ArticleBrain stimulation
Cost-effectiveness analysis of deep brain stimulation for the treatment of alcohol use disorder and alcoholic liver disease.
Article in Brain stimulation. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAlcohol use disorder (AUD) is a major public health concern and cause of mortality and morbidity. Alcohol-associated liver disease (ALD) is a debilitating complication of AUD, mitigated by abstinence from alcohol use. Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is emerging as a potential treatment for AUD. However, its cost-effectiveness compared to the standard medical treatment is unclear.
objectiveTo estimate the cost-effectiveness of DBS compared to medical management for patients with AUD and ALD.
methodsWe utilized a decision analytic model based on published literature to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of costs and health outcomes for DBS and medical management in patients with AUD and ALD. We also carried out a threshold analysis to determine the probability of success necessary for DBS to be cost-effective. Costs were measured in 2024 US dollars and effectiveness in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). We used a time horizon of 1-2 years and adopted a societal perspective.
resultsOur results show that for AUD patients in general, DBS is not cost-effective at any DBS success rate. However, for advanced ALD patients, defined as fibrosis stage 3 or beyond DBS becomes cost-effective. For these patients, DBS is cost-effective over a two-year period at a $100,000 willingness-to-pay threshold at DBS success rates greater than 53 %. For advanced decompensated ALD patients, DBS is cost-effective over a one-year period at DBS success rate greater than 35 %.
conclusionShould it prove efficacious, DBS may be cost-effective for patients with AUD and ALD. Thus, future randomized controlled trials to evaluate its efficacy are warranted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.