Search

Background: Insomnia is a common sleep disorder, associated with multiple health concerns. Current medications for insomnia are associated with higher safety risks if clinical practice guidelines or monograph recommendations are not followed. This study aims to understand real-world prescribing practices among patients with insomnia in Canada, including medication utilization, potentially inappropriate medication use, cost incurred, and lines of treatment., Methods: This retrospective observational study utilized longitudinal drug claims data from 2018 to 2020 from the Canadian IQVIA National Private Drug Plan and Ontario Drug Benefit databases. Patients with any claims for medications approved for insomnia in Canada were identified. Four types of inappropriate medication usage were defined: (1) elevated daily dose; (2) extended duration of use for benzodiazepines (BZD) and/or Z-drugs; (3) combination use; and (4) opioid overlap with BZD and/or Z-drugs., Results: In 2019, 597,222 patients with insomnia were identified; 64% were female, with an average age of 55 years. Inappropriate medication use was noted in 52.5% of adult patients (aged 18-65 years) and 69.5% of senior patients (aged >65 years). Extended duration was the most common inappropriate medication usage category. The annual cost of medications for insomnia was $54.8 million, and $30.3 million (55.2%) met inappropriate medication use criteria., Conclusion: High prevalence of inappropriate medications usage in insomnia raises serious safety concerns for patients suffering from insomnia, particularly seniors, while also placing a substantial burden on the Canadian public and private health systems. This highlights an unmet need for better education regarding current guidelines and more effective and safer treatment options., (© Copyright 2024 Physicians Postgraduate Press, Inc.)

Background: Dexmedetomidine utilisation in paediatric patients is increasing. We hypothesised that intraoperative use of dexmedetomidine in children is associated with longer postanaesthesia care unit length of stay, higher healthcare costs, and side-effects., Methods: We analysed data from paediatric patients (aged 0-12 yr) between 2016 and 2021 in the Bronx, NY, USA. We matched our cohort with the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project-Kids' Inpatient Database (HCUP-KID)., Results: Among 18 104 paediatric patients, intraoperative dexmedetomidine utilisation increased from 51.7% to 85.7% between 2016 and 2021 (P<0.001). Dexmedetomidine was dose-dependently associated with a longer postanaesthesia care unit length of stay (adjusted absolute difference [AD adj ] 19.7 min; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 18.0-21.4 min; P<0.001, median length of stay of 122 vs 98 min). The association was magnified in children aged ≤2 yr undergoing short (≤60 min) ambulatory procedures (AD adj 33.3 min; 95% CI: 26.3-40.7 min; P<0.001; P-for-interaction <0.001). Dexmedetomidine was associated with higher total hospital costs of USD 1311 (95% CI: USD 835-1800), higher odds of intraoperative mean arterial blood pressure below 55 mm Hg (adjusted odds ratio [OR adj ] 1.27; 95% CI: 1.16-1.39; P<0.001), and higher odds of heart rate below 100 beats min -1 (OR adj 1.32; 95% CI: 1.21-1.45; P<0.001), with no preventive effects on emergence delirium requiring postanaesthesia i.v. sedatives (OR adj 1.67; 95% CI: 1.04-2.68; P=0.034)., Conclusions: Intraoperative use of dexmedetomidine is associated with unwarranted haemodynamic effects, longer postanaesthesia care unit length of stay, and higher costs, without preventive effects on emergence delirium., Competing Interests: Declaration of interest The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 British Journal of Anaesthesia. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The aim of this study was to determine what is considered a long oral surgery and conduct a cost-effective analysis of sedative agents used for intravenous sedation (IVS) and sedation protocols for such procedures. Pubmed and Google Scholar databases were used to identify human studies employing IVS for extractions and implant-related surgeries, between 2003 and July/2023. Sedation protocols and procedure lengths were documented. Sedative satisfaction, operator satisfaction, and sedation assessment were also recorded. Cost estimation was based on The British National Formulary (BNF). To assess bias, the Cochrane Risk of Bias tools were employed. This review identified 29 randomised control trials (RCT), six cohorts, 14 case-series, and one case-control study. The study defined long procedures with an average duration of 31.33 minutes for extractions and 79.37 minutes for implant-related surgeries. Sedative agents identified were midazolam, dexmedetomidine, propofol, and remimazolam. Cost analysis revealed midazolam as the most cost-effective option (<10 pence per procedure per patient) and propofol the most expensive option (approximately £46.39). Bias analysis indicated varying degrees of bias in the included studies. Due to diverse outcome reporting, a comparative network approach was employed and revealed benefits of using dexmedetomidine, propofol, and remimazolam over midazolam. Midazolam, dexmedetomidine, propofol, and remimazolam demonstrated safety and efficacy as sedative agents for conscious IVS in extended procedures like extractions or implant-related surgeries. While midazolam is the most cost-effective option, dexmedetomidine, propofol, and remimazolam offer subjective and clinical benefits. The relatively higher cost of propofol may impede its widespread use. Dexmedetomidine and remimazolam stand out as closely priced options, necessitating further clinical investigations for comparative efficacy assessment., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To describe the utilization of early ketamine use among patients mechanically ventilated for COVID-19, and examine associations with in-hospital mortality and other clinical outcomes., Design: Retrospective cohort study., Setting: Six hundred ten hospitals contributing data to the Premier Healthcare Database between April 2020 and June 2021., Patients: Adults with COVID-19 and greater than or equal to 2 consecutive days of mechanical ventilation within 5 days of hospitalization., Intervention: The exposures were early ketamine use initiated within 2 days of intubation and continued for greater than 1 day., Measurements: Primary was hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included length of stay (LOS) in the hospital and ICUs, ventilator days, vasopressor days, renal replacement therapy (RRT), and total hospital cost. The propensity score matching analysis was used to adjust for confounders., Main Results: Among 42,954 patients, 1,423 (3.3%) were exposed to early ketamine use. After propensity score matching including 1,390 patients in each group, recipients of ketamine infusions were associated with higher hospital mortality (52.5% vs. 45.9%, risk ratio: 1.14, [1.06-1.23]), longer median ICU stay (13 vs. 12 d, mean ratio [MR]: 1.15 [1.08-1.23]), and longer ventilator days (12 vs. 11 d, MR: 1.19 [1.12-1.27]). There were no associations for hospital LOS (17 [10-27] vs. 17 [9-28], MR: 1.05 [0.99-1.12]), vasopressor days (4 vs. 4, MR: 1.04 [0.95-1.14]), and RRT (22.9% vs. 21.7%, RR: 1.05 [0.92-1.21]). Total hospital cost was higher (median $72,481 vs. $65,584, MR: 1.11 [1.05-1.19])., Conclusions: In a diverse sample of U.S. hospitals, about one in 30 patients mechanically ventilated with COVID-19 received ketamine infusions. Early ketamine may have an association with higher hospital mortality, increased total cost, ICU stay, and ventilator days, but no associations for hospital LOS, vasopressor days, and RRT. However, confounding by the severity of illness might occur due to higher extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and RRT use in the ketamine group. Further randomized trials are needed to better understand the role of ketamine infusions in the management of critically ill patients., Competing Interests: The authors have disclosed that they do not have any potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the Society of Critical Care Medicine.)

Traumatic brain injury is the alteration in brain function due to an external force. It is common and affects millions of people worldwide annually. The World Health Organization estimates that 90% of global deaths caused by injuries occur in low- and middle-income countries, with traumatic brain injury contributing up to half of these trauma-related deaths. Patients with traumatic brain injury in low- and middle-income countries have twice the odds of dying compared with their counterparts in high-income countries. Sedation is a key element of care in the management of traumatic brain injury, used for its neuroprotective effects and to prevent secondary brain injury. While sedatives have the potential to improve outcomes, they can be challenging to administer and have potentially dangerous complications. Sedation in low-resource settings should aim to be effective, safe, affordable and feasible. In this paper, we summarise the indications for sedation in traumatic brain injury, the choice of sedative drugs and the pragmatic management and monitoring of sedated traumatic brain injury patients in low-resource settings., (© 2022 Association of Anaesthetists.)

