Home  About us  Contact
 

Prophylaxis Strategies (prophylaxis + strategy)

Distribution by Scientific Domains
Medical Sciences100%

Selected Abstracts

Posttransplant Prophylaxis Strategies for Hepatitis B

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPLANTATION, Issue 8 2010
E. Gane
Oral antivirals combined with low-dose hepatitis B immunoglobulin provide highly effective prophylaxis against recurrent hepatitis B following liver transplantation for chronic hepatitis B. See Article by Degertekin et al on page 1823. [source]

Economic Evaluation of Oseltamivir Phosphate for Postexposure Prophylaxis of Influenza in Long-Term Care Facilities

JOURNAL OF AMERICAN GERIATRICS SOCIETY, Issue 3 2005
Nancy A. Risebrough MPhil Candidate
Objectives: To compare the cost-effectiveness of oseltamivir postexposure prophylaxis during influenza A outbreaks with that of amantadine postexposure prophylaxis or no postexposure prophylaxis in long-term care facilities (LTCFs). Design: Cost-effectiveness analysis based on decision analytic model from a government-payer perspective. Setting: A Canadian LTCF, with high staff vaccination, at the beginning of influenza season. Participants: Elderly, influenza-vaccinated patients living in a Canadian LTCF. Measurements: Incremental costs (or savings) per influenza-like illness case avoided compared with usual care. Results: From a government-payer perspective, this analysis showed that oseltamivir was a dominant strategy because it was associated with the fewest influenza-like illness cases, with cost savings of $1,249 per 100 patients in 2001 Canadian dollars compared with amantadine and $3,357 per 100 patients compared with no prophylaxis. Costs for amantadine dose calculation and hospitalization for adverse events contributed to amantadine being a more-expensive prophylaxis strategy than oseltamivir. Both prophylaxis strategies were more cost-effective than no prophylaxis. Conclusion: Despite high influenza vaccination rates, influenza outbreaks continue to emerge in LTCFs, necessitating cost-effective measures to further limit the spread of influenza and related complications. Although amantadine has a lower acquisition cost than oseltamivir, it is associated with more adverse events, lower efficacy, and individualized dosing requirements, leading to higher overall costs and more influenza-like illness cases than oseltamivir. Therefore the use of oseltamivir postexposure prophylaxis is more cost-effective than the current standard of care with amantadine prophylaxis or no prophylaxis. [source]

A risk score for the management of pregnant women with increased risk of venous thromboembolism: a multicentre prospective study

BRITISH JOURNAL OF HAEMATOLOGY, Issue 6 2009
Yesim Dargaud
Summary Patients with thrombophilia and/or a history of venous thromboembolism (VTE) exhibit a high risk of thrombosis during pregnancy. The present multicentre study prospectively assessed a prophylaxis strategy, based on a risk score, in pregnancies with increased risk of VTE. Among 286 patients included in the study, 183 had a personal history of VTE (63·98%) and 191 patients (66·8%) had a thrombophilia marker. Eighty nine (46·6%) thrombophilic women had a personal history of VTE. Patients were assigned to one of three prophylaxis strategies according to the risk scoring system. In postpartum, all patients received low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) prophylaxis for at least 6 weeks. In antepartum, LMWH prophylaxis was prescribed to 61·8% of patients with high risk of VTE. Among them, 37·7% were treated in the third trimester only and 24·1% were treated throughout pregnancy. In this cohort, one antepartum-related VTE (0·35%) and two postpartum-related VTE (0·7%) occurred. No case of pulmonary embolism was observed during the study period. The rate of serious bleeding was 0·35%. There was no evidence of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia or osteoporosis. The use of a risk score may provide a rational decision process to implement safe and effective antepartum thromboprophylaxis in pregnant women at high risk of VTE. [source]

Economic Evaluation of Oseltamivir Phosphate for Postexposure Prophylaxis of Influenza in Long-Term Care Facilities

JOURNAL OF AMERICAN GERIATRICS SOCIETY, Issue 3 2005
Nancy A. Risebrough MPhil Candidate
Objectives: To compare the cost-effectiveness of oseltamivir postexposure prophylaxis during influenza A outbreaks with that of amantadine postexposure prophylaxis or no postexposure prophylaxis in long-term care facilities (LTCFs). Design: Cost-effectiveness analysis based on decision analytic model from a government-payer perspective. Setting: A Canadian LTCF, with high staff vaccination, at the beginning of influenza season. Participants: Elderly, influenza-vaccinated patients living in a Canadian LTCF. Measurements: Incremental costs (or savings) per influenza-like illness case avoided compared with usual care. Results: From a government-payer perspective, this analysis showed that oseltamivir was a dominant strategy because it was associated with the fewest influenza-like illness cases, with cost savings of $1,249 per 100 patients in 2001 Canadian dollars compared with amantadine and $3,357 per 100 patients compared with no prophylaxis. Costs for amantadine dose calculation and hospitalization for adverse events contributed to amantadine being a more-expensive prophylaxis strategy than oseltamivir. Both prophylaxis strategies were more cost-effective than no prophylaxis. Conclusion: Despite high influenza vaccination rates, influenza outbreaks continue to emerge in LTCFs, necessitating cost-effective measures to further limit the spread of influenza and related complications. Although amantadine has a lower acquisition cost than oseltamivir, it is associated with more adverse events, lower efficacy, and individualized dosing requirements, leading to higher overall costs and more influenza-like illness cases than oseltamivir. Therefore the use of oseltamivir postexposure prophylaxis is more cost-effective than the current standard of care with amantadine prophylaxis or no prophylaxis. [source]

A risk score for the management of pregnant women with increased risk of venous thromboembolism: a multicentre prospective study

BRITISH JOURNAL OF HAEMATOLOGY, Issue 6 2009
Yesim Dargaud
Summary Patients with thrombophilia and/or a history of venous thromboembolism (VTE) exhibit a high risk of thrombosis during pregnancy. The present multicentre study prospectively assessed a prophylaxis strategy, based on a risk score, in pregnancies with increased risk of VTE. Among 286 patients included in the study, 183 had a personal history of VTE (63·98%) and 191 patients (66·8%) had a thrombophilia marker. Eighty nine (46·6%) thrombophilic women had a personal history of VTE. Patients were assigned to one of three prophylaxis strategies according to the risk scoring system. In postpartum, all patients received low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) prophylaxis for at least 6 weeks. In antepartum, LMWH prophylaxis was prescribed to 61·8% of patients with high risk of VTE. Among them, 37·7% were treated in the third trimester only and 24·1% were treated throughout pregnancy. In this cohort, one antepartum-related VTE (0·35%) and two postpartum-related VTE (0·7%) occurred. No case of pulmonary embolism was observed during the study period. The rate of serious bleeding was 0·35%. There was no evidence of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia or osteoporosis. The use of a risk score may provide a rational decision process to implement safe and effective antepartum thromboprophylaxis in pregnant women at high risk of VTE. [source]