Treatment of venous thromboembolism with tinzaparin in oncological patients

Menstrual and Reproductive Factors for Gastric Cancer in Postmenopausal Women: The 2007-2020 Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey

Globally, the incidence of gastric cancer is lower in women than in men. It is thought that menstrual and reproductive factors may be related to their lower incidence of gastric cancer. This cross-sectional study examined menstrual, reproductive, and other factors in 20,784 postmenopausal women from the 2007-2020 Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (KNHANES). A univariate logistic regression analysis was performed, and then a multivariate logistic regression analysis for significant factors in the univariate analysis was conducted. In the multivariate logistic regression analysis, the age at menarche (odds ratio [OR] 1.08, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.00-1.06, p = 0.035) and myocardial infarction (OR 2.43, 95% CI 1.05-5.62, p = 0.026) showed a significant association with increased incidence of gastric cancer. The age at menopause (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.95-1.00, p = 0.03), the age at the first childbirth (OR 0.93, CI 0.89-0.97, p = 0.007), and the experience of alcohol consumption (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.5-0.91, p = 0.003) showed a significant association with a decreased incidence of gastric cancer. Late menarche, early menopause, early aged first childbirth, and myocardial infarction are estimated to be risk factors for gastric cancer in postmenopausal Korean women.

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.

Cancer-Associated Thrombosis: Not All Low-Molecular-Weight Heparins Are the Same, Focus on Tinzaparin, A Narrative Review

Cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) is the second main cause of cancer death with high related mortality and morbidity, leading to anticancer agent delays and interruptions. The recommended therapy, low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), however, is burdensome for patients and costly for society, as treatment should last until cancer is no longer active, even indefinitely. Tinzaparin is a manageable, efficient, safe, and cost-effective option. Compared to the other LMWHs, advantages are single-daily dose and safety in the elderly and those with renal impairment (RI). The purpose of this review is to critically discuss recent data on its efficacy and safety in CAT.

Safety and Efficacy of Low Molecular Weight Heparin for Thromboprophylaxis in the Elderly: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

Background: Given their changing pathophysiology, elderly patients carry a high risk of embolism and bleeding events; hence, use of appropriate anticoagulants is very important. Low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) is one of the most widely used anticoagulants although LMWHs differ in their anti-Xa, antithrombin, and anticoagulant activities. To date, no study has directly compared the safety and efficacy of different LMWHs in the elderly. We aimed to compare such differences by conducting a network meta-analysis.

Methods: We searched the Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of LMWHs that included patients ≥60 years old up to July 22, 2020. Safety outcomes included venous thromboembolism (VTE) or VTE-related death, deep thrombus embolism, and pulmonary embolism. Safety outcomes were clinically relevant bleeding, major bleeding, minor bleeding, and all-cause death. We calculated relative ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for all outcomes. The cumulative ranking probabilities (SUCRA) were conducted to rank the comparative effects and safety of all LMWHs.

Results: We included 27 RCTs (30,441 elderly), comprising five LMWHs. LMWH was more effective than placebo in preventing VTE or VTE-related death (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.25–0.53) but less effective than a novel oral anticoagulant (RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.33–1.91) and safer than acenocoumarol regarding risk of clinically relevant bleeding (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.49–0.90). However, indirect comparison of efficacy and safety of the five LMWHs showed no significant difference in our network analysis, and the subgroup analyses (such as in patients with deep venous thrombosis, cardiac disease, or age >65 years old) supported the results. The SUCRA showed that tinzaparin performed best in preventing VTE or VTE-related death (SUCRA 68.8%, cumulative probability 42.3%) and all-cause death (SUCRA 84.2%, cumulative probability 40.7%), whereas nadroparin was predominant in decreasing the risk of clinically relevant bleeding (SUCRA 84.8%, cumulative probability 77.0%).

Conclusions: On present evidence, there are no significant differences in the efficacy and safety of different LMWHs for the elderly. According to the rank probability analysis, nadroparin seems to be safer for the elderly with a high risk of bleeding, whereas tinzaparin is more effective for those with low bleeding risk.

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.