Detecting selection bias in randomized clinical trials.

Lack of concealment of allocation in randomized clinical trials can invite selection bias, which is the preferential enrollment of specific patients into one treatment group over another. For example, patients more likely to respond may be enrolled only when the next treatment to be assigned is known to be the active treatment, and patients less likely to respond may be enrolled only when the next treatment to be assigned is known to be the control. Despite the fact that selection bias can compromise both the internal and external validity of trials, little methodology has been developed for its detection. An investigator may test the success of the randomization by comparing baseline characteristics across treatment groups, but such test is limited by the potential inability of the measured baseline variables to predict response. A new method for detecting selections bias, based on response data only, is developed for the case in which a small block size, and either unmasking of treatment codes or an open-label design, have compromised the concealment of allocation. This new method complements baseline comparisons, and is sensitive to detect selection bias even in situations in which baseline comparisons are not.     

Effect of low doses of corticosteroids in septic shock patients with or without early acute respiratory distress syndrome

OBJECTIVE: We investigated the efficacy of low doses of corticosteroids in septic shock patients with or without early acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) by post hoc analysis of a previously completed clinical trial. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of a placebo-controlled, randomized, double-blind trial of low doses of corticosteroids in septic shock. SETTING: Nineteen intensive care units in France. PATIENTS: Among the 300 septic shock patients enrolled, we selected those meeting standard criteria for ARDS at inclusion. INTERVENTIONS: Seven-day treatment with 50 mg of hydrocortisone every 6 hrs and 50 microg of 9-alpha-fludrocortisone once a day. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: There were 177 patients with ARDS (placebo, n = 92; corticosteroids, n = 85) including 129 (placebo, n = 67; corticosteroids, n = 62) nonresponders and 48 (placebo, n = 25; corticosteroids, n = 23) responders. In nonresponders, there were 50 deaths (75%) in the placebo group and 33 deaths (53%) in the steroid group (hazard ratio 0.57, 95% confidence interval 0.36-0.89, p = .013; relative risk 0.71, 95% confidence interval 0.54-0.94, p = .011). The number of days alive and off the ventilator was 2.6 +/- 6.6 in the placebo group and 5.7 +/- 8.6 in the steroid group (p = .006). There was no significant difference between groups in responders. There was no significant difference between groups in the two subsets of patients without ARDS. Adverse events rates were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: This post hoc analysis shows that a 7-day treatment with low doses of corticosteroids was associated with better outcomes in septic shock-associated early ARDS nonresponders, but not in responders and not in septic shock patients without ARDS.     

Closeout of four phase II Vanguard trials and patient rollover into a large international phase III HIV clinical endpoint trial

Large phase III clinical trials typically require many years of planning and preparation. During this time, proposed study methods and overall trial feasibility can be assessed in smaller pilot studies. However, the patients enrolled in these pilot studies are not routinely included in the larger study. In preparation for a multinational randomized clinical end point trial of interleukin-2 in HIV-infected patients, four phase II "Vanguard" studies were initiated. These Vanguard trials served to increase safety and surrogate marker data in diverse patient cohorts, increase clinical experience with the study medication, and identify the optimal dose of medication for the phase III trial. These trials also served to assess patient recruitment potential and to develop international clinical trial coordination experience. The Vanguard trials were designed to allow continued follow-up of their patients as participants of the phase III trial once the feasibility of the phase III trial was confirmed. The purpose of this paper is to describe the steps taken in the closeout of these four phase II trials while reconsenting these patients to the phase III trial. Specifically, the reconsent process, the data collection transition plan, and the steps taken to minimize bias due to differential reconsent according to the assigned treatment arm in the phase II trial are described. The procedures employed are relevant to the reconsent of patients for long-term follow-up at the completion of clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 2001;22:42-48     

External and internal validity of open label or double‐blind trials in oral anticoagulation: better,worse or just different?