Objectives: It is not known whether using propofol total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) to reduce incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is cost-effective. We assessed the economic impact of propofol TIVA versus inhalational anesthesia in adult patients for ambulatory and inpatient procedures relevant to the US healthcare system., Methods: Two models simulate individual patient pathways through inpatient and ambulatory surgery with propofol TIVA or inhalational anesthesia with economic inputs from studies on adult surgical US patients. Efficacy inputs were obtained from a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses assessed the robustness of the model estimates., Results: Lower PONV rate, shorter stay in the post-anesthesia care unit, and reduced need for rescue antiemetics offset the higher costs for anesthetics, analgesics, and muscle relaxants with propofol TIVA and reduced cost by 11.41 ± 10.73 USD per patient in the inpatient model and 11.25 ± 9.81 USD in the ambulatory patient model. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated strong robustness of the results., Conclusions: Maintenance of general anesthesia with propofol was cost-saving compared to inhalational anesthesia in both inpatient and ambulatory surgical settings in the United States. These economic results support current guideline recommendations, which endorse propofol TIVA to reduce PONV risk and enhance postoperative recovery., (Copyright © 2021 ISPOR–The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Sedative use in older adults increases the risk of falls, fractures, and hospitalizations. The D-PRESCRIBE (Developing Pharmacist-Led Research to Educate and Sensitize Community Residents to the Inappropriate Prescriptions Burden in the Elderly), pragmatic randomized clinical trial demonstrated that community-based, pharmacist-led education delivered simultaneously to older adults and their primary care providers reduce the use of sedatives by 43% over 6 months. However, the associated health benefits and cost savings have yet to be described. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of the D-PRESCRIBE intervention compared to usual care for reducing the use of potentially inappropriate sedatives among older adults., Methods: A cost-utility analysis from the public health care perspective of Canada estimated the costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) associated with the D-PRESCRIBE intervention compared to usual care over a 1-year time horizon. Transition probabilities, intervention effectiveness, utility, and costs were derived from the literature. Probabilistic analyses were performed using a decision tree and Markov model to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio., Results: Compared to usual care, pharmacist-led deprescribing is less costly (-$1392.05 CAD) and more effective (0.0769 QALYs). Using common willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds of $50 000 and $100 000, D-PRESCRIBE was the optimal strategy. Scenario analysis indicated the cost-effectiveness of D-PRESCRIBE is sensitive to the rate of deprescribing., Conclusions: Community pharmacist-led deprescribing of sedatives is cost-effective, leading to greater quality-of-life and harm reduction among older adults. As the pharmacist's scope of practice expands, consideration should be given to interprofessional models of remuneration for quality prescribing and deprescribing services., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Gerontological Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

To reduce the number of falls caused by hypnotic agents, the standardization of insomnia treatment was carried out at Yamaguchi University Hospital from April 2019. There were concerns that medical costs would increase due to the selected medicines-suvorexant and eszopiclone-being more expensive than conventional benzodiazepines. In this study, the standardization of insomnia treatment was evaluated by pharmacoeconomics. The costs of the hypnotic agents was considered, as was the cost of examination/treatment following falls. Effectiveness was evaluated as the incidence of falls within 24 hours of taking hypnotic agents. This analysis took the public healthcare payer's perspective. Propensity score matching based on patient background, showed that, per hospitalization the medicine costs of the recommended group increased by 1,020 yen, however, the examination/treatment costs following falls decreased by 487 yen when compared with the non-recommended group. Overall, the recommended group incurred costs of 533 yen more per hospitalization for patients prescribed hypnotic agents compared to the non-recommended group, but the incidence of falls for the recommended group was significantly lower than that in the non-recommended group (1.9% vs. 6.3%; p<0.01). These results suggest that in order to prevent the incidence of falls by 1 case, it is necessary to increase costs by 12,086 yen which is the subthreshold cost for switching to the recommended medicine as standardization. The selection of recommended medicines may be a cost-effectiveness option compared with non-recommended medicines.

Background Despite the advantages of dexmedetomidine (DEX) over propofol (PRO) including minimal respiratory depression and the potential for preventing and/or treating intensive care unit (ICU) delirium, PRO has been the preferred agent due to its lower cost. However, the acquisition cost of DEX has considerably decreased as a generic version of DEX has recently become available. Objective To evaluate clinical and economic outcomes of DEX-based sedation compared to PRO in the ICU. Setting A retrospective cohort study of 86 ICU patients who received either DEX or PRO for a period ≥ 12 h. Method Patients were matched by age, sex, and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores in a 1:1 ratio. Main outcome measure Clinical outcomes included the duration of mechanical ventilation (MV), ICU and hospital length of stay (LOS), and requirements of concomitant sedatives and opioids. Economic outcomes included the ICU and hospital costs as well as the cost of sedatives or combined sedatives and opioids per patient. Results There were no significant differences in ICU and hospital LOS and time on MV in both groups (median ICU LOS 7 [DEX] vs. 9 [PRO] days, p = 0.07; median hospital LOS 12 [DEX] vs. 14 [PRO] days, p = 0.261; median time of MV 144 [DEX] vs. 158 [PRO] hours, p = 0.176). DEX-based sedation compared to PRO was associated with similar ICU and hospital costs (US$ 67,561 vs. 78,429, p = 0.39; US$ 71,923 vs. 71,084, p = 0.1). Conclusion The clinical outcomes and economic impact associated with DEX- and PRO-based sedation were similar.

Background: Significant improvements in clinical outcome can be achieved by implementing effective strategies to optimise pain management, reduce sedative exposure, and prevent and treat delirium in ICU patients. One important strategy is the monitoring of pain, agitation and delirium (PAD bundle). We hypothesised that there is no sufficient financial benefit to implement a monitoring strategy in a Diagnosis Related Group (DRG)-based reimbursement system, therefore we expected better clinical and decreased economic outcome for monitored patients., Methods: This is a retrospective observational study using routinely collected data. We used univariate and multiple linear analysis, machine-learning analysis and a novel correlation statistic (maximal information coefficient) to explore the association between monitoring adherence and resulting clinical and economic outcome. For univariate analysis we split patients in an adherence achieved and an adherence non-achieved group., Results: In total 1,323 adult patients from two campuses of a German tertiary medical centre, who spent at least one day in the ICU between admission and discharge between 1. January 2016 and 31. December 2016. Adherence to PAD monitoring was associated with shorter hospital LoS (e.g. pain monitoring 13 vs. 10 days; p<0.001), ICU LoS, duration of mechanical ventilation shown by univariate analysis. Despite the improved clinical outcome, adherence to PAD elements was associated with a decreased case mix per day and profit per day shown by univariate analysis. Multiple linear analysis did not confirm these results. PAD monitoring is important for clinical as well as economic outcome and predicted case mix better than severity of illness shown by machine learning analysis., Conclusion: Adherence to PAD bundles is also important for clinical as well as economic outcome. It is associated with improved clinical and worse economic outcome in comparison to non-adherence in univariate analysis but not confirmed by multiple linear analysis., Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov NCT02265263, Registered 15 October 2014., Competing Interests: MD has nothing to declare. CS reports grants from Aridis Pharmaceutical Inc., grants from B. Braun Melsungen AG, grants from Drägerwerk AG & Co. KGaA, grants from Grünenthal GmbH, grants from Infectopharm GmbH, grants from Sedana Medical Ltd., grants from Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft / German Research Society, grants from Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt e. V. (DLR) /German Aerospace Center, grants from Einstein Stiftung Berlin/ Einstein Foundation Berlin, grants from European Society of Anaesthesiology, grants from Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss / Federal Joint Committee (G-BA), grants from Inneruniversitäre Forschungsförderung / Inner University Grants, grants from Projektträger im DLR / Project Management Agency, grants from Stifterverband/Non-Profit Society Promoting Science and Education, grants from WHOCC, grants from Baxter Deutschland GmbH, grants from Biotest AG, grants from Cytosorbents Europe GmbH, grants from Edwards Lifesciences Germany GmbH, grants from Fresenius Medical Care, grants from Grünenthal GmbH, grants from Masimo Europe Ltd., grants from Medtronic GmbH, grants from Pfizer Pharma PFE GmbH, personal fees from Georg Thieme Verlag, grants from Dr. F. Köhler Chemie GmbH, grants from Sintetica GmbH, grants from European Commission, grants from Stifterverband für die deutsche Wissenschaft Þ.V. / Philips, grants from Stiftung Charité, grants from AGUETTANT Deutschland GmbH, grants from AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, grants from Amomed Pharma GmbH, grants from InTouch Health, grants from Copra System GmbH, grants from Correvio GmbH, grants from Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften e.V., outside the current work; In addition, Prof. Spies has a patent 10 2014 215 211.9 licensed, a patent 10 2014 215 212.9 licensed, a patent 10 2018 114 364.8 licensed, and a patent 10 2018 110 275.5 pending. Dr. Bjoern Weiss reports personal fees from Orion Pharma Ltd. Outside the current work; in addition Dr. Weiss reports grants from the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Robert-Koch-Insititute outside the current work. NK has nothing to declare. MJ reports talks or teaching for which she received modest honoraria by the following organizations: German National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians, Dr. Risch Laboratories (Buchs, Switzerland), Health Ministry Baden-Württemberg (Germany), mediX AG(Zurich, Switzerland), VDE e.V. (Germany), Geburtshülfliche Gesellschaft zu Hamburg (Obstetrics Association Hamburg), Landesgesundheitsprojekte e.V. (Germany), Gesundheitsforen Leipzig GmbH (Germany), Deutsche Menopause Gesellschaft e.V. (German Menopause Association), Deutscher Berufsverband für Pflegeberufe (DBfK) Nordwest e.V. (German Nursing Association), Swiss Rheumatism Symposium, Sana Herzchirurgie Stuttgart GmbH (Germany). The Harding Center (MJ's former employer) has received funding from: AOK Insurance (Germany), Helsana Insurance (Switzerland), BKK Viactiv Insurance (Switzerland), German Football Association, Microsoft Research New Work, David Harding (Winton Philanthropies), German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, ERGO Insurances (Germany), Goethe University of Frankfurt (Germany), German Ministry for Transport and digital Infrastructure, German Ministry for Justice and Consumer Protection, German Aerospace Center. JK has nothing to declare. FB reports grants from Berlin Institute of Health, grants from Einstein Foundation, personal fees from Axon Publishing, grants from Vifor Pharma, grants and personal fees from Clearflow, personal fees and non-financial support from Medtronic outside the current work. I hereby confirm that all patents and personal fees that have been reported by the authors are entirely outside the current work. There are no patents, products in development or marketed products associated with this research to declare. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

