Safety profile of tinzaparin administered once daily at a standard curative dose in two hundred very elderly patients

Tinzaparin, an alternative to subcutaneous unfractionated heparin, in patients with severe and end-stage renal impairment: a retrospective observational single-center study

BACKGROUND

Tinzaparin could be easier to manage than unfractionated heparin in patients with severe renal impairment. However, clinical and pharmacologic data regarding its use in such patients are lacking.

OBJECTIVES

The aims of this study were to determine, in patients with estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of <30 mL.min⁻1, tinzaparin pharmacokinetics (PK) parameters using a population PK approach and bleeding and thrombotic complications.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective observational single-center study, including in-patients with eGFR of <30 mL.min⁻1 receiving prophylactic (4500 IU.d⁻1) or therapeutic (175 IU.kg⁻1.d⁻1) tinzaparin. Measured anti-Xa levels were analyzed using a nonlinear mixed-effects modeling approach. Individual predicted tinzaparin exposure markers at steady state were calculated for each patient and dosing regimen. The PK was also evaluated through Monte Carlo simulations based on the final covariate model parameter estimates.

RESULTS

Over a 22-month period, 802 tinzaparin treatment periods in 623 patients were analyzed: two-thirds received a prophylactic dose, 66% had an eGFR of <20 mL.min⁻1, and 25% were on renal replacement therapy. In patients for whom anti-Xa measurements were performed (n = 199; 746 values), PK parameters, profiles, and maximum plasma concentrations were comparable with those in patients without renal impairment or in healthy volunteers. In the whole population, major bleeding occurred in 2.4% and 3.5% of patients receiving prophylactic and therapeutic doses over a median 9- and 7-day treatment period, respectively. No patients had thrombotic complications.

CONCLUSION

Tinzaparin PK parameters and profiles were not affected by renal impairment. This suggests that tinzaparin, at therapeutic or prophylactic dose, could be an alternative to unfractionated heparin in hospitalized patients with severe renal impairment.

Impact of perioperative low-molecular-weight heparin therapy on clinical events of elderly patients with prior coronary stents implanted > 12 months undergoing non-cardiac surgery: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the safety and efficacy of discontinuing antiplatelet therapy via LMWH bridging therapy in elderly patients with coronary stents implanted for > 12 months undergoing non-cardiac surgery. This randomized trial was designed to compare the clinical benefits and risks of antiplatelet drug discontinuation via LMWH bridging therapy.

METHODS

Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive subcutaneous injections of either dalteparin sodium or placebo. The primary efficacy endpoint was cardiac or cerebrovascular events. The primary safety endpoint was major bleeding.

RESULTS

Among 2476 randomized patients, the variables (sex, age, body mass index, comorbidities, medications, and procedural characteristics) and percutaneous coronary intervention information were not significantly different between the bridging and non-bridging groups. During the follow-up period, the rate of the combined endpoint in the bridging group was significantly lower than in the non-bridging group (5.79% vs. 8.42%, p = 0.012). The incidence of myocardial injury in the bridging group was significantly lower than in the non-bridging group (3.14% vs. 5.19%, p = 0.011). Deep vein thrombosis occurred more frequently in the non-bridging group (1.21% vs. 0.4%, p = 0.024), and there was a trend toward a higher rate of pulmonary embolism (0.32% vs. 0.08%, p = 0.177). There was no significant difference between the groups in the rates of acute myocardial infarction (0.81% vs. 1.38%), cardiac death (0.24% vs. 0.41%), stroke (0.16% vs. 0.24%), or major bleeding (1.22% vs. 1.45%). Multivariable analysis showed that LMWH bridging, creatinine clearance < 30 mL/min, preoperative hemoglobin < 10 g/dL, and diabetes mellitus were independent predictors of ischemic events. LMWH bridging and a preoperative platelet count of < 70 × 109/L were independent predictors of minor bleeding events.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed the safety and efficacy of perioperative LMWH bridging therapy in elderly patients with coronary stents implanted > 12 months undergoing non-cardiac surgery. An alternative approach might be the use of bridging therapy with half-dose LMWH.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN65203415.

Being precise with anticoagulation to reduce adverse drug reactions: are we there yet?

Anticoagulants are potent therapeutics widely used in medical and surgical settings, and the amount spent on anticoagulation is rising. Although warfarin remains a widely prescribed oral anticoagulant, prescriptions of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have increased rapidly. Heparin-based parenteral anticoagulants include both unfractionated and low molecular weight heparins (LMWHs). In clinical practice, anticoagulants are generally well tolerated, although interindividual variability in response is apparent. This variability in anticoagulant response can lead to serious incident thrombosis, haemorrhage and off-target adverse reactions such as heparin-induced thrombocytopaenia (HIT). This review seeks to highlight the genetic, environmental and clinical factors associated with variability in anticoagulant response, and review the current evidence base for tailoring the drug, dose, and/or monitoring decisions to identified patient subgroups to improve anticoagulant safety. Areas that would benefit from further research are also identified. Validated variants in VKORC1, CYP2C9 and CYP4F2 constitute biomarkers for differential warfarin response and genotype-informed warfarin dosing has been shown to reduce adverse clinical events. Polymorphisms in CES1 appear relevant to dabigatran exposure but the genetic studies focusing on clinical outcomes such as bleeding are sparse. The influence of body weight on LMWH response merits further attention, as does the relationship between anti-Xa levels and clinical outcomes. Ultimately, safe and effective anticoagulation requires both a deeper parsing of factors contributing to variable response, and further prospective studies to determine optimal therapeutic strategies in identified higher risk subgroups.

Efficacy and safety of anticoagulant for treatment and prophylaxis of VTE patients with renal insufficiency: a systemic review and meta-analysis

Patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE) comorbid renal insufficiency (RI) are at higher risk of bleeding and thrombosis. Recommendations in guidelines on anticoagulation therapy for those patients remain ambiguous. The goal of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety between different anticoagulant regimens in VTE patients comorbid RI at different stages of treatment and prophylaxis. We performed English-language searches of Pubmed, EMBASE, and Web of Science (inception to Nov 2022). RCTs evaluated anticoagulants for VTE treatment at the acute phase, extension phase, and prophylaxis in patients with RI and reported efficacy and safety outcomes were selected. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed at the outcome level using the risk-of-bias assessment tool developed by the Cochrane Bias Methods Group. A meta-analysis of twenty-five RCTs was conducted, comprising data from twenty-three articles, encompassing a total of 9,680 participants with RI. In the acute phase, the risk of bleeding was increased with novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) compared to LMWH (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.04-1.60). For the prophylaxis of VTE, NOACs were associated with an elevated risk of bleeding compared with placebo (RR 1.31, 95%CI 1.02-1.68). In comparison to non-RI patients, both NOACs and vitamin K antagonists (VKA) could increase the risk of bleeding among RI patients (RR 1.45, 95%CI 1.14-1.84 and RR 1.53, 95%CI 1.25-1.88, respectively) during acute phase, while NOACs may increase the incidence of VTE in RI population (RR 1.74, 95%CI 1.29-2.34). RI patients who are under routine anticoagulation have a significantly higher risk of adverse outcomes. LMWH is the most effective and safe option for VTE treatment or prophylaxis in patients with RI.