Summary. Currently, few topics in the field of anticoagulant therapy are as intensely discussed as the question: which is the best new oral anticoagulant? The most advanced substances in this field are the oral direct factor Xa‐inhibitors rivaroxaban, apixaban and edoxaban and the oral direct thrombin inhibitor dabigatran. All of these substances are currently being tested in very similar phase III trials or are in the process of approval. In these trials, open‐label or double‐blind double‐dummy designs are being used to evaluate the efficacy and safety in prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolism or stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation in several thousands of patients. As a consequence, an intense discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of open‐label or double‐blind trials is currently under way and interpretation of trial results is often focused on this matter. In general, a blinded trial is regarded as being less subject to bias than an open trial because it minimizes the impact of knowledge of treatment allocation on post‐randomized treatment decisions and on reporting of outcomes. However, a blinded trial is not always feasible. Thus, in some respects, the two trial designs offer complementary strengths and weaknesses. This review addresses the risks of bias for internal and external validity of open‐label and double‐blind anticoagulation trials to help to objectify this debate.     

Statistical considerations in the intent-to-treat principle

This paper describes some of the statistical considerations in the intent-to-treat design and analysis of clinical trials. The pivotal property of a clinical trial is the assignment of treatments to patients at random. Randomization alone, however, is not sufficient to provide an unbiased comparison of therapies. An additional requirement is that the set of patients contributing to an analysis provides an unbiased assessment of treatment effects, or that any missing data are ignorable. A sufficient condition to provide an unbiased comparison is to obtain complete data on all randomized subjects. This can be achieved by an intent-to-treat design wherein all patients are followed until death or the end of the trial, or until the outcome event is reached in a time-to-event trial, irrespective of whether the patient is still receiving or complying with the assigned treatment. The properties of this strategy are contrasted with those of an efficacy subset analysis in which patients and observable patient data are excluded from the analysis on the basis of information obtained postrandomization. I describe the potential bias that can be introduced by such postrandomization exclusions and the pursuant effects on type I error probabilities. Especially in a large study, the inflation in type I error probability can be severe, 0.50 or higher, even when the null hypothesis is true. Standard statistical methods for the analysis of censored or incomplete observations all require the assumption of missing at random to some degree, and none of these methods adjust for the potential bias introduced by post hoc subset selection. Nor is such adjustment possible unless one posits a model that relates the missing observations to other observed information for each subject-models that are inherently untestable. Further, the subset selection bias is confounded with the subset-specific treatment effect, and the two components are not identifiable without additional untestable assumptions. Methods for sensitivity analysis to assess the impact of bias in the efficacy subset analysis are described. It is generally believed that the efficacy subset analysis has greater power than the intent-to-treat analysis. However, even when the efficacy subset analysis is assumed to be unbiased, or have a true type I error probability equal to the desired level alpha, situations are described where the intent-to-treat analysis in fact has greater power than the efficacy subset analysis. The intent-to-treat design, wherein all possible patients continue to be followed, is especially powerful when an effective treatment arrests progression of disease during its administration. Thus, a patient benefits long after the patient becomes noncompliant or the treatment is terminated. In such cases, a landmark analysis using the observations from the last patient evaluation is likely to prove more powerful than life-table or longitudinal analyses. Examples are described.     

Antithrombin in sepsis revisited

As the pivotal phase III randomized controlled clinical trial on antithrombin concentrate in patients with severe sepsis did not show a beneficial effect of antithrombin treatment on 28-day mortality, the interest in the potential use of this treatment modality in sepsis has diminished. However, recent data on the effect of antithrombin administration on coagulation in combination with recent analyses from the clinical trials that were aimed to restore physiological anticoagulant pathways in patients with sepsis may revitalize the interest in antithrombin concentrate for the treatment of severe sepsis.     

Randomized, controlled clinical trials in sepsis: has methodological quality improved over time?

OBJECTIVE: To systematically evaluate the methodological quality of randomized clinical trials and to determine whether randomized clinical trials of sepsis improved in methodological quality over time. DATA SOURCES: Computerized MEDLINE search of articles published in any language from 1966 to 1998 combined with a manual search of bibliographies of published articles and communication with known experts in the field. STUDY SELECTION: All randomized clinical trials of sepsis, severe sepsis, and septic shock performed in adults and published as full articles. DATA EXTRACTION: Abstracts of all retrieved records were reviewed and the inclusion criteria were applied. All selected articles were classified into (a) trials designed to detect differences in mortality as the primary end point, or (b) trials focusing on surrogate outcome measures (i.e., physiological or biochemical parameters). All retrieved trials were then graded for methodological quality using an objective grading scheme developed specifically for this study. The data selection and extraction process was carried out independently by two of the authors; any disagreement was resolved by discussion. DATA SYNTHESIS: Seventy-four randomized clinical trials involving septic patients qualified for inclusion in this study (40 reporting mortality outcomes, 34 reporting other surrogate outcomes). Trials reporting mortality as the primary outcome had significantly higher quality scores compared with trials reporting surrogate outcome measures (29.6 +/- 1.0 vs. 24.3 +/- 0.8, p =.0006). From 1976 to 1998, trial methodology improved significantly over time (an average of 0.36 points per year, p =.021). Mortality outcome trials improved an average of 0.58 points per year (p =.0011) whereas surrogate outcome trials did not demonstrate an improvement in methodological quality over time (p =.249). CONCLUSION: The methodological limitations identified in this article can help to target further improvement in trial design to enhance the validity of findings from future randomized clinical trials of sepsis.     