The last few decades of gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy have seen phenomenal growth. In many aspects, GI endoscopy has led the field of nonsurgical interventional medicine. In many aspects, this growth is facilitated by advancements in sedation-both drugs and techniques. Unfortunately, the topic of GI endoscopy sedation is also mired in many controversies, mainly emanating from the cost of anesthesia providers. While no one debates their role in the majority of advanced endoscopic procedures, the practice of universal propofol sedation in the USA, delivered by anesthesia providers, needs a closer look. In this review, medical, political, and economic considerations of this important topic are discussed in a very frank and honest way. While such ubiquitous propofol use has increased satisfaction of both patients and gastroenterologists, there is little justification. More importantly, going by the evidence, there is even less justification for the mandated anesthesia providers use for such delivery. Unfortunately, the FDA could not be convinced otherwise. The new drug fospropofol met the same fate. Approval of SEDASYS ® , the first computer-assisted personalized sedation system, was a step in the right direction, nevertheless an insufficient step that failed to takeoff. As a result, in spite of years of research and efforts of many august societies, the logjam of balancing cost and justification of propofol sedation has continued. We hope that recent approval of remimazolam, a novel benzodiazepine, and potential approval of oliceridine, a novel short-acting opioid, might be able to contain the cost without compromising the quality of sedation.

Background: A cardiologist-only approach to procedural sedation with midazolam in the setting of elective cardioversion (DCC) for AF has already been proven as safe as sedation with propofol and anaesthesiologist assistance. No data exist regarding the safety of such a strategy during emergency procedures. The aim of this study is to compare the feasibility of sedation with midazolam, administered by a cardiologist, to an anaesthesiologist-assisted protocol with propofol in emergency DCC., Methods: Single centre, prospective, open blinded, randomized study including all consecutive patients admitted to the Emergency Department requiring urgent or emergency DCC. Patients were randomized in a 1:1 fashion to either propofol or midazolam treatment arm. Patients in the midazolam group were managed by the cardiologist only, while patients treated with propofol group underwent DCC with anaesthesiologist assistance., Results: Sixty-nine patients were enrolled and split into two groups. Eighteen patients (26.1%) experienced peri-procedural adverse events (bradycardia, severe hypotension and severe hypoxia), which were similar between the two groups and all successfully managed by the cardiologist. No deaths, stroke or need for invasive ventilation were registered. Patients treated with propofol experienced a greater decrease in systolic and diastolic blood pressure when compared with those treated with midazolam. As the procedure was shorter when midazolam was used, the median cost of urgent/emergency DCC with midazolam was estimated to be 129.0 € (1st-3rd quartiles 114.6-151.6) and 195.6 € (1st-3rd quartiles 147.3-726.7) with propofol (p < .001)., Conclusions: Procedural sedation with midazolam given by the cardiologist alone was feasible, well-tolerated and cost-effective in emergency DCC.

Background: Patient-controlled sedation (PCS) with propofol accompanied by a bedside nurse anaesthetist is an alternative sedation method for endoscopic procedures compared with midazolam administered by a nurse or endoscopist. Increasing costs in health care demands an economic perspective when introducing alternative methods. We applied a hospital perspective on a cost analysis comparing different methods of sedation and the resource use that were expected to affect cost differences related to the sedation., Methods: Based on two randomised previous studies, the direct costs were determined for different sedation methods during two advanced endoscopic procedures: endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and flexible bronchoscopy including endobronchial ultrasound. ERCP comparisons were made between midazolam sedation by the endoscopic team, PCS with a bedside nurse anaesthetist and propofol sedation administered by a nurse anaesthetist. Bronchoscopy comparisons were made between midazolam sedation by the endoscopic team and PCS with a bedside nurse anaesthetist, categorised by premedication morphine-scopolamine or glycopyrronium., Results: Propofol PCS with a bedside nurse anaesthetist resulted in lower costs per patient for sedation for both ERCP (233 USD) and bronchoscopy (premedication morphine-scopolamine 267 USD, premedication glycopyrronium 269 USD) compared with midazolam (ERCP 425 USD, bronchoscopy 337 USD). Aborted procedures that needed to be repeated and prolonged hospital stays significantly increased the cost for the midazolam groups., Conclusion: Propofol PCS with a bedside nurse anaesthetist reduces the direct sedation costs for ERCP and bronchoscopy procedures compared with midazolam sedation., (© 2019 The Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Foundation. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Purpose: The primary objective was to evaluate the impact of an analgosedation protocol in a cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) on daily doses and costs of analgesic, sedative, and antipsychotic medications., Methods: We conducted a single-center quasi-experimental study in 363 mechanically ventilated patients admitted to our CICU from March 1, 2011, to April 13, 2013. On March 1, 2012, an analgosedation protocol was implemented. Patients in the pre-implementation group were managed at the cardiologist's discretion, which consisted of a continuous sedative-hypnotic approach and opioids as needed. Patients in the implementation group were managed using this protocol., Results: The mean ± S.D. per-patient doses (mg/day) of propofol, lorazepam, and clonazepam decreased with the use of an analgosedation protocol (propofol 132,265.7 ± 12,951 versus 87,980.5 ± 10,564 [p = 0.03]; lorazepam 10.5 ± 7.3 versus 3.3 ± 4.0 [p < 0.001]; clonazepam 9.9 ± 8.3 versus 1.1 ± 0.5 [p = 0.03]). The mean daily cost of propofol and lorazepam also significantly decreased (33.5% reduction in propofol cost [p = 0.03]; 69.0% reduction in lorazepam cost [p < 0.001]). The per-patient dose and cost of fentanyl (mcg/day) declined with analgosedation protocol use (fentanyl 2,274.2 ± 2317.4 versus 1,026.7 ± 981.4 [p < 0.001]; 54.8% decrease in fentanyl cost [p < 0.001])., Conclusion: The implementation of an analgosedation protocol significantly decreased both the use and cost of propofol, lorazepam, and fentanyl. Further investigation of the clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of a critical care consultation service with implementation of an analgosedation protocol is warranted in the CICU., (© American Society of Health-System Pharmacists 2019. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: In Germany, almost 50% of prescriptions for benzodiazepines and drugs as Zolpidem and Zopiclone are as out-of-pocket (OOP) prescriptions-requiring patients to buy the drug at their own expense-although almost 90% of the population has statutory health insurance covering medication costs., Objective: To understand why general practitioners (GPs) choose this prescribing method since needed medications are insurance covered, and unnecessary drugs should not be prescribed at all., Methods: In this qualitative study, 17 semi-structured interviews with GPs were conducted, audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were analysed with grounded theory to extract a model explaining the described behaviour., Results: Knowing the significant medical risks and insecurity about regulations makes GPs wish to avoid hypnotics and sedatives. They achieve this by 'Creating a barrier' (central phenomenon) and employing the strategy 'Using an out-of-pocket prescription', which not only generates costs for the patient but also reduces the physicians´ legal and financial accountability. The perceived patient type, expected problem duration and diagnosis influence the decision about the prescription form: patients with an alcohol or drug addiction or those with 'uncomplicated' insomnia are more likely to receive an OOP prescription. Patients with any psychiatric diagnosis will likely receive a statutory health insurance prescription., Discussion: Current regulations do not provide guidance to GPs regarding hypnotics and sedatives. A clear regulatory framework and guidelines could possibly reduce physicians' defensive attitudes about these drugs and their use of OOP prescriptions. The approach to use OOP prescriptions as a barrier to reduce patients' medication use lacks evidence regarding effectiveness., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the association between the method of procedural sedation and outcomes for congenital cardiac catheterization procedures., Background: The safety of operator-directed sedation (ODS) in the pediatric/congenital cardiac catheterization laboratory has been questioned. To our knowledge, the relative safety of ODS versus general anesthesia (GA) in these cases has not to date been critically evaluated., Methods: A single-center retrospective cohort study was performed to compare the relative safety, cost, and times of catheterization procedures performed with ODS and those performed with GA from a cardiac anesthesiologist. The risk of adverse outcomes was compared using propensity-score-adjusted models. Using the same propensity score, procedure times and relative charges were also compared., Results: Over the study period, 4,424 procedures in 2,547 patients were studied. Of these, 27% of cases were performed with ODS. ODS procedures were 70% diagnostic procedures, 17% device closure of patent ductus arteriosus, 5% balloon pulmonary valvuloplasty, and 3% pulmonary artery angioplasty. The risk of adverse event in adjusted models for ODS cases was significantly lower than in GA cases (odds ratio: 0.66; 95% confidence interval: 0.45 to 0.95; p = 0.03). Total room time and case time were also significantly shorter (p < 0.001). Professional (charge ratio: 0.88; p < 0.001) and hospital (charge ratio: 0.84; p < 0.001) charges for ODS cases were also lower than those for GA cases., Conclusions: This study demonstrates that clinical judgment can identify subjects in whom ODS is not associated with increased risk of adverse events. The use of ODS was associated with reduced case times and charges. In combination, these findings suggest that the selective use of ODS can allow for greater efficiency and higher value care without sacrificing safety., (Copyright © 2019 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Objectives: Propofol facilitates deep sedation without requiring intubation and is often used by infusion to maintain sedation. Variability in ordering and preparation strategies resulted in significant propofol volumes wasted at the conclusion of procedures in our clinic. With drug shortages now common, we designed a quality improvement initiative to reduce our propofol waste., Methods: Data collection during the preintervention phase reflected current practice trends. Two propofol dosing tables (≥50 or <50 kg) were designed to estimate the volume of propofol infusion required for sedations spanning 15 to 180 minutes. Nurses prepared propofol infusions as directed by these tables. The primary outcome measure was reduction in waste when the infusion was prepared by standardized strategy versus usual practice. Balancing measures included occurrences of insufficient infusion volume and premature awakenings from deep sedation. Waste volumes were plotted and displayed chronologically in statistical process control charts for the clinic and individual providers., Results: A total of 155 patients received a propofol infusion to maintain deep sedation. The preintervention phase included 77 patients, and the intervention phase included 78 patients. Special cause variation was achieved in the intervention phase. Median (interquartile range) propofol waste volume per procedure declined from 45.6 mL (24.3-71 mL) to 14.3 mL (9.6-19.4 mL), representing a 68% waste reduction., Conclusions: Using an internally derived systematic approach to ordering and preparing a propofol infusion, we reduced variability, reduced propofol waste, and created cost savings for our organization. This approach is tailorable to other infusions and clinical settings., Competing Interests: POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The authors have indicated they have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2018 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.)