Tinzaparin for venous thromboembolism in patients with renal impairment: a single-centre, prospective pilot study

BACKGROUND

Low molecular weight heparins (LMWH) are used extensively for prophylaxis and treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE), bridging therapy for warfarin and standard of care in cancer-associated VTE (CA-VTE). Tinzaparin has the highest molecular weight of all LMWH and relies least on renal clearance to Cockcroft-Gault creatinine clearance (CrCl) of 20 mL/min. Previous pharmacological studies have demonstrated safety and effectiveness in elderly patients. Prospective clinical trials have confirmed these findings to CrCl 20 mL/min and in CA-VTE. We describe the pilot program developed at Concord Repatriation General Hospital for tinzaparin.

AIMS

We aim to confirm the deliverability of tinzaparin in patients with renal insufficiency.

METHODS

Twenty patients were established on tinzaparin as therapeutic anticoagulation with CrCl or CKD-EPI estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) 20-50 mL/min with an indication for anticoagulation. Tinzaparin was given as a subcutaneous injection at 175 units/kg as a single daily dose, rounded to the nearest vial size. Tinzaparin anti-Xa levels were tested at Days 2, 7 and 14 (±1 day) and transition to oral anticoagulants were allowed at clinician discretion.

RESULTS

No accumulation of tinzaparin was seen into Day 14. Two patients required dose-adjustment, five patients had bleeding complications (two major, three minor) and four patients died during follow-up, all attributable to patients' comorbidities. CrCl and body surface area-standardised CrCl were significantly correlated with tinzaparin anti-Xa level only on Day 2, and this effect was lost when patients with CrCl >50 mL/min were excluded. Data from our cohort confirm the deliverability of therapeutic tinzaparin in patients with CrCl or CKD-EPI eGFR 20-50 mL/min. Bleeding and death outcomes were also comparable to other trials using tinzaparin in CA-VTE.

CONCLUSION

For patients with renal insufficiency, tinzaparin represents an attractive alternative anticoagulant with once-daily administration in a range of potential indications.

A systematic review of the efficacy and safety of anticoagulants in advanced chronic kidney disease

BACKGROUND

Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) have an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and atrial fibrillation (AF). Anticoagulants have not been studied in randomised controlled trials with CrCl < 30 ml/min. The objective of this review was to identify the impact of different anticoagulant strategies in patients with advanced CKD including dialysis.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials and cohort studies, searching electronic databases from 1946 to 2022. Studies that evaluated both thrombotic and bleeding outcomes with anticoagulant use in CrCl < 50 ml/min were included.

RESULTS

Our initial search yielded 14,503 papers with 53 suitable for inclusion. RCTs comparing direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) versus warfarin for patients with VTE and CrCl 30-50 ml/min found no difference in recurrent VTE events (RR 0.68(95% CI 0.42-1.11)) with reduced bleeding (RR 0.65 (95% CI 0.45-0.94)). Observational data in haemodialysis suggest lower risk of recurrent VTE and major bleeding with apixaban versus warfarin. Very few studies examining outcomes were available for therapeutic and prophylactic dose low molecular weight heparin for CrCl < 30 ml/min. Findings for patients with AF on dialysis were that warfarin or DOACs had a similar or higher risk of stroke compared to no anticoagulation. For patients with AF and CrCl < 30 ml/min not on dialysis, anticoagulation should be considered on an individual basis, with limited studies suggesting DOACs may have a preferable safety profile.

CONCLUSION

Further studies are still required, some ongoing, in patients with advanced CKD (CrCl < 30 ml/min) to identify the safest and most effective treatment options for VTE and AF.

Tinzaparin—a review of its molecular profile, pharmacology, special properties, and clinical uses

Purpose

Low molecular weight heparins (LMWHs) are a group of heterogenous moieties, long used in the prevention and treatment of thrombosis. They derive from heparin and since they are prepared by different methods of depolymerization, they differ in pharmacokinetic properties and anticoagulant profiles, and thus are not clinically interchangeable.

Methods

In this review we provide an overview of tinzaparin's main characteristics and uses.

Results

Tinzaparin which is produced by the enzymatic depolymerization of unfractionated heparin (UFH) can be used for the treatment and prevention of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE); it has been also used in special populations such as elders, obese, pregnant women, and patients with renal impairment and/or cancer with favorable outcomes in both safety and efficacy, with a once daily dose regimen. Furthermore, LMWHs are extensively used in clinical practice for both thromboprophylaxis and thrombosis treatment of COVID-19 patients.

Conclusion

Tinzaparin features support the hypothesis for having a role in immunothrombosis treatment (i.e. in the context of cancer ,COVID-19), interfering not only with coagulation cascade but also exhibiting anti-inflammatory potency.

Tinzaparin Safety in Patients With Cancer and Renal Impairment: A Systematic Review

Low-molecular-weight heparins are approved for primary and secondary venous thromboembolism prevention. Tinzaparin is the low-molecular-weight heparin with the highest average molecular weight. The purpose of this systematic review is to provide an update regarding the safety profile of tinzaparin, prescribed either as a prophylactic or as a therapeutic regimen for venous thromboembolism in special populations, including cancer patients and patients with renal impairment. We identified prospective studies up to August 2020 reporting safety outcomes for cancer patients and patients with renal impairment on tinzaparin regimens. In patients with cancer major bleeding rates fluctuated between 0.8% and 7%. Patients on tinzaparin exhibited significantly lower rates of clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding events in comparison with those on vitamin K antagonists. Bioaccumulation of tinzaparin was not correlated with age, body weight or creatinine clearance. Periodic administration of either prophylactic or therapeutic doses of tinzaparin did not result in bioaccumulation, even in patients with severe renal impairment and creatinine clearance < 20 ml/min. Major bleeding rates for non-cancer patients with renal impairment on prophylactic tinzaparin regimens were 0%. Non-cancer patients with renal impairment on therapeutic tinzaparin regimens exhibited major bleeding in 0 to 3.4% of cases; major bleeding rates were higher for cancer patients with renal impairment on therapeutic tinzaparin regimens (4.3 to 10%). Tinzaparin can be used without dose adjustment in patients with severe renal impairment and creatinine clearance > 20 ml/min. Tinzaparin represents a safe choice for special populations at increased risk for thrombosis and bleeding.

