Comparison of argatroban and fondaparinux for the management of patients with isolated heparin-induced thrombocytopenia

Comparative effectiveness and safety of anticoagulants for the treatment of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness and safety of non-heparin anticoagulants for the treatment of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) are not fully established, and the optimal treatment strategy is unknown. In a systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to determine precise rates of platelet recovery, new or progressive thromboembolism (TE), major bleeding, and death for all non-heparin anticoagulants and to study potential sources of variability.

METHODS

Following a detailed protocol (PROSPERO: CRD42020219027), EMBASE and Medline were searched for all studies reporting clinical outcomes of patients treated with non-heparin anticoagulants (argatroban, danaparoid, fondaparinux, direct oral anticoagulants [DOAC], bivalirudin, and other hirudins) for acute HIT. Proportions of patients with the outcomes of interest were pooled using a random-effects model for each drug. The influence of the patient population, the diagnostic test used, the study design, and the type of article was assessed.

RESULTS

Out of 3194 articles screened, 92 studies with 119 treatment groups describing 4698 patients were included. The pooled rates of platelet recovery ranged from 74% (bivalirudin) to 99% (fondaparinux), TE from 1% (fondaparinux) to 7% (danaparoid), major bleeding from 1% (DOAC) to 14% (bivalirudin), and death from 7% (fondaparinux) to 19% (bivalirudin). Confidence intervals were mostly overlapping, and results were not influenced by patient population, diagnostic test used, study design, or type of article.

DISCUSSION

Effectiveness and safety outcomes were similar among various anticoagulants, and significant factors affecting these outcomes were not identified. These findings support fondaparinux and DOACs as viable alternatives to conventional anticoagulants for treatment of acute HIT in clinical practice.

Management of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia: systematic reviews and meta-analyses

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is a prothrombotic adverse drug reaction occurring in <0.1% to 7% of patients receiving heparin products depending on the patient population and type of heparin. Management of HIT is highly dependent on a sequence of tests for which clinicians may or may not have the results when care decisions need to be made. We conducted systematic reviews of the effects of management strategies in persons with acute HIT, subacute HIT A or B, and remote HIT. We searched Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database through July 2019 for previously published systematic reviews and primary studies. Two investigators independently screened and extracted data and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. We found primarily noncomparative studies and case series assessing effects of treatments, which led to low to very low certainty evidence. There may be little to no difference in the effects between nonheparin parenteral anticoagulants and direct oral anticoagulants in acute HIT. The benefits of therapeutic-intensity may be greater than prophylactic-intensity anticoagulation. Using inferior vena cava filters or platelet transfusion may result in greater harm than not using these approaches. Evidence for management in special situations, such as for patients undergoing cardiovascular interventions or renal replacement therapy, was also low to very low certainty. Additional research to evaluate nonheparin anticoagulants is urgently needed, and the development of novel treatments that reduce thrombosis without increasing hemorrhage should be a priority.