Aims: This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of the orexin receptor antagonist suvorexant against zolpidem, the most widely used hypnotic benzodiazepine receptor agonist in Japan. To this end, a model was used that factored in insomnia and the risk for hip fractures, which have devastating effects on the elderly., Methods: Data were derived from published papers. The target population was a virtual cohort of elderly patients (≥65 years) with insomnia residing in Japan. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio as effectiveness measures. The investigators assumed the perspective of healthcare payers., Results: In the base-case analysis, suvorexant was cost-saving (suvorexant: $252.3, zolpidem: $328.7) and had higher QALYs gained (suvorexant: 0.0641, zolpidem: 0.0635) for elderly Japanese patients with insomnia compared with zolpidem, indicating that suvorexant was dominant. In the sensitivity analysis, the outcome changed from dominant to dominated due to the relative risk for hip fractures associated with suvorexant. However, when the other parameters were varied from the lower to the upper limits of their ranges, suvorexant remained dominant compared to zolpidem., Limitations: The relative risk for hip fractures for suvorexant used in the model was based on data from pre-approval clinical trials. More precise data may be needed., Conclusions: Suvorexant seemed to be more cost-effective than the alternative zolpidem. The findings suggested that suvorexant might be a viable alternative to zolpidem for elderly patients with insomnia. A sensitivity analysis showed that outcome varied depending on the relative risk for hip fractures associated with suvorexant. Further investigations may be needed for more precise results.

Background: Physician's intention to prescribe drugs could potentially be used to improve targeting of alcohol interventions and enhanced disease management to patients with a high risk of severe alcohol-related harm within outpatient settings., Methods: Comparison of ten-year incidence trajectories of 13.8 million reimbursed purchases of prescription drugs among 303,057 Finnish men and women of whom 7490 ultimately died due to alcohol-related causes (Alc+), 14,954 died without alcohol involvement (Alc-), and 280,613 survived until the end of 2007., Results: 5-10 years before death, 88% of the persons with an Alc+ death had received prescription medication, and over two-thirds (69%) had at least one reimbursed purchase of drugs for the alimentary tract and metabolism, the cardiovascular system, or the nervous system. Among persons with an Alc+ death, the incidence rate (IR) for purchases of hypnotics, and sedatives was 1.38 times higher (95% confidence interval (CI):1.32,1.44) compared to those with an Alc- death, and 4.07 times higher (95%CI:3.92,4.22) compared to survivors; and the IR for purchases of anxiolytics was 1.40 times higher (95%CI:1.34,1.47) compared to those with an Alc- death, and 3.61 times higher (95%CI:3.48,3.78) compared to survivors., Conclusions: Using physician's intention to prescribe drugs affecting the alimentary tract and metabolism, cardiovascular system and nervous system could potentially be used to flag patients who might benefit from screening, targeted interventions or enhanced disease management. In particular, patients who are to be prescribed anxiolytics, hypnotics, and sedatives, and antidepressants may benefit from enhanced interventions targeted to problem drinking., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Evidence from other countries has suggested that many controlled drugs are also offered online, even though it is illegal to sell these drugs without a license., Objectives: To evaluate the current contents related to the supply and demand of sedatives and analgesic drugs available online in Thailand, with a particular focus on Facebook., Methods: A team of reviewers manually searched for data by entering keywords related to analgesic drugs and sedatives. The contents of the website were screened for supply and demand-related information., Findings: A total of 5,352 websites were found publicly available. The number of websites and Facebook pages containing the information potentially related to the supply and demand of analgesic drugs and sedatives was limited. Nine websites sold sedatives, and six websites sold analgesics directly. Fourteen Facebook pages were found, including 7 sedative pages and 7 analgesic pages. Within one year, the three remaining active pages multiplied in the number of followers by three- to nine-fold. The most popular Facebook page had over 2,900 followers., Conclusions: Both the internet and social media contain sites and pages where sedatives and analgesics are illegally advertised. These websites are searchable through common search engines. Although the number of websites is limited, the number of followers on these Facebook pages does suggest a growing number of people who are interested in such pages. Our study emphasized the importance of monitoring and developing potential plans relative to the online marketing of prescription drugs in Thailand.

Objectives: Providing analgesia and sedation while allowing for neurological assessment is important in the neurocritical care unit (NCCU), yet data are limited about the effects of protocolised analgesia and sedation. We developed an analgesia-based sedation protocol and evaluated its effect on medication utilisation and costs in the NCCU., Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients who are mechanically ventilated and admitted to a 12-bed NCCU over four years. To compare outcomes, we used gamma and negative binomial regression models, and interrupted time-series sensitivity analyses., Results: The study cohort consisted of 1197 patients: 576 pre-protocol and 621 post-protocol. The protocol resulted in an increase in fentanyl use [incidence rate ratio (IRR) = 2.8, (95% confidence limits (CLs) 1.9, 4.2)] and a decrease in propofol use (IRR = 0.8, CLs 0.6, 1.0). There was a decrease in fentanyl (cost ratio = 0.8, CLs 0.5, 1.1) and propofol costs (cost ratio = 0.6, CLs 0.5, 0.8). The sensitivity analyses results were similar. There was no effect on healthcare utilisation, healthcare costs, and in-hospital mortality., Conclusion: Protocolised analgesia and sedation increased analgesia use, decreased sedative use, and reduced medication-associated costs in the NCCU. Our results suggest that similar NCCUs should consider use of population-specific protocols to manage analgesia and sedation.