Dosage reduction of low weight heparin in patients with renal dysfunction: Effects on anti-Xa levels and clinical outcomes

Background

To prevent bio-accumulation of low molecular weight heparins (LMWHs) in patients with decreased kidney function, dosage reduction and anti-Xa monitoring has been suggested. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of pre-emptive dosage reduction of LMWH on anti-Xa levels. Furthermore, we investigated the association between anti-Xa levels and bleeding, thrombotic events and mortality.

Methods

In this single center study, we followed 499 patients with decreased renal function in whom anti-Xa levels were measured. We observed how many patients had anti-Xa levels that fell within the reference range, with a standard protocol of a pre-emptive dosage reduction of LMWH (25% reduction in patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) between 30 and 60 ml/min/1.73m² and a reduction of 50% in patients with an eGFR below the 30 ml/min/1.73m²). Furthermore, Cox proportional hazard analyses were used to estimate hazard ratios to investigate the association between anti-Xa levels and major bleeding, thrombotic events and mortality within three months of follow-up.

Results

In a cohort of 499 patients (445 dalteparin and 54 nadroparin users), a pre-emptive dosage reduction of LMWH led to adequate levels of anti-Xa in only 19% of the patients (12% for the dalteparin users and 50% for nadroparin users). We did not find an association between anti-Xa levels and bleeding, thrombosis or mortality.

Conclusion

Pre-emptive dosage reduction of LMWH leads to low anti-Xa levels in a large proportion, but this was not associated with bleeding, thrombosis or mortality.

Tinzaparin Sodium Pharmacokinetics in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease: Practical Implications

Low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) are the mainstay of the prophylaxis and treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Due to their renal elimination, the risk of accumulation with the related bleeding risk may represent a limitation for the use of LMWHs in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) as the risk of major bleeding is increased in patients with creatinine clearance (CrCl) < 30 mL/min, especially in patients with cancer. LMWH structure and molecular weight (MW) are heterogeneous among available agents. The elimination of tinzaparin, which has the highest mean MW among LMWHs, is less dependent on renal function as it is also metabolized through the reticuloendothelial system. A subcutaneous therapeutic dose of tinzaparin (175 IU/kg) once daily has been shown to cause no accumulation of anti-factor Xa activity in patients with CrCl ≥ 20 mL/min. Clinical experience from randomized controlled studies has shown no significant impact of CKD on bleeding risk in cancer patients receiving treatment doses of tinzaparin. This suggests that in these patients the use of treatment doses of tinzaparin does not require anticoagulation monitoring or dose adjustment.

American Society of Hematology 2018 guidelines for management of venous thromboembolism: optimal management of anticoagulation therapy

BACKGROUND

Clinicians confront numerous practical issues in optimizing the use of anticoagulants to treat venous thromboembolism (VTE).

OBJECTIVE

These evidence-based guidelines of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) are intended to support patients, clinicians and other health care professionals in their decisions about the use of anticoagulants in the management of VTE. These guidelines assume the choice of anticoagulant has already been made.

METHODS

ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel balanced to minimize potential bias from conflicts of interest. The McMaster University GRADE Centre supported the guideline development process, including updating or performing systematic evidence reviews. The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subject to public comment.

RESULTS

The panel agreed on 25 recommendations and 2 good practice statements to optimize management of patients receiving anticoagulants.

CONCLUSIONS

Strong recommendations included using patient self-management of international normalized ratio (INR) with home point-of-care INR monitoring for vitamin K antagonist therapy and against using periprocedural low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) bridging therapy. Conditional recommendations included basing treatment dosing of LMWH on actual body weight, not using anti-factor Xa monitoring to guide LMWH dosing, using specialized anticoagulation management services, and resuming anticoagulation after episodes of life-threatening bleeding.

An Update on Calciphylaxis

Calciphylaxis, also known as calcific uremic arteriolopathy and uremic small artery disease with medial wall calcification and intimal hyperplasia, is a multifactorial cutaneous vascular disease characterized by chronic, painful, non-healing wounds that occur frequently in patients with chronic kidney disease, predominantly in those with end-stage renal disease. The pathogenesis remains unclear, and the development of calciphylaxis lesions depends on medial calcification, intimal fibrosis of arterioles and thrombotic occlusion. Despite an increase in reports of calciphylaxis in the literature and clinical recognition of demographic characteristics and risk factors associated with calciphylaxis, it remains a poorly understood disease with high morbidity and mortality. In this review, we analyze and summarize the clinical manifestations, pathogenesis and pathophysiology, histopathology, differential diagnosis, diagnostic workup and treatment modalities for calciphylaxis. Because of the lack of consensus regarding the optimal approach to and treatment of this disorder, a high degree of clinical suspicion, early diagnosis, and multimodal and multidisciplinary treatment in collaboration with dermatology, nephrology, wound care, nutrition and pain management specialties may improve survival in patients with calciphylaxis.

Long-term treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis: the choice of the optimal anticoagulant

Patients with cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) carry a higher risk of recurrence, bleeding and mortality as compared with non-cancer patients. The specific profiles of cancer patients, combining frequent co-morbidities, the use of anti-tumoral therapies and the cancer progression itself, represent a major therapeutic challenge for choosing a long-term anticoagulant treatment. This review discusses the practical basis of making a choice between the available drugs for a long-term antithrombotic strategy, linked to their pharmacology, mechanism of action, evidence of clinical benefits, and advantages and limitations in such a complex clinical context. In patients with cancer, low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) are the preferred option for the secondary prevention of venous thromboembolism according to current guidelines, because their efficacy is significantly superior to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs). Even though LMWHs are effective and safe in cancer patients, they require daily subcutaneous injections, which may be problematic for a long-term therapy that may exceed 6 months' duration. Compared with VKAs, non-vitamin-K antagonist oral anticoagulants or direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are more target specific and do not require laboratory monitoring, whereas the oral route of administration makes them potentially attractive alternatives to LMWH. In randomized controlled trials in the general population DOACs have been shown to be non-inferior to VKAs in terms of efficacy with a lower rate of clinically relevant or major bleeding. However, given the limited number of cancer patients enrolled in these studies (with poorly defined active cancer), available trials are inconclusive regarding the usefulness of DOACs in the cancer setting. Ongoing head-to-head comparisons vs. LMWH in patients with CAT may allow an informed choice to be made regarding the DOAC option.

