Therapy of venous thromboembolism with low-molecular-weight heparins

Low-molecular-weight heparins, nowadays already widely used for the prevention of thromboembolism, have now also become available for the treatment of deep-vein thrombosis. This article should serve to explain the rationale for this development and to demonstrate the clinically relevant advantages of the use of low-molecular-weight heparins. After briefly describing the characteristic properties of heparins the most relevant studies comparing the use of low-molecular-weight heparin versus unfractionated heparin for the treatment of thromboembolism are discussed. In conclusion, clinical trials suggest that low-molecular-weight heparins given subcutaneously can replace the hitherto standard intravenous application of unfractionated heparin in the initial treatment of deep-vein thrombosis, granting equal or even better efficacy and potentially lower rates of adverse side effects. Furthermore, the simplicity of this therapeutic regime allows for treatment of patients at home, thus offering patients mobility and also reducing the cost of treatment.     

The role of low-molecular-weight heparins in the prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolism in cancer patients

Accumulating evidence suggests that low-molecular-weight heparins are the drug of choice for the prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer. For prophylaxis in the surgical setting, once-daily subcutaneous injections of low-molecular-weight heparin are as effective and safe as multiple doses of unfractionated heparin. Extending prophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparins beyond hospitalization was recently found to reduce safely the risk of postoperative thrombosis after abdominal surgery for cancer. For the long-term treatment of deep vein thrombosis and in select patients with pulmonary embolism, recently completed clinical trials have shown that secondary prophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin is feasible and more effective than oral anticoagulant therapy in preventing recurrent venous thromboembolism in cancer patients. There is also evidence that low-molecular-weight heparins are effective in cancer patients who develop recurrent thrombosis while on warfarin therapy. Lastly, the potential antineoplastic effects of low-molecular-weight heparins make these agents an attractive option in patients with cancer. Although the management of cancer patients with venous thromboembolism remains challenging, low-molecular-weight heparins have simplified and improved the prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolism in these high-risk patients.     

Low-molecular-weight heparin vs heparin in the treatment of patients with pulmonary embolism. American-Canadian Thrombosis Study Group

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary embolism (PE) occurs in 50% or more of patients with proximal deep-vein thrombosis. Low-molecular-weight heparin treatment is effective and safe in patients with deep vein thrombosis and may also be so in patients with PE. Recent rigorous clinical trials have established objective criteria for determining a high probability of PE by perfusion lung scanning. OBJECTIVE: To compare low-molecular-weight heparin with intravenous heparin for the treatment of patients with objectively documented PE and underlying proximal deep vein thrombosis. METHODS: In a multicenter, double-blind, randomized trial, we compared fixed-dose subcutaneous low-molecular-weight heparin (tinzaparin sodium) given once daily with dose-adjusted intravenous heparin given by continuous infusion using objective documentation of clinical outcomes. Pulmonary embolism at study entry was documented by the presence of high-probability lung scan findings. RESULTS: Of 200 patients with high-probability lung scan findings at study entry, none of the 97 who received low-molecular-weight heparin had new episodes of venous thromboembolism compared with 7 (6.8%) of 103 patients who received intravenous heparin (95% confidence interval for the difference, 1.9%-11.7%; P = .01). Major bleeding associated with initial therapy occurred in 1 patient (1.0%) who was given low-molecular-weight heparin and in 2 patients (1.9%) given intravenous heparin (95% confidence interval for the difference, -2.4% to 4.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Low-molecular-weight heparin administered once daily subcutaneously was no less effective and probably more effective than use of dose-adjusted intravenous unfractionated heparin for preventing recurrent venous thromboembolism in patients with PE and associated proximal deep vein thrombosis. Our findings extend the use of low-molecular-weight heparin without anticoagulant monitoring to patients with submassive PE.     

New therapeutic opportunities for heparins: What does low molecular weight heparin offer?