Background: We aimed to test a novel method of delivery of chloral hydrate (CH) sedation in ventilated critically ill young children., Methods: Children < 12 years old, within 72 hours of admission, who were ventilated, receiving enteral tube-feeds, with intermittent CH ordered were enrolled after signed consent. Patients received a CH loading-dose of 10 mg/kg enterally, then a syringe-pump enteral infusion at 5 mg/kg/hour, increasing to a maximum of 9 mg/kg/hour. Cases were compared to historical controls matched for age group and Pediatric Risk of Mortality score (PRISM) category, using Fisher's exact test and the t test. The primary outcome was feasibility, defined as the use of an enteral CH continuous infusion without discontinuation attributable to a pre-specified potential harm., Results: There were 21 patients enrolled, at age 11.4 (12.1) months, with bronchiolitis in 10 (48%), a mean Pediatric Logistic Organ Dysfunction (PELOD) score of 6.2 (5.2), and having received enteral CH continuous infusion for 4.5 (2.2) days. Infusion of CH was feasible in 20/21 (95%; 95% CI 76-99%) patients, with one (5%) adverse event of duodenal ulcer perforation on day 3 in a patient with croup receiving regular ibuprofen and dexamethasone. The CH infusion dose (mg/kg/h) on day 2 (n = 20) was 8.9 (IQR 5.9, 9), and on day 4 (n = 11) was 8.8 (IQR 7, 9). Days to titration of adequate sedation (defined as ≤ 3 PRN doses/shift) was 1 (IQR 0.5, 2.5), and hours to awakening for extubation was 5 (IQR 2, 9). Cases (versus controls) had less positive fluid balance at 48 h (-2 (45) vs. 26 (46) ml/kg, p = 0.051), and a decrease in number of PRN sedation doses from 12 h pre to 12 hours post starting CH (4.7 (3.3) to 2.6 (2.8), p = 0.009 versus 2.9 (3.9) to 3.4 (5), p = 0.74). There were no statistically significant differences between cases and controls in inotrope scores, signs or treatment of withdrawal, or PICU days., Conclusions: Delivering CH by continuous enteral infusion is feasible, effective, and may be associated with less positive fluid balance. Whether there is a risk of duodenal perforation requires further study.

Background: Dexmedetomidine is a widely utilized agent in the intensive care unit (ICU) because it does not suppress respiratory drive and may be associated with less delirium than midazolam or propofol. Cost of dexmedetomidine therapy and debate as to the proper duration of use has brought its use to the forefront of discussion., Objective: To validate the efficacy and cost savings associated with pharmacy-driven dexmedetomidine appropriate use guidelines and stewardship in mechanically ventilated patients., Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of adult patients who received dexmedetomidine for ICU sedation while on mechanical ventilation at a 433-bed not-for-profit community hospital. Included patients were divided into pre-enactment (PRE) and postenactment (POST) of dexmedetomidine guideline groups., Results: A total of 100 patients (50 PRE and 50 POST) were included in the analysis. A significant difference in duration of mechanical ventilation (11.1 vs 6.2 days, P = 0.006) and incidence of reintubation (36% vs 18% of patients, P = 0.043) was seen in the POST group. Aggregate use of dexmedetomidine 200-µg vials (37.1 vs 18.4 vials, P = 0.010) and infusion days (5.4 vs 2.5 days, P = 0.006) were significantly lower in the POST group. Dexmedetomidine acquisition cost savings were calculated at $374 456.15 in the POST group. There was no difference between the PRE and POST groups with regard to ICU length of stay, expected mortality, and observed mortality., Conclusions: Pharmacy-driven dexmedetomidine appropriate use guidelines decreased the use of dexmedetomidine and increased cost savings at a community hospital without adversely affecting clinical outcomes.

Background: The propofolemia becomes directly linked to the clinical effects of this anesthetic and is the focus for studies comparing propofol clinical use, in different administration methods routinely used in endoscopy units where sedation is widely administered to patients., Aim: To evaluate the effects of three different regimens of intravenous propofol infusion in colonoscopies., Methods: A total of 50 patients that underwent colonoscopies were consecutively assigned to three groups: 1) intermittent bolus infusion; 2) continuous manually controlled infusion; 3) continuous automatic infusion. Patients were monitored with Bispectral IndexTM (BIS) and propofol serum levels were collected at three different timepoints. The development of an original dilution of propofol and an inventive capnography catheter were necessary., Results: Regarding clinical outcomes, statistical differences in agitation (higher in group 1, p=0.001) and initial blood pressure (p=0.008) were found. As for propofol serum levels, findings were similar in consumption per minute (p=0.748) and over time (p=0.830). In terms of cost analysis, group 1 cost was R$7.00 (approximately US$2,25); group2, R$17.50 (approximately US$5,64); and group 3, R$112.70 (approximately US$36,35, p<0.001). Capnography was able to predict 100% of the oxygen saturation drop (below 90%)., Conclusion: The use of propofol bolus administration for colonoscopies, through continuous manually controlled infusion or automatic infusion are similar regarding propofolemia and the clinical outcomes evaluated. The use of an innovative capnography catheter is liable and low-cost solution for the early detection of airway obstruction., Competing Interests: none

Objective: The objective of this evaluation was to compare total hospital costs and length of stay of critically ill patients who received dexmedetomidine versus propofol for sedation in the intensive care unit (ICU)., Methods: This was a retrospective quality improvement evaluation at a tertiary care, academic medical center in the United States. Data were retrieved for patients discharged between April 2012 and June 2013. Patients were included if they were admitted to the ICU, were 18 years of age or older, and received dexmedetomidine or propofol for sedation. Multivariate regression models were developed to determine the association between sedative type and hospital costs, ICU length of stay, and hospital length of stay., Results: The final cohort included 3294 patients. Of these, 2685 received propofol and 609 received dexmedetomidine. The median hospital cost was US$31 041 (interquartile range [IQR] US$17 963-US$57 826) in the propofol group and US$46 716 (IQR US$31 247 to US$85 490) in the dexmedetomidine group (P < .001). The median ICU length of stay was 2 days (IQR 1-6 days) and 4 days (IQR 2-9 days) in the propofol and dexmedetomidine groups, respectively (P < .001). Overall, hospital length of stay was 8 days (IQR 4-15 days) and 9 days (IQR 5-18 days) in the 2 groups, respectively (P < .001). In the multivariate analyses, dexmedetomidine use was associated with increased costs, ICU length of stay, and hospital length of stay (P < .001 for each outcome)., Conclusions: In this academic medical center, dexmedetomidine use was associated with higher costs when compared to propofol for sedation in the ICU. Also, use of dexmedetomidine was associated with increased lengths of ICU and hospital stay. Future prospective trials are needed to confirm these findings., (© The Author(s) 2014.)

Background: Percutaneous endovascular aneurysm repair (PEVAR) continues to evolve. Device profiles continue to decline, further reducing the physiological insult of the procedure. Anesthesia, however, has not evolved with a large proportion of patients continuing to receive general anesthesia for their increasingly less invasive procedures. We report on a novel anesthetic technique providing outstanding anesthesia in patients undergoing PEVAR in an outpatient setting. The total anesthesia used was remarkably cost effective., Methods: Six patients underwent PEVAR in an outpatient setting. The patients received moderate intravenous (IV) access sedation using versed and fentanyl in combination with bilateral ilioinguinal nerve blocks. Patients received 25 mL bilaterally of 0.5% bupivicaine with epinephrine. All patients were American Society of Anesthesiologists class III. None received central venous access, arterial, or urinary catheters. Standard noninvasive monitoring was used. A board-certified anesthesiologist was present at all times during the procedures., Results: All patients underwent successful repair. Average cost per case for anesthetic supplies averaged around $7.00. The fentanyl dose ranged from 100 to 200 μg with an average dose of 130 μg. Versed dose ranged from 2 to 3 mg with an average dose of 2.4 mg. No patient required conversion to general anesthesia. Postoperative pain relief was excellent. Two patients required pain medication before discharge. Two patients required oral narcotic analgesic the night of discharge. No patients required narcotics after that time., Conclusions: Bilateral ilioinguinal nerve block, when combined with moderate IV sedation allows outstanding anesthesia for patients undergoing PEVAR. This novel combination has not been reported previously. The technique provides safe, effective, care for of a subset of patients not requiring general anesthesia. It offers a greatly reduced cost when compared with general anesthesia. Additional benefits include prolonged pain relief perioperatively as well as potentially decreasing the physiologic and cognitive effects seen with general anesthesia., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness, safety, and cost of dexmedetomidine for the treatment of agitated delirium refractory to haloperidol in nonintubated critically ill patients., Design: Nonrandomized, controlled trial., Setting: Intensive care department of a tertiary care nonprofit hospital., Patients: All consecutive admissions to a medical-surgical ICU with a diagnosis of agitated delirium., Interventions: Initial haloperidol titration: all patients received IV bolus doses of haloperidol until agitation was controlled (Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale scoring range, 0 to -2) or reaching the maximum daily dose. Group comparison: patient responders to haloperidol (control group) were compared with nonresponders (dexmedetomidine group)., Measurements and Main Results: A total of 132 nonintubated patients were treated with haloperidol in the initial haloperidol titration phase. Forty-six patients (34.8%; 95% CI, 26.0-43.1%) did not respond to haloperidol, and 86 patients (65.2%; 95% CI, 56.3-73.0%) were responders. During the group comparison phase, dexmedetomidine achieved a higher percentage of time in satisfactory sedation levels than did haloperidol (92.7% [95% CI, 84.5-99.8%] vs 59.3% [95% CI, 48.6-69.3%], respectively; p = 0.0001). Haloperidol was associated with 10 cases (11.6% [95% CI, 6.5-21.2%]) of oversedation and two (2.0% [0.4-8%]) of corrected QT lengthening. Direct cost of dexmedetomidine was 17 times greater than haloperidol, but it achieved a mean savings of $4,370 per patient due to the reduction in length of ICU stay., Conclusions: In the study conditions, dexmedetomidine shows to be useful as a rescue drug for treating agitation due to delirium in nonintubated patients in whom haloperidol has failed, and it seems to have a better effectiveness, safety, and cost-benefit profile than does haloperidol.

