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.     

Identification and purification of a conserved heme-regulated hemoglobin-binding outer membrane protein from Haemophilus ducreyi.

A hemoglobin-binding protein (HgbA) from Haemophilus ducreyi was identified and purified. The 100-kDa HgbA was detected in all strains of H. ducreyi tested, and a somewhat larger hemoglobin-binding protein was found in one strain of Haemophilus influenzae. HgbA was purified and the amino acid sequence of the N terminus of HgbA revealed no significant homologies with known proteins. Two different antisera to HgbA from H. ducreyi 35000 recognized HgbA proteins from all tested H. ducreyi strains; they did not recognize proteins from the H. influenzae strain. Expression of HgbA was regulated by the level of heme but not by iron present in the medium. Animal species of hemoglobin competed with iodinated human hemoglobin for binding to whole cells of H. ducreyi and supported the growth of H. ducreyi. The lack of immunological cross-reactivity and the differences in hemoglobin specificities between the H. ducreyi and the H. influenzae hemoglobin-binding proteins suggest that they are unrelated.     

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.