Mechanical thromboprophylaxis in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the randomized trials, observational studies, and survey evidence on compression and pneumatic devices for thromboprophylaxis in intensive care patients. METHODS: Published studies on the use of compression and pneumatic devices in intensive care patients were assessed. A meta-analysis was conducted by using the randomized controlled trials. RESULTS: A total of 21 relevant studies (5 randomized controlled trials, 13 observational studies, and 3 surveys) were found. A total of 811 patients were randomized in the 5 randomized controlled trials; 3421 patients participated in the observational studies. Trauma patients only were enrolled in 4 randomized controlled trials and 4 observational studies. Meta-analysis of 2 randomized controlled trials with similar populations and outcomes revealed that use of compression and pneumatic devices did not reduce the incidence of venous thromboembolism. The pooled risk ratio was 2.37, indicative of favoring the control over the intervention in reducing the deep venous thrombosis; however, the 95% CI of 0.57 to 9.90 indicated no significant differences between the intervention and the control. A range of methodological issues, including bias and confounding variables, make meaningful interpretation of the observational studies difficult. CONCLUSIONS: The limited evidence suggests that use of compressive and pneumatic devices yields results not significantly different from results obtained with no treatment or use of low-molecular-weight heparin. Until large randomized controlled trials are conducted, the role of mechanical approaches to thromboprophylaxis for intensive care patients remains uncertain.     

维生素C在脓毒症及脓毒性休克患者治疗中疗效的Meta分析

目的系统评价静脉输注维生素C对脓毒症及脓毒性休克患者的疗效。 方法计算机检索PubMed、EMBASE、The Cochrane Library、Web of Science、万方、CBM、CNKI电子数据库自建库至2018年8月以来关于维生素C治疗脓毒症及脓毒性休克患者的随机对照研究。由2位研究者按照纳入标准进行文献筛选、数据提取及质量评价后，采用RevMan 5.3软件进行Meta分析。 结果共纳入6个随机对照试验，涉及患者318例。Meta分析结果通过随机效应模型分析得出，试验组与对照组对脓毒症及脓毒性休克患者病死率的影响，差异无统计学意义[RR= 0.82，95%CI（0.48，1.38），Z= 0.76，P= 0.45]。漏斗图显示各研究间存在发表偏倚。 结论静脉输注维生素C不能改善脓毒症及脓毒性休克患者的病死率。     

Treatment effects of high-dose antithrombin without concomitant heparin in patients with severe sepsis with or without disseminated intravascular coagulation

BACKGROUND: Disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) is a serious complication of sepsis that is associated with a high mortality. OBJECTIVES: Using the adapted International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH) diagnostic scoring algorithm for DIC, we evaluated the treatment effects of high-dose antithrombin (AT) in patients with severe sepsis with or without DIC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From the phase III clinical trial in severe sepsis (KyberSept), 563 patients were identified (placebo, 277; AT, 286) who did not receive concomitant heparin and had sufficient data for DIC determination. RESULTS: At baseline, 40.7% of patients (229 of 563) had DIC. DIC in the placebo-treated patients was associated with an excess risk of mortality (28-day mortality: 40.0% vs. 22.2%, P < 0.01). AT-treated patients with DIC had an absolute reduction in 28-day mortality of 14.6% compared with placebo (P = 0.02) whereas in patients without DIC no effect on 28-day mortality was seen (0.1% reduction in mortality; P = 1.0). Bleeding complications in AT-treated patients with and without DIC were higher compared with placebo (major bleeding rates: 7.0% vs. 5.2% for patients with DIC, P = 0.6; 9.8% vs. 3.1% for patients without DIC, P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: High-dose AT without concomitant heparin in septic patients with DIC may result in a significant mortality reduction. The adapted ISTH DIC score may identify patients with severe sepsis who potentially benefit from high-dose AT treatment.     