Sedation is a necessary component of care for the critically ill. Oversedation, however, is associated with immediate complications and long-term problems, termed post-intensive care unit syndrome. It also contributes to unnecessary costs of care. This article describes the physical, functional, psychiatric, and cognitive complications of oversedation, and multiple research-based strategies that minimize complications., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Maxillofacial tumor surgery often necessitates prolonged invasive ventilation to prevent blockage of the respiratory tract. To tolerate ventilation, continuously administered sedatives are recommended. Half-time of sedative or analgesic medication is an important characteristic by which narcotic drugs are chosen, due to the fact that weaning period increases with half-time. The aim of our study was to investigate whether a change in sedation regimen would affect the length of invasive ventilation or intensive care unit stay and medical costs. Additionally, the impact of various surgical procedures was analyzed. Data of 157 patients after mandibular surgery were retrospectively analyzed over 5 years in count regression models. Of those patients, 84 received a sedation regimen with sufentanil and midazolam and 73 with remifentanil and propofol. The impact of the surgical procedures (tracheostomy, tumor resection, neck dissection and length of operation) and the patient age and sex were analyzed with respect to length of ventilation and ICU days. Cost savings were calculated. Our data show that patients receiving remifentanil/propofol had fewer ventilation days (2.5 ± 2.5 versus 6.1 ± 4.6 days, P < 0.001) and were discharged earlier from the intensive care unit than patients receiving sufentanil/midazolam (5.1 ± 3.8 versus 9.2 ± 6.2 days, P < 0.001), leading to calculated cost savings of about 8000 Euro per patient. Length of operation negatively influenced length of ICU stay (P < 0.001). In conclusion, short-acting drugs such as remifentanil/propofol, as well as tracheostoma and shortened surgery duration may reduce the postoperative need for invasive ventilation and length of intensive care unit stay., (Copyright © 2016 European Association for Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The nonmedical use of prescription drugs is a widely recognized public health issue, and young adults are particularly vulnerable to their use. Behavioral economic drug purchase tasks capture an individual's strength of desire and motivation for a particular drug. We examined young adult prescription drug purchase and consumption patterns using hypothetical behavioral economic purchase tasks for prescription sedatives/tranquilizers, stimulants, and opiate pain relievers. We also examined relations between demand, use frequency, and Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.; DSM-5) substance use disorder (SUD) symptoms, and sex differences in these relations. Undergraduate students who endorsed past-year prescription drug use (N = 393) completed an online questionnaire for course credit. Measures assessed substance use frequency and DSM-5 SUD symptoms. Hypothetical purchase tasks for sedatives, stimulants, and pain relievers assessed participants' consumption and expenditure patterns for these substances across 25 prices. Past-year prescription sedative, stimulant, and pain reliever use was endorsed by 138, 258, and 189 participants, respectively. Among these users, consumption for their respective substance decreased as a function of ascending price, as expected. Demand indices for a prescription drug were associated with each other and with use frequency and SUD symptoms, with variability across substances but largely not by sex. In addition, demand for prescription pain relievers differentially predicted symptoms independent of use, with differences for females and males. In conclusion, hypothetical consumption and expenditure patterns for prescription drugs were generally well described by behavioral economic demand curves, and the observed associations with use and SUD symptoms provide support for the utility of prescription drug purchase tasks., (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved.)

Background/aims: The inability of some children to tolerate detailed eye examinations often necessitates general anaesthesia (GA). The objective was to assess the incremental cost effectiveness of paediatric eye examinations carried out in an outpatient sedation unit compared with GA., Methods: An episode of care cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted from a societal perspective. Model inputs were based on a retrospective cross-over cohort of Canadian children aged <7 years who had both an examination under sedation (EUS) and examination under anaesthesia (EUA) within an 8-month period. Costs ($CAN), adverse events and number of successful procedures were modelled in a decision analysis with one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis., Results: The mean cost per patient was $406 (95% CI $401 to $411) for EUS and $1135 (95% CI $1125 to $1145) for EUA. The mean number of successful procedures per patient was 1.39 (95% CI 1.34 to 1.42) for EUS and 2.06 (95% CI 2.02 to 2.11) for EUA. EUA was $729 more costly on average than EUS (95% CI $719 to $738) but resulted in an additional 0.68 successful procedures per child. The result was robust to varying the cost assumptions., Conclusions: Cross-over designs offer a powerful way to assess costs and effectiveness of two interventions because patients serve as their own control. This study demonstrated significant savings when ophthalmological exams were carried out in a hospital outpatient clinic, although with slightly fewer procedures completed., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/)

Background: Both the 2012 Beers list and the American Geriatric Society 'Choosing Wisely' campaign suggest restraint in the use of sedative-hypnotics for the treatment of insomnia in older people. Sedative hypnotic agents continue to be widely prescribed even though their use in the elderly is associated with an increased risk of falls, fractures, and emergency hospitalizations., Objective: The aim of this study was to estimate the cost effectiveness of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) compared with sedative-hypnotics and no treatment for insomnia in the US Medicare population, adjusting for the risk of falls and related consequences., Methods: A model-based economic evaluation (decision tree) using the US Medicare perspective and a conservative annual temporal framework was conducted. Simulations were performed in a hypothetical cohort of Medicare beneficiaries suffering from insomnia. The main outcome measure was the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Sensitivity analyses assessed the robustness of the base-case analysis., Results: On an annual basis, CBT showed a dominance (cost: US$19,442; QALYs: 0.594) over sedative hypnotics (cost: US$32,452; QALYs: 0.552) and no treatment (cost: US$33,853; QALYs: 0.517). Assuming a willingness to pay of US$50,000, the net monetary benefit was positive for CBT (US$10,287) and negative for sedative hypnotics (-US$4,851) and no treatment (-US$7,993). CBT had a 95% chance of being the dominant strategy, with results most sensitive to an older adult's baseline risk of falling., Conclusion: Failure to consider drug harms such as drug-induced falls and hospitalization represents a growing public health concern, significantly underestimating the cost of sedative-hypnotic therapy and loss in quality of life for the elderly. Public payers should reconsider reimbursement of sedative-hypnotic drugs as first-line treatment for insomnia in older adults.

Introduction: In Latin America, psychotropic medications are the third most marketed drug group, especially antidepressants (35%) and anxiolytics (5%). The objective of this study was to determine the trends in the consumption and the costs of anxiolytic and hypnotic drugs in a population of patients enrolled in the Health System of Colombia., Material and Methods: A descriptive, observational study was performed using the data recorded inprescriptions for any anxiolytic or hypnotic drug prescribed to outpatients in the period between January 2008 and December 2013 in a population of 3.5 million people. Sociodemographic, pharmacological variables, overall costs, and cost per thousand inhabitants per day (CHD), were also recorded., Results: The number of patients who received the drugs studied varied from 11,097 to 19,231 between 2008 and 2013. The most used drugs were clonazepam (44.1% of formulations), alprazolam (31.2%), and lorazepam (13.2%). The invoiced value of anxiolytics increased from US$ 207,673.63 in 2008 to US$ 488,977 in 2013, an increase of 135.4%. The CHD was US$ 0.31 for benzodiazepines, and US$ 0.02 for zaleplon, zolpidem and zopiclone (Z drugs) for 2008, and US$ 0.36 and US$ 0.02 in 2013 respectively. The CHD declined after 2010 following the introduction of generic drugs., Conclusions: Patients receiving benzodiazepines in Colombia are mostly women, average age 55 years, with very low frequency in defined daily doses per thousand inhabitants when compared with other countries., (Copyright © 2014 Asociación Colombiana de Psiquiatría. Publicado por Elsevier España. All rights reserved.)

