Rivaroxaban for Thromboprophylaxis After Nonelective Orthopedic Trauma Surgery in Switzerland.

This study investigated the effectiveness and the outcomes of rivaroxaban vs the standard of care for venous thromboembolic prophylaxis in patients undergoing fracture-related surgery. A total of 413 patients undergoing fracture-related surgery from 9 Swiss orthopedic and trauma centers were enrolled. The authors selected the type of venous thromboembolic prophylaxis according to standardized medical practice at the participating centers before the inclusion of patients: 208 patients received rivaroxaban and 205 received the standard of care. Data on symptomatic thromboembolic and bleeding events, surgery-related complications, death, adverse events, time to mobilization, and hospital discharge were collected. Symptomatic thromboembolic events were reported in 1 patient (0.5%) and 2 patients (1.0%) and treatment-emergent major bleeding events were reported in 1 patient (0.5%) and 2 patients (1.0%) receiving rivaroxaban and the standard of care, respectively. The durations of hospital stay and venous thromboembolic prophylaxis were similar in the 2 groups. In both groups, adverse events related to venous thromboembolic prophylaxis were reported in 12 patients. The proportion of patients with minor and major fracture surgery was 74.3% and 25.7%, respectively. In patients undergoing minor fracture surgery receiving rivaroxaban (n=167) and the standard of care (n=140), no symptomatic thromboembolic events and no major bleeding events were reported. Outcomes of this study indicate that rivaroxaban might be an appropriate oral alternative for venous thromboembolic prophylaxis in routine medical care after fracture-related major and minor surgery. Reported results were comparable to those from other large-scale, noninterventional and randomized controlled studies. [Orthopedics. 2017; 40(2):109-116.].

Evaluation of a standardized internet-based and telephone-based patient monitoring system for pain therapy with transdermal fentanyl.

The aim of the present observational 4-week study was to document the feasibility and utility of telephone-based or Internet-based pain monitoring in patients with chronic cancer or noncancer pain, such as nociceptive or neuropathic pain, using transdermal fentanyl. Pain intensity, treatment tolerability, activities of daily living, quality of life, and patient and physician satisfaction were evaluated in 60 (60% women, 42% opioid-naive) chronic pain patients who were switched from oral pain therapy to transdermal fentanyl therapy because of persisting severe pain. When the total dataset of all patient entries was analyzed, treatment with transdermal fentanyl led to decreases in maximal and mean pain scores as reported by the patients (-14% and -19%, respectively, last observation carried forward vs. baseline). Pain reduction was more pronounced in opioid-naive than in opioid-experienced patients (-35% and -25% vs. baseline, respectively; P=0.03). Overall, impairment of daily activities was reduced by 23% with transdermal fentanyl. No effect was observed with regard to quality of life and use of rescue pain medication. Transdermal fentanyl was generally well tolerated. Most patients (60%) preferred the telephone-based to the Internet-based or Internet combined with telephone questionnaires. Patient preference was driven by age, whereby younger patients tended to prefer the Internet and older patients the telephone (mean age, 45 and 54 y, respectively; difference n.s.). Internet-based and telephone-based monitoring of the efficacy and tolerability of opioid treatment for chronic pain was feasible in daily practice and generally well accepted by patients and physicians. Future research will determine the relative contribution of these 2 new options for patient-physician interaction and delineate their role in improving chronic pain control.