Effectiveness, safety, and costs of thromboprophylaxis with enoxaparin or unfractionated heparin in inpatients with obesity

BackgroundObesity is a frequent and significant risk factor for venous thromboembolism (VTE) among hospitalized adults. Pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis can help prevent VTE, but real-world effectiveness, safety, and costs among inpatients with obesity are unknown.ObjectiveThis study aims to compare clinical and economic outcomes among adult medical inpatients with obesity who received thromboprophylaxis with enoxaparin or unfractionated heparin (UFH).MethodsA retrospective cohort study was performed using the PINC AI™ Healthcare Database, which covers more than 850 hospitals in the United States. Patients included were ≥18 years old, had a primary or secondary discharge diagnosis of obesity [International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-9 diagnosis codes 278.01, 278.02, and 278.03; ICD-10 diagnosis codes E66.0x, E66.1, E66.2, E66.8, and E66.9], received ≥1 thromboprophylactic dose of enoxaparin (≤40 mg/day) or UFH (≤15,000 IU/day) during the index hospitalization, stayed ≥6 days in the hospital, and were discharged between 01 January 2010, and 30 September 2016. We excluded surgical patients, patients with pre-existing VTE, and those who received higher (treatment-level) doses or multiple types of anticoagulants. Multivariable regression models were constructed to compare enoxaparin with UFH based on the incidence of VTE, pulmonary embolism (PE)­­­­­­­­–related mortality, overall in-hospital mortality, major bleeding, treatment costs, and total hospitalization costs during the index hospitalization and the 90 days after index discharge (readmission period).ResultsAmong 67,193 inpatients who met the selection criteria, 44,367 (66%) and 22,826 (34%) received enoxaparin and UFH, respectively, during their index hospitalization. Demographic, visit-related, clinical, and hospital characteristics differed significantly between groups. Enoxaparin during index hospitalization was associated with 29%, 73%, 30%, and 39% decreases in the adjusted odds of VTE, PE-related mortality, in-hospital mortality, and major bleeding, respectively, compared with UFH (all p < 0.002). Compared with UFH, enoxaparin was associated with significantly lower total hospitalization costs during the index hospitalization and readmission periods.ConclusionsAmong adult inpatients with obesity, primary thromboprophylaxis with enoxaparin compared with UFH was associated with significantly lower risks of in-hospital VTE, major bleeding, PE-related mortality, overall in-hospital mortality, and hospitalization costs

Validation of test performance characteristics and minimal clinically important difference of the 6-minute walk test in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis

SummaryBackgroundThe 6-minute walk test distance (6MWD) has been shown to be a valid and responsive outcome measure in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). The analyses were based, however, on a single phase 3 trial and require validation in an independent cohort.ObjectiveTo confirm the performance characteristics and estimates of minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of 6MWD in an independent cohort of patients with IPF.MethodsPatients randomized to placebo in the phase 3 CAPACITY trials who had a baseline 6MWD measurement were included in these analyses. The 6MWD and other functional parameters (lung function, dyspnea, and health-related quality of life) were measured at baseline and 24-week intervals. Validity and responsiveness were examined using Spearman correlation coefficients. The MCID was estimated using distribution- and anchor-based methods.ResultsThe analysis comprised 338 patients. Baseline 6MWD was significantly correlated with lung function measures, patient-reported outcomes, and quality-of-life measures (validity). Compared with baseline 6MWD, change in 6MWD (responsiveness) showed stronger correlations with change in lung function parameters and quality-of-life measures. Dyspnea measured by the University of California San Diego Shortness of Breath Questionnaire showed the strongest correlations with 6MWD (baseline: coefficient −0.35; 48-week change: coefficient −0.37; both p < 0.001). The distribution-based analyses of MCID using standard error of measurement yielded an MCID of 37 m, and distribution-based analyses by effect size resulted in 29.2 m. The MCID by anchor-based analysis using criterion referencing (health events of hospitalization or death) was 21.7 m.ConclusionsThe 6MWD is a valid and responsive clinical endpoint, which provides objective and clinically meaningful information regarding functional status and near-term prognosis. These results confirm previous findings in an independent cohort of patients with IPF

Inhibition of Influenza M2-Induced Cell Death Alleviates Its Negative Contribution to Vaccination Efficiency

The effectiveness of recombinant vaccines encoding full-length M2 protein of influenza virus or its ectodomain (M2e) have previously been tested in a number of models with varying degrees of success. Recently, we reported a strong cytotoxic effect exhibited by M2 on mammalian cells in vitro. Here we demonstrated a decrease in protection when M2 was added to a DNA vaccination regimen that included influenza NP. Furthermore, we have constructed several fusion proteins of conserved genes of influenza virus and tested their expression in vitro and protective potential in vivo. The four-partite NP-M1-M2-NS1 fusion antigen that has M2 sequence engineered in the middle part of the composite protein was shown to not be cytotoxic in vitro. A three-partite fusion protein (consisting of NP, M1 and NS1) was expressed much more efficiently than the four-partite protein. Both of these constructs provided statistically significant protection upon DNA vaccination, with construct NP-M1-M2-NS1 being the most effective. We conclude that incorporation of M2 into a vaccination regimen may be beneficial only when its apparent cytotoxicity-linked negative effects are neutralized. The possible significance of this data for influenza vaccination regimens and preparations is discussed

Effectiveness, safety, and costs of thromboprophylaxis with enoxaparin or unfractionated heparin in inpatients with obesity.

