Explore the vast range of titles available.

Clinical guidelines recommend early discharge of patients with low-risk pulmonary embolism (LRPE). This study measured the overall impact of early discharge of LRPE patients on clinical outcomes and costs in the Veterans Health Administration population. Adult patients with ≥1 inpatient diagnosis for pulmonary embolism (PE) (index date) between 10/2011-06/2015, continuous enrollment for ≥12 months pre- and 3 months post-index date were included. PE risk stratification was performed using the simplified Pulmonary Embolism Stratification Index. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to compare 90-day adverse PE events (APEs) [recurrent venous thromboembolism, major bleed and death], hospital-acquired complications (HACs), healthcare utilization, and costs among short (≤2 days) versus long length of stay (LOS). Net clinical benefit was defined as 1 minus the combined rate of APE and HAC. Among 6,746 PE patients, 95.4% were men, 22.0% were African American, and 1,918 had LRPE. Among LRPE patients, only 688 had a short LOS. After 1:1 PSM, there were no differences in APE, but short LOS had fewer HAC (1.5% vs 13.3%, 95% CI: 3.77-19.94) and bacterial pneumonias (5.9% vs 11.7%, 95% CI: 1.24-3.23), resulting in better net clinical benefit (86.9% vs 78.3%, 95% CI: 0.84-0.96). Among long LOS patients, HACs (52) exceeded APEs (14 recurrent DVT, 5 bleeds). Short LOS incurred lower inpatient ($2,164 vs $5,100, 95% CI: $646.8-$5225.0) and total costs ($9,056 vs $12,544, 95% CI: $636.6-$6337.7). LRPE patients with short LOS had better net clinical outcomes at lower costs than matched LRPE patients with long LOS.

The anticoagulant edoxaban, an oral inhibitor of activated factor X, does not require monitoring. As initial treatment for acute venous thromboembolism, heparin–edoxaban was noninferior to heparin–warfarin and caused less bleeding. Venous thromboembolism is the third most common cardiovascular disease after myocardial infarction and stroke, affecting at least 700,000 persons annually in North America. 1 – 3 The standard treatment consists of low-molecular-weight heparin followed by vitamin K antagonists. 4 A number of studies have established that new oral anticoagulants with or without initial heparin therapy are effective alternatives. 5 – 8 Edoxaban is a direct inhibitor of activated factor X with a rapid onset of action. It is administered orally once daily and has proven antithrombotic efficacy. 9 – 11 The Hokusai-VTE study was a randomized, double-blind clinical trial that was conducted to evaluate edoxaban for the . . .

In the treatment of patients with acute pulmonary embolism, the efficacy of rivaroxaban, a factor Xa inhibitor, was similar to that of traditional anticoagulation therapy. There was less bleeding in the group receiving rivaroxaban, which supports its use in the treatment of this condition. Pulmonary embolism is a common disease, with an estimated annual incidence of 70 cases per 100,000 population. 1 , 2 The condition usually leads to hospitalization and may recur; it can be fatal. 3 For half a century, the standard therapy for most patients with pulmonary embolism has been the administration of heparin, overlapped and followed by a vitamin K antagonist. 4 , 5 This regimen is effective but complex. 5 – 9 Recently developed oral anticoagulants that are directed against factor Xa or thrombin overcome some limitations of standard therapy, including the need for injection and for regular dose adjustments on the basis of laboratory monitoring. . . .

In this clinical trial, rivaroxaban, an oral factor Xa inhibitor, was effective in the initial and continued treatment of symptomatic venous thromboembolism; it may become part of the treatment armamentarium for this common clinical problem. Acute venous thromboembolism (i.e., deep-vein thrombosis [DVT] or pulmonary embolism) is a common disorder with an annual incidence of approximately 1 or 2 cases per 1000 persons in the general population. 1 , 2 Short-term treatment is effective, with the risk of recurrent disease — the major complication — reduced from an estimated 25% to about 3% during the first 6 to 12 months of therapy. 3 The risk of recurrence remains after treatment ends and can reach 5 to 10% during the first year. 4 , 5 Standard treatment for acute venous thromboembolism is limited by the need for parenteral heparin initially, with overlapping . . .