To relieve or eliminate distress caused by invasive medical procedures, sedation is often used in routine clinical practice. Monitored anesthesia care (MAC) is needed in patients who receive increased doses of sedatives and/or analgesics, which may suppress the respiratory, cardiac, and/or vascular systems. Deep sedation, in particular, suppreses the nomal protective reflexes. It requires careful monitoring and intervention for patients. In Japan, sedation is performed in a large number of cases. It is unreasonable that only anesthesiologists administer MAC. In fact, sedation is often performed by non-anesthesiologists. In these circumstances, education and training for non-anesthesiologists are important

Introduction: Dexmedetomidine was shown in two European randomized double-blind double-dummy trials (PRODEX and MIDEX) to be non-inferior to propofol and midazolam in maintaining target sedation levels in mechanically ventilated intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Additionally, dexmedetomidine shortened the time to extubation versus both standard sedatives, suggesting that it may reduce ICU resource needs and thus lower ICU costs. Considering resource utilization data from these two trials, we performed a secondary, cost-minimization analysis assessing the economics of dexmedetomidine versus standard care sedation., Methods: The total ICU costs associated with each study sedative were calculated on the basis of total study sedative consumption and the number of days patients remained intubated, required non-invasive ventilation, or required ICU care without mechanical ventilation. The daily unit costs for these three consecutive ICU periods were set to decline toward discharge, reflecting the observed reduction in mean daily Therapeutic Intervention Scoring System (TISS) points between the periods. A number of additional sensitivity analyses were performed, including one in which the total ICU costs were based on the cumulative sum of daily TISS points over the ICU period, and two further scenarios, with declining direct variable daily costs only., Results: Based on pooled data from both trials, sedation with dexmedetomidine resulted in lower total ICU costs than using the standard sedatives, with a difference of €2,656 in the median (interquartile range) total ICU costs-€11,864 (€7,070 to €23,457) versus €14,520 (€7,871 to €26,254)-and €1,649 in the mean total ICU costs. The median (mean) total ICU costs with dexmedetomidine compared with those of propofol or midazolam were €1,292 (€747) and €3,573 (€2,536) lower, respectively. The result was robust, indicating lower costs with dexmedetomidine in all sensitivity analyses, including those in which only direct variable ICU costs were considered. The likelihood of dexmedetomidine resulting in lower total ICU costs compared with pooled standard care was 91.0% (72.4% versus propofol and 98.0% versus midazolam)., Conclusions: From an economic point of view, dexmedetomidine appears to be a preferable option compared with standard sedatives for providing light to moderate ICU sedation exceeding 24 hours. The savings potential results primarily from shorter time to extubation., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00479661 (PRODEX), NCT00481312 (MIDEX).

Objective: To study the relationship between the use of psychotropic and opioid medications with workers' compensation disability and costs., Methods: The study population included lost time claimants injured between 1999 and 2002 followed to closing in December 31, 2009., Results: Controlling for age, sex, marital status, attorney involvement, and spinal surgeries, multivariate logistic regression revealed that odds ratios (95% confidence interval) of claim costs ≥$100,000 compared with claimants who were never prescribed opioids were 4.3 for short-acting opioids only; 8.6 for any use of long-acting opioids; 2.8 for any use of hypnotics; 2.6 for any use of antipsychotics; 1.6 for any use of anti-anxiety agents; and 2.9 for any use of antidepressants., Conclusions: The use of psychotropic and opioid medications was associated with high workers' compensation costs and prolonged disability.

Objectives: Health costs, which are increasing at a yearly rate of 4 %, represent 11% and thus a large share of Austria's gross domestic product (GDP). High expenditures derive frommental health care costs, including medication. In this article we investigate whether the costs and usage of psychopharmaceutic products in Austria are rising., Method: We did a descriptive analysis of the sales figures and number for packaging units of pharmaceutical products of ATC-classes N05 and N06 in all Austrian hospitals, pharmacies and medicine chests for the years 2006-2013. All data were provided free of charge by IMSHealth., Results: The sales volume and number of prescribed packaging units of pharmaceuticals of ATC-classes N05 and N06 increased over the time period in question. In 2013, about 25% more packaging units were being sold than in 2006. Among the two ATC-classes, however, the indication subgroups developed differently. Expenditures increased a total of about 31%within the period of consideration., Conclusions: The increase in psycho-pharmaceutical sales exceeds the expansion rates of other health expenditures (17.8 %). During the 9 years of observation, 25% more psychopharmaceutical products were sold. This may result from increased prevalence of mental disorders, higher usage or an increment in prescriptions.

Objective: to compare clinical and cost effectiveness of midazolam and diazepam for urgent intubation., Methods: patients admitted to the Central ICU of the Santa Casa Hospital Complex in Porto Alegre, over the age of 18 years, undergoing urgent intubation during 6 months were eligible. Patients were randomized in a single-blinded manner to either intravenous diazepam or midazolam. Diazepam was given as a 5 mg intravenous bolus followed by aliquots of 5 mg each minute. Midazolam was given as an intravenous bolus of 5 mg with further aliquots of 2.5 mg each minute. Ramsay sedation scale 5-6 was considered adequate sedation. We recorded time and required doses to reach adequate sedation and duration of sedation., Results: thirty four patients were randomized, but one patient in the diazepam group was excluded because data were lost. Both groups were similar in terms of illness severity and demographics. Time for adequate sedation was shorter (132 ± 87 sec vs. 224 ± 117 sec, p = 0.016) but duration of sedation was similar (86 ± 67 min vs. 88 ± 50 min, p = 0.936) for diazepam in comparison to midazolam. Total drug dose to reach adequate sedation after either drugs was similar (10.0 [10.0-12.5] mg vs. 15.0 [10.0-17.5] mg, p = 0.248). Arterial pressure and sedation intensity reduced similarly overtime with both drugs. Cost of sedation was lower for diazepam than for midazolam (1.4[1.4-1.8] vs. 13.9[9.4-16.2] reais, p <0.001)., Conclusions: intubation using intravenous diazepam and midazolam is effective and well tolerated. Sedation with diazepam is associated to a quicker sedation time and to lower costs.

This audit aimed to identify the prevalence of, and reasons for failed intravenous conscious sedation in an adult oral surgery department, to develop recommendations to reduce such failures and to identify any cost implications. Data were collected prospectively for three months for all intravenous sedation appointments in the Oral Surgery department. Data were collected for 109 sedation appointments of which 83 were successful (76%). The failure rate (24%) was higher than the acceptable departmental failure rate (10%), and included reasons for failure that should have been avoided by a thorough patient assessment prior to treatment. Of the 26 failures, the most common reasons for failure were: cancellation: 8 patients (30.8%), failure to attend: 6 patients (23.1%), excessively late arrival of patient: 4 patients (15.4%) and failure to cannulate: 3 patients (11.6%). When sedation was unsuccessful, 13 of the 26 patients (50%) had their treatment successfully completed under local anaesthesia alone, 10 patients (38%) were rebooked for sedation and 3 patient. (12%) were rebooked for a general anaesthetic. Identifying and correcting the reasons for failure can result in vast savings in appointment time, clinical resources and cost. That 13 patients subsequently had their treatment completed under local anaesthesia alone opens the debate on how rigorous the patient assessment and allocation of sedation appointments was, and the potential to achieve savings.

