Adherence to prescription proton pump inhibitor therapy amongst individuals diagnosed with Barrett's esophagus.

INTRODUCTION: In the United States, clinical guidelines recommend daily use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) amongst individuals diagnosed with Barrett's esophagus to decrease the risk of progression to dysplasia and neoplasia. Prior studies documenting adherence to PPIs in this population have not characterized heterogeneity in adherence patterns. Factors that may relate to adherence are incompletely described. METHODS: We used administrative claims data from the Merative MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters database to conduct a retrospective study of adherence to prescription PPIs. A cohort of individuals diagnosed with incident Barrett's esophagus between 2010 and 2019 was identified. Group-based trajectory models were generated to detect longitudinal adherence subgroups. RESULTS: 79 701 individuals with a new diagnosis of Barrett's esophagus were identified. The best fitting model detected five distinct adherence trajectory groups: consistently high (44% of the population), moderate decline (18%), slow decline (12%), rapid decline (10%), and decline-then-increase (16%). Compared to individuals starting PPIs, those already using PPIs were less likely to have a declining adherence pattern. Other factors associated with membership in a declining adherence group included (but were not limited to): female sex, having a past diagnosis of anxiety or depression, and having one or more emergency department visits in the past year. DISCUSSION: Using an exploratory method, we detected heterogeneity in adherence to prescription PPIs. Less than half of individuals were classified into the consistently high adherence group, suggesting that many individuals with Barrett's esophagus receive inadequate pharmacologic therapy.

Antiviral influenza treatments and hemorrhage-related adverse events in the United States Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine whether there is a signal for gastrointestinal (GI) or intracranial (IC) hemorrhage associated with the use of antiviral medications for influenza in the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database. DESIGN: Disproportionality analysis. DATA SOURCE: The FAERS database was searched using OpenVigil 2.1 to identify GI and IC hemorrhage events reported between 2004 and 2022. MEASUREMENTS: Antiviral medications for influenza included the following: oseltamivir, zanamivir, peramivir, and baloxavir marboxil. Hemorrhage events were identified using Standardized Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) Queries for GI and IC hemorrhages. Reporting odds ratios (RORs) were calculated to compare the occurrence of GI and IC hemorrhage events between antiviral drugs for influenza and (i) all other medications and (ii) antibiotics. RORs were also calculated for each of the individual antiviral medications. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 245 cases of GI hemorrhage and 23 cases of IC hemorrhage were identified in association with four antivirals. In comparison with all other drugs, the RORs of GI hemorrhage for oseltamivir, zanamivir, peramivir, baloxavir, and all antivirals combined were 1.17, 0.62, 4.44, 2.53, and 1.22, respectively, indicating potential variations in GI hemorrhage risk among the antivirals. In contrast, in comparison with all other drugs, the RORs of IC hemorrhage for oseltamivir (0.44), zanamivir (0.16), baloxavir (0.44), and all antivirals combined (0.41) were less than 1.0 which is consistent with no elevated risk of IC hemorrhage. CONCLUSION: In this study, some signals for GI hemorrhage were observed, particularly for peramivir and baloxavir marboxil. Further investigation is warranted to better understand and evaluate the potential risks of GI hemorrhage associated with antiviral treatments for influenza.

The impact of capping health system cost savings on the projected cost-effectiveness of etranacogene dezaparvovec compared with factor IX prophylaxis for the treatment of hemophilia B.

This viewpoint discusses cost-effectiveness estimates for EtranaDez, a gene therapy for hemophilia B, using the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review's (ICER) framework for single and short-term therapies (SSTs). EtranaDez offers long-term benefits from a single administration, in contrast to the high costs and frequent dosing required by current factor IX prophylaxis. However, the projected gains in health from EtranaDez are small relative to the cost implications of the therapy, and consequently, how the cost offsets associated with EtranaDez are counted has a substantial impact on assessing its cost-effectiveness. Strategies for assessing cost offsets used in the ICER SST framework include a 50/50 cost-sharing model between the health care system and the manufacturer and a cap of $150,000 annually on health care cost offsets. Results from the standard full cost-offset analysis as reported by ICER depicted EtranaDez as a dominant therapy with substantial cost savings compared with factor IX prophylaxis. However, while considering the ICER SST framework, particularly the $150,000 annual cap scenario, the cost-effectiveness was significantly reduced. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio varied notably between these scenarios, challenging the conventional perception of value of gene therapy in health care. These cost-sharing scenarios highlight the potential of the ICER SST framework to help curtail inefficient health care spending. In cases in which the cost of existing treatment is exceedingly high, the application of such frameworks would improve efficiency in resource allocation, fostering a balance between incentives for innovation and economic sustainability in managed care systems.

Pathologic complete response in patients with esophageal cancer receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiation: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemoradiation and chemotherapy are recommended for the treatment of nonmetastatic esophageal cancer. The benefit of neoadjuvant treatment is mostly limited to patients who exhibit pathologic complete response (pCR). Existing estimates of pCR rates among patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy have not been synthesized and lack precision. METHODS: We conducted an independently funded systematic review and meta-analysis (PROSPERO CRD42023397402) of pCR rates among patients diagnosed with esophageal cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemo(radiation). Studies were identified from Medline, EMBASE, and CENTRAL database searches. Eligible studies included trials published from 1992 to 2022 that focused on nonmetastatic esophageal cancer, including the gastroesophageal junction. Histology-specific pooled pCR prevalence was determined using the Freeman-Tukey transformation and a random effects model. RESULTS: After eligibility assessment, 84 studies with 6451 patients were included. The pooled prevalence of pCR after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in squamous cell carcinomas was 9% (95% CI: 6%-14%), ranging from 0% to 32%. The pooled prevalence of pCR after neoadjuvant chemoradiation in squamous cell carcinomas was 32% (95% CI: 26%-39%), ranging from 8% to 66%. For adenocarcinoma, the pooled prevalence of pCR was 6% (95% CI: 1%-12%) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and 22% (18%-26%) after neoadjuvant chemoradiation. CONCLUSIONS: Under one-third of patients with esophageal cancer who receive neoadjuvant chemo(radiation) experience pCR. Patients diagnosed with squamous cell carcinomas had higher rates of pCR than those with adenocarcinomas. As pCR represents an increasingly utilized endpoint in neoadjuvant trials, these estimates of pooled pCR rates may serve as an important benchmark for future trial design.