Cost Implications of Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion During Cardiac Surgery: A Cost Analysis of the LAAOS III Trial.

Background The LAAOS III (Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion Study) clinical trial demonstrated that concomitant left atrial appendage (LAA) occlusion leads to a lower risk of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism compared with no occlusion in participants with atrial fibrillation and a CHA2DS2-VASc score of ≥2 undergoing cardiac surgery for another indication. We report the cost implications of concomitant LAA occlusion during cardiac surgery. Methods and Results Using LAAOS III data, we compared the costs (in US dollars) associated with LAA occlusion to no occlusion from the perspective of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. We calculated the average cost per participant during the trial by applying Medicare reimbursement costs to cardiovascular events for all trial participants. We conducted sensitivity analyses, varying the cost of stroke ±25% and occlusion technique use. Cost neutrality was defined as a mean cost difference within ±5% of the cost per participant in the no-occlusion group. Total study cost per participant was $3878 in the LAA occlusion group and $4490 in the no-occlusion group, a mean difference of -$612 (95% CI, -$1276 to $45). The main drivers of cost savings were fewer stroke events during the trial (mean difference of -$1021). In sensitivity analyses, LAA occlusion was cost saving for suture and stapler techniques but more expensive with closure device. Conclusions Concomitant LAA occlusion was cost saving for participants in LAAOS III. Our findings support concomitant LAA occlusion as an economically dominant strategy for patients with atrial fibrillation and a CHA2DS2-VASc score of ≥2 undergoing cardiac surgery.

The Cost Implications of Dabigatran in Patients with Myocardial Injury After Non-Cardiac Surgery.

BACKGROUND: The Management of Myocardial Injury after Non-Cardiac Surgery (MANAGE) trial demonstrated that dabigatran 110 mg twice daily was more effective than placebo in preventing the primary composite outcome of vascular mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-hemorrhagic stroke, peripheral arterial thrombosis, amputation and symptomatic venous thromboembolism in patients with myocardial injury after non-cardiac surgery (MINS). The cost implications of dabigatran for this population are unknown but are important given the significant clinical implications. METHODS: Hospitalized events, procedures, and study and non-study medications were documented. We applied Canadian unit costs to healthcare resources consumed for all patients in the trial, and calculated the average cost per patient in Canadian dollars for the duration of the study (median follow-up of 16 months). A sensitivity analysis was performed using only Canadian patients, and subgroup analyses were also conducted. RESULTS: The total study cost for the dabigatran group was $9985 per patient, compared with $10,082 for placebo, a difference of - $97 (95% confidence interval [CI] - $2128 to $3672). Savings arising from fewer clinical events and procedures in the dabigatran 110 mg twice-daily group were enough to offset the cost of the study drug. In Canadian patients, the difference was $250 (95% CI -$2848 to $4840). Both differences were considered cost neutral. Dabigatran 110 mg twice daily was cost saving or cost neutral in many subgroups that were considered. CONCLUSION: Dabigatran 110 mg twice daily was cost neutral for patients in the MANAGE trial. Our cost findings support the use of dabigatran 110 mg twice daily in patients with MINS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier number NCT01661101.

Initial development of a brief assessment of cocaine demand.

Cocaine demand is a behavioral economic measure assessing drug reward value and motivation to use drug. The purpose of the current study was to develop a brief assessment of cocaine demand (BACD). Results from the BACD were compared with self-report measures of cocaine use. Participants consisted of treatment-seeking individuals with cocaine use disorder (N = 22). Results revealed that indices of brief demand were significantly associated with various self-report measures of cocaine use. Overall, these results support the utility of a BACD for assessing cocaine demand.

Baseline cocaine demand predicts contingency management treatment outcomes for cocaine-use disorder.

Cocaine use disorder (CUD) is a significant public health issue. Behavioral interventions such as contingency management (CM) have been demonstrated to be highly effective in promoting cocaine abstinence. However, identifying individual characteristics associated with cocaine relapse may help improve treatment outcomes. Cocaine demand is a behavioral economic measure that shares a scientific foundation with CM. In the current study, we assessed baseline cocaine demand using a hypothetical cocaine purchasing task. Participants (N = 58) consisted of treatment-seeking individuals with CUD. All participants received 1 month of CM treatment for cocaine abstinence, and treatment responders were defined as presenting 6 consecutive cocaine negative urine samples from thrice weekly clinic visits. Demand data were well described by the exponentiated demand model. Indices of demand (intensity of demand [Q0], elasticity [α]) were significantly associated with recent (last 30 days) cocaine use. Importantly, linear regression revealed that CM treatment nonresponders presented significantly higher Q0 (p = .025). Subsequent quantile regression analyses examining the relationship between CM treatment response and Q0 revealed statistically reliable effects of being a nonresponder across 3 of the lower percentiles (i.e., 15, 25, and 30). Overall, these findings provide further support for the utility of exponentiated demand model. To our knowledge, this is the first study to demonstrate an association between baseline demand and contingency management response and systematically extend the findings of prior demand research to a novel drug class, cocaine. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).