Adverse safety events in patients with Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD)

INTRODUCTION

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) confers a higher risk of adverse safety events as a result of many factors including medication dosing errors and use of nephrotoxic drugs, which can cause kidney injury and renal function decline. CKD patients may also have comorbidities such as hypertension and diabetes for which they require more frequent care from different providers, and for which standard, but countervailing treatments, may put them at risk for adverse safety events. Areas covered: In addition to the well-known agents such as iodinated radiocontrast, antimicrobials, diuretics and angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors which can directly affect renal function, safety considerations in the treatment of common CKD complications such as anemia, diabetes, analgesia and thrombosis will also be discussed. Expert opinion: Better outcomes in CKD may be achieved by alerting care providers to the special care needs of kidney patients and encouraging patients to self-manage their disease with the decision support of multidisciplinary patient care teams.

Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin for the Treatment of Venous Thromboembolism in the Elderly

Venous thromboembolism (deep vein thrombosis and/or pulmonary embolism) is a common problem in the elderly population. Indeed, increasing age is a significant risk factor for venous thromboembolism. The treatment of venous thromboembolism in the elderly population presents certain unique problems related to aging, such as decreasing body weight, increasing renal insufficiency and numerous comorbid conditions, which complicate therapy. Treatment of venous thromboembolism in the elderly has been complicated by an increased incidence of bleeding, particularly with the use of warfarin. The risk of bleeding may be substantially reduced by carefully adjusting the warfarin dose to maintain a therapeutic INR and for this purpose anticoagulant management clinics have been shown to be useful. The low-molecular-weight heparins have been shown to be efficacious and safe for the treatment of venous thromboembolism in several clinical trials, including many patients in the older age brackets. Furthermore, these agents can safely be used in the out-of-hospital setting. Long-term use of low-molecular-weight heparin is an alternative to the use of oral anticoagulant therapy, particularly in patients with cancer or recurrent venous thromboembolism.

Treatment with Dalteparin is Associated with a Lower Risk of Bleeding Compared to Treatment with Unfractionated Heparin in Patients with Renal Insufficiency

BACKGROUND

Low molecular weight heparins (LMWHs) have been cautiously used in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) due to fear of accumulation. Dalteparin, however, has shown minimal tendency to accumulate in patients with CKD and may be safe to use in this patient population.

OBJECTIVE

We compared the incidence of clinically significant bleeding in patients with CKD receiving therapeutic doses of dalteparin to that of patients with CKD receiving therapeutic doses of UFH.

DESIGN

This was a retrospective cohort study.

SUBJECTS

Inpatients with CKD (GFR < 60 ml/min) who were treated with therapeutic dalteparin or UFH were included in the study

MAIN MEASURES

Primary outcome was major bleeding within 10 days of anticoagulation, identified by ICD-9 code and confirmed by chart review. Demographic characteristics, laboratory values, comorbidities, prior bleeding history and inpatient medications were extracted for each admission from the electronic medical record. Logistic regression models were created to examine the association between choice of anticoagulant and bleeding rates, after adjustment for demographic and clinical characteristics.

KEY RESULTS

Dalteparin-treated patients were significantly less likely to experience a major bleed than patients treated with UFH (1.14 % vs. 3.49 %, p < 0.001). The reduced likelihood of bleeding associated with dalteparin treatment remained significant after adjustment for patient characteristics (HR 0.39, 95 % CI: 0.21-0.70, p < 0.0001). A stratified analysis for subgroups with GFR< 30 mL/min and with GFR between 30 and 60 mL/min showed that dalteparin was still associated with lower odds of bleeding compared to treatment with unfractionated heparin, but the difference was nonsignificant for GFR< 30 (HR 0.35, 95 % CI: 0.11-1.15), even after adjustment (OR 0.37, 95 % CI: 0.11-1.22).

CONCLUSION

In patients with CKD, treatment with therapeutic dose dalteparin was associated with lower rates of bleeding than treatment with unfractionated heparin. For patients with severe CKD (GFR< 30), dalteparin was shown to be at least as safe as unfractionated heparin.

Venous Thromboembolism in Patients Diagnosed With Lung Cancer

PURPOSE

Considering the high prevalence of lung cancer, our purpose was to summarize the existing literature to identify the several factors that contribute to the increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with lung cancer and to analyze the current recommendations for thromboprophylaxis and treatment of VTE in those patients.

METHODS

We searched the Medline and EMBASE databases from February 1985 to February 2014 to identify retrospective and prospective randomized controlled studies that investigate one or more risk factors for VTEs in patients with lung cancer.

RESULTS

A VTE is a major complication for patients diagnosed with lung cancer. The risk factors for VTE events in patients with lung cancer consist of cancer-related (histological type and stage of cancer), treatment-related (surgery, chemotherapy, angiogenic agents, and supportive care agents), and patient-related factors (comorbidities, immobility, performance status, and prior thrombosis). Low-molecular-weight heparins are recommended for long-term treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis. Duration of anticoagulant therapy beyond 6 months should be based on individual clinical evaluation. Thromboprophylaxis for patients with lung cancer during hospitalization and immediate postoperative period is well established.

CONCLUSIONS

Efforts to assess thrombotic risk in patients with lung cancer may improve therapeutic and preventive strategies in the future, with final goal to minimize the burden and consequences of thrombotic events in patients with lung cancer.

A systematic review on the accumulation of prophylactic dosages of low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) in patients with renal insufficiency

PURPOSE

Although therapeutic dosages of most low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) are known to accumulate in patients with renal insufficiency, for the lower prophylactic dosages this has not been clearly proven. Nevertheless, dose reduction is often recommended. We conducted a systematic review to investigate whether prophylactic dosages of LMWH accumulate in renal insufficient patients.

METHODS

A comprehensive search was conducted on 17 February 2015 using Embase, Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane, PubMed publisher, and Google scholar. The syntax emphasized for LMWHs, impaired renal function, and pharmacokinetics. The search yielded 674 publications. After exclusion by reading the titles, abstracts, and if necessary the full paper, 11 publications remained.

RESULTS

For dalteparin and tinzaparin, no accumulation was observed. Enoxaparin, on the other hand, did lead to accumulation in patients with renal insufficiency, although not in patients undergoing renal replacement therapy. Bemiparin and certoparin also did show accumulation. No data were available for nadroparin.