Lenercept (p55 tumor necrosis factor receptor fusion protein) in severe sepsis and early septic shock: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter phase III trial with 1,342 patients

OBJECTIVE: Phase III study to confirm a trend observed in a previous phase II study showing that a single dose of lenercept, human recombinant p55 tumor necrosis factor receptor-immunoglobulin G1 (TNFR55-IgG1) fusion protein, decreased mortality in patients with severe sepsis or early septic shock. DESIGN: Multicenter, double-blind, phase III, placebo-controlled, randomized study. SETTING: A total of 108 community and university-affiliated hospitals in the United States (60), Canada (6) and Europe (42). PATIENTS: A total of 1,342 patients were recruited who fulfilled the entry criteria within the 12-hr period preceding the study drug administration. INTERVENTION: After randomization, an intravenous dose of 0.125 mg/kg lenercept or placebo was given. The patient was monitored for up to 28 days, during which standard diagnostic, supportive, and therapeutic care was provided. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcome measure was 28-day all-cause mortality. Baseline characteristics were as follows: a total of 1,342 patients were randomized; 662 received lenercept and 680 received placebo. The mean age was 60.5 yrs (range, 17-96 yrs); 39% were female; 65% had medical admissions, 8% had scheduled surgical admissions, and 27% had unscheduled surgical admissions; 73% had severe sepsis without shock, and 27% had severe sepsis with early septic shock. Lenercept and placebo groups were similar at baseline with respect to demographic characteristics, simplified acute physiology score II-predicted mortality, profiles of clinical site of infection and microbiological documentation, number of dysfunctioning organs, and interleukin-6 (IL-6) plasma concentration. Lenercept pharmacokinetics were similar in severe sepsis and early septic shock patients. Tumor necrosis factor was bound in a stable manner to lenercept as reflected by the accumulation of total serum tumor necrosis factor alpha concentrations. There were 369 deaths, 177 on lenercept (27% mortality) and 192 on placebo (28% mortality). A one-sided Cochran-Armitage test, stratified by geographic region and baseline, predicted 28-day all-cause mortality (simplified acute physiology score II), gave a p value of .141 (one-sided). Lenercept treatment had no effect on incidence or resolution of organ dysfunctions. There was no evidence that lenercept was detrimental in the overall population. CONCLUSION: Lenercept had no significant effect on mortality in the study population.     

Protein C concentrate to restore physiological values in adult septic patients

OBJECTIVE: To describe the efficacy and safety of protein C (PC) concentrate to restore physiological values in adult septic patients having clinical contraindications to activated PC. DESIGN: Case series (pilot study). SETTING: Three adult ICUs of a University Hospital. PATIENTS AND PARTICIPANTS: Twenty adult patients affected by severe sepsis or septic shock with plasma values of PC < 50%. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were treated with PC concentrate (Ceprotin ((R))--Baxter) with a starting bolus followed by a continuous infusion for 72 h [3 IU/(kg h)]. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: PC activity, WBC, platelets, D: -Dimer, fibrinogen, PT, aPTT, AT III, lactate, Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA), Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation (DIC) score, adverse events, and mortality were measured. Baseline plasma PC activity was 34.5 +/- 9.1%. PC concentrate normalized the PC activity in all patients within 48 h, and then remained stable for the following days. At baseline, several patients showed abnormal PT, aPTT, platelets values, and lactate levels. During the study period, there was a significant increase of platelets, fibrinogen, PT, AT III, and a significant decrease of D: -Dimer, aPTT, DIC score, and lactate. No adverse reactions (hemorrhage or thrombosis) were observed. Mortality at 28 days was 35%. CONCLUSIONS: Our pilot study shows that the administration of PC concentrate to patients having contraindications to the treatment with activated PC was safe and possibly useful to control the coagulopathy triggered and sustained by sepsis. A randomized, double blind study in patients with severe sepsis and contraindications to activated PC administration would be advisable to state the safety and the possible role of this product in the treatment of severe sepsis.     

