The Impact of Age on the Efficacy and Safety of Extended-Duration Thromboprophylaxis in Acutely Ill Medical Patients with Recent Immobility: A Sub-Group Analysis from the EXCLAIM Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background: The EXtended CLinical prophylaxis in Acutely Ill Medical patients (EXCLAIM) trial was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, international study that demonstrated a 38% relative risk reduction (RRR) for venous thromboembolism (VTE) with extended-duration enoxaparin prophylaxis compared with placebo (2.5% vs 4.0%; absolute difference [AD], −1.5% 95.8% CI −2.5 to −0.5%; P=0.002). Major bleeding occurred in 0.7% (20/2975) and 0.2% (7/2988) of patients who received enoxaparin and placebo, respectively (AD, 0.4% [CI 0.1% to 0.8%]; P=0.012). As age is a known independent risk factor for VTE, we conducted a pre-specified sub-analysis of the EXCLAIM trial to compare the efficacy and safety of extended-duration enoxaparin prophylaxis in patients >75 years old with patients ≤75 years old. Methods: EXCLAIM eligibility required a recent (≤3 days) reduction in mobility due to acute medical illness, an anticipated level 1 (total bed rest/sedentary) or level 2 (level 1 with bathroom privileges) decreased mobility, and age ≥40 years. During the latter part of the study, a protocol amendment required patients with level 2 mobility to have ≥1 of 3 additional pre-specified risk factors (i.e., active or prior cancer, history of VTE, age >75 years). Of the 7500 patients enrolled, 7415 received open-label enoxaparin 40 mg SC od for 10±4 days. Of these, 6085 were randomized to double-blind therapy (enoxaparin 40mg SC od or placebo) of 28±4 additional days duration. The incidence of VTE, the primary efficacy end point, was defined as the composite of symptomatic or asymptomatic proximal deep vein thrombosis (DVT), symptomatic pulmonary embolism (PE), or fatal PE during the double-blind treatment period. Patients were screened for DVT with bilateral proximal lower extremity compression ultrasound at the end of randomized therapy. The incidence of major bleeding, the primary safety end point, was assessed through 48 hours after the last dose of study treatment. Results: Of the 5963 randomized patients that received at least one dose of double-blind therapy, 29.9% (1781) were >75 years of age (mean age 81.5 years) and 70.1% (4182) were ≤75 years old (mean age 61.8 years). In patients >75 years old, the incidence of VTE was 2.5% (18/725) in the enoxaparin group compared with 6.7% (50/743) in the placebo group (AD −4.2% [95.8% CI −6.5 to −2.0%]; P<0.001). In patients ≤75 years old, the incidence of VTE was 2.4% (43/1760) with extended-duration enoxaparin treatment and 2.8% (50/1767) in the placebo group (AD −0.4%, 95.8% CI −1.5 to 0.7%; P=0.474). The incidence of major bleeding was low, but non-significantly higher with extended prophylaxis compared to placebo in patients >75 years old (0.6% vs 0.2%; AD 0.3%, 95% CI −0.2 to 0.9%; P=0.282) and significantly higher in patients ≤75 years old (0.7% vs 0.2%; AD 0.5%, 95%CI 0.1 to 0.9%; P=0.041). Though the older group had a higher death rate compared to the younger group (3.2% vs 1.6%), the survival between the treatment groups was similar within the two age groups. Without extended prophylaxis (i.e., placebo group), patients >75 years old had a significantly higher risk of VTE than those <75 years old (6.7 % vs 2.8 %; AD 3.9%, 95.8% CI 1.9 to 5.9%; p<0.001) during the first month after completing a standard 10±4 day course of enoxaparin VTE prophylaxis. Conclusions: Despite standard-duration prophylaxis with enoxaparin for 6 to 14 days, acutely ill patients >75 years of age have a significantly higher risk of VTE in the following month, compared to patients ≤75 years of age. The risk-to-benefit ratio of extended-duration enoxaparin following standard-duration prophylaxis in acutely ill medical patients appears most favorable in patients >75 years of age.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,006 | 0,007 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,005 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».