Extended thromboprophylaxis post gynaecological cancer surgery; the effect of weight adjusted and fixed dose LMWH (Tinzaparin)

Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis and multiple myeloma patients in real-life: Results of a large survey and clinical guidance recommendations from the IFM group

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) remains a critical issue in the management of patients with multiple myeloma (MM), particularly when immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs) combined with dexamethasone therapy are being prescribed as first-line and relapse therapy. One possible explanation for the persistent high rates of VTE, is the use of inappropriate thromboprophylaxis strategies for patients starting antimyeloma treatment. To tackle the issue, the Intergroupe francophone du myélome (IFM) offered convenient guidance for VTE thromboprophylaxis in MM patients initiating systemic therapy. This guidance is mainly supported by the results of a large survey on the clinical habits regarding VTE of physicians who are substantially involved in daily care of MM patients. VTE prophylaxis should be considered for all patients treated with IMiDs in combination with dexamethasone, in the absence of significant comorbidities, such as renal failure or bleeding risk. Anticoagulant should be preferred to antiplatelet agents for thromboprophylaxis. Despite the absence of large randomized controlled trials comparing those attitudes/options, available data on direct oral anticoagulants, which are already used in daily management of MM patients, are consistent with their potential usefulness for VTE prophylaxis in such patients. However, in order to implement a personalized continuous improvement strategy, clinicians must to be organized to collect all the data regarding this management. In other situations, thromboprophylaxis should be evaluated by using risk models and after careful evaluation of the risk/benefit ratio.

Weight-adjusted dosing of tinzaparin for thromboprophylaxis in obese medical patients

Background

The optimal dose of tinzaparin for prophylaxis in obese medical patients is not well defined.

Objectives

To evaluate the anti-Xa activity in obese medical patients on tinzaparin prophylaxis adjusted for actual bodyweight.

Methods

Patients with a body mass index of ≥30 kg/m² treated with 50 IU/kg tinzaparin once daily were prospectively included. Anti-Xa and anti-IIa activity; von Willebrand factor antigen and von Willebrand activity; factor VIII activity; D-dimer, prothrombin fragments; and thrombin generation were measured 4 hours after subcutaneous injection between days 1 and 14 after the initiation of tinzaparin prophylaxis.

Results

We included 121 plasma samples from 66 patients (48.5% women), with a median weight of 125 kg (range, 82-300 kg) and a median body mass index of 41.9 kg/m² (range, 30.1-88.6 kg/m²). The target anti-Xa activity of 0.2 to 0.4 IU/mL was achieved in 80 plasma samples (66.1%); 39 samples (32.2%) were below and 2 samples (1.7%) above the target range. The median anti-Xa activity was 0.25 IU/mL (IQR, 0.19-0.31 IU/mL), 0.23 IU/mL (IQR, 0.17-0.28 IU/mL), and 0.21 IU/mL (IQR, 0.17-0.25 IU/mL) on days 1 to 3, days 4 to 6, and days 7 to 14, respectively. The anti-Xa activity did not differ among the weight groups (P = .19). Injection into the upper arm compared to the abdomen resulted in a lower endogenous thrombin potential, a lower peak thrombin, and a trend to a higher anti-Xa activity.

Conclusion

Dosing of tinzaparin adjusted for actual bodyweight in obese patients achieved anti-Xa activity in the target range for most patients, without accumulation or overdosing. In addition, there is a significant difference in thrombin generation depending on the injection site.

Cancer-Associated Thrombosis: Not All Low-Molecular-Weight Heparins Are the Same, Focus on Tinzaparin, A Narrative Review

Cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) is the second main cause of cancer death with high related mortality and morbidity, leading to anticancer agent delays and interruptions. The recommended therapy, low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), however, is burdensome for patients and costly for society, as treatment should last until cancer is no longer active, even indefinitely. Tinzaparin is a manageable, efficient, safe, and cost-effective option. Compared to the other LMWHs, advantages are single-daily dose and safety in the elderly and those with renal impairment (RI). The purpose of this review is to critically discuss recent data on its efficacy and safety in CAT.