RESUMO
Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a safe and minimally invasive method for the treatment of early gastric cancer (EGC). However, whether ESD for EGC is also safe and feasible in patients aged ≥85 years is unclear. The patients enrolled in this study were divided into three groups: age ≥85 years (44 patients, 49 lesions), age 65−84 years (624 patients, 687 lesions), and age ≤64 years (162 patients, 174 lesions). We evaluated the incidence of adverse events (AEs) and overall survival (OS) and disease-specific survival (DSS). We analyzed the factors that had a significant impact on the prognosis of patients aged ≥85 years. No significant differences were found in the incidence of AEs among the three groups (p = 0.612). The OS was significantly lower in patients aged ≥85 years (p < 0.001). Conversely, DSS was not significantly worse in patients aged ≥85 years (p = 0.100). The poor Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index correlated with poor prognosis in patients aged ≥85 years (p < 0.001). ESD is a safe and valid treatment for EGC in patients aged ≥85 years. However, the indications should be carefully decided because it is difficult to estimate the survival contribution of ESD for EGC in patients aged ≥85 years, especially in those with poor nutritional status.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Gastroesophageal reflux disease is a common condition, and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are the mainstays of treatment. However, concerns have been raised about the safety of PPIs. A potassium-competitive acid blocker (P-CAB), vonoprazan (VPZ), was recently introduced, which may provide clinical benefits. This study was performed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of alternative long-term strategies including continuous and discontinuous treatment with VPZ for the management of reflux esophagitis in Japan. METHODS: A health state transition model was developed to capture the long-term management of reflux esophagitis. Four different strategies were compared: (a) intermittent PPI using lansoprazole (LPZ); (b) intermittent P-CAB; (c) maintenance PPI using LPZ; and (d) maintenance P-CAB. RESULTS: Intermittent P-CAB was the most cost-effective, and the number of days for which medication was required with this strategy was fewest. Maintenance PPI was more efficacious, but more costly than intermittent P-CAB. Maintenance P-CAB was more efficacious, but more costly than maintenance PPI. Co-payments were higher for maintenance PPI than for intermittent P-CAB, and for maintenance P-CAB than for maintenance PPI, which were considered reasonable for the majority of patients to improve symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Intermittent P-CAB appears to be the strategy of choice for the majority of reflux esophagitis patients in clinical practice. If a patient is not satisfied with the symptom control of the current strategy, switching to a more effective strategy appears to be a reasonable option for the majority of patients.
