Citations

ABSTRACT Background Given the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' coverage of screening CT colonography (CTC) beginning in January 2025, we evaluated the cost‐effectiveness of CTC for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening by race (Black and White) and gender, considering real‐world screening adherence. Methods A microsimulation model compared CRC screening strategies in average‐risk adults by race and gender, incorporating 2010–2019 U.S. data on disease progression and real‐world screening adherence for colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical test (FIT). Five strategies were compared: (1) status quo (choice between colonoscopy and FIT); (2) CTC every 5 years; (3) colonoscopy every 10 years; (4) annual FIT; and (5) multitarget stool DNA test every 3 years, plus no screening. Lifetime costs, quality‐adjusted life years gained (QALYG), and incremental cost‐effectiveness ratios were projected. A willingness‐to‐pay threshold of $100,000/QALYG was used. Results Under the status quo, Black adults showed higher CRC cases and greater utilization for FIT over colonoscopy than White adults. Compared to the status quo, the CTC strategy yielded more QALYG and fewer CRC cases among Black adults, but fewer QALYG and more CRC cases among White adults. Both status quo and CTC strategies outperformed other strategies across races. The CTC strategy was the dominant strategy for Black adults. For White adults, the status quo was cost‐effective with incremental cost‐effectiveness ratios of $34,998–$73,428/QALYG, while the CTC strategy was cost saving compared to no screening. Conclusions CTC could be cost‐effective for CRC screening in Black adults under real‐world screening adherence, supporting Medicare coverage to address specific population needs and structural barriers to screening.

Riluzole is a sodium-glutamate antagonist that attenuates neurodegeneration in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). It has shown favorable results in promoting recovery in pre-clinical models of traumatic spinal cord injury (tSCI) and in early phase clinical trials. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of riluzole in acute cervical tSCI. An international, multi-center, prospective, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, adaptive, Phase III trial (NCT01597518) was undertaken. Patients with American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale (AIS) A-C, cervical (C4-C8) tSCI, and <12 h from injury were randomized to receive either riluzole, at an oral dose of 100 mg twice per day (BID) for the first 24 h followed by 50 mg BID for the following 13 days, or placebo. The primary efficacy end-point was change in Upper Extremity Motor (UEM) scores at 180 days. The primary efficacy analyses were conducted on an intention to treat (ITT) and completed cases (CC) basis. The study was powered at a planned enrolment of 351 patients. The trial began in October 2013 and was halted by the sponsor on May 2020 (and terminated in April 2021) in the face of the global COVID-19 pandemic. One hundred ninety-three patients (54.9% of the pre-planned enrolment) were randomized with a follow-up rate of 82.7% at 180 days. At 180 days, in the CC population the riluzole-treated patients compared with placebo had a mean gain of 1.76 UEM scores (95% confidence interval: -2.54-6.06) and 2.86 total motor scores (CI: -6.79-12.52). No drug-related serious adverse events were associated with the use of riluzole. Additional pre-planned sensitivity analyses revealed that in the AIS C population, riluzole was associated with significant improvement in total motor scores (estimate: standard error [SE] 8.0; CI 1.5-14.4) and upper extremity motor scores (SE 13.8; CI 3.1-24.5) at 6 months. AIS B patients had higher reported independence, measured by the Spinal Cord Independence Measure score (45.3 vs. 27.3; d: 18.0 CI: -1.7-38.0) and change in mental health scores, measured by the Short Form 36 mental health domain (2.01 vs. -11.58; d: 13.2 CI: 1.2-24.8) at 180 days. AIS A patients who received riluzole had a higher average gain in neurological levels at 6 months compared with placebo (mean 0.50 levels gained vs. 0.12 in placebo; d: 0.38, CI: -0.2-0.9). The primary analysis did not achieve the predetermined end-point of efficacy for riluzole, likely related to insufficient power. However, on pre-planned secondary analyses, all subgroups of cervical SCI subjects (AIS grades A, B and C) treated with riluzole showed significant gains in functional recovery. The results of this trial may warrant further investigation to extend these findings. Moreover, guideline development groups may wish to assess the possible clinical relevance of the secondary outcome analyses, in light of the fact that SCI is an uncommon orphan disorder without an accepted neuroprotective treatment.