Persistence and switching patterns of migraine prophylactic medications in Canada: A retrospective claims analysis comparing adherence and evaluating the economic burden of illness.

PURPOSE: To describe patient characteristics, treatment patterns, and the burden of illness among adult migraine patients in Canada prescribed migraine prophylactics. Little is known about the relative persistence of treatments in the real-world setting and the impact of migraine prophylactic therapy on patients. As a result, migraine care in Canada continues to inadequately serve patients suffering from frequent headache days, reflecting a large unmet need. METHODS: This retrospective study used Reformulary Group's longitudinal prescription claims database. Private payer data were analyzed to identify 2007 migraine prophylactic naïve patients, with a prior history of acute therapy, for tracking over 24 months to determine treatment patterns and costs. Patient flow is summarized in a Sankey diagram visualizing persistence and switching across different timepoints. RESULTS: Patient persistence to migraine prophylactic medications was low at 24.9% (n=500); Switching from index medications to another prophylactic medication was common (27%), however 50% of patients discontinued without switching. It was observed that acute treatment and opioid use were much lower when patients established and maintained therapy on migraine prophylactics. Overall, angiotensin receptor blockers and CGRP antagonists had high persistence but were underutilized therapies while the inverse was true for antidepressants and anticonvulsants. CONCLUSION: In a real-word setting, recognizing that many patients may discontinue preventative treatment completely after their first therapy, there is a need to employ migraine-specific prophylactics and/or tolerable medications early. Treatment guidelines aligned to costs savings and/or requiring step therapy may be inadvertently failing patients. Further, the impact of migraine on the day-to-day lives of patients and high societal costs such as its impact on productivity should be weighed in considering migraine's burden of illness and the benefits of treatment.

Ceftaroline Fosamil for the Treatment of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus Bacteremia: A Real-World Comparative Clinical Outcomes Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) bacteremia results in substantial morbidity and mortality. As current treatments often lead to unsatisfactory outcomes, evidence guiding alternative treatment options is needed. This study evaluated real-world clinical outcomes of ceftaroline fosamil for the treatment of MRSA bacteremia. METHODS: This retrospective study included adults hospitalized with MRSA bacteremia between 2011 and 2019. Patients were classified according to treatment with ceftaroline fosamil (ceftaroline), vancomycin, or daptomycin: Group 1, ceftaroline; Group 2, vancomycin or daptomycin (without ceftaroline); Group 3, combination therapy with ≥ 2 of these three agents. Clinical outcomes were compared using propensity-score-adjusted odds ratios (ORs) from logistic regression models. RESULTS: Overall, 24,479 patients were included (Group 1, n = 532; Group 2, n = 21,555; Group 3, n = 2392). Mean age was 59.6, 60.8, and 57.4 years in Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Mean post-index treatment length of stay was 8.8, 8.8, and 8.0 days, respectively. The most frequent line of therapy was ceftaroline first-line (42.1%), vancomycin or daptomycin first-line (95.4%), and combination therapy third-line or later (67.8%) in Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Compared with Group 2, Groups 1 and 3 had similar favorable clinical responses {odds ratio [OR] = 1.18 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.98-1.44], p = 0.08; OR = 1.20 [95% CI 0.97-1.47], p = 0.09, respectively} and were less likely to switch treatment (both p < 0.001). Compared with Group 2, Group 1 was more likely to undergo 30-day all-cause readmission [OR = 1.38 (95% CI 1.06-1.80), p = 0.02], whereas this was less likely for Group 3 [OR = 0.77 (95% CI 0.58-1.00), p = 0.05]. CONCLUSIONS: Patients receiving ceftaroline more often had favorable clinical responses than those receiving vancomycin or daptomycin monotherapy. In the absence of large-scale randomized controlled trials, these real-world data provide insights into the potential role of ceftaroline for treating MRSA bacteremia.

Impact of COVID-19 on hospital screening, diagnosis and treatment activities among prostate and colorectal cancer patients in Canada.

BACKGROUND: Suspension of cancer screening and treatment programs were instituted to preserve medical resources and protect vulnerable populations. This research aims to investigate the implications of COVID-19 on cancer management and clinical outcomes for patients with prostate and colorectal cancer in Canada. METHODS: We examined hospital cancer screening, diagnosis, treatment, length of stay, and mortality data among prostate and colorectal cancer patients between April 2017 and March 2021. Baseline trends were established with data between April 2017 and March 2020 for comparison with data collected between April 2020 and March 2021. Scenario analyses were performed to assess the incremental capacity requirements needed to restore hospital cancer care capacities to the pre-pandemic levels. RESULTS: For prostate cancer, A 12% decrease in diagnoses and 5.3% decrease in treatment activities were observed during COVID-19 between April 2020 and March 2021. Similarly, a 43% reduction in colonoscopies, 11% decrease in diagnoses and 10% decrease in treatment activities were observed for colorectal cancers. An estimated 1,438 prostate and 2,494 colorectal cancer cases were undiagnosed, resulting in a total of 620 and 1,487 unperformed treatment activities for prostate and colorectal cancers, respectively, across nine provinces in Canada. To clear the backlogs of unperformed treatment procedures will require an estimated 3%-6% monthly capacity increase over the next 6 months. INTERPRETATION: A concerted effort from all stakeholders is required to immediately ameliorate the backlogs of cancer detection and treatment activities. Mitigation measures should be implemented to minimize future interruptions to cancer care in Canada.