Perspectives on Extended-Release Naltrexone Induction among Patients Living with HIV and Opioid Use Disorder: A Qualitative Analysis

BACKGROUND: The CHOICES study randomized participants with HIV and opioid use disorder (OUD) to HIV clinic-based extended-release naltrexone (XR-NTX), which requires complete cessation of opioid use, versus treatment-as-usual (i.e., buprenorphine, methadone). Study participants randomized to XR-NTX were interviewed to assess their experiences with successful and unsuccessful XR-NTX induction. METHODS: Semi-structured qualitative interviews were completed with a convenience sample of study participants with HIV and OUD (n = 37) randomized to XR-NTX in five HIV clinics between 2018 and 2019. All participants approached agreed to be interviewed. Interviews were digitally recorded, professionally transcribed, and analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Participants included women (43%), African Americans (62%) and Hispanics (16%), between 27 to 69 years of age. Individuals who completed XR-NTX induction (n = 20) reported experiencing (1) readiness for change, (2) a supportive environment during withdrawal including comfort medications, and (3) caring interactions with staff. Four contrasting themes emerged among participants (n = 17) who did not complete induction: (1) concern and anxiety about withdrawal including past negative experiences, (2) ambivalence about or reluctance to stop opioids, (3) concerns about XR-NTX effects, and (4) preferences for other medications. CONCLUSIONS: The results highlight opportunities to improve initiation of XR-NTX in high-need groups. Addressing expectations regarding induction may enhance XR-NTX initiation rates. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03275350. Registered September 7, 2017. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03275350?term=extended+release+naltrexone&cond=Opioid+Use

Incidence and Cost of Acute Kidney Injury in Hospitalized Patients with Infective Endocarditis

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a frequent complication of hospitalized patients with infective endocarditis (IE). Further, AKI in the setting of IE is associated with high morbidity and mortality. We aimed to examine the incidence, clinical parameters, and hospital costs associated with AKI in hospitalized patients with IE in an endemic area with an increasing prevalence of opioid use. This retrospective cohort study included 269 patients admitted to a major referral center in Kentucky with a primary diagnosis of IE from January 2013 to December 2015. Of these, 178 (66.2%) patients had AKI by Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) serum creatinine criteria: 74 (41.6%) had AKI stage 1 and 104 (58.4%) had AKI stage ≥ 2. In multivariable analysis, higher comorbidity scores and the need for diuretics were independently associated with AKI, while the involvement of the tricuspid valve and the need for vasopressor/inotrope support were independently associated with severe AKI (stage ≥ 2). The median total direct cost of hospitalization was progressively higher according to each stage of AKI ($17,069 for no AKI;$37,111 for AKI stage 1; and $61,357 for AKI stage ≥ 2; p \u3c 0.001). In conclusion, two-thirds of patients admitted to the hospital due to IE had incident AKI. The occurrence of AKI significantly increased healthcare costs. The higher level of comorbidity, the affection of the tricuspid valve, and the need for diuretics and/or vasoactive drugs were associated with severe AKI in this susceptible population

Cost-effectiveness of MRI compared to mammography for breast cancer screening in a high risk population

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a sensitive method of breast imaging virtually uninfluenced by breast density. Because of the improved sensitivity, breast MRI is increasingly being used for detection of breast cancer among high risk young women. However, the specificity of breast MRI is variable and costs are high. The purpose of this study was to determine if breast MRI is a cost-effective approach for the detection of breast cancer among young women at high risk.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A Markov model was created to compare annual breast cancer screening over 25 years with either breast MRI or mammography among young women at high risk. Data from published studies provided probabilities for the model including sensitivity and specificity of each screening strategy. Costs were based on Medicare reimbursement rates for hospital and physician services while medication costs were obtained from the Federal Supply Scale. Utilities from the literature were applied to each health outcome in the model including a disutility for the temporary health state following breast biopsy for a false positive test result. All costs and benefits were discounted at 5% per year. The analysis was performed from the payer perspective with results reported in 2006 U.S. dollars. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses addressed uncertainty in all model parameters.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Breast MRI provided 14.1 discounted quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) at a discounted cost of $18,167 while mammography provided 14.0 QALYs at a cost of$4,760 over 25 years of screening. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of breast MRI compared to mammography was $179,599/QALY. In univariate analysis, breast MRI screening became <$50,000/QALY when the cost of the MRI was < $315. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, MRI screening produced a net health benefit of -0.202 QALYs (95$50,000/QALY. Breast MRI screening was superior in 0%, < $50,000/QALY in 22$50,000/QALY in 34%, and inferior in 44% of trials.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Although breast MRI may provide health benefits when compared to mammographic screening for some high risk women, it does not appear to be cost-effective even at willingness to pay thresholds above $120,000/QALY.</p