PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 15989637

Low molecular weight heparins: a developmental perspective.

Abstract

Low molecular weight heparins (LMWHs) are now universally accepted as drugs of choice for post-surgical prophylaxis of deep vein thrombosis (DVT). Currently these agents are also being developed for the treatment of thrombosis and various cardiovascular indications. Due to manufacturing differences, each of the LMWHs exhibits a distinct pharmacological and biochemical profile. The specific activity of these agents in the anticoagulant assays ranges from 35 - 45 anti-IIa U/mg, whereas the specific activity in terms of anti-Xa units is designated as 80 - 145 anti-Xa U/mg. These LMWHs are capable of producing product-specific dose- and time-dependent antithrombotic effects in animal models of thrombosis. While the ex vivo effects are initially present at doses that are antithrombotic, these agents have been found to produce sustained antithrombotic effects without any detectable ex vivo anticoagulant actions. In experimental animal models and in various clinical trials, these agents have also been found to release tissue factor pathway inhibitor (TFPI) after both iv. and sc. administration. Repeated administration of LMWHs produces progressively stronger antithrombotic effects; however, the haemorrhagic responses vary and are largely dependent on the product used. The release of TFPI following iv. and sc. administration in a primate model also demonstrates product individuality and the relevance of this inhibitor to the actions of LMWHs. Furthermore, repeated administration, mimicking the post-surgical prophylaxis of DVT, leads to product-based augmentation of the antithrombotic or haemorrhagic effects. Antithrombotic and haemorrhagic studies are discussed, comparing the pharmacological profile of some of the available LMWHs. Product individuality, in terms of relative potency in different assays and the failure of standardisation protocols to provide any guidelines for product substitution and prediction of the clinical effects, is also addressed.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

J Fareed, D Hoppensteadt, W Jeske, R Clarizio, J M Walenga. 1997. Low molecular weight heparins: a developmental perspective.. https://doi.org/10.1517/13543784.6.6.705

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccines against hospitalisation according to frailty risk: a prespecified analysis of the randomised trial DANFLU-2.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a major risk factor for influenza-related complications and can influence vaccine effectiveness. We aimed to assess the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of high-dose (HD-IIV) versus standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (SD-IIV) in older adults aged 65 years or older according to frailty risk. METHODS: This study was a prespecified analysis of DANFLU-2, an open-label, individually randomised trial, conducted in Denmark during three consecutive influenza seasons (2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25). Adults aged 65 years or older were randomised (1:1) to the HD-IIV or SD-IIV group. The primary endpoint was hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia. Frailty was defined according to the validated Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) based on ICD-10 codes within 10 years before randomisation. Participants were stratified into three HFRS categories, namely low (<5 points), intermediate (5-15 points), and high (>15 points) frailty risk. The rVE of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint was assessed across prespecified HFRS categories and treating HFRS as a continuous variable. Pearson's chi-square test was used to compare safety events across frailty risk groups and randomisation groups. FINDINGS: Among 332&#x2009;438 randomised participants (mean age 73&#xb7;7 years [SD 5&#xb7;8]; 161&#x2009;538 [48&#xb7;6%] were female), 276&#x2009;173 (83&#xb7;1%) had low frailty risk, 52&#x2009;395 (15&#xb7;8%) had intermediate frailty risk, and 3861 (1&#xb7;2%) had high frailty risk. The primary endpoint of hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia occurred in 1424 (0&#xb7;5%) of 276&#x2009;173 participants with low frailty risk, 761 (1&#xb7;5%) of 52&#x2009;395 with intermediate frailty risk, and 163 (4&#xb7;2%) of 3861 with high frailty risk (relative risk [RR] for intermediate vs low frailty risk 2&#xb7;8 [95% CI 2&#xb7;6-3&#xb7;1]; RR for high vs low frailty risk 8&#xb7;2 [7&#xb7;0-9&#xb7;6]). HFRS as a continuous variable significantly modified the effect of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint with higher rVE estimates with increasing HFRS (pinteraction=0&#xb7;020). The rVE was 0&#xb7;2% (95% CI -10&#xb7;8 to 10&#xb7;2) among those with low frailty risk, 13&#xb7;1% (-0&#xb7;4 to 24&#xb7;8) among those with intermediate frailty risk, and 19&#xb7;9% (-10&#xb7;3 to 42&#xb7;1) among those with high frailty risk. No significant interaction was observed when HFRS was assessed according to the prespecified categorical frailty groups (pinteraction=0&#xb7;17). The proportion of participants with at least one serious adverse event increased across frailty risk groups (13&#x2009;366 [4&#xb7;8%] of 275&#x2009;795 for low frailty risk, 5475 [10&#xb7;5%] of 52&#x2009;315 for intermediate frailty risk, and 777 [20&#xb7;2%] of 3850 for high frailty risk; p<0&#xb7;0001), with similar proportions of serious adverse events in the HD-IIV and SD-IIV groups for each frailty risk group. INTERPRETATION: Among adults aged 65 years or older in Denmark, frailty risk might modify the effects of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia, with higher rVE estimates with increasing frailty risk. These findings might support considering high-dose influenza vaccines for frail older adults. However, effect modification was not evident when frailty was assessed using prespecified categorical subgroups, and subgroup-specific estimates were imprecise, with 95% CIs crossing the null. These results should be considered exploratory, warranting further investigation. FUNDING: The DANFLU-2 trial was funded by Sanofi.

Journal Article↗