That means 8.1% of CDT patients had a bad outcome, vs. 12.5% with anticoagulation alone (p = 0.085), making CDT no better than anticoagulation alone! #NEJM#medtwitter
Looking at this trial of CDT vs. anticoagulation alone, the results look significant with a win for catheter directed thrombolysis, with lower incidence of the primary outcome (decompensation, death or recurrence of PE) and a slight increase in major bleeding...
But what happens if we combine the primary efficacy outcome and the primary safety outcome to encompass all patients with "good" or "bad" (death, decompensation, recurrence or bleeding) outcomes?
@PhlawlessPharm My experience has been that community hospitals excel at the routine care but can’t handle complex patients/adverse outcomes. AMC may be less efficient but generally have better outcomes especially in complex patients.
https://t.co/TWVPBKqbSq
@PulmCrit I think study replication and publication of data sets is supposed to address this though it’s not feasible nor encouraged in the case of the former and not required in the case of the latter.
@cassinetobacter@BCB_PharmD They mentioned an impairment charge (write off) in Q4 2024 earnings
“The Reported SG&A expense included impairment charges of $504m recorded against the Andexxa
intangible asset”
https://t.co/GKfZHN20Rb