New advances in antithrombotic therapy include direct thrombin inhibitors and low molecular weight heparins and heparinoids. Low molecular weight heparins and heparinoids have improved pharmacologic and pharmacokinetic properties when compared with unfractionated heparin. Low-molecular weight heparins are effective in the prevention of venous thromboembolism in general surgical patients, orthopedic patients, spinal cord injury patients, and general medical patients. At equipotent antithrombotic doses, low molecular weight heparins produce less bleeding. Low molecular weight heparins given in fixed doses subcutaneously have been shown to be as effective or more effective and safer than unfractionated heparin given intravenously with regular monitoring in the treatment of venous thromboembolic disease. Recent studies have demonstrated that low molecular weight heparins are effective in reducing the risk of death and myocardial infarction in patients with unstable angina and are as effective as intravenous heparin when given subcutaneously without monitoring. Preliminary data indicate that low molecular weight heparins may be effective in improving outcomes in patients with ischemic stroke.     

Orally active heparin and low-molecular-weight heparin

The heparins, (unfractionated heparin (UFH) and low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWH)) given by subcutaneous or intravenous injection have been used extensively in the prevention and treatment of both venous and arterial thromboembolic disorders. The increasing use of the heparins, LMWHs in particular, in the out of hospital setting has stimulated interest in the development of orally absorbable antithrombotic agents that require little or no monitoring, and this includes the heparins. UFH or LMWH delivered orally has been shown to have an antithrombotic effect in animal thrombosis models although there is little change in plasma coagulation tests. The addition of a simple organic chemical N -(8-(2-hydroxybenzoyl)amino)caprylate (SNAC) to UFH markedly enhances its absorption. A phase II study in patients undergoing total hip replacement indicated that SNAC heparin in two different doses was as effective and safe as UFH given subcutaneously. A phase III clinical trial comparing two doses of SNAC heparin given orally with LMWH by subcutaneous injection for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in patients undergoing total hip replacement is currently underway.     

Subcutaneous unfractionated heparin compared with low-molecular-weight heparin for the initial treatment of venous thromboembolism

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Low-molecular-weight heparin is the preferred choice for the initial treatment of acute, uncomplicated venous thromboembolism. In this context, unfractionated heparin is as safe and effective as low-molecular-weight heparin but requires strict laboratory monitoring. Twice-daily subcutaneous unfractionated heparin is more effective than, and as safe as, intravenous unfractionated heparin and may simplify patient treatment in or out of the hospital, being possibly cost saving, especially if it is used in weight-based, fixed, unadjusted doses. The present review focuses on the relative values of low-molecular-weight heparin and subcutaneous unfractionated heparin for the initial treatment of venous thromboembolism. RECENT FINDINGS: The major advantages of low-molecular-weight heparin over unfractionated heparin seem to be ease of administration and cost savings associated with home therapy or early hospital discharge; however, many patients with venous thromboembolism are still admitted to the hospital for treatment, and unfractionated heparin is extensively used to this purpose, especially in the United States. Subcutaneous unfractionated heparin, adjusted according to activated partial thromboplastin time algorithms, is as safe and effective as low-molecular-weight heparin for the treatment of venous thromboembolism, allows for quick mobilization and early discharge of suitable patients, and represents a cost-effective strategy. Fixed-dose unfractionated heparin, like low-molecular-weight heparin, may be used for the home treatment of deep vein thrombosis. SUMMARY: Subcutaneous unfractionated heparin, targeted on activated partial thromboplastin time results or in fixed doses, may be used in or out of the hospital for the treatment of venous thromboembolism, being possibly cost effective; however, these findings need confirmation through appropriate, large-sample, randomized clinical trials.     

