Deep Brain Stimulation Compared With Contingency Management for the Treatment of Cocaine Use Disorders: A Threshold and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

ObjectivesCocaine is the second most frequently used illicit drug worldwide (after cannabis), and cocaine use disorder (CUD)-related deaths increased globally by 80% from 1990 to 2013. There is yet to be a regulatory-approved treatment. Emerging preclinical evidence indicates that deep brain stimulation (DBS) of the nucleus accumbens may be a therapeutic option. Prior to expanding the costly investigation of DBS for treatment of CUD, it is important to ensure societal cost-effectiveness.AimsWe conducted a threshold and cost-effectiveness analysis to determine the success rate at which DBS would be equivalent to contingency management (CM), recently identified as the most efficacious therapy for treatments of CUDs.Materials and MethodsQuality of life, efficacy, and safety parameters for CM were obtained from previous literature. Costs were calculated from a societal perspective. Our model predicted the utility benefit based on quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental-cost-effectiveness ratio resulting from two treatments on a one-, two-, and five-year timeline.ResultsOn a one-year timeline, DBS would need to impart a success rate (ie, cocaine free) of 70% for it to yield the same utility benefit (0.492 QALYs per year) as CM. At no success rate would DBS be more cost-effective (incremental-cost-effectiveness ratio <$50,000) than CM during the first year. Nevertheless, as DBS costs are front loaded, DBS would need to achieve success rates of 74% and 51% for its cost-effectiveness to exceed that of CM over a two- and five-year period, respectively.ConclusionsWe find DBS would not be cost-effective in the short term (one year) but may be cost-effective in longer timelines. Since DBS holds promise to potentially be a cost-effective treatment for CUDs, future randomized controlled trials should be performed to assess its efficacy.     

舌黏膜尿道成形治疗尿道狭窄的初步报告

目的:探讨舌黏膜补片法尿道成形治疗尿道狭窄的疗效。方法:采用舌黏膜尿道成形治疗尿道狭窄14例。尿道狭窄段3.5~14cm,平均6.2cm;术前耻骨上膀胱造瘘8例,余6例排尿均较为困难,最大尿流率2.5~5.5ml/s,平均3.8ml/s。结果:术后随访2~8个月,1例因伤口感染致尿道皮肤瘘,余患者均排尿通畅,最大尿流率增至22~51ml/s,平均29.6ml/s。结论:舌黏膜具有取材方便、对患者创伤小、抗感染力强等特点,是一种较好的尿道替代物,尤其适合尿道狭窄段<6cm的患者。     

Loss of breast cancer metastasis suppressor 1 protein expression predicts reduced disease-free survival in subsets of breast cancer patients.

PURPOSE: This study aims to determine the effect of loss of breast cancer metastasis suppressor 1 (BRMS1) protein expression on disease-free survival in breast cancer patients stratified by estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), or HER2 status, and to determine whether loss of BRMS1 protein expression correlated with genomic copy number changes. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: A tissue microarray immunohistochemical analysis was done on tumors of 238 newly diagnosed breast cancer patients who underwent surgery at the Cleveland Clinic between January 1, 1995 and December 31, 1996, and a comparison was made with 5-year clinical follow-up data. Genomic copy number changes were determined by array-based comparative genomic hybridization in 47 breast cancer cases from this population and compared with BRMS1 staining. RESULTS: BRMS1 protein expression was lost in nearly 25% of cases. Patients with tumors that were PR negative (P=0.006) or HER2 positive (P=0.039) and <50 years old at diagnosis (P=0.02) were more likely to be BRMS1 negative. No overall correlation between BRMS1 staining and disease-free survival was observed. A significant correlation, however, was seen between loss of BRMS1 protein expression and reduced disease-free survival when stratified by either loss of ER (P=0.008) or PR (P=0.029) or HER2 overexpression (P=0.026). Overall, there was poor correlation between BRMS1 protein staining and copy number status. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest a mechanistic relationship between BRMS1 expression, hormone receptor status, and HER2 growth factor. BRMS1 staining could potentially be used in patient stratification in conjunction with other prognostic markers. Further, mechanisms other than genomic deletion account for loss of BRMS1 gene expression in breast tumors.