Article

An open-label comparison of the efficacy and safety of certoparin versus unfractionated heparin for the prevention of thromboembolic complications in acutely ill medical patients: CERTAIN

Head of Medical Clinic II, Municipal Hospital of Dresden Friedrichstadt, Dresden, Germany.
Expert Opinion on Pharmacotherapy (Impact Factor: 3.09). 10/2010; 11(18):2953-61. DOI: 10.1517/14656566.2010.521498
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Guidelines recommend low-dose unfractionated heparin (UFH) and low-molecular-weight heparin for the prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in acutely ill medical patients. We report the findings of an open-label, active-controlled, multicenter study in acutely ill medical patients comparing certoparin and UFH.
Open-label, active-controlled, multicenter study. Patients received certoparin 3000 IU daily or UFH 7500 IU twice daily.
The primary endpoint was a composite of symptomatic or asymptomatic proximal or distal deep vein thrombosis, symptomatic pulmonary embolism, or VTE-related death.
172 patients were randomized to UFH and 163 to certoparin for 8.5 ± 2.1 days. The incidence of the primary endpoint was 18.0% in patients receiving UFH and 10.7% with certoparin [absolute difference -7.3; 95% confidence interval (CI) -16.9 to 2.3; p = 0.1353]. The incidence during follow-up was 2.6% in the UFH and 2.0% in the certoparin group (absolute difference -0.6; 95%CI -4.0 to 2.8; p = 0.7150). Major bleeding events occurred in three patients with UFH and one patient with certoparin.
In acutely ill medical patients of at least 40 years of age, thromboprophylaxis with certoparin 3000 IU daily is effective and safe in comparison with 7500 IU twice daily UFH.

0 Followers
 · 
55 Views
 · 
0 Downloads
  • Source
    • "Nevertheless, the additional risk for VTE in hospitalized cancer patients and the efficacy and reasonable safety of prophylactic anticoagulation in seriously ill medical patients has provided the basis for consideration of thromboprophylaxis in most hospitalized cancer patients in the absence of contraindications to anticoagulation. The updated systematic review identified three recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of thromboprophylaxis in seriously-ill medical inpatients [49] [50] [51] "
    Internal and Emergency Medicine 05/2014; 9(5). DOI:10.1007/s11739-014-1087-2 · 2.41 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Nevertheless, the additional risk for VTE in hospitalized cancer patients and the efficacy and reasonable safety of prophylactic anticoagulation in seriously ill medical patients has provided the basis for consideration of thromboprophylaxis in most hospitalized cancer patients in the absence of contraindications to anticoagulation. The updated systematic review identified three recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of thromboprophylaxis in seriously-ill medical inpatients [49] [50] [51] "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The association between cancer and thrombosis has been recognized for more than 150 years. Not only are patients with cancer at a substantially increased risk of developing venous thromboembolism (VTE), the link between several coagulation factors and tumor growth, invasion, and the development of metastases has been established. Reported rates of VTE in patients with cancer have increased in recent years likely reflecting, in part, improved diagnosis with sophisticated imaging techniques as well as the impact of more aggressive cancer diagnosis, staging, and treatment. Various therapeutic interventions, such as surgery, chemotherapy, hormonal therapy, targeted therapeutic strategies as well as the frequent use of indwelling catheters and other invasive procedures also place cancer patients at increased risk of VTE. The increasing risk of VTE, the multitude of risk factors, and the greater risk of VTE recurrence and death among patients with cancer represent considerable challenges in modern clinical oncology. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) originally developed guidelines for VTE in patients with cancer in 2007. ASCO recently updated clinical practice guidelines on the treatment and prevention of VTE in patients with cancer following an extensive systematic review of the literature. Revised 2013 guidelines have now been presented and will be discussed in this review. Although several new studies were identified and considered, many important questions remain regarding the relationship between thrombosis and cancer and the optimal care of patients at risk for VTE. © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
    Thrombosis Research 05/2014; 133 Suppl 2:S122-7. DOI:10.1016/S0049-3848(14)50021-7 · 2.43 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Introduction: Several low-molecular-weight heparins are available for the prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolism and arterial thrombosis. Certoparin has been extensively tested in different clinical settings for about 20 years. Areas covered: The authors provide a drug evaluation based on literature searches performed through Medline. Specifically, the authors review studies on the pharmacological characteristics of certoparin and the clinical trial and post-marketing studies in the field of venous thromboembolism. Furthermore, the authors also review the available smaller studies performed in clinical settings for indications such as stroke, atrial fibrillation, and hemodialysis. Expert opinion: Certoparin has proved to be effective and safe therapy for preventing venous thromboembolism in different surgical and medical settings. With regards to DVT treatment, certoparin shows the peculiar feature of being used at a fixed, weight-independent dose (subcutaneous 8000 IU twice daily). Unfortunately, certoparin has no specific data from clinical trials on treatment of pulmonary embolism. Furthermore, certoparin has not been specifically tested in unusual site thrombosis. Certoparin represents a valid option for venous thromboembolism prevention and DVT treatment. Further studies are also required to provide data on the use of certoparin to treat acute pulmonary embolisms and to further substantiate results on atrial fibrillation and bridging therapy.
    Expert Opinion on Drug Metabolism &amp Toxicology 04/2013; 9(7). DOI:10.1517/17425255.2013.794787 · 2.93 Impact Factor
Show more