the indication for treatment was claudication in 59% of the patients and CLI in the remaining 41%. A higher percentage of POBA lesions were TransAtlantic Inter-Society Consensus (TASC) II A & B when compared to stenting (91% POBA vs 73% stenting; P < .001). There was no difference in overall 5-year primary patency (POBA 36% ± 3%; stenting 41% ± 4%; P = .31), nor was there a difference in patients with claudication (POBA 42% ± 4%; stenting 45% ± 4%; P = .8). In patients with CLI, the 4-year primary patency was 27% ± 5% (POBA) vs 36% ± 8% (stenting), P = .22; the 4-year limb salvage was 80% ± 4% (POBA) vs 90% ± 5% (stenting), P = .18. There was no difference in survival between the two groups (claudication: 83% ± 3% POBA vs 84% ± 4% stenting at 5 years (P = .65), CLI: 44% ± 4% POBA vs 49% ± 6% stenting at 4 years (P = .40). Subgroup analysis by lesion anatomy showed similar primary patency between POBA and stenting for TASC II A & B lesions, while the primary patency was significantly higher at 5 years after stenting of TASC II C & D lesions (34% ± 6% vs 12% ± 9%; P < .05). Stenting increased the procedural cost by 57% when compared to POBA (P < .001) regardless of treatment indication. In addition, stenting added 45% (P < .001) to the overall hospital cost of patients treated for claudication. CONCLUSION: Stenting resulted in equivalent long-term outcomes compared to POBA when stratified by indications. However, stenting yielded statistically better primary patency in patients with TASC II C & D lesions. The lack of improved clinical outcomes and significantly higher cost of stenting supports a posture of selective use of stents (especially in TASC II A & B) in the endovascular treatment of femoropopliteal occlusive disease.