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
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".