CONCLUSIONS

In this systematic review, we show that prophylactic dosages of tinzaparin and dalteparin are likely to be safe in patients with renal insufficiency and do not need dose reduction based on the absence of accumulation. However, prophylactic dosages of enoxaparin, bemiparin, and certoparin did show accumulation in patients with a creatinine clearance (CrCl) below 30 ml/min, and therefore, dose reduction is required. The differences in occurrence of accumulation seem to depend on the mean molecular weight of LMWHs.

Anticoagulation in chronic kidney disease patients-the practical aspects

There is an increasing awareness about the risks of arterial and venous thromboembolism (TE) in hospital patients and general public which has led to consideration of thrombosis prevention measures in earnest. Early recognition of the symptoms of TE disease has led to timely administration of antiplatelet and anticoagulant drugs, translating to better outcome in many of these patients. In this respect, patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) represent a special group. They indeed represent a high-risk group for thrombosis both in the cardiovascular territory and also in the venous circulation. At the same time, abnormalities in the platelet membranes put them at risk of bleeding which is significantly more than other patients with chronic diseases. Anticoagulation may be ideal to prevent the former, but the co-existing bleeding risk and also that the commonly used drugs for inhibiting coagulation are eliminated by renal pathways pose additional problems. In this review, we try to explain the complex thrombotic-haemorrhagic state of chronic kidney disease patients, and practical considerations for the management of anticoagulation in them with a focus on heparins.

Pharmacodynamics assessment of Bemiparin after multiple prophylactic and single therapeutic doses in adult and elderly healthy volunteers and in subjects with varying degrees of renal impairment

INTRODUCTION

Aging and renal impairment may prolong the half-life and lead to accumulation of low molecular weight heparins. Correct dosing is critical to prevent bleeding or thrombosis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Open, parallel study. Healthy adult [n=13] and elderly (>65yrs) [n=12] volunteers; and subjects with mild (ClCr≥50 to ≤80mL/min, n=8), moderate (ClCr≥30 to <50mL/min, n=7), and severe (ClCr<30mL/min, n=8) renal impairment received four prophylactic doses (3,500IU/24h) and a single therapeutic dose (115IU/kg) of bemiparin with an interim washout period. Anti-FXa activity and the potential need for dose adjustment were evaluated.

RESULTS

There were statistically significant differences in the severe renal impairment group vs. adult volunteers in all anti-FXa related parameters, but no significant differences in any of the anti-FXa related parameters between the adult and the elderly. Anti-FXa simulations after 10 prophylactic doses predicted mean Amax=0.59IU/mL in subjects with severe renal impairment and 0.33-0.39IU/mL in the rest. Simulations in the severe renal impairment group with dose adjustment (2,500IU/24h) predicted all individual Amax<0.60IU/mL (mean Amax=0.42IU/ml). Simulations after 10 therapeutic doses predicted mean Amax=1.22IU/mL in severe renal impairment group and 0.89-0.98IU/mL in the rest. Simulations in the severe renal impairment group with 75% dose adjustment predicted individual Amax≤1.60IU/mL (mean Amax=0.91IU/mL).

CONCLUSIONS

No dose adjustments are required in elderly with preserved renal function. A dose adjustment of bemiparin is only advisable in patients with severe renal impairment when using prophylactic or therapeutic doses.

Tinzaparin and other low-molecular-weight heparins: what is the evidence for differential dependence on renal clearance?

Since low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) are eliminated preferentially via the kidneys, the potential for accumulation of these agents (and an increased risk of bleeding) is of particular concern in populations with a high prevalence of renal impairment, such as the elderly and patients with cancer. The risk of clinically relevant accumulation of anticoagulant activity as a result of a reduction in renal elimination appears to differ between LMWHs. This review describes the elimination pathways for LMWHs and assesses whether the relative balance between renal and non-renal (cellular) clearance may provide a mechanistic explanation for the differences in accumulation that have been observed between LMWHs in patients with impaired renal function. Clearance studies in animals, cellular binding studies and clinical studies all indicate that the balance between renal and non-renal clearance is dependent on the molecular weight (MW): the higher the MW of the LMWH, the more the balance is shifted towards non-renal clearance. Animal studies have also provided insights into the balance between renal and non-renal clearance by examining the effect of selective blocking of one of the elimination pathways, and it is most likely that cellular clearance is increased to compensate for decreased renal function. Tinzaparin (6,500 Da) has the highest average MW of the marketed LMWHs, and there is both clinical and preclinical evidence for significant non-renal elimination of tinzaparin, making it less likely that tinzaparin accumulates in patients with renal impairment compared with LMWHs with a lower MW distribution. On the basis of our findings, LMWHs that are less dependent on renal clearance may be preferred in patient populations with a high prevalence of renal insufficiency.

CATCH: a randomised clinical trial comparing long-term tinzaparin versus warfarin for treatment of acute venous thromboembolism in cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) is recommended and commonly used for extended treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT), but its superiority over warfarin has been demonstrated in only one randomised study. We report here the rationale, design and a priori analysis plans of Comparison of Acute Treatments in Cancer Haemostasis (CATCH; NCT01130025), a multinational, Phase III, open-label, randomised controlled trial comparing tinzaparin with warfarin for extended treatment of CAT.

METHODS/DESIGN

The primary objective is to assess the efficacy of tinzaparin in preventing recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with active cancer and acute, symptomatic proximal deep vein thrombosis and/or pulmonary embolism. The secondary objectives are to determine: safety of tinzaparin given over 6 months; clinical and laboratory markers for recurrent VTE and/or major bleeding; 6-month overall mortality; incidence and severity of post-thrombotic syndrome; patient-reported quality of life; and healthcare resource utilisation. Nine hundred patients are randomised to receive tinzaparin 175 IU/kg once daily for 6 months or initial tinzaparin 175 IU/kg once daily for 5-10 days and dose-adjusted warfarin (target INR 2.0-3.0) for 6 months. The primary composite outcome is time to recurrent VTE, including incidental VTE and fatal pulmonary embolism. All patients are followed up to 6 months or death, whichever comes sooner. Blinded adjudication will be performed for all reported VTE, bleeding events and causes of death. Efficacy will be analysed using centrally adjudicated results of all patients according to intention-to-treat analysis. An independent Data Safety Monitoring Board is reviewing data at regular intervals and an interim analysis is planned after 450 patients have completed the study.