Low-molecular-weight heparins compared with unfractionated heparin for treatment of acute deep venous thrombosis. A meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Low-molecular-weight heparins may simplify the management of deep venous thrombosis. A critical clinical issue is whether this more convenient therapy is as safe and effective as treatment with unfractionated heparin. PURPOSE: To compare the safety and efficacy of low-molecular-weight heparins with those of unfractionated heparin for treatment of acute deep venous thrombosis. DATA SOURCES: Reviewers identified studies by searching MEDLINE, reviewing references from retrieved articles, scanning abstracts from conference proceedings, and contacting investigators and pharmaceutical companies. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized, controlled trials that compared a low-molecular-weight heparin preparation with unfractionated heparin for treatment of acute deep venous thrombosis. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers extracted data independently. Reviewers evaluated study quality using a validated four-item instrument. DATA SYNTHESIS: Eleven of 37 studies met inclusion criteria for three major outcomes. Most studies used proper randomization procedures, but only one was double-blinded. Compared with unfractionated heparin, low-molecular-weight heparins reduced mortality rates over 3 to 6 months of patient follow-up (odds ratio, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.53 to 0.94]; P = 0.02). For major bleeding complications, the odds ratio favored low-molecular-weight heparins (0.57 [CI, 0.33 to 0.99]; P = 0.047), but the absolute risk reduction was small and not statistically significant (0.61% [CI, -0.04% to 1.26%]; P = 0.07). For preventing thromboembolic recurrences, low-molecular-weight heparins seemed as effective as unfractionated heparin (odds ratio, 0.85 [CI, 0.63 to 1.14]; P > 0.2). CONCLUSIONS: Low-molecular-weight heparin treatment reduces mortality rates after acute deep venous thrombosis. These drugs seem to be as safe as unfractionated heparin with respect to major bleeding complications and appear to be as effective in preventing thromboembolic recurrences.     

Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin in the Initial Treatment of Proximal Deep Vein Thrombosis

Intravenous unfractionated heparin followed by oral warfarin is the current standard of care for the treatment of acute venous thrombosis. More recently, several low-molecular-weight heparin preparations have been shown to be as effective and safe as unfractionated heparin for the initial therapy of acute proximal vein thrombosis. These drugs have a number of advantages over unfractionated heparin, and will undoubtedly replace the current standard for the initial treatment of venous thromboembolism.     

Low molecular weight heparin in the prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolism

Several low molecular weight (LMW) heparin preparations have been evaluated by clinical trials measuring the outcomes of thromboembolism, bleeding, and mortality. This article summarizes the current status of LMW heparin in the prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolism. LMW heparin is simpler to use because it does not require laboratory monitoring of the anticoagulant effect and dose adjustment. The specific LMW heparins include enoxaparin, ardeparin, tinzaparin, dalteparin, and nadroparin. The heparinoid ORG 10172 (danaparoid) is also effective. The results of clinical trials to date suggest that LMW heparin will be a major advance in the treatment of patients with venous thromboembolism. The simplified therapy provided by LMW heparin may allow many patients with uncomplicated proximal-vein thrombosis to be cared for in an outpatient setting.     

Low-molecular-weight heparins compared with unfractionated heparin for treatment of acute deep venous thrombosis. A cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Low-molecular-weight heparins are effective for treating venous thrombosis, but their cost-effectiveness has not been rigorously assessed. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of low-molecular-weight heparins compared with unfractionated heparin for treatment of acute deep venous thrombosis. DESIGN: Decision model. DATA SOURCES: Probabilities for clinical outcomes were obtained from a meta-analysis of randomized trials. Cost estimates were derived from Medicare reimbursement and other sources. TARGET POPULATION: Two hypothetical cohorts of 60-year-old men with acute deep venous thrombosis. TIME HORIZON: Patient lifetime. PERSPECTIVE: Societal. INTERVENTION: Fixed-dose low-molecular-weight heparin or adjusted-dose unfractionated heparin. OUTCOME MEASURES: Costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. An in-patient hospital setting was used for the base-case analysis. Secondary analyses examined outpatient treatment with low-molecular-weight heparin. RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: Total costs for inpatient treatment were $26,516 for low-molecular-weight heparin and $26,361 for unfractionated heparin. The cost of initial care was higher in patients who received low-molecular-weight heparin, but this was partly offset by reduced costs for early complications. Low-molecular-weight heparin treatment increased quality-adjusted life expectancy by approximately 0.02 years. The incremental cost-effectiveness of inpatient low-molecular-weight heparin treatment was $7820 per QALY gained. Treatment with low-molecular-weight heparin was cost saving when as few as 8% of patients were treated at home. RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: When late complications were assumed to occur 25% less frequently in patients who received unfractionated heparin, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio increased to almost $75,000 per QALY gained. When late complications were assumed to occur 25% less frequently in patients who received low-molecular-weight heparin, this treatment resulted in a net cost savings. Inpatient low-molecular-weight heparin treatment became cost saving when its pharmacy cost was reduced by 31% or more, when it reduced the yearly incidence of late complications by at least 7%, when as few as 8% of patients were treated entirely as outpatients, or when at least 13% of patients were eligible for early discharge. CONCLUSIONS: Low-molecular-weight heparins are highly cost-effective for inpatient management of venous thrombosis. This treatment reduces costs when small numbers of patients are eligible for outpatient management.     