IntroductionVarious risk stratification methods exist for patients with pulmonary embolism (PE). We used the simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (sPESI) as a risk-stratification method to understand the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) PE population.Materials and methodsAdult patients with ≥ 1 inpatient PE diagnosis (index date = discharge date) from October 2011–June 2015 as well as continuous enrollment for ≥ 12 months pre- and 3 months post-index date were included. We defined a sPESI score of 0 as low-risk (LRPE) and all others as high-risk (HRPE). Hospital-acquired complications (HACs) during the index hospitalization, 90-day follow-up PE-related outcomes, and health care utilization and costs were compared between HRPE and LRPE patients.ResultsOf 6746 PE patients, 95.4% were men, 67.7% were white, and 22.0% were African American; LRPE occurred in 28.4% and HRPE in 71.6%. Relative to HRPE patients, LRPE patients had lower Charlson Comorbidity Index scores (1.0 vs. 3.4, p < 0.0001) and other baseline comorbidities, fewer HACs (11.4% vs. 20.0%, p < 0.0001), less bacterial pneumonia (10.6% vs. 22.3%, p < 0.0001), and shorter average inpatient lengths of stay (8.8 vs. 11.2 days, p < 0.0001) during the index hospitalization. During follow-up, LRPE patients had fewer PE-related outcomes of recurrent venous thromboembolism (4.4% vs. 6.0%, p = 0.0077), major bleeding (1.2% vs. 1.9%, p = 0.0382), and death (3.7% vs. 16.2%, p < 0.0001). LRPE patients had fewer inpatient but higher outpatient visits per patient, and lower total health care costs ( $12,021 vs. $ 16,911, p < 0.0001) than HRPE patients.ConclusionsUsing the sPESI score identifies a PE cohort with a lower clinical and economic burden.

Due to limited evidence on the impact of rivaroxaban in clinical practice, we compared the effectiveness of rivaroxaban versus standard of care (SOC) among patients in the Veterans Health Administration. Adult patients with continuous enrollment in a health plan with medical and pharmacy benefits for ≥12 months before and ≥3 months after an inpatient diagnosis of pulmonary embolism (PE) between October 1, 2011, and June 30, 2015, and a prescription claim for an anticoagulant during the index hospitalization, were included. SOC drugs were low-molecular-weight heparin, unfractionated heparin, and warfarin. Propensity score matching was used in comparing PE-related outcomes (recurrent venous thromboembolism, major bleeding, and death), hospital-acquired complications (HACs), health care resource utilization, and costs among patients receiving SOC versus rivaroxaban. We defined net clinical benefit as 1 minus the combined rate of PE-related outcomes and HACs. Among 6746 patients with PE, 208 received rivaroxaban, 4641 received SOC and 1897 received other anticoagulants. Most (95%) were male; 22% were black. After 1:3 propensity score matching, there were 203 rivaroxaban and 609 SOC patients. During the 90-day follow-up, rivaroxaban users had similar rates of PE-related outcomes, but fewer had experienced at least 1 HAC (10.3% vs 15.9%; P = 0.0506), resulting in better net clinical benefit (82.8% vs 71.1%; P = 0.001). Rivaroxaban users had fewer outpatient visits per patient (17.0 vs 19.9; P = 0.0005), a similar rehospitalization rate (0.2 vs 0.3; P = 0.084), lesser inpatient costs (US $3501 vs $6189; P < 0.0001), lesser inpatient costs and lesser total costs ($10,545 vs $14,192; P = 0.0002). When the sample was limited to patients with low-risk PE, we found similar patterns. Patients with PE prescribed rivaroxaban had similar PE-related outcomes, but fewer HACs and lesser total costs, than did patients on SOC.

This paper examines innovation. We present insights from a highly influential paper. Here are the highlights from this paper: In late years, the concept of open innovation received attention from industry and academia. This concept means that firms utilize resources outside for their R&D beyond their boundaries. Behind this background is the fact that firms have more opportunities to utilize resources outside. Previous studies indicate that by utilizing resources outside, firms could make the R & D process more efficient or create new products. On the other side of the coin, we have to solve some aspects in an open innovation context. First, product quality on the basis of activities of open innovation has to be defined. The definition of product quality is still unclear; thus, it is necessary to identify product quality in open innovation context. In addition, comparison between open innovation and in-company cooperation is not done so much. In the examination of effectiveness of open innovation, we should compare utilization of resources outside with that of in-company ideas. In this paper, we quantitatively analyze relations among product quality, utilization of resources outside, and utilization of internal resources on the basis of Covariance Structure Analysis. This analysis is based on a questionnaire survey at Japanese electronics firms in July 2015. For our overseas readers, we then present the insights from this paper in Spanish, French, Portuguese, and German.

Entry A long term project involving pupils from Class 5S, Furzedown Primary School and one of our parents architect Phil Wells Children in Year 5 participated in a set of architectural workshops inspired by a visit to The Royal Academy's Sensing Spaces exhibition.

Why all the fuss about whether human activity is responsible for climate change?