BackgroundObesity is a frequent and significant risk factor for venous thromboembolism (VTE) among hospitalized adults. Pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis can help prevent VTE, but real-world effectiveness, safety, and costs among inpatients with obesity are unknown.ObjectiveThis study aims to compare clinical and economic outcomes among adult medical inpatients with obesity who received thromboprophylaxis with enoxaparin or unfractionated heparin (UFH).MethodsA retrospective cohort study was performed using the PINC AI™ Healthcare Database, which covers more than 850 hospitals in the United States. Patients included were ≥18 years old, had a primary or secondary discharge diagnosis of obesity [International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-9 diagnosis codes 278.01, 278.02, and 278.03; ICD-10 diagnosis codes E66.0x, E66.1, E66.2, E66.8, and E66.9], received ≥1 thromboprophylactic dose of enoxaparin (≤40 mg/day) or UFH (≤15,000 IU/day) during the index hospitalization, stayed ≥6 days in the hospital, and were discharged between 01 January 2010, and 30 September 2016. We excluded surgical patients, patients with pre-existing VTE, and those who received higher (treatment-level) doses or multiple types of anticoagulants. Multivariable regression models were constructed to compare enoxaparin with UFH based on the incidence of VTE, pulmonary embolism (PE)---------related mortality, overall in-hospital mortality, major bleeding, treatment costs, and total hospitalization costs during the index hospitalization and the 90 days after index discharge (readmission period).ResultsAmong 67,193 inpatients who met the selection criteria, 44,367 (66%) and 22,826 (34%) received enoxaparin and UFH, respectively, during their index hospitalization. Demographic, visit-related, clinical, and hospital characteristics differed significantly between groups. Enoxaparin during index hospitalization was associated with 29%, 73%, 30%, and 39% decreases in the adjusted odds of VTE, PE-related mortality, in-hospital mortality, and major bleeding, respectively, compared with UFH (all p &lt; 0.002). Compared with UFH, enoxaparin was associated with significantly lower total hospitalization costs during the index hospitalization and readmission periods.ConclusionsAmong adult inpatients with obesity, primary thromboprophylaxis with enoxaparin compared with UFH was associated with significantly lower risks of in-hospital VTE, major bleeding, PE-related mortality, overall in-hospital mortality, and hospitalization costs

Effectiveness, Safety, and Costs of Thromboprophylaxis with Enoxaparin or Unfractionated Heparin Among Medical Inpatients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease or Heart Failure.

Background: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and heart failure (HF) are risk factors for venous thromboembolism (VTE). Enoxaparin and unfractionated heparin (UFH) help prevent hospital-associated VTE, but few studies have compared them in COPD or HF. Objectives: To compare effectiveness, safety, and costs of enoxaparin vs UFH thromboprophylaxis in medical inpatients with COPD or HF. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included adults with COPD or HF from the Premier PINC AI Healthcare Database. Included patients received prophylactic-dose enoxaparin or UFH during a &gt;6-day index hospitalization (the first visit/admission that met selection criteria during the study period) between January 1, 2010, and September 30, 2016. Multivariable regression models assessed independent associations between exposures and outcomes. Hospital costs were adjusted to 2017 US dollars. Patients were followed 90 days postdischarge (readmission period). Results: In the COPD cohort, 114 174 (69%) patients received enoxaparin and 51 011 (31%) received UFH. Among patients with COPD, enoxaparin recipients had 21%, 37%, and 10% lower odds of VTE, major bleeding, and in-hospital mortality during index admission, and 17% and 50% lower odds of major bleeding and heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) during the readmission period, compared with UFH recipients (all P &lt;.006). In the HF cohort, 58 488 (58%) patients received enoxaparin and 42 726 (42%) received UFH. Enoxaparin recipients had 24% and 10% lower odds of major bleeding and in-hospital mortality during index admission, and 13%, 11%, and 51% lower odds of VTE, major bleeding, and HIT during readmission (all P &lt;.04) compared with UFH recipients. Enoxaparin recipients also had significantly lower total hospital costs during index admission (mean reduction per patient: COPD, 1280;HF,2677) and readmission (COPD, 379;HF,1024). Among inpatients with COPD or HF, thromboprophylaxis with enoxaparin vs UFH was associated with significantly lower odds of bleeding, mortality, and HIT, and with lower hospital costs. Conclusions: This study suggests that thromboprophylaxis with enoxaparin is associated with better outcomes and lower costs among medical inpatients with COPD or HF based on real-world evidence. Our findings underscore the importance of assessing clinical outcomes and side effects when evaluating cost-effectiveness