Anti-Xa guided enoxaparin dose adjustment improves pharmacologic deep venous thrombosis prophylaxis in burn patients.

INTRODUCTION: Patients recovering from burn injury are at high risk of developing deep venous thrombosis (DVT). While 30-mg twice-daily enoxaparin is accepted as the standard prophylactic dose, recent evidence in injured patients suggests this dosing strategy may result in sub-optimal pharmacologic DVT prophylaxis. We hypothesized that standard enoxaparin dosing would result in inadequate DVT prophylaxis in burn patients. METHODS: A retrospective review of an ABA-verified Burn center's registry from January 2012 - December 2016 identified patients with peak plasma anti-Xa levels to monitor the efficacy of pharmacologic DVT prophylaxis. Patients ≥18 years old were included if they received at least 3 doses of enoxaparin and had appropriately timed peak anti-Xa levels. We analyzed data including patient demographics, body weight, body mass index (BMI) and total body surface area burn (TBSA). Diagnosis of DVT was collected. RESULTS: During the study period, 393 patients were screened with a plasma anti-Xa levels. Of the 157 patients that met inclusion criteria, 81 (51.6%) achieved target peak plasma anti-Xa levels (0.2-0.4 IU/mL) on standard 30-mg twice-daily prophylactic enoxaparin and 76 (48.4%) had sub-prophylactic levels. Sub-prophylactic patients were more likely to be male, have increased body weight and elevated BMI. 49 of the 76 sub-prophylactic patients received a dose-adjustment in order to reach target anti-Xa levels; 37 patients required 40mg twice-daily, 10 required 50mg twice-daily and 2 required 60mg twice-daily. The overall DVT rate was 3.8%. CONCLUSIONS: The current recommended prophylactic dose of 30-mg twice-daily enoxaparin is inadequate in many burn patients. Alternate dosing strategies should be considered to increase the number of burn patients achieving target prophylactic anti-Xa levels. Determining whether prophylactic enoxaparin dose adjustment decreases DVT rates in burn injured patients should be evaluated in future prospective trials.

A retrospective review of the frequency and nature of acute hypersensitivity reactions at a medium-sized infusion center: comparison to reported values and inconsistencies found in literature.

PURPOSE: To evaluate acute hypersensitivity reactions at the UCSD Moores Cancer Center in San Diego, compare our findings to those reported previously in the literature, and examine the effectiveness of the objective grading scale as represented by the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using the available pharmacy and electronic medical record data from 2006-2010, we examined our reported hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) using the CTCAE v.3.0 and v.4.0. A thorough literature review was also performed to compare our findings with those previously reported. RESULTS: We found 222 cases of HSRs, of which 50% were due to immunotherapeutics. Most were grade 1 or 2 by any CTCAE criteria. The clinical presentation of HSRs varied between drug classes. Using different versions of grading schema led to inconsistencies in ~50% of all HSRs. Fifty-two percent of all cases not due to blood products were rechallenged on the same day. The reported literature HSR frequencies for each causative agent showed a striking variability, possibly indicating that previous studies used a wide variety of grading and reporting systems for adverse events. CONCLUSION: HSRs are common in clinical practice, and most are mild or moderate. There are inconsistencies in reporting HSRs between studies. The existence of several grading schema and subjective definitions of hypersensitivity could be contributing to poor clinical generalizability. Along with an improved system of reporting HSRs to minimize underreporting, a standard system of objectively assessing HSRs is necessary for purposes of research and clinical practice.