Plasma platelet-activating factor acetylhydrolase activity in critically ill patients

OBJECTIVE: Platelet-activating factor (PAF) is a potent proinflammatory mediator in systemic inflammation and sepsis and is inactivated by the enzyme PAF-acetylhydrolase (PAF-AH). Recently, a large phase III clinical trial using recombinant PAF-AH to treat patients with severe sepsis was performed but failed to reduce 28-day mortality rate. To get more information on the activity of PAF-AH in sepsis, we repeatedly measured its activity in plasma in critically ill patients compared with healthy controls. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Intensive care unit. PATIENTS: Two hundred thirty-one patients who were admitted to an operative intensive care unit within 1 yr were enrolled and evaluated daily for American College of Chest Physicians/Society of Critical Care Medicine criteria. PAF-AH activity was measured as the release of [H]-acetate from [H]-acetyl-PAF. INTERVENTIONS: Analysis of plasma samples. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: At the day of admission, PAF-AH activity of patients was below controls but markedly increased over time. Higher activities were seen in patients with severe sepsis or septic shock compared with those without organ failure. With respect to the clinical outcome, lower values were found in nonsurvivors only as long as they had not developed organ failure. In severe sepsis/septic shock, values of nonsurvivors exceeded those of survivors. PAF-AH activity was positively correlated with plasma levels of inflammatory mediators such as neopterine and tumor necrosis factor-alpha but not with acute phase reactants such as C-reactive protein, interleukin-6, or PCT. In addition, parenteral nutrition with lipid emulsions was seemingly associated with low PAF-AH activity compared with enteral nutrition. CONCLUSION: The data indicate severity- and time-dependent changes in PAF-AH activity and may help to explain the failure of recombinant PAF-AH treatment strategies that were not based on activity measurements.     

Plasmapheresis in severe sepsis and septic shock: a prospective,randomised, controlled trial

OBJECTIVE: To determine the therapeutic efficacy and safety of plasmapheresis in the treatment of patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. DESIGN: Prospective, randomised, clinical trial with a planned, midstudy, interim analysis. SETTING: Intensive care unit in a university hospital in Archangels, Russia. PATIENTS: Consecutive patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. INTERVENTIONS: One hundred and six patients were randomised to receive either standard therapy or an add-on treatment with plasmapheresis. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: The primary endpoint was 28-day survival. Septic shock was diagnosed in 57% of the plasmapheresis-treated patients and 54% of the control patients. Mean APACHE III score at entry was 56.4 in the plasmapheresis group and 53.5 in the control group. The 28-day, all-cause mortality rate was 33.3% (18/54) in the plasmapheresis group and 53.8% (28/52) in the control group. This represents a relative risk for fatal outcome in the plasmapheresis group of 0.61, an absolute risk reduction of 20.5% and a number of patients needed to treat of 4.9. Apart from six transient episodes of hypotension and one allergic reaction to fresh frozen plasma, no adverse reactions were attributable to the plasmapheresis treatment in this study. CONCLUSIONS: Plasmapheresis may be an important adjuvant to conventional treatment to reduce mortality in patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. Plasmapheresis is a safe procedure in the treatment of septic patients. A prospective randomised multicentre trial is warranted to confirm our results and to determine which subgroups of septic patients will benefit most from this treatment modality.     

Treating sepsis with vitamin C,thiamine, and hydrocortisone: Exploring the quest for the magic elixir

The administration of ascorbic acid (vitamin C) alone or in combination with thiamine (vitamin B1) and corticosteroids (VCTS) has recently been hypothesized to improve hemodynamics, end-organ function, and may even increase survival in critically ill patients. There are several clinical studies that have investigated the use of vitamin C alone or VCTS in patients with sepsis and septic shock or are ongoing. Some of these studies have demonstrated its safety and potential benefit in septic patients. However, many questions remain regarding the optimal dosing regimens and plasma concentrations, timing of administration, and adverse effects of vitamin C and thiamine. These questions exist because the bulk of research regarding the efficacy of vitamin C alone or in combination with thiamine and corticosteroids in sepsis is limited to a few randomized controlled trials, retrospective before-and-after studies, and case reports. Thus, although the underlying rationale and mechanistic pathways of vitamin C and thiamine in sepsis have been well described, the clinical impact of the VCTS regimen is complex and remains to be determined. This review aims to explore the current evidence and potential benefits and adverse effects of the VCTS regimen for the treatment of sepsis.     

