Rationale and design of a clinical trial of a low-molecular-weight heparin in preventing clinically important venous thromboembolism in medical patients: the Prospective Evaluation of Dalteparin efficacy for Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism in Immobilized Patients Trial (the PREVENT study)

2002 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 269-273 ◽  
Author(s):  
2015 ◽  
Vol 22 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. A176.1-A176
Author(s):  
FI Ferreira Tátá ◽  
MA Pires Rebelo ◽  
ML Grenho Pereira ◽  
NM Ribeiro Landeira ◽  
SM Dias Fanica ◽  
...  

1997 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 192-203 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patricia A Howard

Objective To discuss the chemistry, pharmacology, and pharmacokinetics of dalteparin, a low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), and to review the comparative clinical trial data evaluating the efficacy and safety of dalteparin and unfractionated heparin (UH) for the prophylaxis and treatment of venous thromboembolism. Data Sources A MEDLINE search identified pertinent English-language publications on dalteparin and venous thromboembolism. Key search terms were dalteparin, Fragmin, LMWH, and venous thromboembolism. The search was supplemented by review articles, articles obtained from the bibliographies of the review articles, and the dalteparin approval database. Study Selection The most pertinent studies describing the pharmacology and pharmacokinetics of dalteparin in humans were selected; all abstracts and clinical trials evaluating the use of dalteparin for antithrombotic therapy were reviewed. Review articles by authors of international reputation were selected. Data Extraction Pertinent information from the review articles on the pharmacology of LMWHs and UH was summarized. Clinical trial data were extracted for study design, patient demographics, therapeutic regimens, methods of evaluation, and outcomes. Data Synthesis Dalteparin is an LMWH indicated for patients undergoing abdominal surgery who are considered to be at risk for deep-vein thrombosis (DVT), which may lead to pulmonary embolism (PE). In this population, numerous clinical trials have demonstrated comparable efficacy between dalteparin and fixed-dose UH for DVT prophylaxis. Dalteparin has a predictable dose response and can be administered as a standard single daily subcutaneous dose for all patients. In therapeutic doses, dalteparin does not alter coagulation tests and therefore does not require routine laboratory monitoring, in contrast with adjusted-dose UH. Bleeding risks with dalteparin are comparable with and possibly less than those associated with UH. Preliminary studies suggest that dalteparin may be effective for other indications, including DVT prophylaxis for hip replacement surgery and the treatment of DVT and PE. Comparative cost-effectiveness data are not yet available. Conclusions Dalteparin is the second LMWH to receive approval by the Food and Drug Administration. Dalteparin is indicated for prophylaxis against DVT in patients undergoing abdominal surgery. Clinical studies have shown that single daily doses of dalteparin provide a safe and effective alternative to fixed-dose UH therapy. Additional studies are needed to determine the cost-effectiveness of dalteparin compared with UH and other LMWHs.


2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
A Abdul Razzack ◽  
N Hussain ◽  
S Adeel Hassan ◽  
S Mandava ◽  
F Yasmin ◽  
...  

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None. Background- Low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been proven to be more effective in the management of venous thromboembolism (MVTE). The efficacy and safety of LMWH or DOACs in treatment of recurrent or malignancy induced VTE is not studied in literature. Objective To compare the efficacy and safety of LMWH and  DOACs in the management of malignancy induced  VTE Methods- Electronic databases ( PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane) were searched from inception to November  28th, 2020. Dichotomous data was extracted for prevention of VTE and risk of major bleeding in patients taking either LMWH or DOACs. Unadjusted odds ratios (OR) were calculated from dichotomous data using Mantel Haenszel (M-H) random-effects with statistical significance to be considered if the confidence interval excludes 1 and p < 0.05.  Results- Three studies with 2607 patients (DOACs n = 1301 ; LMWH n = 1306) were included in analysis. All the study population had active cancer of any kind diagnosed within the past 6 months. Average follow-up period for each trial was 6 months. Patients receiving DOACs have a lower odds of recurrence of MVTE as compared to LMWH( OR 1.56; 95% CI 1.17-2.09; P = 0.003, I2 = 0). There was no significant difference in major bleeding among patients receiving LMWH or DOACs  (OR-0.71, 95%CI 0.46-1.10, P = 0.13, I2 = 22%) (Figure 1). We had no publication bias in our results (Egger’s regression p > 0.05). Conclusion- DOACs are superior to LMWH in prevention of MVTE and have similar major bleeding risk as that of LMWH. Abstract Figure. A)VTE Recurrence B)Major Bleeding events


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document