The emerging role of low-molecular-weight heparin in cardiovascular medicine

Although unfractionated heparin is widely used in the treatment of acute coronary syndromes, it has several pharmacokinetic, biophysical, and biological limitations. The practical advantages and success of low-molecular-weight heparin administered subcutaneously without laboratory monitoring for the treatment of venous thromboembolism have prompted a number of randomized studies investigating the efficacy and safety of these agents in patients with acute coronary syndromes. This article will review the limitations of unfractionated heparin and the mechanisms by which low-molecular-weight heparin overcomes these limitations, as well as the results of recent trials involving low-molecular-weight heparin in the management of patients with acute coronary syndromes.     

Low-molecular-weight heparin in the treatment of venous thromboembolism

The low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) have been evaluated in the prevention and treatment of deep-vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. LMWHs have been found to be safe and effective in this clinical setting and have advantages over unfractionated heparin. These advantages include less serious and less frequent therapeutic complications. The favorable pharmacokinetic profile of LMWHs compared with heparin has allowed for safe, effective, and convenient treatment of patients with venous thromboembolism. Use of LMWHs ultimately results in considerable cost savings for the health care system.     

Low molecular weight heparin versus unfractionated heparin in the initial treatment of venous thromboembolism

In this review, we analyze data from randomized trials in which low molecular weight heparin was compared with unfractionated heparin, both to estimate the treatment effect of low molecular weight heparin in the initial treatment of venous thromboembolism and to evaluate the effect of the varied proportion of included cancer patients (6% to 22.7%) on the incidence of outcome events (recurrence of venous thromboembolism, bleeding, and mortality) and on the estimated treatment effect. Low molecular weight heparin has been extensively investigated in patients with deep vein thrombosis, but few trials have included patients with pulmonary embolism. The risk of recurrence of venous thromboembolism (odds ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.56-1.04), major bleeding (odds ratio, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.38-0.95), and mortality (odds ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.55-0.96) was less with low molecular weight heparins compared with unfractionated heparin. The proportion of cancer patients in these studies had a statistically significant effect on the incidence of recurrent venous thromboembolism (P = 0.03) and mortality (P = 0.002), but no influence on the estimated treatment effects of low molecular weight heparins. Low molecular weight heparin is effective and safe in the initial treatment of venous thromboembolism.     

Heparin and low-molecular-weight heparin therapy for venous thromboembolism. The twilight of anticoagulant monitoring.

