Venous thromboembolism clinically detected after hip fracture surgery with prophylaxis in a clinical practice setting.

Clinical trials have shown differences in efficacy among anticoagulants used for venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis after hip fracture surgery, but the applicability of their results is limited by constraints of the clinical trial setting. We conducted this retrospective cohort study to assess VTE after hip fracture surgery in patients who received prophylaxis with dalteparin, enoxaparin, fondaparinux, or unfractionated heparin in a hospital setting. After adjustments were made for demographic differences, risk for VTE was significantly higher for dalteparin (odds ratio [OR], 1.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.99-1.92), enoxaparin (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.05-1.86), and unfractionated heparin (OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.39-2.58) compared with fondaparinux. These findings confirm the results of clinical trials in a real-world setting.

Cost and occurrence of thrombocytopenia in patients receiving venous thromboembolism prophylaxis following major orthopaedic surgeries.

BACKGROUND: Many factors impact the choice of anticoagulant used for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis following orthopaedic surgery. Thrombocytopenia (TCP) is an important factor from both clinical and economic perspectives, warranting assessment between the available agents. Thus, a retrospective cohort analysis was conducted to: (1) report the occurrence of TCP in a treatment and no treatment group, (2) evaluate the impact of anticoagulant choice on TCP within the treatment group, and (3) assess the clinical and economic implications of TCP in the treatment group. METHODS: Administrative claims from a hospital database were used to identify patients with hip replacement, knee replacement, or hip fracture surgery. The treatment group (n = 144,806) included patients receiving one of the following injectable anticoagulants post-operatively: dalteparin (n = 16,109); enoxaparin (n = 97,827); fondaparinux (n = 12,532); or unfractionated heparin (UFH) (n = 18,338). The no treatment group consisted of patients who did not receive one of the four injectable anticoagulants (n = 112,574) post-operatively. Outcomes were assessed for the hospitalization period plus 2 months post-discharge while controlling for relevant demographic and clinical characteristics. RESULTS: The occurrence of TCP was 1.0% in the no treatment group and 1.7% in the treatment group. Within the treatment group, patients who received dalteparin, enoxaparin, and UFH were significantly more likely to experience coded thrombocytopenia than those in the no treatment group. The risk of TCP among patients who received fondaparinux was not significantly different from the no treatment cohort (odds ratio [OR] = 1.15, 95% CI: 0.96-1.37, P = 0.13). Patients in the treatment group with coded TCP had 22% higher adjusted mean total healthcare costs (relative cost difference) compared to those without ($19,134 vs. $15,400, respectively, P < 0.0001), greater mean length of stay (LOS) (8.4 vs. 5.7, respectively), and a greater likelihood of experiencing a venous thromboembolic (VTE) event (6.1% vs. 2.4%, respectively). CONCLUSION: Patients treated with fondaparinux did not have a significant increase in the risk of TCP compared to patients not on prophylaxis. In contrast, the risk was increased in those treated with enoxaparin, dalteparin, and UFH compared to the patients not on prophylaxis. Patients in the treatment group with coded TCP experienced more thrombotic events, incurred greater per patient healthcare costs, and experienced longer LOS than patients without coded TCP. Therefore, the risk of TCP should be considered when evaluating the profile of injectable anticoagulants since TCP may have important clinical and economic implications.

Comparison of cost, effectiveness, and safety of injectable anticoagulants used for thromboprophylaxis after orthopedic surgery.

PURPOSE: The cost, effectiveness, and safety of injectable anticoagulants used for thromboprophylaxis after orthopedic surgery were compared. METHODS: This retrospective, observational, cross-sectional, cohort analysis of inpatient billing data was conducted from the institutional perspective. Patients who received dalteparin, enoxaparin, fondaparinux, or unfractionated heparin after orthopedic surgery were included in the analysis. The primary outcome measure was the mean aggregated cost per patient treated with each injectable anticoagulant. Secondary outcomes included the percentages of patients in each treatment group who had a venous thromboembolism (VTE) or major bleeding episode. RESULTS: Mean total adjusted costs were significantly lower for fondaparinux ($18,019) compared with other anticoagulants, with unfractionated heparin being the most costly ($20,835). Relative adjusted cost differences were 1.4% (p = 0.0127), 1.8% ( p = 0.0105), and 14.6% (p < 0.0001) higher for enoxaparin, dalteparin, and unfractionated heparin, respectively, compared with fondaparinux. Significantly fewer fondaparinux-treated patients had a VTE event compared with the other treatment groups. The use of dalteparin was associated with fewer major bleeding events, and no significant differences in the rate of major bleeding events were observed among groups treated with fondaparinux, enoxaparin, or unfractionated heparin. CONCLUSION: A retrospective analysis of inpatient billing data showed that, among orthopedic surgery patients, fondaparinux was associated with lower institutional cost and a lower frequency of VTE than were dalteparin, enoxaparin, and unfractionated heparin. Dalteparin was associated with a lower rate of major bleeding events than was fondaparinux, but there were no significant differences in such events among fondaparinux, enoxaparin, and unfractionated heparin.

Direct economic effect following mupirocin therapy failure among patients with uncomplicated skin and skin-structure infections in a large population-based cohort.

The goal of the study was to derive initial costs associated with failure of initial mupirocin therapy among patients diagnosed with uncomplicated skin and skin-structure infections (uSSSIs). A retrospective observational analysis of medical, pharmacy, and enrollment records was conducted using data from the National Managed Care Benchmark Database. Patients were classified as failing treatment with mupirocin if they either filled a second antibiotic commonly used to treat uSSSIs five to 30 days after their index mupirocin prescription fill or experienced a uSSSI-related hospitalization within 30 days after the index mupirocin prescription fill. Among 12,650 failure episodes, 11,867 (93.8%) required a second antibiotic contributing a mean cost of $62 per prescription. Approximately 4,782 (37.8%) had an associated outpatient encounter resulting in a mean cost of $221 per encounter. Nine percent of failures required a hospitalization with a mean cost of $6,597 per hospitalization. These medical, hospital, and pharmacy costs translated into an expected cost of $735.45 per mupirocin failure among patients with uSSSIs. The management of uSSSIs is costly in terms of health care resource use and direct health care expenditures when initial therapy with mupirocin fails.

Pharmacoeconomic analysis of sequential treatment pathways in the treatment of onychomycosis.

This study examines the budgetary effect of using ciclopirox, itraconazole (pulse treatment), terbinafine, or itraconazole (continuous treatment) as first-, second-, or third-line therapy in the treatment of toenail onychomycosis by determining which therapeutic sequence is most cost effective. Using a disease treatment pathway model, alternative agents were compared based on cost per clinical response. The results from this sequential treatment analysis demonstrated that ciclopirox followed by itraconazole pulse and then terbinafine provides the lowest-cost approach to the treatment of onychomycosis (dollar 757.89 per clinical response), followed by the sequence of ciclopirox, terbinafine, and itraconazole pulse (dollar 796.13 per clinical response). This study provides a framework for formulary decision makers to evaluate a sequential treatment pathway that resembles actual practice.