A Real-World Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Thromboprophylactic Use of Enoxaparin Versus Unfractionated Heparin in Abdominal Surgery Patients in a Large U.S. Hospital Database.

Introduction: Little is known about outcomes associated with enoxaparin versus unfractionated heparin (UFH) for venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in abdominal surgery patients in U.S. clinical practice. The purpose of this study was to compare VTE, all-cause mortality, PE-related in-hospital mortality, and hospital costs during abdominal surgery hospitalization and the 90 days post-discharge between patients who received enoxaparin versus UFH prophylaxis. Materials and Methods: Using the Premier Healthcare Database, abdominal surgery patients who received at least 1 day of VTE prophylaxis with enoxaparin or UFH were identified between January 1, 2010 and September 30, 2016. Clinical outcomes were assessed using multivariable logistic regression models and cost outcomes were assessed using generalized linear models. Results: Of 363,669 patients identified, 59% received enoxaparin and 41% UFH. In adjusted analyses, there were statistically significant lower odds of VTE (OR 0.80; 95% CI 0.65-0.97), all-cause mortality (OR 0.67; 95% CI 0.60-0.75), and major bleeding (OR 0.88; 95% CI 0.82-0.94) during the hospitalization for enoxaparin versus UFH, but no differences during the 90-days post-discharge or for PE-related mortality. There was a statistically significant lower total hospital cost with enoxaparin versus UFH during index hospitalization ($8,913 vs $9,017, P < .0001), but not post-discharge ($3,342 vs $3,368, P = .42). Unadjusted rates of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (index:0.1% vs 0.3%; post-discharge: 0.02% vs 0.06%) were reported for enoxaparin and UFH, respectively. Conclusion: In contemporary U.S. hospital practice, statistically significant lower odds of VTE, all-cause mortality and major bleeding with enoxaparin versus UFH prophylaxis were found during abdominal surgery hospitalizations.

The role of epidemiology in informing United States childhood immunization policy and practice.

One of the ten greatest public health achievements is childhood vaccination because of its impact on controlling and eliminating vaccine-preventable diseases (VPDs). Evidence-based immunization policies and practices are responsible for this success and are supported by epidemiology that has generated scientific evidence for informing policy and practice. The purpose of this report is to highlight the role of epidemiology in the development of immunization policy and successful intervention in public health practice that has resulted in a measurable public health impact: the control and elimination of VPDs in the United States. Examples in which epidemiology informed immunization policy were collected from a literature review and consultation with experts who have been working in this field for the past 30 years. Epidemiologic examples (e.g., thimerosal-containing vaccines and the alleged association between the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine and autism) are presented to describe challenges that epidemiologists have addressed. Finally, we describe ongoing challenges to the nation's ability to sustain high vaccination coverage, particularly with concerns about vaccine safety and effectiveness, increasing use of religious and philosophical belief exemptions to vaccination, and vaccine hesitancy. Learning from past and current experiences may help epidemiologists anticipate and address current and future challenges to respond to emerging infectious diseases, such as COVID-19, with new vaccines and enhance the public health impact of immunization programs for years to come.