Living with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator:patients' preferences and needs for information provision and care options

Aims The clinical management and care of patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) has shifted from face-to-face in-clinic visits to remote monitoring. Reduced interactions between patients and healthcare professionals may impede patients' transition to adapting post-implant. We examined patients' needs and preferences for information provision and care options and overall satisfaction with treatment. Methods and results Patients implanted with a first-time ICD or defibrillator with cardiac resynchronization therapy (n = 389) within the last 2 years at Odense University Hospital were asked to complete a purpose-designed and standardized set of questionnaires. The level of satisfaction with information provision was high; only 13.1% were dissatisfied. Psychological support for patients (39.9%), their relatives (43.1%), and deactivation of the ICD towards end of life (47.8%) were among the top five topics that patients reported to have received no information about. The top five care options that patients had missed were talking to the same healthcare professional (75.2%), receiving ongoing feedback via remote monitoring (61.1%), having a personal conversation with a staff member 2-3 weeks post-implant (59.6%), having an exercise tolerance test (52.5%), and staff asking how patients felt while hospitalized (50.4%). Patients with a secondary prevention indication and cardiac arrest survivors had specific needs, including a wish for a psychological consult post-discharge. Conclusion Despite a high satisfaction level with information provision, particular topics are not broached with patients (e.g. device activation) and patients have unmet needs that are not met in current clinical practice

The Cost-Effectiveness of Empagliflozin Versus Liraglutide Treatment in People with Type 2 Diabetes and Established Cardiovascular Disease

Article full text The above summary slide represents the opinions of the authors. For a full list of declarations, including funding and author disclosure statements, please see the full text online (see “read the peer-reviewed publication” opposite). © The authors, CC-BY-NC 2021

Supplementary Tables: Supplementary Materials. The cost-effectiveness of oral semaglutide versus empagliflozin in Type 2 diabetes in Denmark

Table S1: Baseline Characteristics.Table S2: Treatment Effects – First Line.Table S3: Adverse Events.Table S4: Treatment effects for second/third line treatments (treatment policy estimand).Table S5: Proportion of patients on preventive medication.Table S6: Screening and patient management proportions.Table S7: Sensitivity and specificity of tests.Table S8 Annual treatment costs applied (DKK, AIP 2020, [20]).Table S9 Cost Inputs for the CDM (Costs inflated to 2020 values, DKK).Table S10: Utilities used in CDM.Table S11: Scenario analysis results.Table S12: Breakdown of costs (DKK, per average patient)

The Cost-Effectiveness of Empagliflozin Versus Liraglutide Treatment in People with Type 2 Diabetes and Established Cardiovascular Disease

Article full text The article associated with this page has been accepted for online publication and is in the final stages of production. The link to the full text will be made available on this page in the next few days. The above summary slide represents the opinions of the authors. For a full list of declarations, including funding and author disclosure statements, please see the full text online (see “read the peer-reviewed publication” opposite). © The authors, CC-BY-NC [YEAR]

Appendix A: Cost–utility analysis of single nucleotide polymorphism panel-based machine learning algorithm to predict risk of opioid use disorder.docx

Appendix A – Model Assumptions and Parameter Summar

Supplementary Tables: Supplementary Materials. The cost-effectiveness of oral semaglutide versus empagliflozin in Type 2 diabetes in Denmark

Table S1: Baseline Characteristics.Table S2: Treatment Effects – First Line.Table S3: Adverse Events.Table S4: Treatment effects for second/third line treatments (treatment policy estimand).Table S5: Proportion of patients on preventive medication.Table S6: Screening and patient management proportions.Table S7: Sensitivity and specificity of tests.Table S8 Annual treatment costs applied (DKK, AIP 2020, [20]).Table S9 Cost Inputs for the CDM (Costs inflated to 2020 values, DKK).Table S10: Utilities used in CDM.Table S11: Scenario analysis results.Table S12: Breakdown of costs (DKK, per average patient)