DISCUSSION

The results will add significantly to the knowledge of the efficacy, safety and cost effectiveness of tinzaparin in the prevention of recurrent VTE in patients with cancer and thrombosis. Prospective data will emerge on the clinical significance of incidental VTE and risk stratification in patients with CAT. Results on post-thrombotic syndrome, quality of life and healthcare resource utilisation will inform decision makers on how to secure better patient care. If tinzaparin is shown to be more effective than warfarin, CATCH will provide valuable confirmatory data to support the use of the LMWH tinzaparin for extended treatment of CAT.

The antineoplastic effect of low-molecular-weight heparins - a literature review

There is some evidence for the antitumor effect of heparins, especially the low-molecular-weight ones. The authors discuss the potential mechanism of this antineoplastic effect and present results from several in vitro and in vivo experiments. The clinical trials concerning the impact of low-molecular-weight heparins on the tumor and on the patients' survival are described. The objective was to find out if heparins could be administered as an antitumor drug, independently of their anticoagulatory properties. The antitumor role of tissue factor, heparinase, chemokines, stromal proteins, cellular interactions as well as angiogenesis and immunology seems certain. The results of the available studies seem promising but large clinical trials are necessary in order to confirm the antineoplastic effect of the low-molecular-weight heparins and to approve them for standard anticancer treatment. It could be a breakthrough in modern oncology.

No accumulation of the peak anti-factor Xa activity of tinzaparin in elderly patients with moderate-to-severe renal impairment: the IRIS substudy

BACKGROUND

In the elderly, concerns have been raised regarding the risk of accumulation of low molecular weight heparins, owing to their renal elimination. Although data exist for tinzaparin, they are observational.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether: (i) there was an accumulation of anti-factor Xa activity; and (ii) there was any relationship between anti-FXa activity and age, weight, creatinine clearance or clinical outcomes in patients with moderate-to-severe renal impairment receiving tinzaparin (175 IU kg(-1) per 24 h) for acute venous thromboembolism.

METHODS

In 38 centers participating in the Innohep in Renal Insufficiency Study (IRIS), peak plasma anti-FXa activity was measured on day 2/day 3 and on day 5 or at visit S (VS) (end of tinzaparin treatment). There was considered to be absence of accumulation if the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the (anti-FXa day 5/VS)/(anti-FXa day 2/3) ratio did not exceed the predefined limit of 1.25.

RESULTS

Eighty-seven patients, with a mean age of 83 ± 5 years (range: 75-99 years) and a mean creatinine clearance (CrCl) of 40.8 mL min(-1) , 24.1% of whom had severe renal impairment, were included. The mean duration of tinzaparin treatment was 8.4 days. No significant accumulation was detected: the mean accumulation ratio was 1.06 (90% CI 1.01-1.11). There was no correlation between the accumulation ratio and age, weight, or CrCl. The mean anti-FXa activity did not differ significantly between the eight patients who experienced clinically relevant bleeding and those who did not.

CONCLUSIONS

No accumulation of anti-FXa activity was observed in elderly patients with renal impairment receiving therapeutic doses of tinzaparin, suggesting that there is no need for systematic anti-FXa monitoring in these patients. The high proportion of high molecular weight moieties in tinzaparin may account for its reduced dependence on renal elimination.

Bleeding and thrombotic complications of kidney disease

With the rising prevalence of kidney disease, clinicians are increasingly faced with concerns about potential thrombotic and bleeding complications. Thrombotic risk, both arterial and venous, predominates with all severities of kidney disease but bleeding manifestations become an additional concern particularly with uraemia. This article reviews these contrasting problems and discusses strategies for prevention and management in the context of renal impairment, renal replacement therapy and renal transplantation.

Safety profile of tinzaparin versus subcutaneous unfractionated heparin in elderly patients with impaired renal function treated for acute deep vein thrombosis: the Innohep® in Renal Insufficiency Study (IRIS)

INTRODUCTION

Trials comparing the use of full dose unfractionated heparin (UFH) or low molecular weight heparins (LMWHs) in very elderly patients with impaired renal function are lacking. IRIS aimed to assess whether LMWH is at least as safe as UFH in this population.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study included renally impaired patients ≥70 years with acute symptomatic lower limb deep vein thrombosis (DVT). Patients were randomized to initial treatment with either tinzaparin 175 IU/kg once daily (n=269) or activated partial thromboplastin time-adjusted UFH twice daily (n=270). After acute management both groups received vitamin K antagonist to day 90.

RESULTS

The trial was stopped prematurely due to a difference in mortality favoring the UFH group (11.5 vs. 6.3%; p=0.035). Rates of clinically relevant bleedings by day 90 were similar in the tinzaparin (11.9%) and UFH (11.9%) groups, as were rates of confirmed recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) (2.6 vs. 1.1%; p=0.34). As the mortality difference could not be explained by bleedings or recurrent VTE, a post-hoc analysis was performed. This identified six baseline characteristics significantly correlated with mortality, of which five were over-represented in the tinzaparin group.

CONCLUSION

The IRIS study was a challenging study involving patients (mean age 83 years) usually excluded from clinical studies, but its early termination has left questions unanswered. The mortality difference observed with tinzaparin vs. UFH in elderly, renally-impaired patients with DVT cannot be explained on the basis of bleedings or recurrent VTE, and may reflect an imbalance of mortality risk factors at baseline.

Tinzaparin sodium: a review of its use in the prevention and treatment of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, and in the prevention of clotting in the extracorporeal circuit during haemodialysis

Tinzaparin sodium (Innohep) is a low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) that is effective in the prevention and treatment of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and/or pulmonary embolism (PE), and in maintaining the patency of haemodialysis circuits in adult patients. In terms of preventing DVT and/or PE, therapy with subcutaneous tinzaparin sodium was more effective than oral warfarin and equivalent to subcutaneous enoxaparin sodium in patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery, and did not significantly differ from that of subcutaneous unfractionated heparin (UFH) in patients undergoing general surgery. In the initial therapy of adult patients with DVT and/or PE, subcutaneous tinzaparin sodium was at least as effective as intravenous UFH and did not significantly differ from subcutaneous dalteparin sodium. Various other studies have demonstrated that the long-term efficacy of subcutaneous tinzaparin sodium in the treatment of patients with DVT and/or PE was sustained for a total period of up to 12 months. Tinzaparin sodium was also demonstrated to be effective in maintaining the patency of haemodialysis circuits in adult patients with end-stage renal failure. In clinical studies, tinzaparin sodium was generally well tolerated in the prevention and treatment of DVT and/or PE in adult patients, including in elderly patients, and in patients undergoing haemodialysis. As expected, bleeding complications were the most frequently occurring adverse event. Thus, available data indicate that tinzaparin sodium is a useful option in the prevention and treatment of DVT and/or PE, and in maintaining the patency of haemodialysis circuits in adult patients.

