Biomedical subjects

Shawn Garbett

Publications and source records attributed to Shawn Garbett.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2025

Cost-Effectiveness of Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder in Pregnancy and Its Impact on Birth Outcomes.

IMPORTANCE: For the first time in nearly 2 decades, the US infant mortality rate has increased, coinciding with a rise in overdose-related deaths as a leading cause of pregnancy-associated mortality in some states. Prematurity and low birth weight-often linked to opioid use in pregnancy-are major contributors. OBJECTIVE: To assess the health and economic impact of perinatal opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment on maternal and postpartum health, infant health in the first year of life, and infant long-term health. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a cost-effectiveness, population-based analysis using a stochastic time-to-event discrete-event simulation model to simulate the clinical progression and outcomes for hypothetical pregnant individuals with OUD who initiate treatment during pregnancy. In addition, a scenario analysis was conducted assuming that individuals were stable taking OUD treatment before pregnancy and continued treatment during pregnancy. Data were analyzed from May to September 2024. EXPOSURES: Study exposures included outpatient methadone, buprenorphine monotherapy, and buprenorphine-naloxone; outpatient methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone after inpatient-managed withdrawal; and inpatient-managed withdrawal with and without an intensive behavioral component. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Outcomes included return to illicit use; fatal and nonfatal overdose; incremental discounted costs; quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), which are a combined measure of mortality and morbidity; net health benefit; infant mortality within the first year of life; preterm birth; low birth weight; and neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome (NOWS). RESULTS: In this economic evaluation of a hypothetical cohort of 100 000 pregnant individuals (mean [SD] starting age, 29 [5.6] years), in the pregnancy and postpartum simulation, buprenorphine dominated all strategies, yet methadone was a viable alternative. In the combined infant lifetime model, compared with methadone, buprenorphine showed an incremental effect of 0.262 QALYs per person, totaling 20 960 QALYs for 80 000 Medicaid-affected mother-infant dyads (IQR uncertainty interval [UI] 25th to 75th percentiles, 14 880-27 040 QALYs); mean cost savings of $21 512 per person, totaling $1.72 billion (IQR UI, $1.46-1.98 billion). Compared with naltrexone, buprenorphine showed an incremental effect ranging from 0.228 to 0.229 QALYs per person; 18 240 of 18 320 total QALYs for 80 000 mother-infant dyads (IQR UI, 13 840-22 720 QALYs; naltrexone-oral; IQR UI, 13 760-22 880 QALYs; naltrexone-extended release [XR]). Mean cost savings ranged from $25 316 per person ($2.03 billion; IQR UI, $1.83-$2.21 billion; naltrexone-oral) to $46 437 per person ($3.71 billion; IQR UI, $3.47-$3.96 billion; naltrexone-XR). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Results of this analysis suggest that both methadone and buprenorphine remained viable options for managing OUD during pregnancy and post partum; however, buprenorphine offered the greatest benefits in the lifetime models that account for infant outcomes.

Humans↗

PubMed2024

Cost-effectiveness of population-wide genomic screening for Lynch Syndrome and polygenic risk scores to inform colorectal cancer screening.

PURPOSE: Genomic screening to identify individuals with Lynch Syndrome (LS) and those with a high polygenic risk score (PRS) promises to personalize colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Understanding its clinical and economic impact is needed to inform screening guidelines and reimbursement policies. METHODS: We developed a Markov model to simulate individuals over a lifetime. We compared LS+PRS genomic screening with standard of care (SOC) for a cohort of US adults at age 30. The Markov model included health states of no CRC, CRC stages (A-D), and death. We estimated incidence, mortality, and discounted economic outcomes of the population under different interventions. RESULTS: Screening 1000 individuals for LS+PRS resulted in 1.36 fewer CRC cases and 0.65 fewer deaths compared with SOC. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $124,415 per quality-adjusted life year; screening had a 69% probability of being cost-effective using a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000/quality-adjusted life year . Setting the PRS threshold at the 90th percentile of the LS+PRS screening program to define individuals at high risk was most likely to be cost-effective compared with 95th, 85th, and 80th percentiles. CONCLUSION: Population-level LS+PRS screening is marginally cost-effective, and a threshold of 90th percentile is more likely to be cost-effective than other thresholds.

Humans↗

PubMed2022

Concordance of SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Results during a Period of Low Prevalence.

Accurate, highly specific immunoassays for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are needed to evaluate seroprevalence. This study investigated the concordance of results across four immunoassays targeting different antigens for sera collected at the beginning of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in the United States. Specimens from All of Us participants contributed between January and March 2020 were tested using the Abbott Architect SARS-CoV-2 IgG (immunoglobulin G) assay (Abbott) and the EuroImmun SARS-CoV-2 enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) (EI). Participants with discordant results, participants with concordant positive results, and a subset of concordant negative results by Abbott and EI were also tested using the Roche Elecsys anti-SARS-CoV-2 (IgG) test (Roche) and the Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics Vitros anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG test (Ortho). The agreement and 95% confidence intervals were estimated for paired assay combinations. SARS-CoV-2 antibody concentrations were quantified for specimens with at least two positive results across four immunoassays. Among the 24,079 participants, the percent agreement for the Abbott and EI assays was 98.8% (95% confidence interval, 98.7%, 99%). Of the 490 participants who were also tested by Ortho and Roche, the probability-weighted percentage of agreement (95% confidence interval) between Ortho and Roche was 98.4% (97.9%, 98.9%), that between EI and Ortho was 98.5% (92.9%, 99.9%), that between Abbott and Roche was 98.9% (90.3%, 100.0%), that between EI and Roche was 98.9% (98.6%, 100.0%), and that between Abbott and Ortho was 98.4% (91.2%, 100.0%). Among the 32 participants who were positive by at least 2 immunoassays, 21 had quantifiable anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody concentrations by research assays. The results across immunoassays revealed concordance during a period of low prevalence. However, the frequency of false positivity during a period of low prevalence supports the use of two sequentially performed tests for unvaccinated individuals who are seropositive by the first test. IMPORTANCE What is the agreement of commercial SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G (IgG) assays during a time of low coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) prevalence and no vaccine availability? Serological tests produced concordant results in a time of low SARS-CoV-2 prevalence and no vaccine availability, driven largely by the proportion of samples that were negative by two immunoassays. The CDC recommends two sequential tests for positivity for future pandemic preparedness. In a subset analysis, quantified antinucleocapsid and antispike SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies do not suggest the need to specify the antigen targets of the sequential assays in the CDC's recommendation because false positivity varied as much between assays targeting the same antigen as it did between assays targeting different antigens.

Humans↗