Paediatric sedation has expanded in volume and demand over the past decade. In parallel with the increasing demand for and delivery of sedation by multi-specialty providers, conflicting political agendas have surfaced. With a limited selection of sedatives and few new sedatives to market over the past decade, some providers utilize agents that formerly were considered exclusive for administration by anaesthesiologists. This review highlights the important contributions to paediatric sedation over the past century. Considerations include the barriers and politics that impede progress and also future advances and contributions that may lie ahead., (© The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Journal of Anaesthesia. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background/objectives: Sedation with propofol should be administered by personnel trained in advanced airway management. To overcome this limitation, the use of short acting benzodiazepines by cardiologists spread widely, causing concerns about the safety of this procedure in the absence of anesthesiology assistance. The aim of the study was to compare feasibility of a cardiologist-only approach with an anesthesiologist-assisted sedation protocol during elective direct-current cardioversion (DCC) of persistent atrial fibrillation (AF)., Methods: This prospective, open-blinded, randomized study included 204 patients, which were admitted for scheduled cardioversion of persistent AF, and randomized in a 1:1 fashion to either propofol or midazolam treatment arm. Patients in the propofol group underwent DCC with anesthesiologist assistance, while patients in the midazolam group saw the cardiologist as the only responsible for both sedation and DCC., Results: Twenty-three adverse events occurred: 13 in the propofol group and 10 in the midazolam group (p=NS). Most of them were related to bradyarrhythmias and respiratory depressions. There was no need of intubation or other advanced resuscitation techniques in any of these patients. No differences were found regarding procedure tolerability and safety endpoints between the two groups. DCC procedures with anesthesiology support were burdened by higher delay from scheduled time and higher costs., Conclusions: Sedation with midazolam administered by cardiologist-only appears to be as safe as sedation with propofol and anesthesiologist assistance. Adverse events were few in both groups and easily handled by the cardiologist alone. A cardiologist-only approach to sedation provides less procedural delay, thus being easier to schedule and correlated with fewer costs., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Nonbenzodiazepine sedation (eg, dexmedetomidine or propofol) may be more cost effective than benzodiazepine (BZ) sedation despite its higher acquisition cost., Materials and Methods: A cost effectiveness (CE) analysis of noncardiac surgery, critically ill adults requiring at least 1 day of mechanical ventilation (MV) and administered either BZ or non-BZ sedation, that cycled health states and costs daily using a Markov model accounting for daily MV use until intensive care unit (ICU) discharge, was conducted from a third-party perspective. Transition probabilities were obtained from a published meta-analysis, and costs were estimated from best evidence. Sensitivity analyses were run for all extubation and discharge probabilities, for different cost estimates and for the specific non-BZ administered., Results: When non-BZ rather than BZ sedation was used, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio to avert 1 ICU day while MV or while either MV or non-MV was $3406 and $3136, respectively. The base-case analysis revealed that non-BZ sedation (vs BZ sedation) resulted in higher drug costs ($1327 vs $65) but lower total ICU costs (percent accounted for MV need): $35380 (71.0%) vs $45394 (70.6%). Sensitivity analysis revealed that BZ sedation would only be less costly if the daily rate of extubation was at least 16%, and the daily rate of ICU discharge without MV was at least 77%. The incremental CE ratio to avert 1 ICU day while MV or non-MV was similar between the dexmedetomidine and propofol non-BZ options., Conclusions: Among MV adults, non-BZ sedation has a more favorable CE ratio than BZ sedation over most cost estimates., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The study objective was to provide population-based estimates of supportive care medication (SCM) use among Medicare beneficiaries with cancer and determine factors related to SCM receipt., Methods: This retrospective cohort study of community-based Medicare beneficiaries used the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey (1997–2007). Dependent variables comprised use and spending on SCMs for three medication classes: opioids, antidepressants/sedative/hypnotics (ASH), and antiemetics. Independent variables of interest were supplemental insurance coverage, cancer site, and treatment. Multivariate models determined factors affecting receipt of, and spending on, SCMs. We also compared SCM use and spending among beneficiaries with and without cancer in order to understand what portion of SCM use and spending could be attributed to cancer as opposed to other comorbid conditions., Results: A total of 1,836 Medicare beneficiaries with cancer and 9,898 beneficiaries without cancer were eligible for the study. Beneficiaries with cancer were more likely to receive opioids, ASH, and antiemetics compared to non-cancer beneficiaries. Adjusted annual payments for antiemetics were on average $637 higher in with cancer versus without cancer (p<0.01), while ASH payments were $184 lower (p<0.01). Opioid spending was similar among cancer and non-cancer users. Relative to colon cancer, beneficiaries with prostate cancer were least likely to receive any of the three SCM classes. Receipt of antineoplastic treatment increased the probability of use of all three classes of SCMs. Insurance coverage did not influence the use of or spending on opioids or antiemetics, but was associated with both outcomes for ASH. The use of all three SCM classes was significantly lower during years before Part D implementation of the new Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit and was higher after implementation of Part D., Conclusion: This study provides population-based information on SCM use among Medicare beneficiaries with cancer. Cancer site and treatment modality were important predictors of SCM use.

Objectives: Pharmacotherapy may have a limited role in long-term pain management. Comparative trajectories of drug prescriptions and costs, two quality-of-care indicators for pain conditions, are largely unknown subsequent to conventional or integrative care (IC) management. The objectives of this study were to compare prescribed defined daily doses (DDD) and cost of first line drugs for pain patients referred to conventional or anthroposophic IC in Stockholm County, Sweden., Methods: In this retrospective high quality registry case-control study, IC and conventional care patients were identified through inpatient care registries and matched on pain diagnosis (ICD-10: M79), age, gender and socio-demographics. National drug registry data was used to investigate changes in DDD and costs from 90/180 days before, to 90/180 days after, index visits to IC and conventional care. The primary selected drug category was analgesics, complemented by musculo-skeletal system drugs (e.g. anti-inflammatories, muscle relaxants) and psycholeptics (e.g. hypnotics, sedatives)., Results: After index care visits, conventional care pain patients (n = 1050) compared to IC patients (n = 213), were prescribed significantly more analgesics. The average (95% CI) group difference was 15.2 (6.0 to 24.3), p = 0.001, DDD/patient after 90 days; and 21.5 (7.4 to 35.6), p = 0.003, DDD/patient after 180 days. The cost of the prescribed and sold analgesics was significantly higher for conventional care after 90 days: euro/patient 10.7 (1.3 to 20.0), p = 0.025. Changes in drug prescription and costs for the other drug categories were not significantly different between groups., Conclusions: Drug prescriptions and costs of analgesics increased following conventional care and decreased following IC, indicating potentially fewer adverse drug events and beneficial societal cost savings with IC.

Objectives: A "chiral switch" occurs in the pharmaceutical market when a drug made up of 2 enantiomer forms is replaced with a purified single-enantiomer version, often in the context of a patent expiration. We studied the prevalence of chiral switching in the United States over the past decade, including trends in use of, and expenditures on, these products in Medicaid., Study Design: Retrospective analysis., Methods: We used US Adopted Names prefixes (lev/levo/ar/es/dex/dextro) to identify all single-enantiomer drugs approved from 2001 to 2011. From publicly available US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval documents, we extracted the characteristics of the pivotal premarket trials for the single enantiomers. Specifically, we evaluated whether the single enantiomer was directly compared with the precursor racemic drug and whether there was evidence of superior efficacy. We used quarterly drug expenditure data from each state Medicaid program to chart trends in use of, and spending on, the single-enantiomer products and their racemic precursors during the study period., Results: From 2001 to 2011, the FDA approved 9 single-enantiomer products: dexlansoprazole, levoleucovorin, levocetirizine, armodafinil, arformoterol, eszopiclone, escitalopram, dexmethylphenidate, and esomeprazole. Of those 9 drugs, 3 had at least 1 pre-approval randomized trial that included the racemic precursor as a direct comparator, but there was no evidence of superiority of the single enantiomer over the racemic at comparable doses. Between 2001 and 2011, US Medicaid programs spent approximately $6.3 billion on these 9 single-enantiomer drugs., Conclusions: Recently approved single-enantiomer drugs showed no evidence of superior efficacy over the older racemic precursors in the pivotal trials leading to their approval, and in a majority of cases, they were not directly compared.

Background: Propofol has reduced healthcare costs in coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery patients by decreasing post-operative duration of mechanical ventilation. However, the US shortage of propofol necessitated the use of alternative agents., Objective: This study sought to evaluate clinical and economic implications of substituting dexmedetomidine for propofol in patients undergoing CABG surgery., Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study. Patients undergoing isolated, elective CABG surgery and sedated with either propofol or dexmedetomidine during the study period were included. The cohorts were matched 1:1 based on important characteristics. The primary outcome was the number of patients achieving a post-operative duration of mechanical ventilation ≤6 h. Secondary outcomes were post-operative intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS) ≤48 h, total post-operative LOS ≤5 days, the need for adjunctive opioid therapy and associated cost savings. Variables recorded included patient demographics, co-morbid medical conditions, health risks, sedation drug doses, post-operative medical complications and sedation-related adverse events. Univariate and multivariate analyses were completed to examine the relationship between these covariates and post-operative LOS. The cost analysis consisted of examination of the net financial benefit (or cost) of choosing dexmedetomidine versus propofol in the study population, with utilisation observed in the study converted to costs using institutional data from the Premier database., Results: Eighty-four patients were included, with 42 patients per cohort. Mechanical ventilation duration ≤6 h was achieved in 24 (57.1 %) versus 7 (16.7 %) in the dexmedetomidine and propofol cohorts, respectively (p < 0.001). More patients treated with dexmedetomidine achieved ICU LOS ≤48 h (p < 0.05) and total hospital LOS ≤5 days (p < 0.05), as compared with the propofol group. Multivariate analysis revealed that having one or more post-operative medical complication was the most significant predictor of increased post-operative LOS, whereas choosing dexmedetomidine was also significant in terms of reduced post-operative LOS. The estimated net financial benefit of choosing dexmedetomidine versus propofol was US$2,613 per patient (year 2012 value)., Conclusions: Findings suggest that use of dexmedetomidine as an alternative to propofol for sedation of CABG patients post-operatively contributes to reduced mechanical ventilation time, ICU LOS and post-operative LOS. Higher drug costs resulting from the propofol shortage were offset by savings in post-operative room and board costs. Additional savings may be possible by preventing medical complications to the extent possible.