Influence of luminal stenosis in aneurysmal and non-aneurysmal blunt cerebrovascular injury

Background

Current blunt cerebrovascular injury (BCVI) grading grossly differentiates injury characteristics such as luminal stenosis (LS) and aneurysmal disease. The effect of increasing degree of LS beyond the current BCVI grading scale on stroke formation is unknown.

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.