Recent improvements in the methods of clinical trials and the use of accurate objective tests to detect venous thromboembolism have made possible a series of randomized trials to evaluate various treatments for venous thromboembolism. The results of these trials have resolved many of the uncertainties a clinician confronts in selecting an appropriate course of anticoagulant therapy. These trials have shown that the intensity of both initial heparin treatment and long-term anticoagulant therapy must be sufficient to prevent unacceptable rates of recurrence of venous thromboembolism. Patients with proximal deep vein thrombosis who receive inadequate anticoagulant therapy have a risk of clinically evident, objectively documented recurrent venous thromboembolism that approaches 20% to 25%. The need for therapy with heparin and the importance of monitoring blood levels of the effect of heparin have been established. The importance of achieving adequate heparinization was suggested by a nonrandomized trial in 1972 and randomized trials in the 1980s have confirmed this finding. Furthermore, randomized trials have demonstrated the importance of achieving adequate heparinization early in the course of therapy. Unfractionated intravenous heparin has provided an effective therapy for more than half a century, but the need to monitor therapy and establish therapeutic levels is a fundamental problem. It is evident that validated heparin protocols are more successful in establishing adequate heparinization than intuitive ordering by the clinician. However, even with the best of care using a heparin protocol, some patients treated with intravenous heparin will receive subtherapy. In this context, subtherapy reflects a practical limitation of the use of unfractionated heparin, rather than a poor standard of care. Furthermore, it is recognized that the practical difficulties associated with heparin administration are compounded by the substantive practical difficulties of standardizing APTT testing and the therapeutic range. Our findings emphasize the confounding effect that initial heparin treatment has on long-term outcome. In future trials of longterm therapy, it is imperative that the initial therapy is of adequate intensity and duration; failure to administer adequate initial treatment may lead to a poor outcome that is falsely attributed to the long-term therapy under evaluation. Therapy with low-molecular-weight heparin, which does not require monitoring and dose finding, is the likely practical solution to these dilemmas. Based on the experience of difficulties achieving adequate therapy with subcutaneous unfractionated heparin dosing, we administered a low-molecular-weight heparin formulation in a single daily dose, rather than splitting the treatment into 2 equal doses. The initial intensity of therapy was thereby maximized. Therapy with low-molecular-weight heparin proved to be better than therapy with unfractionated heparin.     

Subcutaneous unfractionated heparin for the treatment of venous thromboembolism

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: When unfractionated heparin is used to treat acute venous thromboembolism, it is usually given by intravenous infusion with dose adjustment in response to activated partial thromboplastin time measurements. These two requirements are a barrier to treatment of venous thromboembolism with unfractionated heparin, and it is uncertain if they are necessary. RECENT FINDINGS: Two recent studies compared subcutaneous unfractionated heparin and subcutaneous low-molecular-weight heparin, each given twice-daily, for the acute treatment of venous thromboembolism. The Galilei study used an initial dose of unfractionated heparin that was partially weight-adjusted, with subsequent dosing based on activated partial thromboplastin time results. The FIDO study treated patients with a first dose of unfractionated heparin of 333 IU/kg, followed by 250 IU/kg twice-daily without dose adjustment in response to the activated partial thromboplastin time or other coagulation tests. There was no difference in either study between the unfractionated heparin and low-molecular-weight heparin groups at the end of 3 months, for recurrent venous thromboembolism (Galilei: 4.2 vs. 3.9%; relative risk (RR) 1.1, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.5 to 2.2. FIDO: 3.8 vs. 3.4%; RR 1.1, 95% CI 0.5 to 2.3) or major bleeding (Galilei: 1.4 vs. 1.9%; RR 0.7, 95% CI 0.2 to 2.2. FIDO: 1.7 vs. 3.4%; RR 0.5, 95% CI 0.2 to 1.3). SUMMARY: Recent studies suggest that twice-daily subcutaneous unfractionated heparin is as effective and safe as low-molecular-weight heparin for the acute treatment of venous thromboembolism, and that adjustment of unfractionated heparin dose in response to activated partial thromboplastin time measurements is not necessary with a weight-adjusted dose of unfractionated heparin.     

Managing cancer-related venous thromboembolic disease: low-molecular-weight heparins and beyond

Venous thromboembolism is a major contributor to the morbidity and mortality of patients with cancer. For patients undergoing cancer surgery, several trials support the safety and efficacy of unfractionated heparin and of low-molecular-weight heparin for the prevention of venous thromboembolism, while data regarding the efficacy and safety of these agents in the setting of medical hospitalization is less definitive and must be extracted from trials including noncancer patients with different thrombotic risk factors. Randomized clinical studies confirm that patients with cancer who develop venous thromboembolism have superior outcomes when treated with long-term low-molecular-weight heparin as compared with warfarin. Novel anticoagulants that are orally bioavailable and function by directly inhibiting factor Xa or thrombin are entering the market. To date, data regarding the efficacy and safety of these novel anticoagulants as venous thromboembolism prophylaxis and treatment in cancer patients are not available and must be extracted from larger trials with heterogeneous patient populations.     