Enoxaparin versus unfractioned heparin as anticoagulant for continuous venovenous hemodialysis: a randomized open-label trial

AIM

In this study we aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of enoxaparin with unfractioned heparin (UFH) as anticoagulant for continuous venovenous hemodialysis (CVVHD).

METHODS

An open-label randomized controlled trial was carried out in an intensive care unit (ICU) where 40 patients with acute renal failure (ARF) who needed continuous renal replacement therapy were randomized to receive UFH (n=21) or enoxaparin (n=19). Coagulation parameters were evaluated, and antithrombotic activity of UFH was measured by activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) and for enoxaparin by anti-factor Xa activity. Primary outcomes were thrombosis of the extracorporeal circuit and bleeding, classified as major or minor.

RESULTS

Minor bleeding episodes were observed only in patients anticoagulated with enoxaparin (26 vs. 0%, p=0.018). Comparing patients with or without bleeding after 24 hours of therapy, the level of anticoagulation tended to be higher (anti-factor Xa: 1.62 vs. 1.13 IU/mL, p=0.09) and the platelet count to be lower [107+/-53 vs. 229+/-84 (x10(3)/microL), p=0.09] in patients who bled, but without statistical difference. Filter life span of enoxaparin and UFH groups was similar (43+/-15 vs. 52+/-18 hr, p=0.10), as well as the proportion of circuit clotting.

CONCLUSION

Weight-unadjusted enoxaparin in patients with ARF in CVVHD was associated with an increased rate of bleeding, a finding that addresses the need to adjust drug dose and to monitor anti-factor Xa activity during dialysis. No benefit to prolong dialysis circuit survival was found with enoxaparin. In patients who do not present contraindication for systemic anticoagulation, UFH remains an effective and low-cost option.

A clinician's guide to perioperative bridging for patients on oral anticoagulation

Updates in recent clinical guidelines have led to a change in the management of perioperative anticoagulation for patients on oral anticoagulant therapy. No standardized bridging consensus exists in the literature. The necessity for bridging therapy is determined based on careful consideration of the thrombosis risk versus the bleeding risk of the procedure. Risk stratification will aid the decision to bridge or not to bridge. Patients are bridged with agents with appropriate kinetics to allow for their elimination prior to the time of the procedure in order to decrease the risk of hemorrhage during invasive procedures. This intent of this article is to discuss perioperative bridging therapy and provide a practical guide for the clinician.

Dosing Low Molecular Weight Heparins in Kidney Disease

The low molecular weigh heparins (LMWHs) are primarily eliminated renally, and current literature indicates that there is a reduction in clearance and an increase in half-life of LMWHs in patients with severe chronic kidney disease (CKD) associated with elevated anti-Xa levels and an increased risk of bleeding. It therefore becomes clinically prudent to evaluate dosing adjustments in CKD. The American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP), in its 2008 consensus statement, recommends 5 possible approaches to dosing LMWH in patients with severe CKD. In evaluating the individual compounds, enoxaparin, dalteparin, and tinzaparin, this article attempts to address the preferred dosing strategies.

Comparison between standard heparin and tinzaparin for haemodialysis catheter lock

Tinzaparin offers some advantages over unfractionated heparin (UFH) for hemodialysis circuit anticoagulation. No study has compared these two molecules as hemodialysis catheter locks. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of tinzaparin and UFH as locks for hemodialysis tunnelled central venous catheter in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). A randomized, prospective, single-blinded, controlled study was undertaken. Patients were randomly assigned to receive UFH and tinzaparin for two 7-week periods in a crossover fashion. The doses used were 5,000 U of UFH and 2,000 U of tinzaparin per catheter line. The primary outcome was the need for thrombolytic catheter lock use defined with the Hemodialysis Unit alteplase protocol. Forty-two patients with ESRD were enrolled, totalling 815 UFH lock sessions and 729 tinzaparin lock sessions. A 47.4% reduction in the incidence of alteplase lock use was observed with tinzaparin lock (3.16% vs. 6.01%, chi-square, p = 0.0078). There was no significant difference in the time to first alteplase use between the two locks by Kaplan-Meier survival analysis (logrank, p = 0.0900). Our results suggest that tinzaparin could be an appropriate alternative for a hemodialysis tunnelled central venous catheter lock, but these results should be confirmed with a larger trial.

Anticoagulation therapy for prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolic events in cancer patients: a review of current guidelines

Cancer patients in general have a high risk of venous thromboembolic events (VTE) driven not only by patient-related risk factors, but also risk factors related to the disease and anti-cancer therapies. Cancer patients with documented VTE have a notably worse outcome than non-cancer VTE patients. Since VTE is a highly preventable condition, it is striking that large surveys have shown significant underuse of VTE prophylaxis in surgical cancer patients and in medical cancer patients in particular. Recently, guidelines have been issued from European and American medical oncology societies and organizations for identification of cancer patients at risk, and the guidelines give recommendations for treatment of individual groups of cancer patients. This review summarizes the recommendations for VTE prophylaxis and treatment from the recent guidelines and reviews some outstanding issues in VTE prophylaxis and treatment of cancer patients.

Anticoagulation: Low-Molecular-Weight Heparins in Renal Impairment and Obesity: Available Evidence and Clinical Practice Recommendations Across Medical and Surgical Settings

Objective

To develop practical recommendations for the use of low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) as prophylaxis and treatment of venous thromboembolism and acute coronary syndromes in patients with impaired renal function or obesity.

Data Sources

Multiple MEDLINE searches were performed (November 2008) to identify studies for inclusion, using a comprehensive list of search terms including, but not limited to, LMWH, enoxaparin, dalteparin, tinzaparin, obesity, weight, renal, kidney, elderly, monitoring, and anti-Xa.

Study Selection And Data Extraction

Only articles published in English that were relevant for this review were included.

Data Synthesis

In the majority of patients, standardized prophylaxis or treatment doses of LMWHs can be used without the need for monitoring and adjusting regimens. For patients with severe renal impairment (estimated creatinine clearance [CrCl] <30 mL/min), doses of some LMWHs should be adjusted or unfractionated heparin should be used instead. CrCl should be estimated using the Cockcroft-Gault method. Differences are noted in the degree of accumulation of various LMWHs in patients with moderate-to-severe renal impairment, and thus, the degree of dose adjustment may differ among the various LMWHs. Increasing the prophylactic doses of LMWH may be appropriate in morbidly obese patients (body mass index ≥40 kg/m2). The use of total body weight is appropriate for therapeutic doses of LMWH in obese patients. Laboratory monitoring of the anticoagulation effect of LMWHs is generally not necessary, but should be considered in patients with morbid obesity (weight >190 kg), those with severe renal impairment, and those with moderate renal impairment with prolonged (>10 days) LMWH use. When anti-Xa activity is monitored, it should be determined using a chromogenic method and a calibration curve based on the LMWH used.