Genomic polymorphisms in sepsis

OBJECTIVE: This article aims to review all relevant genetic polymorphism studies that may contribute to the pathogenesis of sepsis with emphasis on polymorphisms of the innate immunity, pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokines, and coagulation mediators. DATA SOURCE: Published articles reporting on studies of associations between genetic polymorphisms, sepsis, septic shock, and other relevant infectious disease models. DATA ANALYSIS: Research into the pathogenesis of sepsis has led to the development of many potential therapeutic strategies. Several therapeutic agents and treatment modalities have been shown to decrease mortality rates in large, prospective, and randomized clinical trials. However, although these advances have resulted in improved survival for certain patient populations, the overall mortality rate for septic patients remains high. With the rapid development of molecular and genetic techniques, substantial interests have developed in using genomic information to define disease-mediating genetic variants in sepsis. Combined with microarray technology, it is anticipated in the near future that one will be able to tailor drug selection and dosage and predict outcome by correlating genetic profile with disease presentation. Numerous genetic association studies in sepsis have already been reported and more are likely to be published. CONCLUSIONS: Although studies examined in this review are of small heterogeneous populations, the identification of strong associations between certain genetic polymorphisms and increased mortality rate or susceptibility to severe sepsis is intriguing and supports further research using this approach. The establishment of these associations does not equal causation, and further research is required in both genetic and molecular aspect of sepsis.     

Properties of simple randomization in clinical trials

This article presents the properties of complete randomization (e.g., coin toss) and of the random allocation rule (random permutation of n/2 of n elements). The latter is principally used in cases where the total sample size n is known exactly a priori. The likelihood of treatment imbalances is readily computed and is shown to be negligible for large trials (n greater than 200), regardless of whether a stratified randomization is used. It is shown that substantial treatment imbalances are extremely unlikely in large trials, and therefore there is likely to be no substantial effect on power. The large-sample permutational distribution of the family of linear rank tests is presented for complete randomization unconditionally and conditionally, and for the random allocation rule. Asymptotically the three are equivalent to the distribution of these tests under a sampling-based population model. Permutation tests are also presented for a stratified analysis within one or more subgroups of patients defined post hoc on the basis of a covariate. This provides a basis for analysis when some patients' responses are assumed to be missing-at-random. Using the Blackwell-Hodges model, it is shown that complete randomization eliminates the potential for selection bias, but that the random allocation rule yields a substantial potential for selection bias in an unmasked trial. Finally, the Efron model for accidental bias is used to assess the potential for bias in the estimate of treatment effect due to covariate imbalance. Asymptotically, this probability approaches zero for complete randomization and for the random allocation rule. However, for finite n, complete randomization minimizes the probability of accidental bias, whereas this probability is slightly higher with a random allocation rule. It is concluded that complete randomization has merit in large clinical trials.     

Oral heparin administration with a novel drug delivery agent (SNAC) in healthy volunteers and patients undergoing elective total hip arthroplasty

Summary.  Background : Unfractionated heparin (UFH) is safe and effective for thromboprophylaxis, but its use is limited to parenteral administration. A novel drug delivery agent (SNAC) has been developed to accomplish the oral delivery of heparin. Objective:  This report describes the foundation for dose selection and use of oral heparin/SNAC in patients undergoing elective total hip arthroplasty (THA). Patients and methods : To develop a treatment regimen for clinical study, a multiple dose Phase I pharmacokinetic (PK) study in healthy volunteers compared oral heparin/SNAC (90 000 U heparin) with subcutaneous UFH (5000 U). On this basis, we carried out a double-blind, randomized, multicenter study comparing subcutaneous UFH (5000 U) with oral heparin/SNAC at either 60 000 or 90 000 U heparin in 123 patients undergoing elective THA. Patients received, postoperatively, one of the three treatments every 8 h for a total of 12 doses and were followed for 35 days post surgery. Results:  In the Phase I study, anti-factor Xa activity peaked at 45–60 min following oral heparin/SNAC, returning to baseline at 4 h. Results of the randomized trial in THA patients showed that venous thromboembolic events ( n  = 6), major bleeding events ( n  = 5) and need for transfusion ( n  = 23) were distributed evenly among the three treatment groups, UFH and both doses of oral heparin/SNAC. Conclusion : This is the first demonstration that oral heparin/SNAC can be safely delivered to the postoperative THA patient, and provides the basis for a larger clinical trial to assess the prophylactic efficacy of heparin/SNAC.