Treatment of venous thrombosis in the cancer patient

Venous thromboembolism is a common complication in patients with cancer. The management of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism can be a considerable challenge in patients with cancer. The cancer itself and associated treatments contribute to an ongoing thrombogenic stimulus, while cancer patients are thought to be at increased risk for anticoagulant-induced bleeding. Initial treatment of acute thromboembolism is with intravenous unfractionated heparin or subcutaneous low molecular weight heparin. Treatment at home with low molecular weight heparin is an attractive option in patients with malignant disease. Long-term treatment of acute venous thromboembolism has traditionally been with oral anticoagulants. However, the inconvenience and narrow therapeutic window of oral anticoagulants make such therapy unattractive and problematic in cancer patients. Low molecular weight heparins are being evaluated as an alternative for long-term therapy because their anticoagulant effects are more predictable and laboratory monitoring is unnecessary. Although many clinical issues remain unresolved in the treatment of cancer patients with venous thromboembolism, the future holds much promise as new antithrombotic agents, including factor Xa antagonists and oral thrombin inhibitors, are being tested in clinical trials.     

Therapeutic indications for acute venous thromboembolism. Current status and future perspectives

Except for selected patients requiring aggressive therapies, the large majority of patients with acute venous thromboembolism are currently treated with full doses of unfractionated or low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWH) followed by oral anticoagulants for variable periods of time. LMWHs present a number of potential advantages over unfractionated heparin: a longer plasma half-life, improved subcutaneous bioavailability, and a more predictable dose-response relationship. As a result of these pharmacokinetic properties, these compounds have the potential to greatly simplify the initial treatment of venous thromboembolism, making the treatment of suitable patients feasible in an outpatient setting with considerable saving in costs and improvement in patients' quality of life. The use of unfractionated heparin is still desirable in the initial treatment of acute pulmonary embolism in non-critically ill patients. The use of heparin protocols assures that virtually all patients will promptly achieve the therapeutic range for the activated partial thromboplastin time. Although the optimal duration of anticoagulation in patients suffering an episode of venous thromboembolism is presently unknown, it seems reasonable to administer a short-term course of coumarin drugs to patients with thrombosis associated with transient risk factors, while a longer course should be considered in patients with idiopathic thrombosis and in those with permanent risk factors. At present, indefinite anticoagulant therapy remains a clinical judgment in the individual patient. The efficacy and safety of emerging drugs (pentasaccharide, ximelagatran) in the treatment and secondary prevention of venous thromboembolic disorders is currently under investigation.     

The prophylaxis against venous thromboembolic complications in internal medicine--the gap between theory and practice

Venous thromboembolism is an important cause of morbidity and mortality in internal medicine but antithrombotic prophylaxis is not being sufficiently used in comparison with surgical settings. In medical patients there are usually multiple risk factors, often with cumulative effect and the comprehensive risk assessment is complicated. The most important agents for pharmacological thromboprophylaxis are heparins - unfractionated and low-molecular-weight. The metaanalysis of randomised trials comparing unfractionated or low-molecular-weight heparin against control (placebo or aspirin) in medical patients has confirmed a significant risk reduction for deep vein thrombosis (56 %) as well as pulmonary embolism (58 %). Low-molecular-weight heparin is as effective as unfractionated heparin in reducing mortality as well as venous thromboembolism but has the advantage of significantly fewer bleeding complications. A novel synthetic pentasaccharide antithrombotic agent fondaparinux has been successfully proved in thromboprophylaxis in medical patients too. In most trials the duration of pharmacological prophylaxis was up to 2 weeks, the possible benefit of extended prophylaxis has not been clarified yet. Specific groups are intensive care patients; the elderly for their high thromboembolic as well as bleeding risk and significant comorbidity; the patients with acute ischaemic stroke who have very high thromboembolic risk but there are concerns about the risk of haemorrhagic transformation of stroke. The economic studies have shown that low-molecular-weight heparin in prophylactic doses in acutely ill medical patients is cost-effective strategy.