Conclusions

Additional data are needed for specific dose guiding in obese and renally impaired patients, who are often excluded from larger clinical trials. Practice recommendations are made based on available evidence and authors' clinical opinions.

Low-molecular-weight heparin in patients with chronic renal insufficiency

Low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) has largely replaced unfractionated heparin for the treatment of venous thromboembolism. The predictable anticoagulant effect of LMWH is seen across almost all patient populations, with few exceptions. However, because LMWH is primarily eliminated through the kidneys, patients with renal insufficiency are at risk of LMWH accumulation and bleeding complications. The risk of LMWH accumulation and bleeding is dependent on several factors including the degree of renal insufficiency, dose and type of LMWH. These risks are greatest when therapeutic doses of LMWH are used in patients with creatinine clearance less than 30 ml/min. Prophylactic dose LMWH does not appear to be associated with an increased bleeding risk, but has not been evaluated in large trials. LMWHs with a higher molecular weight may be less prone to accumulation and bleeding. LMWH must be used carefully in patients with renal insufficiency, particularly in those with severe renal impairment.

[Summary and perspectives. Rivaroxaban]

New oral anticoagulants, soon available in clinical practice, will deeply change the management of venous thromboembolism. The main advantage of these drugs is the route of administration. Moreover, among the new oral anticoagulants, rivaroxaban has a better efficacy than enoxaparin to prevent thromboembolic events after major orthopaedic surgery (THR and TKR). In phase III studies, safety profile seems adequate. A new era for prophylaxis of VTE is beginning with the new oral anticoagulants. However, improvement in the management of patients with renal failure, obese patients or elderly is needed considering that these patients have a high thrombotic and/or hemorrhagic risk.

Bleeding risk and the management of bleeding complications in patients undergoing anticoagulant therapy: focus on new anticoagulant agents

For more than 60 years, heparin and coumarin have been mainstays of anticoagulation therapy. They are widely available, inexpensive, effective, and have specific antidotes but are regarded as problematic because of their need for careful monitoring. In addition, coumarin has a delayed onset of action, interacts with many medications, has a narrow therapeutic window, and is paradoxically prothrombotic in certain settings (ie, can precipitate “coumarin necrosis”). Heparin may require monitoring of its therapeutic effect and can also cause thrombosis (heparin-induced thrombocytopenia/thrombosis syndrome). These limitations have led to the development of new anticoagulants with the potential to replace current agents. These newer agents fall into 2 classes, based on whether they are antithrombin dependent (low-molecular-weight heparin, fondaparinux) or antithrombin independent (direct inhibitors of factor Xa and thrombin [factor IIa]). This paper addresses newer anticoagulants, reviewing their efficacy and limitations, and focuses on the risk of major bleeding that may complicate their use. In contrast to heparin and coumarin, none of these newer agents has a specific antidote that completely reverses its anticoagulant effect. Available data on the efficacy and safety of current and experimental agents for anticoagulant reversal are reviewed, and a plan for management of anticoagulant-induced bleeding is presented.

Is Modification of Diet in Renal Disease formula similar to Cockcroft-Gault formula to assess renal function in elderly hospitalized patients treated with low-molecular-weight heparin?

BACKGROUND

Repeated administration of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) to elderly patients with an impaired renal function may lead to an accumulation effect with an increased risk of bleeding. In this setting, Cockcroft-Gault (CG) is the most widely used formula for glomerular filtration rate (GFR) estimation. In hospitalized patients over the age of 70, the six-variable Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) formula was compared with the CG formula to detect patients with renal impairment who are at higher risk of bleeding when treated with LMWH.

METHODS

We combined retrospective data from 366 patients aged 86.2 +/- 6.6 years, treated with LMWHs. CG and MDRD GFR estimates were compared using the Bland-Altman method and the agreement between the two formulae by the kappa coefficient.

RESULTS

The mean CG and MDRD estimated GFR were 45.9 +/- 21.9 mL/min and 75.6 +/- 32.6 mL/min/1.73 m(2), respectively, with a mean bias of 29.6 mL/min. The concordance between the formulae to classify patients into stages of kidney disease was very poor (weighted kappa = 0.17): 21.8% patients had severe renal function impairment with the CG formula versus 1.3% with the MDRD formula. In our population, the MDRD thresholds that would correspond to CG estimates of 30 mL/min and 60 mL/min were found at 63 mL/min/1.73 m(2) and 80 mL/min/1.73 m(2), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In elderly patients, GFR estimates using MDRD and CG formulae differ widely and identify different numbers of individuals with kidney disease. Prospective comparative studies are needed to validate these formulae and their different thresholds to better detect elderly patients at higher risk of bleeding when treated with LMWH.

Management of venous thromboembolism in the elderly

In this review the authors discuss the use of oral and parenteral anticoagulants for the prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in the elderly. The use of anticoagulant agents in VTE prophylaxis and treatment in the elderly is complicated by an increase with age in the presence of multiple risk factors and co-morbidities that may increase the risk of both VTE and bleeding. Age itself is identified as an independent risk factor for thromboembolism. VTE is underdiagnosed in the elderly population, and routine prophylaxis frequently falls short of the levels required according to level of risk. Although appropriate anticoagulation of at-risk patients offers a means of reducing the significant VTE burden in this population, concerns have been raised over the use of anticoagulants in a patient group in whom multiple risk factors are common. Bleeding in the elderly can be exacerbated by reduced renal clearance and hypersensitivity to oral anticoagulants that may lead to over-anticoagulation. Although bleeding due to anticoagulant therapy is a serious issue in the elderly, it is often overemphasized, given the therapeutic value otherwise observed in treating this patient group. Warfarin is still used in VTE prophylaxis after orthopaedic surgery and for long-term VTE treatment. Unfractionated and low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) have been shown to be safe and effective in the prophylaxis of VTE, and are now being shown to be as effective as warfarin in the initial and long-term treatment of VTE. LMWHs confer the advantage over unfractionated heparin of subcutaneous once-daily administration with no requirement for laboratory monitoring of their anticoagulant effect, which allows for the convenience of outpatient therapy. New anticoagulants that may be of potential benefit in this patient population include fondaparinux sodium, but clinical experience of this drug in the elderly remains limited.